Investigations | BAB archive

This page contains cleaned historical text recovered from the former Bad Apple Bullies website. Character encoding, punctuation, headings, lists and obvious extraction errors may have been repaired for readability. The underlying claims and opinions remain those of the original author and have not been independently reverified. Listen uses on-device text-to-speech — no audio files are stored.

How Bad Apple Bullies investigate themselves and find themselves innocent.

When Bad Apple Bullies investigate your complaint/grievance -

Your complaint is not "received" for one to three weeks after it arrives. You might have hand-delivered it to the front desk of the District Office, but Bad Apple Bullies will not "receive" it for another week. During this useful "black hole" of time the Bad Apple Bullies can write a few back-dated letters and make a few back-dated decisions so that your complaint will appear to have been written after these letters have been written/ decisions made. The backdated letters/decisions significantly change the nature of the situation.

All of the documents that you provide to support your allegations are lost/ not able to be located.

The Bad Apple who harassed/ bullied/ victimised/ discriminated against you is allowed to choose his/her own investigator. Bad Apple Bullies choose "old mates" or people who are afraid to tell the truth about the Bad Apple Bully. Unfortunately, in these "Remember What Happened To Greg Sorensen! " times, most public servants who are selected as investigators would have good reason to be be afraid to tell the truth about a Bad Apple Bully. And an external investigator who wants to get more work for Education Queensland might not be really impartial. The unfortunate fact is that big organisations have a greater capacity to reward compliance than the person making the complaint about harassment.

The Bad Apple Bully is allowed to decide what the investigator will investigate. The Bad Apple Bully won't allow the investigator to actually investigate your complaint because that might produce the wrong result. The Bad Apple Bully changes your complaint to a complaint that will be easier to find unsubstantiated.

The Bad Apple Bully decides what evidence the investigator will examine. First the Bad Apple Bully gives the investigator his/her secret collection of "allegations" scribbled in pencil on loose scraps of paper. These scribbles could mean more or less anything. The Bad Apple Bully has not told you about these secret scribbles and you are not given an opportunity to respond to the "allegations" suggested by the scribbles till after the investigation has been finalised.

The investigation only consists of reading documents. No questions are allowed. So, for example, the Bad Apple Bully can write, "Mrs Brown agreed with my opinion that this teacher had behaviour management problems. " And the investigator will not be allowed to question Mrs Brown and find out that this is a lie. The investigator copies the Bad Apple Bully's allegations carefully into his "report" and the lies appear to be facts. The investigator does not "know" that the lies are lies and so he/she cannot be held responsible for the lies in the report.

You are not allowed to read a copy of the report for six months after the investigation has been completed.

You can only obtain a copy of the report under FOI. Your FOI request for the report is refused and you have to repeat your request several times.

The report claims to be an investigation of all of the documentation, but when you read the report you discover that the investigator was not given/ chose not to read many of your own documents.

The investigator's quotes from your documents are strangely truncated to change their meaning.

The Bad Apple Bully and their Bully-Mob have told the people who support you that there is a secret reason why they "have to" punish you. You are not told this "secret reason" why you "have to be" punished before the decision is made to put you on Diminished Workplace Performance. You are not told this "secret reason" before your grievance about the abuse of the DWP is dismissed. You are not told this "secret reason" before the Head Office investigation is completed. You have no idea what this "secret reason" might be. You worry about everything. You practically write down your life history, trying to defend yourself against every possible allegation. This strategy of refusing you the right to know why you are being punished is all part of the mobbing. It is all part of the attack on your mental health. The Bad Apple Bully-Mob and the investigator snigger at your "voluminous" documentation.

The Bad Apple Bully's scribbled lies are quick and easy to write. They are quick and easy to read. Bad Apple Bully-Mob investigators prefer to read these quick and easy lies. The Bad Apple Bully's lies would not stand the slightest examination - but the Bad Apple Bully-Mob investigator has no intention of examining them. Bad Apple Bully-Mob investigators just copy out these lies over and over and over again.

If you ever do manage to disprove the secret lies, your response is "unable to be located".

When you read the Head Office report you discover that the "reason" why the Bad Apple Bully put you on DWP has been changed again. When you were put on DWP you were given one reason. During the Stage 1 grievance you were told that there was another reason. Now, six months after the Education Queensland investigator has finalised his report, you discover that yet another "reason" for punishing you has been introduced. This "reason" was not discussed with you before the report was written. You have been denied natural justice - again.

* * * * * * *

But not all of the apples in the barrel are bad. And Dealing With The Mob recognises and respects any investigator who can produce an "internal review" that is of some value in such constrained circumstances. (An internal review is a sort of handicapped investigation that Bad Apple Bullies organise when they don't want to know the answers to any wrong questions ). An "internal review" is an abusive strategy that will not find out any inconvenient facts, but it can strongly suggest that the facts would be inconvenient.

And Dealing With The Mob recognises that the professional standard of internal reviews can be high. The reviewer may have not been allowed access to all of the documents. The reviewer may have been "leaned on" so that quotes had to be truncated and meanings changed. His/her review may be significantly flawed. But the review can still be a professionally presented document and it can be of some value.