Quote:
Originally posted by Sticks
Has she provided actual proof of misconduct
If this had been going on for some time, why wait until just before she is fired to put in a grievance?
Is it hard to entertain the possibility that she might be trying it on?
You have already convicted him when I thought we were "innocent until proven guilty" It is up to her to prove this happened.
The situation is that sometimes at tribunal when someone has been dismissed they may come up with some tale of discrimination, and note it it does not have to be based on gender as it is in this case. Why? Because they hope the lawyers will cave in to avoid bad publicity.
I once heard of a serial litigant who applied for jobs and when he did not get an interview played the race card, and some companies frightened of bad publicity just folded and coughed up
Kerching, nice work if you can get it
I have a relative who used to sit on tribunals, so we got to hear about some cases. It tends to make you a bit case hardened when you hear these bleatings from people who were usually dismissed fairly.
It is not a question of gender or class.
|
'Has she provided actual proof of misconduct'
Like Arista mentioned previously....texts.
'If this had been going on for some time, why wait until just before she is fired to put in a grievance?'
She filed a complaint last march....
'Is it hard to entertain the possibility that she might be trying it on?'
Yes because he's such a SEXGOD isn't he?
If she has proof then that is it, she's innocent he's guilty and you're bigoted. The worst thing is that you always try to put across that you're uber PC when you're more prejudiced then anyone on the forum.
EDIT: Lauren's got it spot on, you're disregarding the case and assuming the man's innocent you're just as worse as 'us thinking the man is guilty before he is proven so' (even though the woman has proof).