help. Xmas do... suspected of doing DRUGS!!!!!!

rupee99

Anihilator wrote: »

Lets put this into perspective. Ignore the whole victimisation angle, libel etc, its clouding the issue.

What your manager said to you also. It isnt wholly relevent to your case. Feel free to put in a grievance however dont cloud your own discliplinary with it.
................................

Now firstly bare in mind they dont need to prove any of this. Just have reasonable grounds to believe it.
......................

Oh yes they do. They have to be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities it is correct. If they cannot then they will lose at a Tribunal on the mere fact that they did not use a proper standard of proof.

Anihilator

rupee99 wrote: »

Oh yes they do. They have to be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities it is correct. If they cannot then they will lose at a Tribunal on the mere fact that they did not use a proper standard of proof.

You contradict yourself.

Being satisfied on probability isnt proof otherwise lots of people would be in jail right now for crimes they didnt committ :rolleyes:

rupee99

Anihilator wrote: »

You contradict yourself.

Being satisfied on probability isnt proof otherwise lots of people would be in jail right now for crimes they didnt committ :rolleyes:

No, the burden of proof in criminal justice is "beyond reasonable doubt," in civil justice it is the "balance of probabilities"

Law 1.01 in any country that uses the system of common law, as in England and Wales

aj2703

Anihilator wrote: »

You contradict yourself.

Being satisfied on probability isnt proof otherwise lots of people would be in jail right now for crimes they didnt committ :rolleyes:

Well no because you are talking about criminal law. This is employment law...:rolleyes:

Anihilator

aj2703 wrote: »

Well no because you are talking about criminal law. This is employment law...:rolleyes:

Yes thats the point I'm making.

The burdens are entirely different. In employment law they dont need to prove anything. Just reasonably suspect on the probabilities.

People keep stating things need to be proven. They don't.

u264047

Anihilator. wow. Thank you for some actual advice

I am writing an email to HR now regarding my grievance, it looks like the guy who acccused me of these things used email to do it. As will I.

aj2703

u264047 wrote: »

Anihilator. wow. Thank you for some actual advice

I am writing an email to HR now regarding my grievance, it looks like the guy who acccused me of these things used email to do it. As will I.

Make sure to CC to yourself and they can see that.

Proc

aj2703 wrote: »

Well no because you are talking about criminal law. This is employment law...:rolleyes:

You both completely mis-understand Annihilator's point. He's saying that proof and balance of probabilities are two compeltely seperate things. He said that people would be locked up because if balance of probabilities was the same as proof, (which it isn't) then criminals would be locked up as in many of the cases it would have been the case that they probably did commit the crime, it just couldn't be proven.

Even though neither of you are wrong in your understanding, you're obviously not smart enough to see his point.

edit: Looks like I typed too slow. It needed explaining to you both.

rupee99

Proc wrote: »

You both completely mis-understand Annihilator's point. He's saying that proof and balance of probabilities are two compeltely seperate things. He said that people would be locked up because if balance of probabilities was the same as proof, (which it isn't) then criminals would be locked up as in many of the cases it would have been the case that they probably did commit the crime, it just couldn't be proven.

Even though neither of you are wrong in your understanding, you're obviously not smart enough to see his point.

edit: Looks like I typed too slow. It needed explaining to you both.

I certainly don't and neither, I think, does AJ2703

With a degree in law from Oxford and practising as a lawyer for 30 years I fully understand that the "balance of probabilities" is the standard of proof required in all civil matters.

Something that you and Anihilator apparently do not.

u264047

My email:

Good Afternoon N,

I would like to raise a grievance regarding (idiot's) behaviour and attitude on Thursday December 17th 2009.

I was heard 'sniffing' in a toilet cubicle at around midnight.(idiot)- also in the restrooms, took this to mean I was using drugs.

He told me to get out of his face, and told me that he knew exactly what I was doing and then proceeded to inform the remaining members of the group that I was a smackhead, and he is not going to drink with a 'druggie', and suggested that they all leave. Which they did.

(x) and (y) will be able to back up the fact he used these defamatory comments.

I am personally unaware of the specifics regarding the company Drug & Alcohol policy, but I would assume that it reads if someone is suspected of having a drug problem then it should be dealt with confidentially, not publically declared whilst intoxicated.

Later on in the evening, (x) and I ran into the group again in the (bar), I took it upon myself to speak to (idiot) and try to help him understand why I would not be a drug user, or indeed have a drug problem.

I talked to him on and off for around an hour, and throughout this he tried to bully me into admitting that I had a drug problem, and would help me make "all this go away" if I just came clean and told him the 'truth'. Upon refusal to admit to these things, he spoke to me in a mocking tone and told me that "well, come monday you'll be sitting accross from higher management fighting this on your own"

I felt humiliated and demeaned throughout this conversation with him and felt that his unfounded, slanderous judgements about me were unfair, and unlikely to be changed by anything I said to him and subsequently I walked away.

I expect a full investigation to be carried out as I feel that this behaviour is totally unacceptable and unprofessional.

I look forward to your response.

Many Thanks,
Matt

Please could you confirm receipt of this email for my records.

What do you guys think?