[arista]

Originally posted by MarkSpears
LOL what a pig.

Yes he is a Fat Pig
wanting her knickers off.

Typical of some Executives.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Muse
Why so? Please explain your reasons. It's strange that the innocent are being painted as villains here.

He is a deeply religious man who also lost his son last year, who was friends with royalty, to even contemplate such a decent man would do such a thing is beyond the pale

This woman got sacked because she could not hack the job and did not fit in and so she comes up with this outlandish tale hoping the tribunal will believe her

[arista]

Originally posted by Sticks

He is a deeply religious man who also lost his son last year, who was friends with royalty, to even contemplate such a decent man would do such a thing is beyond the pale

This woman got sacked because she could not hack the job and did not fit in and so she comes up with this outlandish tale hoping the tribunal will believe her

Thats your Typical view.

The real story is he demanded to Bonk her.

[TheMac]

And how do you know this "real story" Arista?

[arista]

Originally posted by mr_mitb
And how do you know this "real story" Arista?

Ask the Lawyers.

[TheMac]

No lawyer has ever told a lie before, eh They won't even know the full story

[Tom4784]

Originally posted by Sticks

He is a deeply religious man who also lost his son last year, who was friends with royalty, to even contemplate such a decent man would do such a thing is beyond the pale

This woman got sacked because she could not hack the job and did not fit in and so she comes up with this outlandish tale hoping the tribunal will believe her

Religion means sh*t, look at priests doesn't stop some of them being dirty peadophiles doesn't it? Last time I checked Royalty was hardly clean either, Prince Harry anyone?

I feel sorry for him losing his son but that doesn't give him a free pass for sexual harrasment.

In summary he is in the wrong and I think you are quite sexist.

[arista]

Bang On Right
Muse.

Religion is not in this.

And
Sticks is Old School.

[Sticks]

We see this all the time in tribunals

someone is not good at their job so they get sacked and then they try and claim it was some form of discrimination

Ohhhh Please

We've heard it before

Move along nothing to see

[arista]

Nothing to see.

There will be.
We see a big amount of Executives
demanding Sex with Lower Workers.

You stick with your Men Only Rule
thats your problem Sticks.


"Guy Oppenheim, 55, the Swiss-born
chief executive of Notz Stucki - one of Europe's largest asset management companies - bombarded Nadine Nassar with suggestive texts and late night phone calls, a tribunal was told."


Texts are kept.

[Tom4784]

Originally posted by Sticks
We see this all the time in tribunals

someone is not good at their job so they get sacked and then they try and claim it was some form of discrimination

Ohhhh Please

We've heard it before

Move along nothing to see

No you're just a bigot. You're trying to paint this woman as a gold digging ***** because you think this man cannot do wrong since he is religious and upper class.

Never heard so much bullsh*t in my life.

[Lauren]

Sticks, are you trying to tell us that someone who is mourning and religious cannot commit such an attack? Seriously?

If so, you're either seriously in need of a reality check, or a bigot with his head buried in the ground.

How would you react if this woman was a close member of your family, or someone in your church group?

[arista]

Does that matter Lauren
to Sticks
it is a Female.

[andyman]

And of course why would a woman lie? Oh women never lie do they???

Like i said before, would she be happy if he got a huge fine and no payout to her????

[Lauren]

Originally posted by andyman
And of course why would a woman lie? Oh women never lie do they???

Like i said before, would she be happy if he got a huge fine and no payout to her????

If what she has said is true, then I imagine she'd be happy without the payout to her, yes.

[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.

[andyman]

Originally posted by Lauren

If what she has said is true, then I imagine she'd be happy without the payout to her, yes.

hahahaha... C'mon, the whole case is money driven! Maybe he ended their fling, she wants pay back...?

[arista]

Andyman
read the paper again.

There is None of you bleedin'
"Maybes".


You can hold on.
This case is still going on.


"She made a formal complaint about Mr Oppenheim's alleged sexual harassment last March."


And she is playing by the book.

That Fat Pig
just wanted her knickers off.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by andyman

hahahaha... C'mon, the whole case is money driven! Maybe he ended their fling, she wants pay back...?

And if not? Why are you completely disregarding the fact it could be a case of sexual harassment? It happens, and we shouldn't disregard all cases of it just cos there are times when women lie.

[Tom4784]

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).

[andyman]

But Lauren you are already thinking he is in the wrong! Just like the other posts in the thread..

[Lauren]

Originally posted by andyman
But Lauren you are already thinking he is in the wrong! Just like the other posts in the thread..

No, I said "if what she said is true". I'm accepting she could be lying, but Sticks (and slightly you) are refusing to accept it could be true.

[arista]

Originally posted by Lauren

No, I said "if what she said is true". I'm accepting she could be lying, but Sticks (and slightly you) are refusing to accept it could be true.

Andyman
are you having a Drink?


As you seem to be missing bits.