FIRED! White, British & HIV+
In 2025, there remains a troubling belief that people living with HIV/AIDS are vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment by individuals and organisations who assume that victims will remain silent to avoid disclosing their status. This perception, however, is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable. HIV discrimination, particularly in the workplace, must come to an end. No one should live in fear of prejudice or unfair treatment due to their health condition. Everyone deserves dignity and equal opportunity, and it is imperative that society collectively challenges and dismantles these harmful attitudes.
After my employer discovered that I was a person living with HIV/AIDS and aware that I had grounds to pursue a legal claim, they took deliberate steps to obstruct my return to work. When direct obstruction proved insufficient, they resorted to fabricating serious allegations of racism and sexual harassment against me. However, the individuals they enlisted to support these false claims proved unreliable; their testimonies, combined with clear CCTV footage, unequivocally established my innocence. This evidence not only vindicated me but also exposed the underlying racism and discrimination perpetuated by my employer and it’s representatives and didnt stop them dismissing me.
This date is particularly memorable for deeply troubling reasons, as it marks the occasion when a colleague, Kevin Zurita, physically assaulted me for a second time, resulting in significant distress. In addition to this, during the same shift, he shouted repeatedly derogatory remarks such as “…all gays have AIDS” and “Working with someone with AIDS is like working on death row.” Shockingly, another colleague, relatively unknown to me, Ahret Tunc, responded with exaggerated laughter, which I immediately recognised as a sign of immaturity and, more disturbingly, an implicit acknowledgement of my HIV/AIDS status and the act of workplace discrimination/harassment.
This was despite the fact that I was forced to disclose my HIV/AIDS status as a legal disability discreetly to my employer under strict confidentiality requirements outlined by the Data Protection Act. The entire situation not only caused personal harm but also breached the expectation of privacy and dignity at the workplace, with a legal claim already underway to address these violations. And in addition to the assaults Kevin Zurita was reported to the Metropolitan Police as a hate crime.
In addition, behind the bar, the staff noticeboard—a whiteboard that usually displayed “staff meal” or “staff food”—had been wiped clean and replaced with the phrase “deathrow meal.” (see photo below). Additionally I have obtained witness testimony from two managers who confirmed that the childish handwriting belonged to Ahret Tunc. According to one manager’s statement, Ahret once wrote “I want to fuck Eleney (sic. Elene)” on the board. When ordered to remove it, he refused, considering it amusing. The manager warned him they were serious, but Ahret persisted in leaving the offensive message intact, hence how they were able to confirm “deathrow meal” to be in the hand of Ahret Tunc.
EVIDENCE
Article 001: Daily Shift Sheet of 2 April 2025
Article 002: Staff Noticeboard “Staff Food” (usual information)
Article 003: Staff Noticeboard “deathrow Meal” 2 April 2025, at 18:29
In October 2024, I experienced discrimination at my workplace when I requested a transfer to another pub to escape appalling treatment. My GP and HIV/AIDS clinicians were kept informed, as they struggled to understand why the company consistently refused my transfer requests.
Instead of facilitating an internal move, HR insisted I apply as an external candidate, despite other colleagues being transferred against their will without such procedures. Over 100 external applications were submitted, yet I faced repeated rejections. One particularly distressing response from The Admiralty claimed I did not have the legal right to work, even though I was already employed by the company and held British citizenship as per my Birth. This refusal to acknowledge my rights compounded the injustice of the situation.
I sent the following to my doctor when requesting to be signed off work as I could no longer subject myself to such discrimination and bullying.
Aged 42, the situation with Fuller’s, Smith & Turner’s, Barrowboy and Banker, despite having undertaken a protected act [Emplyment Tribunal] I had concerns around my treatment, safety and welfare and despitte raising this with the cmpany I was ignored. It is my overwhelming belief that this was deliberate in the hope I would merely walk away from the job.
Instead I had to report sick (Article 005) in order to protect myself.
EVIDENCE
I sent the following to my doctor when requesting to be signed off work as I could no longer subject myself to such discrimination and bullying.
I submitted a Subject Access Request to Fuller’s, my then employer, seeking access to the CCTV footage that recorded the incidents in which I was physically assaulted by Kevin Zurita on two separate occasions, including the incident on 2nd April 2025. This request was made to obtain clear evidence of the assaults for both personal record and any potential legal proceedings after being advised the continued actions were considered discrimination and/or a ‘hate crime’.
EVIDENCE
My doctor expressed serious concern regarding my ongoing treatment and signed me off work for three weeks to allow for me to find alternative employment. Despite the legal claim that is currently underway, he emphasised that I should stand my ground, as I have done nothing wrong. However, he feels that, given Fuller’s continued refusal to address the concerns raised, it is imperative that I prioritise my health and consider seeking employment elsewhere to avoid further detriment.
10 DAYS LATER
I was admitted to London’s University College Hospital where, after extensive tests, it was determined that I had suffered two TIAs (Transient Ischaemic Attacks), commonly referred to as mini strokes. Additionally, the presence of certain proteins indicated I had experienced a small heart attack. There was no evidence to suggest that my overall health had caused these events; instead, it was concluded that they were a result of “prolonged work-related stress”.
This stress arose after I disclosed I had carried out a ‘protected act’ after submititng a legal claim via an employment tribunal for HIV/AIDS discrimination, during which I endured ongoing discrimination, harassment, and bullying in the workplace. Despite reporting these additional issues to HR and applying to over 100 other pubs in an attempt to transfer, my requests were deliberately denied, and no effective action was taken to address the hostile environment.
While signed off sick and following attendance at the National Neurology Clinic for further MRI scans and diagnosis, I formally informed Fuller’s, through HR, that I would no longer subject myself to any form of discrimination, harassment, or bullying. Consequently, I would not return to the Barrowboy and Banker until such time as I was transferred to another pub. In addition, I made considerable efforts to continue to monitor vacancies as an external candidate, due to HR incorrectly stating that internal transfers were not facilitated and that I was required to apply externally—an action that I consider to be clear discrimination.
27 DAYS LATER
MEET THE PLOTTERS
As you’re about to learn from the evidence ‘used against me,’ there are glaringly obvious flaws in all the submissions presented and supported by those pictured. The sheer volume of contradictions and inconsistencies within their accounts is so pronounced that it would require an absolute fool to have arrived at the conclusion this group of complete morons did. Their evidence not only lacks coherence but would also fail to withstand the scrutiny of a 5-year-old, exposing allegations built on discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality, sexuality and/or disability, all deemed protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and deemed a ‘hate crime’.
I suspect that as we breeze through Fuller’s own evidence, you will wince, cringe, and even curl your toes in utter embarrassment for these representatives of Fuller’s who just couldn’t get their story straight.
Ahret Tunc
On the anniversary of my father’s death, 21st May 2025, out of the blue, I received a “Suspension from Work” letter (Article 007) from Ben Bullman, General Manager of Fuller’s George IV in Chiswick. In 26 years of working, I had never been suspended, let alone for the alarming allegations that Mr Bullman, acting on behalf of Fuller’s trading as Griffin Catering Services, was levelling against me. The accusations were both unexpected and distressing, compounding the emotional weight of the day and casting a shadow over an already difficult period, the letter stated:
Harassment, bullying or discrimination of any nature (including on grounds of sex, race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, marital status, age, sexual orientation, trans sexuality, or disability) against colleagues, customers, visitors or suppliers, or any other breach of the Inclusion Policy. This is in relation to an alleged incident on 2nd April 2025 where you allegedly told a fellow colleague to “go back to your own country.”
It is also alleged that you have taken photographs and/or recorded videos of fellow colleagues without their knowledge or consent. This conduct could constitute a serious breach of employee privacy, violates workplace policies regarding respectful and ethical behaviour, and may contravene applicable data protection and privacy laws.
[Article 007, 21 May 2025]
In his email with the letter (Article 007) attached, Ben Bullman proposed 3 dates for me to attend his investigation meeting, which were Friday 23rd May 2025, Monday 26th may 2025 and Tuesday 27th May 2025.
I didnt need to attend a investigation meeting for two reasons:
I was confident that the allegations were unfounded, so much so that I felt no necessity to attend a meeting to be questioned, nor to be ‘possibly’ informed of the specific accusations or their originators. My conviction was rooted in the belief that these claims were entirely fictitious, vexatious, and malicious, leaving me assured that engaging with the process would be unnecessary and unwarranted.
Attending any ‘investigation’ meeting seemed pointless as I could not assist; I had nothing to say except that I had no insight to offer. There had been zero conversations that could have been misconstrued, nor any version of my side to present, and this has since been ‘proven’ to be the case. The process felt redundant, given that the facts spoke for themselves, leaving no room for alternative interpretations or input from me.
EVIDENCE
I was absolutely in the dark as to what the vague allegations were; however, as I will go on to prove, they did not happen, which explains why I had no knowledge or recollection of the events in question. Upon being informed, I took immediate legal advice and was advised to appeal the suspension, as I was confident the allegations were wholly unfounded, and not only that so was the suspension given I was signed off sick and had by email informed my emplyer after suffering two strokes, I was not retuning to the Barrowboy & Banker and be continued to be subjected to the alarming acts of bullying, harassment, discrimination and racism to which the company refused to act on when reported.
Absolutely confident that these allegations were vexatious, malicious, and a clear attempt to remove me from the company for carrying out a ‘protected act’ [Employment Tribunal claim for HIV/AIDS discrimination], I reported the matter to the police, having been advised that these allegations constituted a ‘Hate Crime’ under UK law. My decision to involve the authorities was not merely to accuse those responsible but also, with full confidence, to report myself, demonstrating my unequivocal belief that these claims were wholly false.
Furthermore, in my email to the investigator, Ben Bullman-Bell, I urged him to instruct whoever was making these allegations to likewise report me to the police for having committed a ‘Hate Crime’ (article 007A), underscoring my conviction in the integrity of my position and the baseless nature of the accusations being made by the accuser(s), representatives of Fuller’s:
Article 007A
If an employee had been assaulted by a colleague or a customer, the police would undoubtedly be called. Similarly, if a colleague or customer had been racially abusive, involving the police would be the expected course of action. In the case of a colleague being sexually assaulted by another colleague, the police would again be contacted without hesitation. It is therefore alarmingly suspicious when Fuller’s replied to my above email, raising serious concerns with regard to their unsuitability about the handling of these grave matters.
“It is not my place, or the company’s to compel and force an individual to initiate action with the police regarding workplace allegations. That is an individual complainant’s own decision which we will not interfere with. They have chosen in this instance to raise these issues with the company first, hence why we are looking into it now.” ”
It is beyond bizarre that Fuller’s would not advise an accuser to report a serious allegation to the police, especially given that law enforcement is best placed to handle such matters. Nowhere did I suggest, nor imply, that they should “compel” the accuser to do so; rather, the company should support them throughout that process.
“Workplace allegations” such as being excluded from the team, consistently being sent on break last or late, or colleagues gossiping behind one’s back, while distressing, differ fundamentally from the use of racially discriminatory language. The latter constitutes a hate crime under the law and demands immediate and formal intervention involving the police.
With this being their stance, it is imperative to question whether Fuller’s would hesitate to encourage a colleague who had been a victim of rape by another employee to contact law enforcement or whether they would refer the matter to HR to investigate? Similarly, in cases of upskirting, reporting to the police is the appropriate course of action, and not HR as a ‘workplace allegation’. If racial slurs or discriminatory language were a factor, it is crucial that Fuller’s does not discourage police involvement, as such conduct transcends typical workplace grievances and enters the realm of criminal behaviour. It is profoundly alarming that Fuller’s appear to consider themselves better equipped than the appointed authorities, the police in this country.
I suspected at the time, and retrospective evidence has confirmed, that involving the police would have had devastating consequences for the false narrative being advanced by the accuser, Ahret Tunc, and might have revealed Fuller’s possible orchestration or involvement in fabricating these allegations. Fuller’s concern was not focused on the accuser, but rather on the likelihood that the police would have swiftly identified the inconsistencies and falsehoods present within the allegations made by all parties involved. This matter, having been reported by me as a hate crime to the Metropolitan Police, highlights the deliberate manipulation and untruths perpetrated to facilitate a discriminatory act by all parties involved, including representaives of Fuller’s. Fuller emphasises that these identified flaws constitute clear evidence that those involved have ‘lied’ to carry out an offence defined under hate crime legislation.
Irshad Mofeejubby, the new General Manager of Barrowboy & Banker, had quickly gained a reputation for being a prolific gossip despite his relatively short tenure. In my 26 years of working, I have never encountered anyone with such a blatant disregard for privacy or an inability to observe discretion. It seems his constant gossiping is a misguided attempt to curry favour, as if sharing confidences will earn him respect. In reality, he often betrays those very confidences within minutes, undermining any trust that might have been placed in him.
However, his gossip not only revealed that Ahret Tunc—whom he admitted to treating as a “son” and who reciprocally referred to his general manager as a “father”—was actually behind the false discriminatory allegations, but it also implicated Irshad in orchestrating the entire scheme. Evidence from Ahret’s complaint, specifically articles 10 and 13, indicates that the complaint document was created in the manager’s office at Barrowboy & Banker.
Furthermore, Irshad employed the same AI tool to draft an investigation report on Paulo, with formatting and invisible codes cojcidentally similar to that of Ahret’s complaint. This parallel raises a compelling question: was the complaint truly authored by Ahret at all, or was it in fact composed by Irshad?
Regardless, Irshad informed several colleagues prior to any disciplinary meeting that I was “finished,” indicating that Fuller’s had reached a predetermined conclusion before I was even provided with the accuser’s name or any alleged evidence nor even received a date of a disciplinary hearing—a hearing where you can not already have predetermined the outcome!
I formally raised this concern by email, highlighting the lack of due process and the unfairness of the situation in being judged without the opportunity to properly respond to the accusations and colelagues being told I had used racist/discrimatory language as for the reason I was suspended and my emplyment with the company was due to come to an end:
Article 007B
In light of Article 007B, it is evident that Fuller’s were in considerable disarray, as their representative, Irshad Mofeejubby, was disseminating information to colleagues—including junior staff—about the accuser being Ahret Tunc, information that had not been shared with me.
Furthermore, Irshad confidently stated that my employment was due to end before I had even received an invitation to a disciplinary hearing, which was supposed to be conducted with fairness and transparency. This premature disclosure strongly suggests that Fuller’s had already predetermined the outcome, revealing their clear intention to act unjustly from the outset.
The 6th of June 2025, a Friday, saw Fuller’s Human Resources Advisor, Andrew Chalwood, issue an ‘invite to disciplinary’ notice (article 008) following the conclusion by the investigator, Ben Bullman-Bell, that the allegation(s) were upheld.
This came as a surprise given my confidence from the outset that no evidence existed to support something that simply did not occur. According to the ACAS code of practice, it is mandatory when issuing a disciplinary invitation to forward all relevant evidence. Scheduling the disciplinary meeting for 11 June 2025 at 14:30, merely five days later—equating to 2.5 working days excluding the weekend—appeared tactical and problematic. ACAS guidelines stipulate that individuals facing disciplinary action must be afforded sufficient time to prepare, which includes gathering evidence and liaising with colleagues for witness statements. Reasonable and fair notice is necessary to enable the person subject to the proceedings to source witnesses, share information, and fully familiarise themselves with the case at hand.
Aware of this basic yet fundamental principle as an operations manager with 21-years experience chairing disciplinary processes, I responded promptly to their email sent at 15:06 inviting me to a disciplinary hearing. In accordance with their letter, which stated the list of evidence they intended to rely on, I highlited it was in fact absent from their email invite at 15:40 (article 009). Recognising their deliberate tactic to minimise my preparation time, I understood they were seemingly aware that any delay would deny me the opportunity to expose flaws in their attempt to present false and misleading evidence. However, no further communication or documentation arrived on Friday or over the weekend.
EVIDENCE
2 DAYS LATER
On Monday 9th June 2025, Fuller’s Human Resources department sent their alleged evidence and supporting documents at 11:19am. This was clearly a deliberate tactic designed to deny me almost four full days to scrutinise their allegations thoroughly. That very evening, as a way to cope with everything I had endured, I was attending a concert at the Royal Albert Hall with Holly Johnson of Frankie Goes to Hollywood fame and a peer living with HIV.
It was inconceivable that I could have opened the email on Monday and instantly spoiled my evening by absorbing the lies it contained—lies that were fully revealed only the following day.
Faced with accusations relating to events that never occurred, preparing a response within a single day was both daunting and profoundly unjust. Despite requesting an extension due to the deliberate delay in providing the ‘alleged’ evidence—an action contrary to fairness and transparency guidelines outlined by ACAS—this plea was outright denied. The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that the allegations were made and subsequently ‘upheld’ by individuals whose academic credibility was, at best, questionable. Their claims were riddled with glaring inconsistencies, presenting one falsehood after another. Were this incident to be adapted into a film, it would resemble the absurdity of Dumb & Dumber, propelled by the relentless, farcical energy of the Benny Hill theme tune.
FULLER’S ‘ALLEGED’ EVIDENCE
AHRET TUNC
Ahret Tunc making such baseless and defamatory allegations did not come as a surprise, given several colleagues have testified that Irshad Mofeejubby had bragged about his and Ahret Tunc’s vengeful motives, reportedly declaring, “your mate Will, is finished!”
There are significant flaws in Ahret Tunc’s discriminatory accusations, but his complaint (article 010) first raised suspicion due to its excessive theatrics. The grammar and punctuation were evidently AI-generated, a fact verified by the watermarks detected when the text was analysed through an AI checker (article 012). Furthermore, it is concerning that it took only four minutes for the documented author of the complaint, identified as ‘Nishtha Dhillon’, to produce the Microsoft Word document on a computer located in the Barrowboy & Banker office (article 013). This raises serious questions as to why Ahret neither drafted the complaint himself nor avoided relying on AI, especially given the bizarre and emotionally charged nature of his testimony.
Therefore who is the ‘real’ complainant? Ahret Tunc or Nishtha Dhillion who google states works for Fullers, Smith & Turner perhaps demonstarting that this entire allegattion has been fabriacted and orchestrated by Fullers?
KUMARA GREENIDGE-REID
Kumara Greenidge-Reid alleged she heard the accusations made by Ahret regarding the use of racially motivated language. In her witness testimony, it is evident she is attempting to support Ahret while seemingly being coerced into backing the allegations, all the while carefully avoiding self-implication to a degree that might lead to her being called out.
However, Greenidge-Reid appears oblivious to the fact that both her testimony and the exceptionally clear CCTV footage conclusively prove she was lying. It is also worth questioning her motives, especially considering that other colleagues, including myself, had previously raised concerns about her own racist behaviour. This raises the possibility that she was driven to fabricate lies in order to commit a hate crime, an offence for which she has been reported to the Metropolitan Police.
NAVEEN KUMAR
As witnesses go, they don’t come better than Naveen Kumar, who testified on behalf of Ahret Tunc, a representative of Fuller’s T/A Griffin Catering Services whilst himself making allegations that constitute a hate crime and where he has been reported to the Metropolitan Police.
It’s an odd assertion given that Naveen’s own testimony also claims he heard me make racially discriminatory statements.
However, the glaring flaws in his evidence, so obvious they could be spotted by a five-year-old, leave one wincing and cringing at how a company like Fuller’s could either be unable or seemingly unwilling to verify that Naveen was not only present to witness the alleged incident but was actually in the building on 2 April 2025—the very day in question—honestly, you cant make it up, although seemingly Naveen can.
MILEN IVANOV
Milen Ivanov served as a deputy manager for Fuller’s and at the Barrowboy & Banker before leaving while I was away. Fuller’s allege they contacted Milen after his departure, claiming to have obtained a ‘witness statement’ from him. However, the only evidence Fuller’s T/A Griffin Catering Services Ltd produced to support their allegations was a cropped screenshot of a questionable WhatsApp message. This image lacks the full context: there is no visible name, phone number, or profile photo—elements that would be essential for verifying authenticity and which, according to ACAS rules, would render the evidence inadmissible in terms of reliable witness testimony.
The heavy cropping raises questions about what has been deliberately omitted—could it have revealed involvement from another party, such as Nishtha Dhillon? Furthermore, the so-called ‘witness statement’ not only lacks confirmation that it originates from Milen Ivanov but also directly contradicts Ahret Tunc’s testimony, once again exposing inconsistencies and falsehoods in Tunc’s account.
However, despite this being listed as evidence to support their allegations, it was conveniently missing from the bundle, as was the alleged CCTV footage. The absence of these crucial pieces raises significant questions about the integrity of the evidence presented. Without them, the claims lack the substantiation necessary to be considered reliable, undermining the overall strength of Fuller’s allegations.
Ben Bullman-Bell, General Manager for Fuller’s and thus a representative of the company, was assigned an investigation that clearly exceeded the remit appropriate for a pub manager. This matter should have been immediately referred to the police given the gravity of the allegations involved.
His handling of the case has demonstrated a notable inability to identify obvious inconsistencies and glaring flaws in the testimonies and evidence presented. While it is possible that Mr Bullman-Bell may have a disability affecting his capacity to assess such incidents, or alternatively may lack the necessary academic rigour, it is important to state that this observation is not intended as discourteous. The episode in question starkly illustrates that Mr Bullman-Bell either failed or declined to recognise critical errors that would have otherwise prevented him from making defamatory and discriminatory allegations against me, on behalf of Fuller’s as its representaive.
Ben Bullman-Bell’s investigation report will make you laugh, wince, cringe and grimace in equal measure thanks to its bizarre failings. Far from being the result of a nuanced, detailed analysis, the report is riddled with glaringly obvious errors so elementary that even a five-year-old would spot them instantly. Whether it’s contradictory statements, glaring factual inaccuracies, or a complete disregard for basic logic, the report reads less like a serious inquiry and more like a catalogue of amateur mistakes that somehow made it through without correction. It’s a bewildering spectacle of incompetence that simultaneously entertains and appals.
It is also noteworthy that Bullman-Bell’s investigation report is dated 2nd June, yet Irshad Mofeejubby disseminated the allegations against me to colleagues, naming Ahret Tunc as the accuser, and my employment was effectively set to be terminated in the days leading up to my alerting Fuller’s on 5th June 2025 (article 007B) that they were sharing defamatory information with others prior to advising me of their allegations and/or intentions. This sequence of events indicates that I became aware of the allegations, the identity of the accuser, and the likely outcome of the disciplinary process before I had received the official investigation report or the invitation to the disciplinary hearing, all arising from this defamatory and false report.
It is beyond bizarre that I had to send three separate emails to Fuller’s, the first merely to request a rescheduling of their disciplinary hearing, a clear indication of their deliberate attempt to frustrate the process by acting in an unfair and non-transparent manner (artilce 016).
The two other emails was me having to chase, or beg, for them to forward me evudence they claimed thet were intending to use against me, but had seemingly again, deliberatley refused to send in their bundle, leaving me with only the disciplinary invite devoid of any detail to substantiate all their claims.
Irshad Mofeejubby Whatsapp Group
Upon reviewing this material, I immediately identified multiple glaring flaws which exposed the investigation, headed by Ben Bullman, as lacking even the most basic level of competence. In an email sent at 10:12 am (article 017), I requested a copy of the team rota that had been posted in the WhatsApp group chat—access to which I was denied, an act constituting discrimination. Additionally, I asked for the CCTV footage they claimed to rely on, as ACAS guidelines clearly state that all evidence, including “documentary evidence such as CCTV,” must be shared ahead of any disciplinary hearing. This is essential to enable the accused—in this case, myself—to prepare a defence in a fair and transparent manner.
Having read the articles by Ahret Tunc, Kumara Greenidge-Reid, and Naveen Kumar, I then turned to an alleged statement from a former employee that Fuller's seemingly tracked down at his new job with a well known sandwich shop chain, indicating a clear intention behind this action. Curiously, this statement was omitted from both the initial bundle of evidence and the subsequent 'missing items' bundle that I had to actively pursue. Their repeated elusiveness in providing complete documentation raises questions about their transparency and motives in this matter. I then made a ‘third’ request by email (article 018) for a piece of evidence they claimed supported their allegations.
Over an hour later, Fuller’s Human Resources [People Team] finally responded (article 019), attaching the evidence they had repeatedly failed to provide. Upon review, it becomes clear why they were reluctant to share it. Although they included the requested rota, it was not the specific information I had asked for. I firmly believe that the aggressive tone exhibited by Andrew Chalwood, a low-ranking advisor within the People Team—whose attitude I and my advisers noted as markedly indifferent in numerous email exchanges—contributed to his careless handling of the matter. In his rush to send over the rotas, he simply downloaded the 'actual hours worked' for the entire team, inadvertently supplying data that was advantageous to my defence and damaging to their accusations against me.
They also re-scheduled their disciplinary hearing to Friday 13th June 2025, coinciding precisely with the day I advised them I was to receive legal advice regarding the allegations they had made. This timing directly impacted my ability to consult with my solicitor at the earliest possible opportunity, raising concerns that my attendance might prejudice my ongoing legal claim. The deliberate nature of this rescheduling strongly suggests an intention by Fuller’s to obstruct my access to timely legal counsel.
EVIDENCE
With regard to my request for the schedule of Ahret Tunc’s term of employment, it is important to highlight the glaring inconsistencies found in both Ahret Tunc’s statements as a representative of Fuller’s T/A Griffin Catering Services and those made by Ben Bullman, also representing Fuller’s. These inconsistencies raise significant concerns, particularly as Ben Bullman’s allegations appear to substantiate Ahret’s claims, thereby implicating themselves by effectively endorsing the same accusations.
I was expecting the mundane and basic rota, a simple Excel sheet scheduling team members' hours in advance (shown on the left). However, Fuller’s, no doubt flustered by my request, hastily sent me schedules of ‘actual hours worked,’ (shown on tthe right) showing the exact times colleagues clocked in and out at the start and end of their shifts. This was surprisingly valuable as it confirmed who was genuinely at work on specific dates and clarified which colleagues I had worked alongside. Yet, Fuller’s failed to redact any personal identifiable information, exposing sensitive data of employees I wasn’t even aware of, which I strongly suspect constitutes a breach of GDPR. The importance of these schedules will become clear as this timeline goes on.
The investigation officer representing Fuller’s, Ben Bullman-Bell, claims that the screenshot on the right constitutes a ‘Witness Statement’ from former employee Milan Ivanov.
However, the image appears to be a heavily cropped portion of a WhatsApp message, lacking essential identifying details such as a profile photo, name, or phone number. This raises immediate questions as to why Fuller’s would deliberately remove this information.
Furthermore, common sense alongside ACAS guidelines clearly indicate that such a screenshot cannot be considered a reliable witness statement.
Article 020
It lacks crucial elements including the identity of the witness, the date the statement was recorded, confirmation that it was obtained in a controlled and fair environment, and most importantly, it remains unsigned by the purported author. Given the deceit outlined in this incident surrounding witness testimony, this could have been one of the parties involved, or a third party from outside, who merely sent this message to another purporting to be Milen, hence why Fuller’s have removed the name, photo and /or phone number. However, I am reluctantly happy to accept it as Milen, given it highlights the flaws in Ahret’s own testimony that Fuller’s should have picked up, as it is glaringly obvious that Ahret Tunc once again, lied—more about that later.
In my third request for the missing alleged evidence, I specifically asked for a copy of the CCTV footage that was purported to support the allegations. Ahret Tunc claimed that Irshad Mofeejubby, the General Manager and a close friend who had brought Ahret over from his previous pub, stated, “you can see him saying it” – ‘it’ referring to the racial statements allegedly made by Ahret and Fuller’s representatives. Despite this, Fuller’s withheld the actual CCTV footage, providing only a single photograph (article 021) in response. It was only when my Subject Access Request was fulfilled—coincidentally, the day after they dismissed me—that I finally came into possession of the full CCTV footage.
It also has to be noted that someone has attempted to remove Kumara Greenidge-Reid from the centre of the footage. However, a screenshot from the redacted version of my Subject Access Request (SAR) clearly shows Greenidge-Reid in the frame, presenting a striking inconsistency. This deliberate alteration raises questions about the integrity and transparency of the footage’s handling, suggesting an effort to obscure Greenidge-Reid’s presence and potentially manipulate the context of the recording.
Article 021
All parties involved—Ahret Tunc, Kumara Greenidge-Reid, Naveen Kumar, Irshad Mofeejubby, Ben Bullman-Bell, Jim Hughes, and Carrie Joslin—are employees of Fuller’s trading as Griffin Catering Services Ltd., a subsidiary of the parent company Fuller Smith & Turner. Consequently, they are all representatives of the company responsible for making and upholding the allegations against me that were discrimatory and defamatory.
The company asserts that these allegations are based on the evidence they have gathered throughout their internal investigations, maintaining that their actions were conducted in accordance with company policies and procedures.
Having accepted their invite to attend a disciplinary hearing on Friday 13 June 2025, I promptly submitted a robust response that not only firmly rebutted their claims but also highlighted serious and glaring flaws in their alleged evidence. A key point of contention was the witness testimony from Naveen, who claimed to have heard, been present, and even repeated the allegations levelled at me. However, both timesheets and the shift allocation sheet from that day clearly show that Naveen was not at work, as it was his scheduled day off. This discrepancy unequivocally proves that Naveen’s statement—allegedly ‘corroborating’ Fuller’s allegations—was false. Furthermore, the evidence proves Naveen was deliberately coerced into making these unfounded and discrimatory accusations, calling into question the integrity of the entire disciplinary process and the integrity of Fuller’s T/A Griffin Catering Services Ltd.
The 41 page document I sent, highlited some of the ‘key’ flaws that should have seen the disciplinary brought to an immediate end.
AHRET TUNC
LIE 1 OF MANY…
Tunc’s complaint, article 10
Tunc’s initial complaint claimed that “Milen and Kumara were present and heard briefly what happened,” yet if Article 020 is indeed a witness statement from Milen Ivanov, his own words contradict Tunc’s testimony.
Milen states, “…Ahret reported to me,” clearly indicating he was not “present and heard” at the time of the alleged incident, contrary to Tunc’s testimony. Moreover, the CCTV screenshot article 021, and subsequent CCTV fooatge timestamped 16:29 of 2 April 2025, shows Milen was not at all “present” as Tunc claimed given Milen had already left the building as I clocked on at 15:57, further making it impossible for Tunc to have reported the alleged incident as Milen allegedly claims in this alleged witness statement (right).
Furthermore, it raises the question: why did Milen, as a deputy manager, fail to approach me to verify if there was any truth to Ahret’s allegations? It is equally concerning that Fuller’s have been unable to provide any documentation showing this matter was raised internally as a ‘concern’. This delay points to the likelihood that this story took 15 days to fabricate, as outlined in Tunc’s A.I. written complaint, modified/revised by Nishtha Dhillon of HR on 17 April 2025.
Article 020
Another glaring flaw in both their testimonies, is that Milen allegedly states in this dubious witness statement (abiove)
“Ahret reported to me and stated he had a conversation with a colleague named William. During this interaction, Ahret alleges that William made a racially discrimimatory comment, specifically telling him to “go back to his country”.
Again, if this alleged dubious statement is attributed to Milen Ivanov, his testimony diverges significantly from Tunc’s claims. Milen states that I and Ahret were engaged in a conversation, yet CCTV footage contradicts this, showing no such interaction,—myself seen moving briskly around the bar and Ahret leaning against the bar idle and not engaging with anyone, Ahret confirming this in his own witness testimony. It is evident that Tunc failed to provide clear instructions when asking Milen to fabricate a statement, leading Milen to presume the alleged statement(s) allegedly made by me would naturally arise from a conversation between two individuals, which the CCTV footage clearly disproves.
Article 021
Additionally, the phrasing used in this statement “Ahret alleges” is deliberately cautious, implying Milen was neither present nor a direct witness, contrary to Tunc’s initial complaint (article 010) where he claimed, “Milen and Kumara were present and heard briefly what happened”. This inconsistency highlights a fundamental credibility issue in Tunc’s version of events and/or his attempt to have Milen Ivanov make a witness statement to support false, discrimatory and defamatory allegations that constitute a hate crime under UK law.
What is more alarming is Fuller’s claim that they relied upon this witness statement, despite the glaringly obvious contradictions between the two ‘stories’. Such disregard for inconsistencies raises serious questions about the reliability of the evidence and the thoroughness of the investigation. Ignoring these discrepancies not only undermines the credibility of the witness but also casts doubt on the integrity of the entire allegations being levelled at me. It suggests a troubling willingness to prioritise convenience over truth, which lead to flawed conclusions that have had significant consequences.
Instances of Ahret Tunc’s lies in his testimony have been highlighted extensively on the podcast, illustrating a pattern of inconsistencies and deliberate falsehoods. However, detailing each instance here would be too lengthy, given the numerous contradictions and discrepancies uncovered over various episodes.
LIE 2 OF MANY…
Extract, article 011, tesimony of Ahret Tunc
Ahret Tunc’s racially charged agenda is laid bare through his baseless allegations, which have been unequivocally disproven by CCTV evidence. Despite the clear burden of proof resting on Tunc and his associates making the same allegations on behalf of Fullers, he persistently pushes a narrative steeped in falsehoods.
His above testimony to investigating officer Ben Bullman-Bell notably exaggerates the racism element in a desperate attempt to lend credibility to his claims. The bizarre assertion that “Absolutely, he only talks to Megan and someone else” further undermines his position. The vague reference to ‘someone else’ is a telling indicator of deceit, revealing Tunc’s inability to name another specific white or British/English colleague, while he readily identifies Megan—who, although presented as white with an English accent, has an unknown nationality to me. Such inconsistencies and fabrications highlight the fallacious nature of Tunc’s account.
Since my return in March 2025 until my last day in April 2025, I sought to review the schedules as my memory only distinctly recalled working with Megan around November 2024, a period when Ahret Tunc was not employed by the company. The time sheets provided by Fullers, which detailed actual hours worked including clock-in and clock-out times, indicated I worked with Megan on two occasions.
Initially, in my hurried response to Fullers I stated I had worked with Megan only once while Ahret was employed; this was submitted under time constraints without full verification. To clarify, I have worked with Megan twice, as highlighted below in red. The first occasion was on Thursday 13 March 2025 for a few hours, during which Ahret Tunc was absent for the entire day [Day Off]. The second was the following day, Friday 14 March 2025, when I clocked in at 14:59 for a 15:00 shift start, while Ahret clocked out at exactly 15:00; thus Ahret did not work alongside Megan or myself on either day.
How on earth can Ahret Tunc make such claims when responding to a question put to him that I was “racially motivated” to which colleagues I engaged with, when he has never worked with me and Megan, nor was he present in the building on the two occasions that Megan and I worked together?
The bigger question is why Ben Bullman-Bell did not pick up on this glaring inconsistency by merely reviewing the timesheets, which clearly demonstrate our schedules and highlited the glaring inconsitency in Ahret’s testimony. Furthermore, it is even more bewildering that Jim Hughes, during the disciplinary proceedings, ignored this crucial fact entirely, effectively allowing Ahret Tunc’s falsehoods to go unchallenged which exposed Ahret Tunc as a liar who had made discriminatory and racially motivated falsehoods.
LIE 3 OF MANY…
The time sheets also played another crucial role in exposing Ahret Tunc as a liar and making over dramatic claims to try and give credence to his flase claims against me around me with regard to my own race and national identity. Ahret in both his initial complaint and the minutes of his meeting with investigator Ben Bullman-Bell, Ahret made statements such as:
“William, makes me feel very uncomfortable. I don’t go to work when he is working and avoid him. When I have to work with him I make sure I am away from him.”
“I don’t eat fish so just asked for chips for food and he claims he wouldn’t be allowed to and claims he is being discriminated against.”
“He’s come in to work acting like nothings happened and acts like he owns the place. He has no respect for us and other people.”
“He makes me feel like I can’t go to the pub when I’m off and he is there and uncomfortable in work.”
“He was taking pictures of me through shift. When he comes in he only talks to the English team members. Always tries to catch us out or ignoring us. He is always on his phone at work while we are working away.”
“He barely speaks to me even when I introduced myself to him. Just dismissed me and walked off. Hasn’t ever apologised for it to me.”
“He chews gum in work, always has his phone out. We have a staff uniform guidelines and he doesn’t follow that he just wears what he wants and no one says anything.”
When reviewing these unfounded claims, one might mistakenly believe that Ahret Tunc and I worked closely together, sharing lengthy shifts five to six days a week. However, the time sheets clearly demonstrate that we only worked together on two occasions. The first on Friday 14 March 2025, our shifts overlapped by just two hours—Ahret began at 15:00 and I finished at 17:00. That day, the Barrowboy & Banker was exceptionally busy as it was the boozer for Millwall football fans due to a Millwall v Stoke City match, attracting an exceptionally large crowd. The atmosphere was hectic, with staff continuously attending customers, leaving no opportunity for interaction.
In fact, I did not speak to Ahret over the ‘two’ hours of that day, nor did any colleagues engage with me, as the till records will confirm we constantly served customers and were unable to take our legal break. The only interaction I recall was Ahret asking if there were any Guinness glasses left, to which I responded they were on the washroom trolley. The attempt to depict our relationship negatively, invoking my race and national identity in these baseless and discriminatory accusations, is not only bizarre but entirely contradicted by the documented facts (see timesheets below).
The second occasion in question occurred on 2 April 2025, when Ahret Tunc made his false allegations. On that day, Ahret was only on shift for three and a half hours, leaving at approximately 19:30. Notably, he even came over to say goodnight before helping himself to stock behind the bar and exiting. It is astonishing that investigator Ben Bullman-Bell refused to verify this information when I brought it to his attention. Similarly, Jim Hughes, chairing the disciplinary, ignored the matter during the disciplinary process, despite me highlighting it. It is beyond inconceivable that Ahret can make such extensive claims about my conduct when the evidence clearly shows we hardly worked together to justify such a smear.
NAVEEN KUMAR
Ahret Tunc told Fuller’s investigator, Ben Bullman-Bell to speak to Naveen Kumar and Ben Bullman-Bell did just that. In the “witness statement” Naveen Kumar gave, he stated the following:
As highlited above, Naveen states:
“…an issue with William where the pub was quiet and I heard him say “you people are lazy why don’t you go back to your country”.
According to Naveen Kumar, he was present on 2 April 2025 and, virtually verbatim, he repeats the exact same allegation Ahret Tunc and Kumara Greenidge-Reid claimed to have been said by me.
However, there is one massive problem for Naveen and Fuller’s T/A Griffin Catering Services Ltd, not only was Naveen not there at the time of the alleged incident (2 April 2025 at 16:29), but Naveen Kumar was not at work at Barrowboy & Banker, London Bridge, for the entire day. In short, it was his day off, as the time sheet clearly shows along with the daily shift allocation sheet from the day (article 001).
Investigator Ben Bullman-Bell, a general manager at Fuller’s then bizzarely asks Naveen:
“did you hear the “lazy” comment made”?
This may be an indication that Ben BUllman-Bell severely lacked a basic capacity to carry out such an investigation given Naveeen has already confirmed he did hear the “lazy” comment when he stated “…I heard him say “you people are lazy why don’t you go back to your country”.
But then, in a perfect example of how liars need to have an exceptional memory, Naveen contradicts himself when he says:
“I did not personally hear it but was on shift and saw the fall out from it”.
A video call between Ben Bullman-Bell and Naveen Kumar must have resembled a scene from Dumb & Dumber, given the contradictions surrounding Naveen’s statements. Naveen claimed to have heard and repeated an alleged statement almost verbatim, just as Ahret Tunc and Kumara Greenidge-Reid falsely claimed.
Yet, in the very next breath, Naveen denies having personally heard it. Adding to the confusion, Naveen asserts he was on shift and witnessed the fallout firsthand, but official time sheets and daily allocation records (article 001) plainly contradict this, confirming it was his day off and he wasn't in the pub at all. How Naveen could recount such detailed allegations without being present—let alone claim to be on duty while absent from the premises—is perplexing and raises serious doubts about the reliability of his account.
Naveen Kumar’s own testimony unequivocally demonstrates that he not only lied but was seemingly coerced, either by Ahret Tunc, Irshad Mofeejubby—whom Naveen himself admits is a relation—or by Fuller’s T/A Griffin Catering Services. Furthermore, Naveen has made discriminatory allegations against me, predicated on my race and national identity, both protected characteristics that legally constitute a hate crime under UK law. It is profoundly alarming that Naveen, who claims to work in the UK as a teacher, possesses the willingness to maliciously commit such an offence, undermining the integrity and values expected of an educator in this country.
Despite raising this ‘glaring’ contradiction in Naveens testimony as an alleged witness with Fuller, including Ben Bullman-Bell he stated in his investigation report:
The core issue for Ben Bullman-Bell lies in the failure of multiple team members, specifically Kumara Greenidge-Reid and Naveen Kumar, to provide any corroborating evidence. As noted, Naveen was not present during the alleged incident and was absent from the workplace for the entire day due to it being his day off, thereby exposing him as having unequivocally lied. With no corroborating evidence at all, alongside the clear CCTV footage demonstrating that no such statements were made by me, Ben Bullman-Bell has effectively implicated himself by perpetuating the same unfounded and discriminatory allegations. This occurs despite the complete lack of any substantive evidence to support his nor Ahret Tunc’s claims.
Ben Bullman-Bell must concede that he was not equipped to manage such a ’basic’ investigation when he failed to identify and/or accept when pointed out to him, fundamental contradictions, including bizarre testimony from an individual who was not even present yet claimed to have heard, then retract his claim and stated he didnt hear the alleged statement despite repeating the allegation—clearly having been coerced.
Failure for Ben Bullman-Bell to concede such, then it appears that Fuller’s explicitly instructed him to disregard any serious and significant concerns I raised and to uphold the allegations at any cost, even if I could present sound and verified evidence. This raises serious questions about the integrity and impartiality of the entire process and underscores Bullman-Bell's unsuitability to oversee such matters and the role Fuller’s played in making these allegations directly and/or throguh its representatives.
Fuller’s repeatedly denied my requests to reschedule their disciplinary hearing despite deliberately withholding their alleged evidence necessary for me to prepare adequately. I informed them of my intention to seek legal advice and subsequently had a meeting with a solicitor on Friday 13 June 2025. Fuller’s then rescheduled the hearing to that exact date, a clear attempt that succeeded to prevent me from obtaining legal counsel in time and further restricting my preparation period. Moreover, I had no substantial evidence to gather or present, as the alleged incident did not take place. I struggled to secure character references from colleagues; out of three requests, only two were obtained due to the tight timeframe.
However, what was abundantly clear was a series of significant procedural/evidential flaws that unequivocally demonstrated Fuller’s allegations to be false, defamatory, and discriminatory. Despite bearing the burden of proof, Fuller’s failed to substantiate any claims and, additionally, there is compelling evidence that they coerced alleged witnesses into making statements.
Lo and behold, my disciplinary hearing was cancelled, with Human Resources stating it would be rescheduled to allow time for a thorough review of the concerns I raised in my 41-page response. While some may view this as a reasonable and fair response, it is not, as it gave Fullers the opportunity to strategise how to navigate around the substantive issues I highlighted. They dismissively referred to my extensive document as an “evidence pack,” although it was not a presentation of ‘my evidence’—the incident in question did not occur, and therefore, I had no evidence to submit. Instead, the document meticulously exposed the glaring flaws in their own evidence, flaws that carry serious legal implications and demonstrate their unfair treatment. This delay was more likely a chance for them to pause, take note of these critical weaknesses, and hopefully understand that proceeding further would be tantamount to turkeys voting for Christmas.
I am confident that Fuller’s cancellation of their disciplinary hearing was simply an attempt to manoeuvre around the staggering flaws in the sloppy, defamatory, and discriminatory allegations levelled against me by them and their representatives. Retrospectively, it is clear that my assessment was correct.
Fuller’s representative, Jim Hughes, despite the glaring flaws evident in their alleged evidence, chose to proceed with the disciplinary hearing. In the face of weak and unsubstantiated allegations, Hughes was resolute in his commitment to having me removed from the company, seemingly due to my disability—HIV/AIDS—and the prejudice and fear this diagnosis evidently provoked. This decision was made notwithstanding the fact that I had engaged in a protected act by lodging a legal claim with the Employment Tribunal for HIV/AIDS discrimination in January 2025.
Furthermore, the discriminatory accusations levied by Fuller’s pubs and its representatives were clearly based on my race (white) and national identity (British/English), both of which are protected characteristics under UK law. The willingness to advance such baseless claims highlights a troubling pattern of discrimination and bias within the company's handling of the matter.
The hearing, scheduled to take place at Parcel Yard, Kings Cross, on 24 June 2025, was met with a formal invitation to which I responded by confirming my non-attendance. I refused to subject myself to such an undignified trial given the nature of the evidence presented, which I have previously highlighted. The purported evidence required no elaborate dissection or lengthy explanation, as its flaws were glaringly obvious. For instance, Naveen’s witness statement claims he was present and heard the alleged statement verbatim, yet timesheets clearly show that he was not at work on that day, it being his day off. This fundamental discrepancy as just one example of many, renders the case untenable and entirely lacking in credibility.
The matter was such that Fuller’s should have directed Ahret Tunc to the Police to ensure a thorough investigation, given that the allegation constitutes a ‘hate crime’ under UK law, rather than allowing it to be handled internally by ‘The Court of Fuller’s.’ Their decision to proceed in this manner effectively amounted to marking their own homework. It is my firm belief that Fuller’s were aware that reporting the alleged incident to the police would have exposed the falsehoods and inconsistencies I have highlighted, which would have unequivocally proven that I did not make the alleged statement. Moreover, it would have demonstrated that I was subjected to a hate crime, where Fuller’s and its representatives exploited my race and identity, an act which itself constitutes a hate crime.
I have reported this incident to the Metropolitan Police as a hate crime, fully confident that justice will be served appropriately. Additionally, I am exploring several legal avenues to bring this matter before the courts, ensuring that the unfair treatment and discrimination I have endured will be formally recognised. Through these measures, I am determined that it will eventually be established that I was subjected to an act constituting a hate crime, thereby upholding my right to fair and equal treatment under the law.
“I have also been advised my grievance should not be dealt with by the same person who has the potential to act with incredible bias having convened over this shambles of a disciplinary.
You are invited to make a decision in my absence which it seems will be to dismiss me on the grounds of having carried out a ‘protected act’ - in short a form of revenge. ”
Despite Fuller’s claim in their invitation that my disciplinary hearing was scheduled for 24 June 2025, four days prior I was informed prematurely that I had already been “fired” for “racism,” revealing that Fuller’s had made a predetermined decision regarding my disciplinary action before the hearing even took place on 24 June 2025.
The source of this information was a potential employer who, after initially praising my experience enthusiastically and fast-tracking an interview, abruptly cancelled it upon learning of the alleged misconduct stating after my querying his change in tone “Irshad told me he fired you for racism which is not what we want here!”.
This not only undermined the supposed fairness of Fuller’s disciplinainry process but also severely damaged my professional reputation without due process nor evidence to support Fuller’s defamatory and discrimatory claims.
Email I sent to Fuller’s on 20 June 2025
Fuller’s have stated that they neither provided any reference nor received any reference requests regarding me. This assertion, however, appears disingenuous, as it is difficult to accept that a competing pub company would have any insight into the serious allegations Fuller’s and its representatives levelled against me, particularly while the disciplinary proceedings were still in progress.
More notably, it seems implausible that a competitor would have knowledge of the disciplinary outcome when it withdrew my job interview on 20 June 2025 before the hearing had even taken place on 24th June 2025.
Furthermore, the claim that I ‘was’ dismissed for alleged “racism” by Fuller’s after the disciplinary hearing contradicts the timeline, indicating that Fuller’s, including Irshad Mofeejubby, were aware of and/or had reached a predetermined decision to dismiss me based on these allegations prior to the hearing. Even more concerning is that they apparently informed an unrelated third party of this decision before notifying me, suggesting a serious breach of procedure and fairness.
On 25 June 2025, Fuller’s representative, who was tasked with chairing the disciplinary process, delivered an outcome that left me and my advisers utterly speechless. Not only was the decision unfathomable in its conclusions, but the representative also advanced additional allegations on behalf of Fuller’s that were wholly unsupported by any evidence. These claims were defamatory in nature and demonstrated a disturbing racial bias, amounting to a hate crime under UK law. The severity and nature of these accusations have profound implications, calling into question the integrity and fairness of the entire disciplinary procedure.
Article
Additionally, I had already been informed of the outcome of Fuller’s decision to terminate my employment based on allegations of racism made by the hiring manager of one of their competitors, as Irshad Mofeejubby had shared this information four days prior to the disciplinary hearing in a defamatory and unathorised ‘reference’.
Fuller’s assertion that Irshad was unaware of the outcome is puzzling at best, suggesting that Irshad must possess some form of psychic ability or higher power to have predicted the result for such a claim to hold any credibility. This discrepancy calls into question the transparency and integrity of the entire disciplinary process.
The day after I was dismissed, my Subject Access Request for the CCTV footage I had repeatedly heard about—footage Fuller’s claimed would be used as evidence in my disciplinary hearing but appeared to be deliberately withheld—was finally sent to me. This act of withholding crucial evidence not only undermines the integrity of the entire disciplinary process but also raises serious concerns regarding the true motives behind Fuller’s actions. Such behaviour casts doubt on the fairness and transparency of the proceedings and suggests an intention to disadvantage me unjustly.
This was proven to be the case when I watched the CCTV footage. Despite being fully aware that I had not committed the acts alleged against me, the footage unequivocally demonstrated my innocence. Rather than supporting Fuller's and its representatives' claims, the CCTV exposed their dishonesty and revealed that they had fabricated the allegations. This evidence decisively invalidated their assertions and highlighted the true nature of their conduct.
Raising concern is Racism, apparently!
FULLER’S: Concerned? Then you’re the Racist!
When Irshad Mofeejubby joined Fuller’s as the new general manager of Barrowboy & Banker, concerns regarding the treatment of colleagues quickly surfaced. A pattern emerged where white, British, and homosexual or bisexual staff began voicing apprehensions about how they were being treated by him. Within weeks, around 22 colleagues had their hours significantly reduced, effectively pressuring them to seek employment elsewhere. Notably, as each colleague fitting this profile left, Irshad systematically replaced them with people of colour, many coming from his previous pub. These new employees referred to him using familial nicknames such as “dad,” “daddy,” and “father,” all, by their own admission openly declared they were heterosexual, which contributed to an increasingly un-inclusive working enviroment that Fuller, Smith & Turner claimed to promote.
Irshad’s remarks upon my first day at work were deeply troubling and unprofessional. He openly described Harriet, a young woman who resembled Taylor Swift’s double, in disparaging terms, stating she “dresses like a prostitute” and expressing a clear intent to have her removed, citing lateness as a flimsy excuse. In the same encounter, Irshad’s intrusive questioning about Aga, the Deputy Manager, and Matthew, the head chef, regarding their sexual orientation was not only inappropriate but made me feel uncomfortable and shocked.
His blunt admission of wanting to dismiss them both suggested a workplace culture tainted by prejudice. This atmosphere was compounded by my earlier report in February 2025, when Aloofmon Noushad (assistant manager) expressed hostility towards white colleagues under the pretext that they did not understand the significance of his name, while repeatedly using overtly racist language, including calling white staff “disgusting” and referring to hiring South Asians to exert control over them. These incidents collectively paint a disturbing picture of discrimination and bias within Fuller’s, raising serious concerns about workplace conduct and the treatment of all employees where no action was taken when I reported it.
Concerned about anti-Semitism? You’re the racist!
Yet Fuller’s sent me and two other white, gay colleagues their inclusion policies along with respect and harassment guidelines following malcious and false allegations of racism within the company. Despite these measures, two of us, including myself, were dismissed, while the third colleague resigned, under constructive dismissal after 15 years of loyal service. The situation highlights significant concerns about the effectiveness of the company’s policies in protecting employees and addressing discrimination fairly and there was a clear pattern of behavuour occuring to which I highligted.
Just as worrying was the rapid succession of posts on Irshad Mofeejubby’s Facebook page, which extended far beyond typical expressions of humanitarian beliefs, faith, religion, or political views. The tone and content of these posts disclosed a troubling pattern of behaviour that appeared to spill over into the workplace environment. Notably, 22 colleagues were either removed or pushed out from a single pub under Irshad’s management, revealing what seemed to be a deliberate attempt to replace White, British, and gay employees predominantly with those identified as “South Asian,” the majority of whom were Indian students on visas.
This pattern exposed an alarming discriminatory environment starkly at odds with Fuller’s claims about my own conduct. Fuller’s alleged that it was “forced” to claim I held “discriminatory views” against “South Asians” and “Muslims” but failed to provide any substantive evidence. This portrayal served only to paint me as Islamophobic and racist for merely expressing concern. Baroness Casey, in her report on grooming gangs, highlighted that white individuals feared raising concerns about paedophile rings involving South Asian men due to the risk of being labelled racist—precisely the situation I encountered here. Such an environment effectively silences legitimate concerns, allowing serious issues to remain unaddressed under the guise of protecting against discrimination.
Below are just a handful of Irshad’s Facebook posts, which appear to centre on themes of antisemitism and homophobia. These posts frequently employ imagery designed to humiliate jewish or homosexual individuals, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and perpetuating prejudice. Several of the posts have been flagged and labelled as ‘misinformation’ and deemed too sensitive for public display, reflecting the platform’s concerns over their potentially damaging content. Such material not only fosters division but also contributes to an environment of intolerance and hostility, which he seemingly brought into the workplace.
AHRET TUNC
From many of his Facebook accounts, the most troubling content was a post made when he was around 10 years old in 2015 that referenced terrorists, killing, bombing, and rape. It raises the serious question: what 10-year-old would understand such themes, let alone post an image depicting them?
Meanwhile, Ahret, or whoever authored his compliant, has portrayed himself as an angelic victim affected by words, yet in February 2025, he left a Google review for the horror film Heart Eyes. Although the review might appear mundane, aside from its aggressive and colourful language typical of a critical film appraisal, the underlying emphasis on ‘teamwork’ and individuals liking each other is particularly revealing.
In his own testimony, Ahret stated how language in his view had consequences “That kind of language dosen’t just hurt in the moment; it lingers” [Complaint 17 April 2025]. And he went on to state “It should be a family at work and we respect eachother in what we do and say” [Ahret Testimony 29 April 2025] - yet such a simple google review tells a very diferent story and highlughts a glaring contradiction on Ahret Tunc’s view on the use of language.
Having witnessed Ahret’s inability to communicate or engage effectively with colleagues, even in a brief encounter, (and even shown in the CCTV footage below) and having been subjected to his malicious and false allegations—which the UK law classifies as a racist hate crime—I am convinced this is a deeply troubled individual. My attempts to share these concerns with Fuller’s only resulted in them labelling me a ‘racist.’ More importantly, I worry for customers who may come into contact with this person, given the clear evidence of his disturbing behaviour.
WITNESS TESTIMONY FULLER’S DELIBERATELY WITHELD!
DENIS - The ‘only’ real witness
Fuller’s and its representatives stated they relied upon the witness testimony of Kumara Greenidge Reid and Naveen Kumar. However, as I have exposed, and repeatedly informed Fuller’s during both the investigation and disciplinary stages, Naveen was not a credible witness. Despite his claim that “I heard him say [Alleged quote],” the timesheets clearly showed it was his day off. By revealing this glaring inconsistency, it became apparent that Naveen had been coerced into fabricating his testimony, either by Fuller’s or its representatives.
This coercion was not an isolated incident; Naveen also pressured colleague Priyanka to make false allegations against an assistant manager with 14 years’ service, aiming to bolster Naveen’s claims against the same manager. It was Priyanka who infomred me and other colleagues that Naveen had “forced” her to make the false allegations.
It was therefore credible that Kumara Greenidge Reid had lied or was easily coerced into lying, given that colleagues had previously raised concerns regarding her racist actions and behaviours towards white colleagues—a matter I had also brought to Fuller's attention well before these allegations arose, yet no interest in my safety nor that of white colleagues was expressed by Fuller’s. Although Fuller's withheld the CCTV footage from me, which they claimed they relied upon to support their allegations, the footage itself ultimately disproved Kumara and Ahret’s allegations, as it did not corroborate their version of events.
DENIS
As the CCTV still image above shows, at the very moment Ahret claims the alleged statement (now proven to be a lie) was made, there is one witness standing just one metre away from Ahret Tunc. This individual is looking at both Ahret and me, and is not a British national. Given this, he would have taken issue with the statement that Ahret and Kumara alleged I made: ‘you people are lazy, you should go back to your country’.
I asked Fuller’s and its representatives where his testimony was, as he was the sole witness actually present at the scene, unlike Naveen who was on his day off and therefore not in the pub the entire day, and Kumara was positioned four metres behind me at the other end of the bar in a very noisy pub.
I have now learnt that Denis did take part in the investigation with Ben Bullman-Bell and Denis was informed of the allegations against me. Given that he was present, did he hear anything relevant? Denis informed Fuller’s and its representative that he did not hear any such statement from me. This is why Fuller’s did not include any statement or meeting notes from Denis in its evidence bundle, as it did not fit their narrative in the false allegations they were making.
Yet they sent me the witness testimony of Naveen Kumar, which Fuller’s claimed supported their allegations against me, yet timesheets proved Naveen was neither present at the time of the alleged incident nor in the building at all that day, as it was his day off. How can Fuller’s deny that they acted in a deliberately unfair manner and are complicit in these now proven defamatory and discriminatory acts that constitute a hate crime under UK law?
I made a Subject Access Request to be in receipt of the meeting notes/statement of Denis given Fuller’s were refusing to forward it to me.
I submitted an appeal due to serious procedural flaws in their disciplinary process, notably the delay and subsequent withholding of the alleged CCTV footage that they claimed supported their vulgar allegations against me. Additionally, they relied on evidence that was highlighted as flawed and riddled with contradictions, clearly demonstrating that the accuser(s) had been dishonest throughout.
Furthermore, I was able to expose that the outcome appeared to have been predetermined, as Irshad Mofeejubby had provided an unauthorised and defamatory reference to my potential employer, wrongly asserting that I had been dismissed for racism, four days before the disciplinary eharing even took place. I highlighted that Fuller’s had also withheld the testimony of the sole witness present, Denis, who attested that no such statement was made, and supported by CCTV footage (received after my dismissal) showing him looking directly at Ahret and me, approximately one metre away, at the time of the alleged incident.
Having received the CCTV footage that Fuller’s were withholding, through my Subject Access Request—which was fulfilled coincidentally the day after my dismissal—I was able to compile a presentation that unequivocally proved the allegations against me were false. This evidence demonstrated my innocence beyond doubt and revealed that I had been subjected to a hate crime, with the false accusations motivated solely by my white race, British nationality, and my HIV-positive status. The footage highlighted the unjust discrimination I faced and exposed the malicious intent behind the allegations made against me.
PHOTO ALLEGATIONS
Fuller’s and its representatives claimed I was taking photographs at work; however, despite their assertions, they failed to produce a single image or any CCTV footage to substantiate this allegation. This inability to provide evidence is due to the simple fact that I never took any photographs around the workplace. When I informed Human Resources that I was ‘collecting evidence’ concerning colleagues wearing ‘low cut tops and crop tops,’ this statement was accurate, as these images were sourced solely from their own social media accounts.
The purpose of gathering this evidence was crucial in supporting my claim of discrimination linked to an alleged uniform policy, which I contend was implemented in a way that discriminated against me on the grounds of my HIV/AIDS-related disability. Meanwhile, as Fuller’s obstructed my return to work, colleagues were openly seen on social media disregarding this supposed ‘new uniform policy,’ with no enforcement from the company. This contradiction highlights to any judge that the company’s actions and selective enforcement of the policy amount to unlawful discrimination against me.
The snippet of screenshots below, submitted in the appeal clearly demonstrates that my words were taken out of context. The screenshots provided were captured directly from my desktop, bearing timestamps that accurately reflect the dates prior to their allegations. This chronological evidence confirms that the statements attributed to me were made before any claimed incidents, thereby disproving their assertions and reinforcing the validity of my position.
As a British citizen, I am entitled to freedom of speech under the Human Rights Act, Article 10, which grants me the right to share and impart information as well as express my opinions and beliefs. In this instance, I have shared my own experience, motivated by my HIV/AIDS status—a subject on which I have long held a platform and about which I have authored a book addressing workplace HIV discrimination. Fully aware of the implications of defamation, I am confident that I have neither made unfounded statements nor expressed concerns I cannot substantiate.
Furthermore, it would be hypocritical to highlight, through my podcast AIDS: The Lost Voices, the discrimination faced by others living with HIV/AIDS over the years and decades, yet remain silent about my own experiences. To do so would ignore the ongoing reality in 2025 that people living with HIV continue to suffer appalling discrimination.
As this matter does not form part of my employment tribunal (the judge requested its inclusion in April 2026), nor is there currently a live police investigation, I am not prejudicing any proceedings. Furthermore, I do not require a court or any authority to determine the truth of what I experienced. In this instance, Fuller’s own evidence unequivocally substantiates what I endured while simultaneously disproving the allegations they have made and disseminated publicly through a defamatory workplace reference.
It is difficult to understand why companies feel the need to incur legal costs sending threatening and intimidating solicitor’s letters if such behaviours were not undertaken in the first place, particularly when I afforded Fuller's three separate opportunities to address the falsehoods I have highlighted in their claims and those of their representatives during the investigation, disciplinary, and appeal stages.
In calling out this behaviour, I will not be silenced, particularly given the current climate where issues of discrimination and prejudice are under intense scrutiny. There is significant public interest and concern that a member of the public could face equivalent treatment purely on the basis of being white and British. It is imperative that such concerns are acknowledged and addressed openly to promote fairness and safeguard the rights of all individuals, regardless of their background. Silence in the face of these issues only serves to perpetuate division and stigma, undermining social cohesion and mutual respect.
Being labelled as racist, Islamophobic, and a sexual predator or pervert under allegations of sexual harassment is an incredibly serious matter that warrants a robust defence. I have every right to protect myself, my professional reputation, and my public image. These accusations have been proven to be part of a poorly executed campaign designed to discredit me, and I have demonstrated their inaccuracy and malicious intent. I require no judge or court to assert my right to defend myself and to clarify the truth.
Living with HIV, having suffered a heart attack and as a direct result of this toxic work enviroment, two transient ischemic attacks, has been an arduous journey marked by both physical and emotional challenges. The weight of these experiences, compounded by allegations that deeply affected my wellbeing, led me to a point where I attempted to end my own life. Despite this, I remain steadfast in the belief that sharing my story is essential—not only to ensure my voice is heard but also to offer insight and hope to others facing similar allegations and/or discrimination. In doing so, I hope that my experience serves as a testament to resilience, and that it is preserved in the event of my untimely passing.
As soon as the allegations were made, I advised that the matter be immediately referred to the police; however, this was rejected by Fuller’s. Despite their refusal, I proceeded to report the incident to the Metropolitan Police as a hate crime. I am currently awaiting the commencement of their investigation.
