Horsfield Menzies : Blog vs Behaviour – RACHEL YORKE – THE ART OF KNOWING FUCK ALL

By /

Rachel Yorke has written an article about ignorance, but the interesting bit is not ignorance at all. It is selection. Her Horsfield Menzies piece, “Ignorance Of Disability… Bound To Be Triggering!”, examines Kitching v University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. Zoe Kitching had amassed 406 days of sickness absence over 29 occasions, with the vast majority connected to disability. Three occupational-health reports said she was disabled under the Equality Act. One said she was not.

Guess which fucking report became useful.

The Tribunal found that the employer’s HR adviser had effectively seized upon that one report while ignoring a much wider body of information pointing the other way. Eventually, it described what happened as a “complete lack of an enquiring mind”. Yorke extracts exactly the right lesson: employers must remain alert to disability “regardless of the wording of any occupational health report” because one convenient document does not cancel the wider record.

That is excellent employment-law advice. It is also a fucking dagger, because Horsfield Menzies later helped construct a litigation case in which disability context, medical evidence, distress, procedural pressure and the resulting conduct could be separated into beautifully tidy compartments. Rachel says read the whole file. Her own firm became exceptionally good at cutting mine into pieces.

One Report Against Reality

Kitching is almost too perfect for Blog vs Behaviour. This was not a case where the employer had been kept completely in the dark. Information existed everywhere: occupational-health reports, absence records, mental-health diagnoses, fit notes and years of history. Then somebody found the useful page.

The January 2021 occupational-health report said Kitching was not disabled. According to the Tribunal, HR relied upon that report while failing to engage properly with the wider medical picture, including the other occupational-health reports available to the employer saying the opposite. The problem was therefore not an absence of information. It was what happened to all that information once one fragment became considerably more convenient than the rest.

Yorke understands this. Her learning point is effectively a warning against evidential tunnel vision. An employer cannot put the useful page under a desk lamp, switch off the lights everywhere else and then announce that darkness has prevailed. The whole record matters.

Remember that principle, because Horsfield Menzies later encountered a file where reading things together became rather less attractive.

The Art Begins With A Filing Cabinet

Corporate ignorance rarely looks like somebody standing up and announcing that they know absolutely nothing. That would be amateur hour. Professional ignorance is organised.

HR knows one thing while the manager knows another. Occupational health has a report, recruitment has a note and legal has instructions. Somebody else handled the complaint. One person saw the medical evidence, another made the decision, a third read the email and a fourth arrives afterwards to explain why none of them technically possessed precisely the same information at precisely the same fucking second.

Usually, there is nothing remotely sinister about that. Large organisations divide responsibilities because they have to. Nobody wants payroll conducting occupational-health assessments or reception hearing disciplinary appeals. The interesting part begins when the separation itself becomes the answer.

Ask who knew and suddenly the company disappears. Not this manager. Not that department. Different team. Different company. Different process. Different date. Enough compartments and an organisation can know everything alphabetically while understanding fuck all collectively.

Rachel’s article exists because sometimes the law refuses to play along.

Horsfield Menzies Had The Manual

Now place that principle beside my litigation. By March 2025, Horsfield Menzies was not operating in some mist where my health was merely suspected. The disability issue had produced medical evidence. A GP letter dated 14 March recorded anxiety and depression alongside difficulty managing emotions and particular difficulty managing frustration under stress.

That was not a philosophical theory about how I might respond under pressure. It was the fucking warning label.

The eventual Tribunal judgment is important because neither side gets to cheat with it. Employment Judge James did not accept that disability justified the scale and content of the sustained conduct he condemned. He expressly rejected that proposition. However, the judgment also accepted in principle that my medical condition could sometimes produce emotional dysregulation.

Both things can be true. Horsfield Menzies did not have to believe every angry email was caused by disability, tolerate unlimited behaviour because a GP had mentioned emotional regulation or pretend Tribunal rules stopped applying. But nobody could honestly say the context did not exist. The firm had it, the Tribunal eventually acknowledged it, and the question becomes what happened when that context met the respondent’s developing conduct case.

Turn The Person Into Entries

By April 2026, the main hearing bundle ran to 1,657 pages excluding the index. Separate strike-out evidence collections contained extracts from my communications, blog posts and X account. The judgment records 150 entries from communications and blog material and another 181 entries from X.

That is industrial-scale attention. A modern law firm can turn a nervous system into metadata if given enough time: date, sender, recipient, phrase, post, screenshot, page number, exhibit, bookmark. Another PDF lands in the folder and somewhere a document-management system quietly purrs.

What disappears during that process is not necessarily evidence. It is adjacency. An angry sentence is easy to catalogue; the preceding week of procedural conflict is harder. A rude email fits neatly into a schedule while disability evidence explaining why stress may affect emotional regulation lives somewhere else. A social-media post can be dated, numbered and extracted, whereas the chain of events producing the reaction requires several paragraphs and somebody willing to read them.

Once the pieces are separated, conduct becomes wonderfully portable. You can carry the reaction into court without dragging the entire causal history behind it.

That does not mean Horsfield Menzies fabricated the material. The emails and posts existed. The craft lies in what the selected material is made to mean. Yorke’s own article warns employers about precisely that evidential instinct in another setting: do not seize the convenient fragment and forget the larger picture.

Her firm later represented a client whose strike-out case depended heavily on organising fragments of my behaviour into a case about who I was.

That juxtaposition carries its own fucking electricity.

The Context Gets Its Own Folder

The respondent’s argument was powerful partly because the labels sounded clean. Unreasonable correspondence, non-compliance, abusive language, repeated applications, social-media conduct and interference with witnesses could each be treated as distinct propositions. The Tribunal ultimately accepted enough of that case to strike the claims out and award £20,000 in costs.

Meanwhile, the contextual material existed in other parts of the record: disability, GP evidence, emotional dysregulation, panic, postponement, medical appointments, the escalating relationship between claimant and solicitors and complaints about the way the litigation itself was being conducted. When I argued that these things needed to be understood together, the final judgment recorded that argument and rejected it as sufficient justification for the sustained campaign it found had occurred.

That is what the judgment says, and there is no need to rewrite it. The more interesting point is what the respondent’s litigation architecture had achieved by then. The original discrimination case had become background scenery to a much larger prosecution of the claimant’s conduct.

One vanished interview had somehow acquired 1,657 pages of supporting atmosphere.

There is gonzo journalism, and then there is a fucking employment bundle.

Curiosity Has A Direction

Horsfield Menzies was not incapable of enquiry. Quite the opposite.

When one of my medical appointments supported a postponement request, the firm contacted the medical centre. According to its later correspondence, it obtained information about alternative appointment availability and used that information in opposing postponement. That is curiosity with its boots on: identify the useful factual issue, make the enquiry, obtain the answer and deploy it.

Then came 23 March 2025, when I sent a detailed complaint about Sam Butler directly to Angus Menzies, Simon Horsfield and Daniel Rubin. It raised the handling of disability-related medical information, the medical-centre contact, costs pressure and litigation conduct. I followed up the next day asking whether the matter would actually be investigated.

No meaningful investigation outcome was communicated to me.

That contrast is nastier than any adjective TCAP could manufacture. Horsfield Menzies could locate curiosity when curiosity might assist its position on postponement. When the enquiry required the firm to turn around and inspect its own conduct, the torch batteries appeared rather less dependable.

Rachel Yorke’s Kitching article centres a “lack of an enquiring mind”.

That phrase has travelled exceptionally well.

The Magic Word Is Procedure

There is another way context disappears without anybody deleting anything. Give every fact a procedural name.

Pressure becomes costs correspondence. A health crisis becomes non-attendance. Repeated attempts to resolve an issue become excessive correspondence. A medical appointment becomes scheduling. A furious reaction becomes conduct and an attempt to terminate the litigation becomes strike-out.

None of those descriptions is necessarily false. That is exactly why the method is so effective. The strongest framing rarely requires invention; it requires classification. Put the fact in the correct professional drawer and its emotional, medical or causal significance can diminish without anybody ever touching the underlying document.

The claimant says: this happened because of that. The litigation file replies: different tab.

That was one of the central fights running through my case. I frequently fought it badly and sometimes used language which simply handed the respondent another item for the schedule. The reaction itself then became evidence supporting the framework I believed I was reacting against, creating a loop in which every new explosion generated another numbered entry proving there had been an explosion.

You can almost hear the PDF bookmarks clicking shut.

The Claimant Becomes More Evidentially Interesting Than The Claim

There is a brutal asymmetry when conduct becomes central in proceedings involving a litigant in person. The alleged discrimination happened once. The litigant can react every day.

A disputed recruitment decision is historic and finite. By contrast, every email, application, complaint, blog post and angry response creates fresh contemporary material capable of collection. Eventually, the evidential centre of gravity shifts. The original allegation may require witness evidence, recruitment records and disputed recollections, whereas the claimant’s latest email arrived yesterday afternoon and contains the word fuck in searchable text.

Guess which one is easier to place in tomorrow’s bundle.

This does not make conduct irrelevant. Some of mine was plainly damaging to my position, and pretending otherwise would make TCAP every bit as selective as the institutions it criticises. The point is that once conduct becomes the dominant evidential product, the temptation is to treat each new manifestation as evidence of character rather than another event occurring inside an already documented disability and procedural context.

The person gradually becomes the best document in the case.

Horsfield Menzies’ strike-out evidence demonstrates just how extensive that transformation became.

Rachel Ruins The Trick

Yorke’s article becomes troublesome because her message is not that employers should blindly accept every claim of disability or regard any occupational-health report they dislike as worthless. Her point is about synthesis. Look at everything, remain enquiring and ask whether the wider history makes the convenient conclusion untenable.

Kitching is not a strike-out authority and TCAP does not need to pretend it is. The juxtaposition is evidential rather than doctrinal. Rachel is teaching clients something more basic than a technical rule: how to read a file without allowing the most convenient fragment to swallow the rest.

That is where the comparison bites.

In Kitching, the employer’s mistake was isolating one medical document from the wider body of evidence. In my litigation, the respondent’s conduct case repeatedly benefited from a different form of separation: behaviour could be extracted from the medical, procedural and relational context surrounding it and then presented as a discrete object for judgment.

Different legal questions. Different factual settings. Yet the same intellectual danger sits underneath both: cut around the inconvenient material until the remaining fragment becomes the story.

Rachel warns clients against that instinct.

Her firm later benefited from it.

One Firm, Two Standards Of Vision

When Yorke looks at the NHS Trust, she sees an employer that should have joined the evidence together. Correctly.

When Horsfield Menzies acted for Cepac, its litigation work was exceptionally effective at taking things apart. My medical condition and my behaviour could occupy different analytical boxes. A GP letter could establish difficulty controlling emotions under stress while the resulting communications were catalogued elsewhere as conduct. The firm could contact my medical centre when appointment availability mattered to a postponement argument, while my later complaint about that tactic generated no meaningful investigation outcome communicated back to me.

Ultimately, a disability-discrimination claim could be terminated because of conduct before the recruitment merits received their completed determination. Again, none of that required the Tribunal to accept my explanation for the behaviour. It did not.

The point is that context was not unavailable.

It existed in the file.

The battle was over whether the pieces would be allowed to remain touching.

A Wealth Of Information

The Tribunal’s language in Kitching deserves another outing because it exposes the central paradox. There was a wealth of information.

The more information an organisation possesses, the more sophisticated its methods of sorting become. Responsibilities narrow, documents are indexed, databases become searchable and unwieldy human history gets transformed into manageable evidence.

Meaning, however, can become negotiable.

The naive version of ignorance is an empty folder. The professional version can contain 1,657 pages.

That is what makes Yorke’s article and my case such an ugly pairing. Nobody needs to destroy evidence or forget that it exists. You simply arrange the material so that each inconvenient fact remains perfectly preserved in a different drawer from the fact it changes.

Medical evidence here, conduct there, complaint elsewhere. Cause in another folder. Reaction in the hearing bundle.

Everything retained.

Nothing connected.

The Art Of Knowing Fuck All

Rachel Yorke wrote an article warning employers not to become hypnotised by one occupational-health report when the wider record tells a different story. She was right. The Tribunal went further and condemned a “complete lack of an enquiring mind”.

That phrase contains the whole problem, because the sophisticated art of knowing fuck all does not actually require ignorance. It requires information. Lots of it. Enough to divide, classify and isolate until one human story becomes hundreds of individually accurate little fragments which no longer explain one another.

Horsfield Menzies had disability evidence. It had the GP warning about emotional regulation under stress. It had my reactions, complaints and medical material. It had the medical-centre issue. Eventually its client’s strike-out case had 150 communications and blog entries, another 181 X entries and a main bundle running to 1,657 pages.

That is not an information shortage.

That is a fucking archive.

Rachel says the answer is to keep an enquiring mind and read the wider record. Fine. I did.

The most interesting thing in it is not what Horsfield Menzies did not know. It is how much the firm could know while every inconvenient piece remained capable of being treated as though it belonged somewhere else.

That is not ignorance in the traditional sense.

That is THE ART OF KNOWING FUCK ALL.

Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project

Sources

Scroll to Top