@milanmijten@pietermarx@TijlDeBie@nathancofnas@ugent@sapinker Tijl acht het ‘dishonest & defamatory’ dat pinker het zonder bewijs ‘retaliation against whistle blower’ noemt. Mijn punt was dat Tijl miskent hoe de whistle blower dynamiek werkt, dat die bijzondere dynamiek wel wordt erkend in bijv. de wet, met omdraaiing bewijslast.
@TijlDeBie@pietermarx@nathancofnas@ugent@sapinker For this reason Belgian law has mandatory reversal of the burden of proof. The employer must proof that the disciplinary action against the whistle blower is not retaliation…the starting assumption is that it is indeed retaliation. You are doing the opposite…
@TijlDeBie@pietermarx@nathancofnas@ugent@sapinker That is how retaliation on whistle blowers works of course. You come up with some more reasonable sounding complaint unrelated to the whistle blowing to justify your disciplinary action against the whistle blower! Never admit it’s just retaliation!
@TijlDeBie@pietermarx@nathancofnas@ugent@sapinker When would you be satisfied that the reason was his whistle blowing? When the university itself explicitly said they are investigating him for whistle blowing?