“I Was Sacked by Lloyds Bank for Asking a Clumsy Question in a Race Seminar. Now Thanks to the Free Speech Union I’ve Received an £800,000 Payout”
Carl Borg-Neal, the former Lloyds worker sacked for asking a clumsy question in a race seminar who with the help of the Free Speech Union won an £800,000 payout, has written about his ordeal and victory in the Mail. Here’s an excerpt.
Unlike several of my colleagues, I was looking forward to attending a mandatory ‘race education’ seminar arranged by my employer, Lloyds Bank.
I was keen to learn more about this important issue and how best to treat my colleagues in the workplace.
But little did I know, as I logged on to the virtual meeting on July 16th 2021, that it would mark the end of my near 30-year career.
Because, in the meeting, I mistakenly uttered the N-word while trying to provide an example of what constitutes inappropriate language after the trainer’s lack of understanding of a question I asked on the subject.
I appreciate that it is a highly inflammatory term, but I had no racist intent at all. I suffer from dyslexia and as a result of my condition I often speak before my brain has had a chance to process my thoughts. This was a typical example of my disability clouding my judgement. It was an honest mistake.
But months later – after a painful and protracted disciplinary process – I was fired for gross misconduct.
Racked by stress, I struggled to sleep and experienced severe back pain. I was put on a cocktail of drugs, from the strong painkiller codeine to anti-anxiety medication. I stopped leaving the house. I couldn’t bring myself to exercise and gave up coaching my local junior rugby team at home in Andover, Hampshire.
I put on weight and my cholesterol rose to a dangerously high level. My friends and family were worried for my wellbeing – but their pain was nothing compared to the shame and terror I was experiencing.
Thankfully, late last year – two-and-a-half years after that fateful seminar – an employment tribunal found I was wrongfully dismissed and discriminated against by Lloyds on the grounds of my disability.
And just this week, I was awarded almost £800,000 in compensation (before legal costs and tax – I will take home only around £350,000) while the bank faces a total bill, including fees, of nearer to £1 million. …
I remember the day of the course vividly. I was working remotely, sitting in my study overlooking a nature reserve. It was a bright, sunny morning and at 11am I logged into the seminar on the Microsoft Teams software, excited to learn more.
It began with warm words from the lead trainer, who happened to be a black lady. She told us to “speak freely” as this was a “safe space” where we need not worry about saying the “wrong thing”. Rather, we were encouraged to “ask questions… learn and be clumsy”.
Perhaps I was being naïve, but I believed her.
After what felt like a didactic lecture on institutional racism, she moved on to telling us about the difference between “intent” and “effect” with regards to language. And so I asked what I thought was a perfectly innocent question: “If you hear a person of an ethnic minority use a word that might be considered offensive if used by a person not of that minority, how should you handle the situation?”
I was concerned about unwittingly saying the wrong thing – and wanted to know how to avoid that.
My dyslexia — which was informally diagnosed during my school years and confirmed by a doctor as part of the subsequent tribunal – means I often struggle to articulate myself.
From the vacant expression of my trainer on screen and the thundering silence that followed my question, I assumed I had not been clear.
This is nothing unusual for me given my dyslexia and I’ve developed a strategy of either rephrasing my point or providing an example.
On this occasion – to my eternal regret – I chose the latter and added: “The most common example being the use of the word ‘n*****’ in the black community.”
In hindsight, of course, I should not have said the word out loud. But it was an honest mistake – and after all, this was a “safe space” for saying “clumsy things”, wasn’t it?
Nothing could have prepared me for the reaction from the lead trainer. She quickly became extraordinarily agitated, shouting at me with wild hand gestures. I tried to apologise but was told to “shut up” or else I’d be kicked out of the meeting. … I would later discover that the lead trainer was so “traumatised” by my language that she apparently took five days off work. …
It was only when I began litigation proceedings against Lloyds in August 2022 that my luck changed. I heard about the Free Speech Union and in February 2023 – in desperation – reached out to them for help.
They instructed Doyle Clayton solicitors – experts in employment law – to fight my case. Finally, in a fair and just hearing over video-link last summer, I was able to explain how my dyslexia had contributed to the case without being ignored or shut down. …
Since news of my victory broke earlier this year, numerous former Lloyds colleagues have sent messages of support. Everyone knows that justice has finally been served.
But the truth is that I lost the job I love and the life I knew. And not because I did anything wrong, but because Lloyds refused to examine properly the case against me – perhaps for fear of being hounded by woke ideologues who smelled the blood of a white middle-aged man. Lloyds was never “by your side”, as its adverts claim.
I do not expect an apology – but I hope that my case sets a precedent for others suffering similar injustice.
Worth reading in full.
Join the Free Speech Union here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: this isn’t a win as the reason the ruling was made was based upon a perceived disability i.e. dyslexia. Carl won because he himself was seen as a holder of a victim card. Common sense played no part in this.
Just saw your response after I had posted a similar comment. I invoke lack of attention in my defence.
I’m not properly familiar with the judgement, but I understand that the unlawful dismissal aspect of the case would likely have succeeded anyway. Without the disagnosis of dyslexia, there could of course be no unlawful discrimination issue, and I suppose that would have affected the amount of the award, but not the finding that Lloyds’ actions were unlawful. So it’s an important case regardless.
Thanks for that; I agree and it’s obviously great for the chap concerned, but really the ideal outcome would be for the court to order the firm to review and revise their internal procedures, or discipline the rogue employees if it was human error rather than wrong procedures.
Well, I believe the court did order that the Board of Directors read and digest the court’s judgement, at least — and presumably if they don’t amend their procedures, the next time the judgement could be more severe (and also for other companies — this is not the first time a “safe space” discussion of race issues has led to a dismissal). However, we know that companies and public bodies (like police constabularies) do tend to ignore judgements like Forstater (in fact, Mogwai gives another example in the comments below), so it remains to be seen what actually changes in their behaviour, if anything. But a marker has been set down.
I’m sure the Board will be working out how to make sure they get away scot free next time.
I had to look up “Forstater”. Something to do with “gender critical” beliefs – another bullshit phrase invented by lunatics and satanists to try and normalise their deviance. Gender is to do with grammar, sex is immutable (and contrary to what you often read is not “assigned at birth” but is in fact determined at conception by the Hand of Fate).
Have a look at The Kybalion and what Hermetic philosophy says on gender, it’s not simply considered as a grammatical concern (and there’s only Masculine and Feminine).
Well “Masculine” and “Feminine” are pretty vague concepts that people will disagree on until the cows come home, so vague as to be meaningless. I mean it might be interesting to debate what they mean, and what “qualities” might be described as masculine or feminine, and to observe trends, patterns, differences etc. But I am not sure how useful it is. I mean, I’m a man and I’m fine with that, but it means nothing. I am me. Let’s treat people as individuals and ignore their sex except where directly relevant, but at the same time let’s accept that sex is immutable and determined at conception. I still believe the whole idea of “gender identity” is nonsense.
We only need “sex” and “personality”: the term “gender” contributes nothing.
There are two sexes and as many personalities as there are people.
Yup. The whole thing solved in two sentences. Give that man a Nobel Prize. It’s like the whole racism industry – race exists but then it doesn’t, “gender” exists but it doesn’t. Don’t put me in a box, then go on and on about what box you’re in.
It may or may not be an important case. That rests upon whether your legal understanding of the case is correct. That, we’ll not know until a similar case is made in defence of someone without a perceived disability i.e. a white, right-of-centre (prole, not establishment, politics), heterosexual, Englishman. Without dyslexia.
That’s not my legal understanding of the case. I’m not a lawyer. But I asked a lawyer intimately familiar with the case (because I’d seen previous comments here about this case), and that was the reply.
Ok, I can only work with what you posted “but I understand…”. Anyway, I sincerely hope you’re right. We’ll see in due course is my guess. Nice to see your input again Ron – regardless of whether I agree with it or not!
Yes, we’ll have to see how this plays out. Things will only change when HR departments (and the organisations that advise them, who are also s****y) start to recognise the ground is shifting underneath them, but we can only keep pushing. So, needless to say, if you’re not already a member of the FSU, you can join here – it’s an investment, not a cost 😉
Regardless of any good intentions behind an organisation like FSU, free speech has obviously been severely curtailed if you need to join a club and potentially help line some lawyers pockets in order to exercise it.
That’s true and we all know it….however “joining the club” is a way (1) to protect your own free speech if, like many of us, you’re the sort of person who wants to exercise it (2) to support actions that try to stem the tide.
It’s like: crime is obviously a problem if you have to lock your front door, spend £1000 on a burglar alarm, and buy contents insurance. We’d all rather not waste our time and money on these things, but it’s still advisable to do so.
Ian. Sorry.
The example was legitimate regardless of dyslexia but unfortunately using dyslexia in defence makes it look like it was a mistake and he should have self-censored. That’s not really a win for free speech is it.
How much did the legal profession make from this?
Back-of-an-envelope from the above detail suggests the legal profession took around £450k from his side and anywhere from £500k to £1m from the bank’s side. These are absolutely prohibitive costs, well able to crush ‘the little man’, as we also saw in the Post Office fiasco.
“The panel confirmed that my remark was part of a ‘well-intentioned relevant question’ and that ‘dyslexia affected [my] ability to formulate [my] question’.”
So if this chap had not been dyslexic the outcome of this whole thing may have been different.
No mention of the bank recognising that their policies and processes are wrong. They will carry on with their attacks on white people and conservatives, and on freedom of speech. The money is peanuts to them.
It’s inconceivable that an English black person of the 21st century will end up traumatized by hearing a historic slang term originating from the southern states of the USA whose most frequent present-day use is in hip hop lyrics, especially not a supposedly professional race educator who must certainly be familiar with both the word and its etymology. Which means this is only sort-of a victory: Lloyds is requirement to make a payment that’s chump change for a large bank and more than half of it will either go to the state or cover fees accrued during the process. And the abusive lying bitch who’s really reponsible for Mr Borg-Neal’s misery walks away free in order to ruin the lives of other people in future.
Recalling from 2018, Kendrick Lamar’s hypocritical response to asking a white woman onto stage to sing along with his ‘song’, but publicly shaming her for not ‘bleeping’ the N-word present in his lyrics. His pathetic rationale: it’s okay for us to say it but not for you.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44209141
I don’t quite understand the relevance of this. That’s about Americans chastizing other Americans for using American slang words in America and they don’t even really agree on who’s supposed to do or not do what. None of this is applicable to the Lloyds situation.
Another win for free speech ( and common sense ) here; ”A woman who was suspended by council bosses over he belief a person “cannot change their sex” has won a landmark legal claim. Rachel Meade, from Dartford in Kent, won the discrimination case on the basis of her protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. She was issued with a one-year warning by Social Work England after a complaint was lodged in 2020. Meade received the complaint after making and liking gender-critical posts on Facebook. The social worker was sanctioned by Social Work England and subsequently suspended by Westminster City Council for gross misconduct. Council chiefs also launched a disciplinary investigation and warned she could be sacked for misconduct. Meade received a final written warning after her suspension. She claimed she was “bullied into silence” when trying to “speak up for women’s rights”. Responding to the judgment, Meade said it was a “huge relief to be so completely vindicated”. She added: “It has been a horrendous experience. This ruling makes it clear that I was entitled to contribute to the important public debate on sex and gender. “I hope it will make it easier for other regulated professionals to… Read more »
As distressing as this woke nonsense is, thankfully it doesn’t withstand sunlight.
It bears repeating until we’re blue in the face “trans women aren’t women”, “biological sex is immutable”, “trans women are not welcome in women’s sports” and “a trans woman who fancies women is heterosexual, not lesbian”
Can one type the word “nigger” here?
You’ve just proved that one can, but it means I’m going to have to take five days off work now to recover from the trauma of seeing all six letters of that word, you insensitive c*nt!
Despite all the DEI departments and events to ‘train’ the staff many minorities are still not included. It is good the FSU helped win this case and advised that dyslexia is and should be included in the minority groups.
Time for Companies to realise they now have to consider all minority groups and not just the highly vocal ones.
“I was keen to learn more about this important issue and how best to treat my colleagues in the workplace.”
Leaving aside that anyone who is “excited” by this kind of “training” is a bit strange… just treat them all the same regardless of skin colour/race. It’s not complicated. If they’re a nice person/good worker, you can like them. Perhaps go out for a drink. If they’re an idiot, you don’t have to like them, whatever their colour. Respect their views and agree to disagree and keep to a civil working relationship only. To do anything else based on skin colour alone is racist, surely?