Could you please turn to page 25 internally and paragraph 118, please. The Tribunal says this:
"We have given some examples of exchanges amongst the senior management team. The impression given to us from reading the documentation and considering the evidence as a whole was that the senior management team were going through a cynical process of giving an appearance of fairness towards him [you]. By giving him a first warning, a final warning and then dismissal, they hoped to avoid a successful unfair dismissal claim. Pursuing a twin approach of both taking disciplinary action and discussing a settlement that would lead to a possible compromise agreement would also be a way of being able to settle a possible claim at a modest level."
Now I'm going to turn to paragraphs 129 and 130. I don't have very much to go, I promise.
On 18 July 2006, the claimant sent an email to Mr Kuttner and Mr Dunn. This is where they essentially accept that you had been taken ill and that they knew from that date that you were ill and that the advice had been to refrain from work for three weeks and had been placed on medication. Paragraph 130:
"Mr Wallis reported to Mr Coulson. Mr Coulson's response is instructive. He stated by email to Mr Wallis, dated 19 July 2006:
"'Want him out as quickly and as cheaply as possible.'.
"We find that Mr Coulson's desire to get rid of the claimant as quickly and cheaply as possible was his desire not only on 19 July 2006 but as early as August 2005."
I could read a lot more, but I'm trying to focus on the paragraphs that are illustrative. They agree with everything you say about the period when you were ill. That can be read in detail. At paragraph 189 onwards -- so that's over on page 38 -- they give their overall view of the evidence of the witnesses.
"We have considered our overall view of the evidence of the witnesses, having taken into account all the evidence provided to us, including documentary evidence. We have given some examples above of the ways in which we were not impressed with the evidence of witnesses of respondent. These are examples only, and there were many other occasions when we felt that witnesses of the respondent were giving evidence that was evasive or unsatisfactory in other respects. We were, overall, far more impressed with the evidence of the claimant and his witnesses. Even although the claimant remains, we understand, unwell, his evidence appeared far more straightforward and plausible than that of the respondent's witnesses."
Then at 190, I don't need to read it out, but they again refer to the respondent's longstanding desire to remove you and they find that they were not persuaded that capability was the reason or principal reason for your dismissal. You see that?