Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Can you ask your GP to get a second opinion on the NHS?  (I ought to know because I'm a retired NHS manager, but worked in mental health where x-rays didn't really feature very much(!).)   Your GP may be reluctant for various reasons but you've got nothing to lose by asking.  Might be difficult if there's only one consultant in that specialty locally.   If that is a non-starter, you could ask your GP for a private referral if any of the relevant specialists run private clinics.  Your son'll get seen quicker and an initial private consultation shouldn't cost more than about a couple of hundred quid.  Then take it from there.   (Emphasise to your GP what your real concerns are and why you have them - even if it's just "I looked it up on the internet and it looks like this which can lead to serious complications.  What do you think?  I'm really worried...")   EDIT:  Just looked on my local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group website and searched for "second opinion" but nothing comes up...  I thought you were entitled to one - you'll have to ask your GP.  Or look on your own CCG site.  Oh - despite being a NHS manager I have paid to see a consultant privately.  £150 well spent - if you can afford it... which I appreciate not everyone can.
    • dont think they are even allowed to offer settlement by instalments, they are not creditors.   read the letter carefully and understand what it doesn't actually say....like the word WILL anywhere.   they,  a DCA, can't recommend anything and their client most certainly wouldn't have disclosed anything to a powerless DCA about what their solicitors might or might not have said to them. and ofcourse a solicitor is in no position whatsoever to suggest to their client they get back to the DCA and tell the DCA to tell you their client will accept instalments!   the letter is a load of ole BS that is concocted by the dca without any input or knowledge of their client nor their clients solicitor...   dx      
    • The paediatric orthopaedic consultant at the fracture clinic told us today that he believes it is just a sprain behind the knee. I'm concerned my GP will say something along the lines of, 'you have seen a consultant, he says it will heal in 2 to 3 weeks, you don't know more than him!', or something like that. It's just that I believe I can clearly see a fracture. And as there was no fall or hard knock, only a very tightly streched knee bending at an angle behind, with a load. I figured that the temdon must have pulled some bone up. And thats the injury I found online. I totally take on board what you are saying. You are correct. I guess I'll see what my GP says tomorrow, hopefully she allows me to email the images, if she doesent have access to them already. Thanks again
    • With the global market for recycled cardboard worth billions of dollars, it is attracting criminals. View the full article
    • UK house prices are predicted to fall but a report spells out why property may remain out of reach. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3568 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Sorry for this being long but it needs to back a few years to get right response for my dad.

He retired from his job at the age of 60, about 7 years ago. However, being at home all day did not sit well with him. He also was in need of an extra income and decided to do part time work in a large supermarket working 21 hrs a week.

He was happy working there for a year, he then ask his employer for a shifts time change to eliminate on late night. This was refused and a manager told him that he should go and work somewhere else if he could not do the shifts. He put in a grievance and after that process the supermarket reluctantly agreed to the shift time change this was months after he requested first it.

 

About 3 years ago my dad had an accident outside work and sent his employer a medical certificate for his absences from work, the firm said that they did not received any medical certificate. My dad sent them a copy of it by recorded delivery the next day. His employer kept ringing him at home and asking him to return to work. As my dad was attending the hospital and was on crutches he told the employer he was not fit to go back to work. He was then referred to the company’s OHA and my dad was advised by him that when he retunes to work he should be able to sit and stand and walk as and when necessary for his rehabilitation.

 

My dad returned to work still using crutches. However, the managers expected him to carry out his duties as before his accident. He could not use his crutches and he had to stand longs hours and not allowed to sit when he needed it.

 

Unfortunately my dad tripped and fell on a box that was left on the floor and was in excruciating pain. A colleague helped him up another floor and applied first aid. He was then told to go home and the first aider got his crutches from the staff room for him to get out of the store and go home by public transport as he had no money on him at the time for a taxi The company would not even get a taxi for him to get home safely. His injury was bad and he was off work for 4 months.

 

When my dad well enough he put in a grievance about his treatment when he returned to work after his accident. After the grievance hearing my dad did not agree with their findings therefore he put in appeal and again their findings did not reflect what my dad said or events that took place. Also their appeal finding said that my dad was off work on unpaid leave for 2 months which was not correct as my dad was sending medical certificates to the company and was under the hospital he also kept copies of all the certificates that was sent to his company.

The only admission that was correct in the grievance and appeal findings was that they did not deal with my dad’s retune to work they should have done. My dad felt that he was coming up against a brick wall and left it.

 

In addition the company stopped paying his SSP after the accident at work. The company would not tell him why they stopped his SSP payments stop, despite writing and phoning for an explanation, no payslips was sent to my dad. He only found this out after the grievance hearing why they stopped his SSP, which turned out that they have overpaid him too much company pay and they were clawing it back from his SSP.

 

He went back to work and as it was stressful time for him therefore he asked for his hours to be reduced to 16 a week this was not minor adjustment. He ask for this as the company would not comply with their own OHA recommendation. Before this was agreed he was referred back to the company’s OHA. Again the OHA report said that minor adjustment should be make for my dad’s underlying medical condition.

 

My dad carried on working as best as he could with no minor adjustments as recommended by the OHA, which exacerbated his condition.

About 6 month ago my dad joints got very bad and he went see his GP and he was given a fit for work certificate stating that my day may be able to go back after one week if minor adjustments were made for him or for him to see their OHA. Dad decided to go back after the one week was up and his employer totally ignored GP recommendation.

 

Unfortunately my dad’s health suffered and he got an infection, which meant that he was off ill for 2 more weeks also during that 2 weeks my dad’s younger brother died suddenly, which knocked him for six. His GP put my dad on medication and gave him a certificate for work stating that he will be on reduced hrs back to work for 3 months and also minor adjustments should be made for him. The company would not pay him sick pay so his salary was short again. His company again ignored the GP recommendations. Instead they wanted to do a capabilities test on him. When they told my dad this he sent them a long letter to them pointing out that no minor adjustment has been made for him as well as other issues he had to contend with at work.

 

On receipt of that letter the manger arranged a meeting regarding his attendance at work and considering that my dad has a disability they combined all his sickness absenteeism together to discuss this in the meeting. Also, at that meeting the manager said that they would do minor adjustment but not as recommended by my dad’s GP, but they would do some minor changes. The manager that called the meeting said that my dad should arrange for Access to Work to make an assessment for him at work.

However, when my dad was back working the next day, not one thing changed, despite them agreeing at the meeting the previous day that some minor adjustments would be made for him.

 

My dad arranged for the access to work assessment to be done and their report said that my dad was not supplied with the correct equipment to carry out his duties and made minor recommendations for equipment this was not expensive recommendation for such a large company to comply with.

 

After the report was sent to his employer nothing changed and in desperation my dad requested for unpaid leave for six months that was available for all in the staff handbook. My dad felt that this was the only option for him to take apart from leaving the company. This would give him time to get him back in good health again. When he requested this leave in writing the manager told that they would let him know about authorising this leave in due course. In the meantime my dad was transferred to another floor of the store and was not giving any training and no minor adjustments as recommended by GP, OHA and AtW assessor. After working on the floor for a couple of weeks he was sent to work on another area and again no training.

 

A customer call to collect a package and a colleague to him where to go and get as it was situation in the back of the store. When my dad reached up to take the box down from shelving above his head and a panel came down onto him landing on his injury which left him in excruciating pain. He reported the accident to first aider and all the details were taken but my dad is not sure if it was reported to H&S

 

The next day accident my dad got a phone call at home from a manager from his work place advising him that his long term leave unpaid had been granted also giving him a date for when the leave was to start from.

 

My dad is under the hospital again for his injury and does not know what to do now due to the further accident at work and whether he should sue his firm for their negligence. I would like to be able to advise him but not sure what he should do either as he want to keep working when he is fit again. :???:

Edited by bonnygirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to the forum.

 

This is a bit of a bugbear for me and you're perfectly at liberty to take no notice of me. But I think you would be likely to get more help or comments if you could spread out your post a bit and put in some paragraphs. Some people [like myself] find script with white areas in it easier to read than a long page of type.

 

HB

Edited by honeybee13
Typo.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me a bit confused but ill give it a a go

 

when a work place accident has occured, it needs to be put on the ERICA system and if its deemed serious, it will be made a RIDDOR INCIDENT

 

THIS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT AND FOR EACH WORK RELATED ACCIDENT, YOU NEED TO REQUEST A COPY OF THE ERICA REPORTS.

 

by rights, you need to sit down with the manager and fill it out together. in reality though, seldom does an erica report gets filled out.

 

on each occasion when you return to work a BACK TO WORK INTERVIEW needs to be compleated for which you and the manager sign the recomendation.

 

this is also known as a RISK ASSESMANT.

 

COMMENT WORKING ON CRUTCHES AND STILL EXPECTED TO DO NORMAL DUTIES IS BEYOND ME

 

ON RETURN TO WORK WITH CRUTCHES, HE SHOULD HAVE HAD A RISK ASSESMANT AND PUT ON LIGHT DUTIES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
me a bit confused but ill give it a a go

 

when a work place accident has occured, it needs to be put on the ERICA system and if its deemed serious, it will be made a RIDDOR INCIDENT

 

THIS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT AND FOR EACH WORK RELATED ACCIDENT, YOU NEED TO REQUEST A COPY OF THE ERICA REPORTS.

 

My Dad asked for a copy of it but and told that it was not necessary for him

to have it

by rights, you need to sit down with the manager and fill it out together. in reality though, seldom does an erica report gets filled out.

 

The company seems to have its own rules regarding H&S and no one can question it.

 

on each occasion when you return to work a BACK TO WORK INTERVIEW needs to be compleated for which you and the manager sign the recomendation.

 

this is also known as a RISK ASSESMANT.

As far as I know the RTW are done very quickly and the employee is asked why off work and what medication that they were put by GP. The employee is then told go back to work and stay there.

 

COMMENT WORKING ON CRUTCHES AND STILL EXPECTED TO DO NORMAL DUTIES IS BEYOND ME

 

My dad went back to work athough he was not well enough to go back there, but after speaking with the company OHA and was told that he would be able to sit as when necssary, he was also told this before he also told this by a member of the admin HR before returning to work. However, this did not happen when he returned to work. The manager would not let him sit down and he was not allowed to use crutches in his work area. The really expected him to keep working like he did before the accident.

ON RETURN TO WORK WITH CRUTCHES, HE SHOULD HAVE HAD A RISK ASSESMANT AND PUT ON LIGHT DUTIES

 

The manager obviously had not training about working with staff with a disability and could not care less about any injury. They wanted him to leave his job but my dad would not leave and fought his corner. The managers did not like this as they are bullies or perhaps ignored of any any rules or regulations regarding disability.

 

I should say that after my dad put in the grivances about the way he was being treated at work after injury some of mangers left and other were moved to another stores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may i ask the name of the company

 

have you had a full and final response to the grievance proceedure

 

at the end of the day your employer has a strict duty of care and the ssp should be reinstated with the employer taking the cost

 

by the way

 

i am a health and saftey officer and qualified in employment law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me somoen if I am wrong - but I thought that people who are over the statutory retirement age are not entotled to SSP? Because they claim a pension, even if working as well?

 

As for the rest - sorry but legal advice would be necessary, not least because in addition to establishing possible liability in terms of the accident, there are additional issues around "age related disability" - what might be a reasonable adjustments for a 35 year old and for a 67 year old are different (and no, that is not age discrimination, it is facing facts!). That does not mean that there is less of a duty of care on an employer, but it does mean that what that may mean is open different interpretations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point

 

he would now be 67

 

i should learn tto read THREADS and digest more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me somoen if I am wrong - but I thought that people who are over the statutory retirement age are not entotled to SSP? Because they claim a pension, even if working as well?

 

My dad does not pay NI as with other pensioners in the UK but his employer does therefore entitle to SSP. See quotes from HMRC website. Not allowed to post links on here,

 

"Position from 1 October 2006

In accordance with an EU directive, all age restrictions have been removed. Employees who are under 16 years of age and over 65 years when they go sick are entitled to SSP if they satisfy all the conditions for payment.

 

Anyone who was excluded from SSP for no other reason than their age before 1 October 2006 and who was still unfit for work due to incapacity on 1 October 2006 has a fresh PIW starting on 1 October 2006 which does not link to the pre-October 2006 PIW.”

 

As for the rest - sorry but legal advice would be necessary, not least because in addition to establishing possible liability in terms of the accident, there are additional issues around "age related disability" - what might be a reasonable adjustments for a 35 year old and for a 67 year old are different (and no, that is not age discrimination, it is facing facts!). That does not mean that there is less of a duty of care on an employer, but it does mean that what that may mean is open different interpretations.

 

My dad was very active and physically fit before he started back to work with this company. He was in his 60's then and I understand nowadays 60’s is the new 40’s. He was then very fit this was until he unfortunately he had the accident outside work and his employer kept phoning him at home and telling him to get back to work. That was when his problems began due to no minor adjustments being made for him. It was also divesting for him when he had the accident at work after he went back there and he only did so on the basis that the company OHA and a manager in admin hr confirmed that minor adjustment would be made for him, which did not materialised when he returned there. This accident was very bad for my dad as he was off work for another 4 months.

 

My dad put in a grievance and the only thing that was correct in the company findings and the also from the appeal findings reports was that after my dad accident and he returend to work they failed to help him (which caused him ot have a furtehr accidet at work ) After making that admission that they failed to help after he returned to work they still did not make minor adjustments for him.

 

The above happened over 3 years ago and although the company has never had any problems making minor adjustments for pregnant colleagues, but would do the same for my dad. BTW the company employs a lot of older workers until there into their 70’s.

 

What happened recently was again due to the employer making things very difficult for my dad. The recent accident that my dad had could have happened to any member of staff as it was due to equipment not been fasten down properly and it happened to be my that was the person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sods Law.:-x

Edited by bonnygirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am worried over this companies ccomplete lack of health and safety policy

 

please pm me if needed the name of this company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to be corrected on the SSP - I don't use these sorts of regulations very often at all. But I still stand by the fact that you need legal advice. 60 may well be the new 40 - it isn't all that long ago that people were dead in their 40's! The fact is that the way the law operates in practice, there is a general recognition that people's bodies are suffering wear and tear when they are nearly 70 years old that would be very uncommon in a 30 year old. And whilst, as I said, that in no way removes a duty of care, it does reinterpret what that means in practice. Relaistically, very few people could fight a case of disability discrimination or personal injury without a lawyer anyway, so it isn't as though you are really having to do something that others wouldn't due to your dad's age. This situation needs to be assessed by someone who can talk to your dad, read correspondence and policies, and get to know all the ins and outs. With the best will in the world we can't do that in any complex situation, and this one is complex.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again. It's not a problem to post links from the directgov or DWP websites because they're not commercial, could you do that please? Along with SarEl, I'm confused about SSP, but I could be wrong.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good point

 

he would now be 67

 

i should learn tto read THREADS and digest more

 

Me and you both mate - although in mitigation it is a bit of a hard post to read with few breaks in it!

 

I have just noticed that the explanation for the refusal to pay sick pay is in the thread - he has run out of company pay and the SSP (which is time limited anyway) was clawed back because company sick pay was overpaid - which is permissible in law. I only noticed this tucked in there because I suddenly though about how much sick leave he had had and maybe SSP ran out!

 

So we both ended up on a wild goose chase! The issue of SSP is a red herring. Sorry to mix my metaphors!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened recently was again due to the employer making things very difficult for my dad. The recent accident that my dad had could have happened to any member of staff as it was due to equipment not been fasten down properly and it happened to be my that was the person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sods Law.:-x

 

 

When was the recent accident please?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will post the link from the tax office and hopefully it will be allowed. My dad was off 3 months due to the first accident he had and was paid company sick pay.

 

When he went back to work and this was after being advised by the company OHA that minor adjustments would be made for him and also the manager of admin in hr told him this as well. My dad is not a person that like being at home all day long he told his firm he would go back and see how he got on as he could not manage without crutches. As mentioned no minor adjustments were made for him when he returned to work. When he had the accident at work I am not sure if he initially got paid company pay first or if it was SSP (will have to check his payslips) but all of a sudden his pay stopped. He asked the company why but the refused to tell him or let him have payslip relating to that time.

 

SSP is payable for 6 months, he was off work initially for 3 months with company pay and then off 4 months after he had the accident at work and no pay for that time as he found out much later that his company was clawing back the over payment of company pay to him.

My dad realises that if he was over paid then this would have to be paid back but it would not have cost the company thing to have told him that was the reason it was stopped. Instead of him phoning up every day and writing to the for an explanation.

Next week I will go through all the correspondence with my dad and put it in order and seek legal advice as suggested. Thanks for advice regarding this.

When I tried to post the tax link this is what came up

 

The following errors occurred with your submission

 

 

  1. To be able to post links or images your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 3 posts.
     
    Please remove links from your message, then you will be able to submit your post.

 

Anyone can access the tax website by googling SSP for employees over 65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonnygirl

 

I am going to apologise up front if this is wrong, but it has just been brought to my attention that your posts bear a striking similarity to a troll we have had hanging around recently (not just here but also elsewhere). Unfortunately, as I am sure that you are aware, there are people around who seem to get kick out out of wasting people's time on these sorts of forums, and I would hate to believe that you are one of them.

 

Quite apart from the site team who spend a lot of time helping people here, there is me ( a barrister, not that it matters, but I cost a lot in my day job) , law students, trades unionists, people who have been ther and done that, and some people who may not always know a lot but just care. So you can see that there are a lot of people giving their time for free and very generously, because they believe in what they are doing.

 

And I and other poeple have, and will continue no doubt, to offer whatever help we can to anyone who needs it. And we do it because it matters. But occasionally it is abused, and that is a risk we take.

 

There are - it has been pointed out to me - and I have checked and I agree - a great deal of similarities, between the situation you have described about your dad, and a recent poster called Allwood on this site, and Piegi on MSE. Similarities not just about the situation, but about the language and terms used.

 

I hope this is very much off the mark, because it would be most disappointing if someone was trying to exploit the goodwill of people here again. I would certainly stand by my advice no matter what was the truth of it. So nothing is lost here. If this is a genuine post I sincerely wish you well no matter what happens, but if this is Allwood again under a different user id - with the best will in th world, please stop wasting the time of good people


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seriously cannot expect me to dignify your insulting post with answer. You question whether I am a troll and then go on to say that it has been pointed out to you that my post has similarities to other posts on this site and other sites as well. What name do you have for posters spending time trolling sites looking for posts with the same similarities???

I would have mush preferred if you did not answer my post because I saw how condescending you were towards another poster earlier on hear. The poster also said that he/she was unwell but that did stop your wrath on him/her.

 

I was under the impression that this site was OK for people to asked questions about employemnt but obviously I was wrong so this will be my last post on this site.

Now go to hell…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seriously cannot expect me to dignify your insulting post with answer. You question whether I am a troll and then go on to say that it has been pointed out to you that my post has similarities to other posts on this site and other sites as well. What name do you have for posters spending time trolling sites looking for posts with the same similarities???

I would have mush preferred if you did not answer my post because I saw how condescending you were towards another poster earlier on hear. The poster also said that he/she was unwell but that did stop your wrath on him/her.

 

I was under the impression that this site was OK for people to asked questions about employemnt but obviously I was wrong so this will be my last post on this site.

Now go to hell…..

 

I don't think it at all unreasonable or insulting to very politely ask whether posters are connected to other posters, nor to point out that people here spend a great deal of time helping others and unfortunately this is sometimes abused. But strangely, the poster to which you bear similarities had exactly the same reaction as you when it was pointed out that their posts bore a similarity to other posts under another name - but with certain features changed in the story. I don't see how it is illegitimate to ask whether this is "Allwood" under yet another guise - but your reaction certainly seems to confirm it is. You could have simply said "No - totally new poster and totally different person".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite apart from the site team who spend a lot of time helping people here, there is me ( a barrister, not that it matters, but I cost a lot in my day job) , law students, trades unionists, people who have been ther and done that, and some people who may not always know a lot but just care. So you can see that there are a lot of people giving their time for free and very generously, because they believe in what they are doing.

 

Why would it matter whether you are barrister or not? It really makes me laugh; no doubt you'd be the first one screwing over people on here if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

I have been made aware that you are throwing your "barrister" title around a little too much; thankfully people like me do not need to hawk their job title around to earn respect. I've earned mine by the help and assistance I have given and not by some status afforded to me.

 

I suspect you are here only to cause anguish and throw some weight around and judging by what I have seen on here so far I'm not really moved from that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello vjohn. I think you may have SarEl wrong, but of course it got off to a bad start with a legal difference of opinion on your own thread. I would urge you to read a few more threads by SarEl, because she only represents employees at tribunals and does all or most of her work with unions. She could be a good person to have on your side if your own problem goes to an ET.

 

HB

 

I don't think that makes her the type of lawyer you're suggesting.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pressed submit 2 times Duplication

Edited by bonnygirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it at all unreasonable or insulting to very politely ask whether posters are connected to other posters, nor to point out that people here spend a great deal of time helping others and unfortunately this is sometimes abused. But strangely, the poster to which you bear similarities had exactly the same reaction as you when it was pointed out that their posts bore a similarity to other posts under another name - but with certain features changed in the story. I don't see how it is illegitimate to ask whether this is "Allwood" under yet another guise - but your reaction certainly seems to confirm it is. You could have simply said "No - totally new poster and totally different person".

 

You were so eager to point the finger that you did not stop to think that I checked out the SME site that you made reference about I checked it to see if you were telling the truth about posters called Allwood and Peigi for similarities.

 

By heck, I am glad that I did because I see that you have a side kick Honey Bee from this site as well to help you with the trolling over posts trying to compare them up with other posters for similarities and then poke fun at them. All I can say is that you must have lots of spare time on your hands to be able to do this for fun. I would suggest that you both get a life.

 

If people have spare time and want to check the SME site, you will have to register in order to be able to do a search for the name PLEIGI under threads called unions. This thread was reported and was locked due to abuse and should say harassment as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ill put my penny in

 

some people on the forum may seem abrupt and condensending but they are normally right

 

i myself dont mind getting my knuckles rapped by posters as all i want to do is learn

 

so please people

 

take what you consider as insults with a pinch of salt and KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really must apologise to everyone, as in my original post questioning whether this thread was linked to others posted here and on MSE, I inadvertantly misspelled the user ID on MSE as Piegi. Consistantly. When you take bonnygirl's advice and go to MSE and search the name Piegi (the name that I supplied to bonnygirl incorrectly) you get - nothing at all! Of course, if you know that the name used was in fact Peigi, the result is different. How very fortunate that when you looked this up you happened to know the correct name for the user ID on MSE despite me not having told you it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again bonnygirl. I have a life actually, thank you for asking, but I choose to spend some of it helping when I can on CAG.

 

But I would prefer not to answer the same questions rephrased, or a series of hypothetical ones about the same problem, because someone doesn't like the answers they get. As my old mum says, 'if you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question'.

 

If you aren't peigi or Allwood, I apologise unreservedly.

 

HB

  • Haha 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...