Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi  I do apologise as I don't know where to put this question.   My wife is self employed and her business is closed to to Covid 19. She has lost all future bookings  and has no earnings. I am retired with a State Pension. We have applied for Universal Credits which has been granted - payment middle of April , so that's great. We applied for the Small Business Rates Grant - £10,000 to help with business expenses - she intends to open trading again  ASAP, and there are obviously supplier contracts and services that need to be paid for, plus we modernised premises this year ( as we had lots of bookings) and our personal Credit Card debt is approx £9500.   To my surprise they have granted this and are paying money into her business account.   I know we would have to notify Universal Credit about the Grant, but would she still be entitled to U.C payments? The business is hers , so I presume I am still eligible for U.C   Many Thanks thedrunkenmonkey
    • Neighbour who has garden at end of mine (fence to right as they look down their garden but crosses various gardens as I look down from my house) is requesting that I repair a damaged fence as her dog keeps coming into my garden.   Am I responsible to repair it (my part of fence)?    I have looked at various websites but not very clear.   Neighbour said they erected and put up a fence to their left as they look down their garden but stressed that I was accountable for part of fence to the right.   Thank-you for looking at would appreciate any guidance for confirmation.    
    • Are you or do you wish to use the vehicle until we succeed with arguing and you succeed in VT?
    • Hi I hope all are ok in these trying times. I assume most of us will be in the same situation with employment etc.   I am obviously still intending to follow through my complaint against MB. However I do have to make decisions as I have found myself as will most people at this time left with a reduced minimal income, with all I can forsee is an impending up hill struggle for the forceable future.   So not sure what, if any options I still have, I am presuming VT was only an option earlier on and a court CO excludes that option,    I cant continue to honour the finance payments and cant even begin to estimate any timescales I would be again financially stable.   im trapped but want, no I need to get rid of MB all together, they can have the car and I learned the expensive way!   MB recently emailed a letter (which is copied below) in it they refer to a recent termination, this is the part that is very confusing as its my understanding they terminated the agreement in March 17.   They also inform they have placed the collections on hold, but then heres the cheeky bit, they do however want me to store the vehicle, tax and insure it, as per the agreement (the agreement that they already state was terminated) until they continue with their collection process;   Due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic currently affecting the UK and wider world, we’re emailing to update you on what will now happen regarding the collection of your vehicle, following the termination of your Moneybarn vehicle finance agreement.   We won’t be collecting the vehicle at this time Normally, following termination of your agreement, we would arrange for an inspection and collection of the vehicle. However because of the current Government imposed lockdown, we are not currently able to collect vehicles until further notice.   What will happen next? Nothing for the moment. We’ll contact you as soon as there are any developments in the Government’s stance and we know that we’re able to resume our normal vehicle collection activity.   What do you need to do? We would appreciate if you can please keep the vehicle taxed and insured for the time being, as per the terms and conditions of your finance agreement. We hope this information is helpful and clear. Please stay safe and well, and if you need to contact us with any questions, please check out the latest information on the best way to reach us at   So they state termination, then expect to lay down instructions for me to comply with as per my finance agreement T&Cs. To look after the vehicle that they do intend to continue collection of.   If everythings terminated and in other words I have no right to the vehicle, Im not prepared to comply with instructions in line with a non existent agreement (I dont have to) and have a good mind to charge them storage.   However l would much rather just leave the car, send off V5 to change ownership and be done with it and concentrate on getting justice for their mistreatment.   
    • No it isn't funny, but there have been murmurs on Social media, dfesn't take much for twitterati and FaceBork to go off on one. Some in our area have been on about shooting the Goats in case they spread the virus, people in a panic are unpredictable.
  • Our picks

coolchris

Disciplinary for non work related comment on Facebook

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2855 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

A comment was posted on facebook regarding a photo that was taken in the work place. The photo was tagged as the workplace and a comment by the originator of the photo was in relation to a recent UK commemoration. A comment by another work colleague was left about the sentiment of the posting, does not imply or mention the workplace name whatsoever; however a disiplinary hearing is to take place that argues the comment brings the company into disrepute, even though, as stated, the 5 worded comment does not mention or imply work place whatsoever.

Are they justified to bring about disciplinary proceeding on these grounds? Yes, agreed on the originator of the photo, but the colleagues comment, I feel, should not be taken this far. Am I correct? Have I missed something? Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to judge a comment and give an opinion when we don't know what that comment is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the comment relate to a person in the photograph?

 

Agree with Conniff - it is impossible to advise in much more than general terms unless we know more details!


Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, the comment is relating not to a person , but to the sentiment of the photograph. The argument is solely based on the fact that the photo was taken within the workplace and tagged as said workplace. The photo was deemed inappropriate but does not contain a person, just objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A comment was posted on facebook regarding a photo that was taken in the work place. The photo was tagged as the workplace and a comment by the originator of the photo was in relation to a recent UK commemoration. A comment by another work colleague was left about the sentiment of the posting, does not imply or mention the workplace name whatsoever; however a disiplinary hearing is to take place that argues the comment brings the company into disrepute, even though, as stated, the 5 worded comment does not mention or imply work place whatsoever.

Are they justified to bring about disciplinary proceeding on these grounds? Yes, agreed on the originator of the photo, but the colleagues comment, I feel, should not be taken this far. Am I correct? Have I missed something? Any help appreciated. Thanks.

 

Hello there.

 

Are both people being disciplined or just the second person who made the 'five word' comment please? This isn't very easy to follow, but I can see why naming a workplace could lead to problems.

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. The one taking the photograph and the one who commented. Sorry it is a little hard to follow, but its difficult to word in such away as to not divulge any names/facts etc, that a search might reveal. I need to keep this as general as possible. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now they are just having a hearing. Preemptively remove your comment, all tags, defriend all work colleagues, and set your security to private. There may be grounds, you need to check what your work policy says and how clear and explicit it is. Do you have a union rep?


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a union rep, however the basis of the charge seems to be that the comment condones the taking of the picture. This is clearly not the case as the comment refers to the sentiment of the picture, not the taking of the picture itself. There seems to me to be 2 elements to this: 1. the physical taking of the picture in the workplace 2. the sentiment of the photo. The powers that be say the comment condones the taking of the picture, whereas the comment is clearly agreeing with the sentiment, nothing more, nothing less. It seems there is a very weak case on their part and they are trying to use the comments/words out of context to fit their agenda. The works policy is bringing the company into disrepute. The comments, as stated, do not mention the company whatsoever or are about anyone that works there. The happen to be under a photo that was tagged by the originator of the photo as being taken at workplace. Please note what I pointed out: 2 elements. First element: photo taking - yes that is punishable by hearing. 2: sentiment of the photo, wherein company not mentioned in any way, or anyone from company; merely agreeing with the sentiment of the photo and its implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the company view may be that instead of commenting on the picture the only appropriate action was to report it. By commenting you have lost the "I didn't see it" defence.

 

Take advice from your rep, people have lost jobs for similar actions.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not saying that the picture was not seen, if you have read what I have written. There is no question of a "I did not see it" defence whatsoever. Read my last post to fully understand the situation please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely read what you have written.

 

I do not agree that you are blameless and have a robust defence. That does not mean I have not read things properly.

 

The company may take the view that by failing to report the picture, you condone it. Without knowing the details I cannot offer a more robust opinion than that. My guess it the pic was some form of horseplay, and your comment may only have been "blimey", but that may be enough to land you in it.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but how does failing to report a picture condone it? So in that context: everyone who works for the company who saw the picture is, in effect , also guilty. Thought crimes are not part of law just yet! If this was a court of law this would be an absolute joke and thrown out. And I also did NOT say that I am the supposed writer of the comment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I asked what your company policy said. That will help a lot more than your or my view on what is right. Is there one?

 

you also said you had a union rep. You will be able to talk more freely with them. We are having to guess because you cannot give specifics.

 

So that is 2 actions for you.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The policy is basically not to bring the company into disrepute.The PICTURE can be seen as brining the company into disrepute, but the comment was for the sentiment the picture depicted, what it alluded to. From what I can gather it seems these types of "disciplinary's" are based on Napoleonic law in that one is guilty until proven innocent. It is also a matter of interpretation and putting words out of context to match a "managers" way of thinking. And also does not the disciplinary committee have a conflict of interest if they are attached to the company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The burden of evidence is not the same as court of law. If the picture brings the company into disrepute - and someone has not only not reported it but commented on it so made clear they have seen it and not reported it - then things are not clear cut. And it's on "balance of probabilities." But look - they either wrote it or they didn't!

 

At the moment for all I know it's a jubilee weekend photo and the comment is agreeing with something massively racist. In which case yes, sacking!!

 

I really can't help with such vague details. You really do need to talk to someone you can share details with. We'll be going round in circles for days with me saying "the law says..." and you saying "yes but!"

 

Talk to the union tomorrow.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I agree that this can be going around in circles, but let me just point something out: there is NO racism involved whatsoever.Words implanted like that can give readers false perceptions, and yet again bend the actual situation. The power of words and their interpretations, is at the heart of the situation, and this is so well played out here as well. I would like comments from others if that is possible, but thank you for your time anyway emmzzi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really would like some other opinions on this please.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think if you need more opinions you need to be more detailed you cannot expect people to give opinions on pure assumptions based on your posts quite frankly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Further to your Post #15

 

You have pointed out that the company policy is basically not to bring the company into disrepute.

 

You the further state the picture can be seen to bring the company into disrepute

 

You them state but the comment was on the sentiment the picture depicted, what it alluded to.

 

1. The company have classed this picture as bringing the company name into disrepute by the person that posted it.

 

2. Your comment has also been seen by the company as bringing the company name into disrepute.

 

a. You need to remember you agreed to uphold the companies polices and by your own admission the picture brings that company into disrepute.

b. Your action by commenting irrespective that it was on the sentiment of the picture or not has not been seen like that by your company why. Your actions by commenting on a picture bringing the company into disrepute and as an employee of that company has been seen by the company as bringing their company into disrepute and in breach of company policy.

 

IMO you could be on sticky ground hear due to your admission that the picture and its contents do bring the company name into disrepute and then you as an employee commented on the picture and its contents although as you state it was on the sentiment but I am afraid that is not the way an employer would see this.

 

This is the sad world of Social Networking and the dangers to employees with a comments with even the best intentions that an employer may see it in a totally different light.


How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

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...