Would British students who complained to OIA have been better off Studying Abroad?

After reading this thread i`m reminded of Greys law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

Parker Merchanting and Eyre & Newey are both companies in the Rexel Group. The number quoted isn't a published switchboard number. It is almost certainly a line used by a Rexel Group office or employee, where incoming calls are diverted to the switchboard of the relevant group company at the time. When asked whether the number has always been their number, the telephonist is answering for the published switchboard number because she is unaware that incoming calls to the number in question are being diverted to that switchboard.

The number supposedly given for the policeman DC Brayshaw was 0113 205 9083. That officer is based in Pudsey

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/district/district_bradford/district_bradford_east/district_bradford_east_farsley/4245567.Bogus_milkman_targets_99_year_old_disabled__woman/?ref=rss

Another officer based in Pudsey is PC Lucy Hooker

http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/news/appeal-robbery-low-lane-horsforth

In 2010 PC Hooker's phone number was 0113 205 3093

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/ring-owner-hunted-1-2251602

Which is more likely:-

(a) that DC Brayshaw was using either 0113 205 3093 or 0113 205 3083 and by error on either his part or the OP's, the OP mistakenly noted the number as 0113 205 9083; an internal or private line number used by an employee of Rexel Group which in 2008 diverted to the Rexel Group subsidiary switchboard of Newey & Eyre and in 2010 diverted to the Rexel Group subsidiary switchboard of Parker Merchanting; or

(b) that West Yorkshire Police were engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Sheffield Hallam University to deprive the OP of her rightful degree.

Ronove...answer my questions, or go away. You don't deserve a response unless you are going to think. I don't care if you were in bed reading Game of Thrones, why do you think it matters to me what you are reading?

Your question is irrelevant until you adequately explain the circumstances that actually happened. But here's some food for thought: Why do you think that 96 people died at Hillsborough and an entire police force spent 25 years lying about it?

1. Why did the detective ring me, and not my daughter who had lived in Leeds for over six years at this time?

Might have something to do with the fact that there is only person of your daughter's name on www.192.com and that person has only one address recorded and that address is yours.

Might have something to do with the fact that there is only person of your daughter's name on www.192.com and that person has only one address recorded and that address is yours.

... an internal or private line number used by an employee of Rexel Group which in 2008 diverted to the Rexel Group subsidiary switchboard of Newey & Eyre and in 2010 diverted to the Rexel Group subsidiary switchboard of Parker Merchanting;

Well, yes that is quite a bit of detective work. However:
1. Lucy Hooker was never involved in any communications with me, so what you have established is that this force use a number similar to the one I gave for the detective. Yes I know!

2. I asked the switchboard on that day to confirm the number that I had been given by the detective, and they wouldn't. That is why she asked me to ask my daughter to ring them.

3. On the morning of my viva, I was told that my daughter was involved in a murder enquiry, and was unable to confirm any details for over an hour, after which I had to attend a viva, where I was then accused out of nowhere of cheating.

4. You have been given all of the information that I have collected over five or six years. It is not the information that I had when I entered that viva, or for a long time afterwards. I had people involved in that viva refusing to acknowledge what had just happened, or the distress that had been caused to me by it. While it is possible that you may be right about your findings here,

I find your smug a or b question about my understanding of the situation at the time when it happened to be quite offensive!

5. I'm interested to know where you got the information about the calling setup for Newey & Eyre and Parkers.

This bit is also erroneous. It may have diverted to Newey & Eyre in 2008, but in 2010, it did not divert to anywhere, I spoke to the person who I presume was a switchboard operator. I asked to speak to det. Brayshaw, and was told that I had reached a call centre. I was not told that the call centre was attached to a particular business.

It was less than a year ago when I again called and was connected to Parkers.

So, why didn't the call centre connect me to a Rexel subsidiary, without any dialogue as seems to be the arrangement you are implying?

In modern phone systems telephone numbers come in groups. My office private line number is the next number to the person is the next office etc etc. Obviously I didn't go googling for the policewoman. Once I traced the officer who dealt with you I went googling to find links for the number and that newspaper article came up.



That sounds like a standard precaution from a switchboard of an organisation handling confidential information.





That is a pure coincidence.



You may have been distressed (reasonably so) by the thought that in some way your daughter was mixed up in a murder. That may have impacted on your performance in the viva. However, effect cannot create cause. Because you were adversely affected doesn't provide any evidence of conspiracy.

However if you want to link me into a conspiracy, I was standing outside Pudsey police station two weeks ago having not been within 15 miles of the place for more than 5 years.

Could somebody link me the documentation to this case? Sounds interesting

Honestly, given your cognitive ability and attitude, you'd have been better having an advocate represent you, both during the internal complaints procedure and the OIA one.

Although it is very easy to spend someone else's money (perhaps money they don't have), I agree with this. The problem and I see this as the recipient of such material, is that it is all very well, saying that one has a process that a layperson should be able to deal with; but it assumes that the lay person is able to discriminate between the material and the immaterial. However much one says that a complaints body should read and consider everything, get a 17 page letter and the eyes will glaze over. 2 pages with the key points are far better; but how do you ensure that the two pages are the key points?

Just look at the recent posts on this thread. There is clearly something that was relevant to the OP's performance at the viva. She had just before the viva been left hanging with the suggestion that her daughter had been involved in some way in a murder case. That needed to have red stars around it. This was no way to prepare for an important meeting. However, I have no confidence at all that the complaints authority and the OIA understood the significance of this with all the business of telephone numbers and the like. They may well have thought the OP was in La-la land and had made the whole thing up.

What the OP may not realise is that the demolition job I have just done on her conspiracy theory, actually improves her credibility. If I say I've just seen a UFO, you might think I'm making it up. You might think that I am deluded. However, once you realise that there is a factory making drones just down the road from where I saw the UFO, you are much more likely to think that I have mistaken a drone than invented a UFO or seen a real UFO

Wow, that quite a bit of detective work there! And yes I would agree that IMHO (a) is the more probable.

Although it is very easy to spend someone else's money (perhaps money they don't have), I agree with this. The problem and I see this as the recipient of such material, is that it is all very well, saying that one has a process that a layperson should be able to deal with; but it assumes that the lay person is able to discriminate between the material and the immaterial. However much one says that a complaints body should read and consider everything, get a 17 page letter and the eyes will glaze over. 2 pages with the key points are far better; but how do you ensure that the two pages are the key points?

Just look at the recent posts on this thread. There is clearly something that was relevant to the OP's performance at the viva. She had just before the viva been left hanging with the suggestion that her daughter had been involved in some way in a murder case. That needed to have red stars around it. This was no way to prepare for an important meeting. However, I have no confidence at all that the complaints authority and the OIA understood the significance of this with all the business of telephone numbers and the like. They may well have thought the OP was in La-la land and had made the whole thing up.

What the OP may not realise is that the demolition job I have just done on her conspiracy theory, actually improves her credibility. If I say I've just seen a UFO, you might think I'm making it up. You might think that I am deluded. However, once you realise that there is a factory making drones just down the road from where I saw the UFO, you are much more likely to think that I have mistaken a drone than invented a UFO or seen a real UFO

There's nothing suspect about it, Ronove. Your line of questioning all along has been to attempt to prove some mental illness or other inferiority on my part, and your questioning, that might otherwise have been valid (and therefore answered), has lacked solid reasoning. I presented to you a set of facts. These facts were what I experienced. I experienced those things whether or not you like that, and my account of my experience was honest and as far as I am able to give it, reasonably complete. I had new answers given today by people who weren't attempting to rubbish me as a person, but who were also giving the truth as they saw it. However, when someone starts out by declaring me to be mentally ill and then proceeds to question me in a tone based on their perceived superiority, which itself is based on that supposed mental illness, then that someone should not be surprised if I respond scathingly.

In summary, had you not taken that tone with me, I might have been happy to answer your questions. That, after all was the reason I posted.

I do however accept your apology, and if you want to re-frame your questions without in any way alluding to my mental illness, then I may consider answering them. You have made that quite difficult for me though.

This is what I believe:

The explanations that I have been given today are plausible, and are the only plausible explanations that anyone has ever given me about what happened that day. I therefore am reasonably certain that they are a true account of what, unbeknown to me, was happening. However:

I believe that the university, specifically the people who were accusing me at that viva, should have responded appropriately to what I told them on that day, pre-viva. They were clearly so wrapped up in catching me out that they didn't even respond to the events that I experienced. I had not been told of any of the reasons for that viva happening, and it became more confusing as it progressed, because of that. I am a very perceptive person, and if something is not right I can feel it straight away. The problem is that having that gut feeling only tells you that something is not right, it doesn't tell you WHAT is not right. And therein lies the problem.

So, my perception on that day, going forward was that, someone had implicated my daughter in a murder enquiry, and someone had accused me of something I hadn't done. Those people also did not respond in a way that I expected them to when I told them of the morning's events. I don't know anyone else who has experienced that, so I have no other event to compare it with, but I would have expected curiosity, perhaps a bit of shock, but certainly not a total non-response. So, I did what anyone would do, I found the response suspect. My later challenge to the first marker, should have at least elicited a "don't be stupid, Julie, why on earth would I do that?" But I got nothing! So, yes, I believed back then that something untoward was happening. (and I was right, they were acting unlawfully.) It was a short leap from that point to also believe that they had instigated that phone call, which at that time still didn't add up!

Of course, you want to know do I still believe that. The answer is, probably not. Though I do hold them responsible for my belief, because it isn't as far-fetched as you would like to believe.

Before the viva, I was put into a room and left there for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes (it might have been less, as time is relative to the situation.) However, there was no valid reason for making me wait in a room at all. The viva had been booked for a certain time, and that is when it should have started. There were no preparations that needed to be made in terms of equipment etc. The emails that I obtained by SAR showed that the second marker, who I found later had been the one to accuse me, had wanted to "discuss it" first for 20 minutes. I think that was the reason I was sidelined at the start. In all of that time, all I had to think about was "what the hell is going on!"

Now, six years later, and until this thread, nobody from the university has attempted to explain that response, or attempted to explain to me what might have happened. It's easy for you to be judge and jury, because you got all of this information at one time. I got it piece by piece over six years. When I was accused, I was deeply, deeply distressed. At the end of the viva, I was told that I'd "done well". I didn't know what that meant. I believed it meant that I had been cleared. But when I rang the university a week later when they STILL hadn't responded by giving me a final mark, I was told "well, people who have been accused of cheating can't expect to have the same treatment as those who haven't." And this was AFTER I was supposed to have been found innocent. So, you see, it was like living in Franz Kafka's "The Trial" for me. It was ongoing and never ending. Or at least, I couldn't trust where the end was, because they didn't seem to know either!

After that, they gave me a mark, didn't explain any of what had just gone on. I was still in the dark, mind working overtime about what just happened...and they thought they were just going to walk away from it. And that's exactly what they did, for a whole six months or more, until I complained. (I'd tried to complain at the time but they just buried it (I have the emails to prove that.)

So, does that answer your question?