Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Wow ...

    Ladies and gents who were worried they might not be smart enough to join firms like Chance, REJOICE! They take anyone, apparently.

    Hopefully CC have the good sense to drop him at the end of his training.
    Wooohooooo! I am getting a training contract!

    And in my spare time I'm going to post videos to youtube of myself dancing around in my thong because why not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    No problem. I apologise if I come on a bit strong, it does irritate me when I feel someone is speaking about something for which they lack knowledge but not strong opinions.

    I can understand that CC has taken the very sensible decision to, as someone said above, deprive this issue of the oxygen of publicity and they will let him go at the end of his training contract.

    I don't think that has anything to do with fearing a discrimination claim or worrying about what their Muslim clients will think (given they will let him go down the track anyway), it's simply a matter of ensuring the media spotlight moves on before they proceed.
    It irritates me too - I've never said I was a legal expert but I think I'm entitled to an opinion on the matter.

    Although not to this extreme, I've seen and been part of similar situations and you will always prepare for the worst case scenario and the "what if".




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    It irritates me too - I've never said I was a legal expert but I think I'm entitled to an opinion on the matter.
    I can't remember who said it, maybe it was Michael Dukakis or Gore Vidal, who said "You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts". If you don't know the facts, then having an opinion on it simply makes you opinionated.

    Although not to this extreme, I've seen and been part of similar situations and you will always prepare for the worst case scenario and the "what if".
    One should prepare for the worse plausible case. And one also shouldn't allow fear of being sued for discrimination prevent you from making justifiable business decisions where it involves an ethnic minority, otherwise you're basically saying ethnic minorities should never be sacked even for justifiable reasons.

    In fact, in this sort of case what they would do is ensure they were scrupulously fair in following procedure and documenting it. There would be no possibility for a discrimination claim, and even in a parrallel universe where the law was different, so what? They pay 50,000 pounds to get rid of a risky trainee who could cause problems. That's not an unreasonable expense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    I can't remember who said it, maybe it was Michael Dukakis or Gore Vidal, who said "You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts". If you don't know the facts, then having an opinion on it simply makes you opinionated.



    One should prepare for the worse plausible case. And one also shouldn't allow fear of being sued for discrimination prevent you from making justifiable business decisions where it involves an ethnic minority, otherwise you're basically saying ethnic minorities should never be sacked even for justifiable reasons.

    In fact, in this sort of case what they would do is ensure they were scrupulously fair in following procedure and documenting it. There would be no possibility for a discrimination claim, and even in a parrallel universe where the law was different, so what? They pay 50,000 pounds to get rid of a risky trainee who could cause problems. That's not an unreasonable expense.
    I agree with your second and third paragraphs.

    The issue for HR is that you are trying to make immediate decisions (especially under such scrutiny) before you have the chance to ensure the process is fair and well documented. You are also trying to gather all the facts but have to action/make decisions before you have them all.

    It isn't just the financial costs they have to consider though. These things often have much wider implications, no matter what action you do choose.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I thought you were going to stop being so rude Young Guns Having some Fun, but you didn't!

    Also, in my last post pointing out you were rude, you said you were a bit narky, then going to say you would edit your comment!! Rather than apologize *sigh*

    And I distinctly get the impression that J-SP is not really all that grateful for your erudite educated efficient strike-downs of lawyer to non-lawyer about the law...I think she was just *backing away slowly without making any sudden moves and reaching behind her for the door while smiling and nodding*





    (Original post by young_guns)
    No problem. I apologise if I come on a bit strong, it does irritate me when I feel someone is speaking about something for which they lack knowledge but not strong opinions.

    I can understand that CC has taken the very sensible decision to, as someone said above, deprive this issue of the oxygen of publicity and they will let him go at the end of his training contract.

    I don't think that has anything to do with fearing a discrimination claim or worrying about what their Muslim clients will think (given they will let him go down the track anyway), it's simply a matter of ensuring the media spotlight moves on before they proceed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happyinthehaze)
    I thought you were going to stop being so rude Young Guns Having some Fun, but you didn't!

    Also, in my last post pointing out you were rude, you said you were a bit narky, then going to say you would edit your comment!! Rather than apologize *sigh*

    And I distinctly get the impression that J-SP is not really all that grateful for your erudite educated efficient strike-downs of lawyer to non-lawyer about the law...I think she was just *backing away slowly without making any sudden moves and reaching behind her for the door while smiling and nodding*
    I've had a lot worse comments and a lot better arguments thrown at me over the years, which means I'm used to it by now - too many years of working with people like this means you acquire a layer of Teflon that you know when to use just to let stuff like this slide off.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happyinthehaze)
    I thought you were going to stop being so rude Young Guns Having some Fun, but you didn't!
    My username is a reference to the Emilio Estevez / Kiefer Sutherland flick, I had no idea about the Wham song. Funky! If slightly camp (it is George Michael I suppose)

    Also, in my last post pointing out you were rude, you said you were a bit narky, then going to say you would edit your comment!! Rather than apologize *sigh*
    I said I would edit my comment as I thought it would be edited before J-SP saw it. Having said that, J-SP provoked me further by basically saying, "I don't care what the facts are, my opinions override actual facts". Of course that's going to be a red rag to a legal bull

    And I distinctly get the impression that J-SP is not really all that grateful for your erudite educated efficient strike-downs of lawyer to non-lawyer about the law...I think she was just *backing away slowly without making any sudden moves and reaching behind her for the door while smiling and nodding*
    I like the things you say happyinthehaze What a marvellous picture you painted with your words ( and I liked the erudite educated efficient strike-down bit )
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    I said I would edit my comment as I thought it would be edited before J-SP saw it. Having said that, J-SP provoked me further by basically saying, "I don't care what the facts are, my opinions override actual facts". Of course that's going to be a red rag to a legal bull
    I never said I don't care or that my opinion overrode the facts. I just said I disagree! The law is one thing the practical considerations you put around it are another.







    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    One does not simply fire a lawyer...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    He may find it hard to get an NQ contract on qualification. On the other hand, he is a first seater, so if he impresses sufficiently in the next 18 months it may well be glossed over as a youthful mistake.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    I never said I don't care or that my opinion overrode the facts. I just said I disagree! The law is one thing the practical considerations you put around it are another.
    If you are disagreeing on whether it's a good idea, from a PR / business perspective, no worries at all. Your prerogative and plenty of scope for good faith disagreement.

    If you're saying you disagree on whether there's a discrimination claim to be made, then I don't really think there is the scope for disagreement there
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    If you are disagreeing on whether it's a good idea, from a PR / business perspective, no worries at all. Your prerogative and plenty of scope for good faith disagreement.

    If you're saying you disagree on whether there's a discrimination claim to be made, then I don't really think there is the scope for disagreement there
    That's your opinion and you're entitled to it
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    If you're saying you disagree on whether there's a discrimination claim to be made, then I don't really think there is the scope for disagreement there
    With all the legal knowledge and training in the world, if there's one thing that this profession has taught me it's that you need to be very careful about being over confident in your own assessment of the facts of a case. Suggesting in this scenario that your particular view reflects the likely outcome of a case or situation is perfectly fine, suggesting that it is the only possible outcome is naive.

    You may also just want to consider your statement that J-SP 'provoked' you by disagreeing with you. The notion that the person to whom you were being rude is to blame for your behaviour because they expressed a different view to you is rather extraordinary. There will of course be times when people deliberately take a viewpoint with the intention of aggravating you, and in those situations a harsh reaction may be more understandable if not entirely excusable, but this was not one of those scenarios, which makes your justification surprising to say the least.

    Or in other words, relieving yourself of the notion that you are a 'legal bull' may assist in avoiding inappropriate reactions in future to 'red flags'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Dear Legal Bull

    Stop following me or I'm going to the police. There's new anti-stalking legislation in y'know!

    Ta


    I like the things you say happyinthehaze What a marvellous picture you painted with your words ( and I liked the erudite educated efficient strike-down bit )[/QUOTE]
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 6, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.