How easy to get another job after being dismissed

ceridwen

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Ceridwen:

When a new idea emerges - at first its derided, then ignored, then finally treated as though it had always been there...

Similar to:

Truth passes through three phases:

• First it is ridiculed.
• Second it is fiercely and violently opposed.
• Third, it becomes self-evident.

— Arthur Schopenhauer

Thanks for that...that could well be the exact wording of this thought...:T

Comyface

ConfuzedMale wrote: »

Thanks for the responses guys, I think I wont resign after what you guys have been saying

In my answer, I also did mention that one possibility could be AML procedures so Im not sure if that goes well on my part but whats done is done now

I will face the consequences and hope i get off with a final warning at most

I'm really shocked by your post! Can't really believe you're in trouble for posting on a forum! I hope it works out okay for you. When you say 'AML', are they accusing you of 'tipping off'? I though that only appplied to someone who is under suspicion (the customer I mean)?

Sorry I've got no practical advice, but please let us know the outcome. All the best.

ConfuzedMale

Comyface wrote: »

I'm really shocked by your post! Can't really believe you're in trouble for posting on a forum! I hope it works out okay for you. When you say 'AML', are they accusing you of 'tipping off'? I though that only appplied to someone who is under suspicion (the customer I mean)?

Sorry I've got no practical advice, but please let us know the outcome. All the best.

Thats what I though, I dont knw what this persons circumstance was, I just told him the possibilities for account closure,

I do not know if he was under investigation or anything, he was an anonymous poster on the site just like I was, so i had no way of telling if he was under investigation to 'tip him off'

Emmzi

pinnerjim wrote: »

No company is allowed to give a derogatory reference anymore. All they can do is say that you worked there from "date" to "date" and not amplify any further.
QUOTE]

I wish we could have a sticky about this urban myth. I am fed up of reading replies/ writing replies explaining it isn't true. Wonder where it came from?

ConfuzedMale

Emmzi wrote: »

pinnerjim wrote: »

No company is allowed to give a derogatory reference anymore. All they can do is say that you worked there from "date" to "date" and not amplify any further.
QUOTE]

I wish we could have a sticky about this urban myth. I am fed up of reading replies/ writing replies explaining it isn't true. Wonder where it came from?

LOL!!!

I am sure they can say whatever they like as long as its factual?????
So if the facts are negative then so be it, right?

ixwood

It does seem harsh, but a lesson to us all to keep our work and private lives separate.

Why did you feel the urge to state where you worked? There was/is some HSBC clerk on here, which always made me cringe. If you're not offically representing your company, why tell everyone? It's just asking for trouble.

ConfuzedMale

ixwood wrote: »

It does seem harsh, but a lesson to us all to keep our work and private lives separate.

Why did you feel the urge to state where you worked? There was/is some HSBC clerk on here, which always made me cringe. If you're not offically representing your company, why tell everyone? It's just asking for trouble.

As stupid as I feel now, you are absolutely right, I should not have stated that I worked for this company.

I alway did read posts from 3 different people, each working for either Natwest, Barclays and HSBC and their posts did make me wonder how they got away with revealing half the things they did

I should have learnt from them, ofcourse I thought I was helping but I didnt have to state the company I work for to help

You're completely right and it was foolish of me to do so

I just hope I get off with a final warning at most

ConfuzedMale

I have just read my letter again and it stated that they are undertaking an investigation for 'alleged' serious breech of regulations

Does this mean they have set a date for a hearing without completing their investigations?

Is this why they would have set a date but not included any evidence with the letter?

Alleged would mean someone came up to them with the evidence, right? Or am i wrong in thinking this?

I do apologise if I sound naive here

zzzLazyDaisy

No, what 'alleged' means is that information has come to their attention that suggests you may have breached regulations, but they cannot be sure until they have investigated this (which includes having a meeting with you and getting your version of events).

If the letter simply said they were suspending you for GM, they would be in trouble because that suggests that they have already made their mind up, which could cause them problems later, as they must go into the investigation and subsequent disciplinary with an open mind, and be prepared to listen to everything you have to say before making a decision.

In other words, the wording of the letter is designed to keep them within the law, so don't read too much into it.

ConfuzedMale

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

No, what 'alleged' means is that information has come to their attention that suggests you may have breached regulations, but they cannot be sure until they have investigated this (which includes having a meeting with you and getting your version of events).
QUOTE]

I had thought that the fact that they had mentioned it wa a gross misconduct hearing pretty much shows they have made up their minds and the fact they are going to send me evidence pretty much says they have done their investigations

I thought they would have called me in for a investigatory meeting at least to find out certain things i.e. my username!

They called me up to ask me if id been on the site but didnt ask for things such as my username, what if they were looking at the wrong username? This is why I thought i would have an investigatory meeting before the actual hearing