Colleague issue

ceridwen

MissDelilah wrote: »

at least I can spell naivety.

Well - that really helps you NOT - as you certainly dont talk like a solicitor (particularly that comment you deleted from a post today - TOO LATE - as its been quoted by another poster:)).

Sambucus_Nigra

ceridwen wrote: »

When you say you "work for a solicitors" - then let me forensically dissect that statement to interpret it as "I work in a solicitors office - but I am not actually a solicitor". I'll hazard a guess that you are a secretary - like that gives you a lot of authority to pontificate on the law:cool:

I was thinking a cleaner, not a secretary. Actually, that would be an insult to cleaners.

gwen80

I haven't read all the posts since I last posted, but I've gathered MissDelilah isn't being very nice. To be honest, I've thought her posts have been rather bizarre. She goes from being incredibly defensive of me (and accusing another poster of being the same as the guy involved in this case) to going completely the other way. She seems to constantly need to refer to her own experiences of sexual harassment, it's very odd. I suspect she has issues relating to her own sexual harassment.

Anyway, ignoring MissD and onto things that actually matter. Mr F's interview notes make for interesting reading. He appears to contradict himself on a few matters.

He says he 'has absolutely not exposed himself'. At another point, it seems from the notes that he agrees with a statement by the interviewer that he categorically denies it. Later on he says 'I was not out of my jeans. Not sure why I apologised'. Even later on, he says 'I don't think I was, was I back from the toilets and exposed unintentional' (I presume this last word is actually meant to be 'unintentionally').

He also says 'we have always had a good relationship, but got on well'. Later on, 'we have a normal relationship'.

There is part of the interview notes that says [missing part of interview]...what the heck is that?

Oh and I've been informed that the disciplinary will be by managers from my department (i.e. his mates)...marvellous!

ceridwen

blue_monkey wrote: »

Ah, and here we have what you really think. You sad individual, just like that rape victim who wore a dress that was too short.

Do you speak to all of your 'clients' in this manner - because if you do, you're in the wrong job!! You could, one day, be paid to defend someone like Gwen and prove she was in right. Or a murderer who has clearly killed but you have to prove he didn't. Somehow I really do not think you have it in you and you need to look for a career change.

I pity anyone who might come to you for help legally - now or in the future. Still, I guess it pays well.

Funny, people with your attitude make me sick too.

Can I correct one point here - she merely stated she has been in training as a legal executive for one year. To get on a course to train for this takes just 4 O Levels OR a reference from a suitable person to say you are suited (unless its changed in the last few years - which I dont think it has:)). A legal executive course is something one can do by correspondence course in leisuretime whilst holding down another job as a dayjob - like I said I expect MissDelilah is really only a secretary.

BTW - she would not be qualified to ever see clients whilst still early on in training like this:) - and would hardly be let loose on them ever if she speaks ITRW the way she does on here:)

GEEGEE8

If your colleagues / bosses have time to comment on MSE articles then I have no idea on where you work, or why they are entertaining you being on a forum!

GEEGEE8

MissDelilah wrote: »

ceridwen wrote: »

You are certainly a good bit older than me dear and it shows.

Yeah, she has common sense and morals..

GEEGEE8

MissDelilah wrote: »

Actually a legal executive has 2 years training and not 3.

I never said in this post that I was a solicitor not that I wanted to be one.

To be honest I find your remarks aimed at me as a secretary very insulting. I'm not insulting you personally nor your career.

You claimed, 'your fellow colleagues that are solicitors'.

2 years training, 2 years work experience. You have done 1 year, so that leaves 3 years remaining until you have two more things to cover and then can be a solicitor.

I have nothing against secretaries. Just jumped up one's who think because they work in a solicitors office that they have a clue about what the law is and means.

Errata

Over the years I've read posts in which the poster claims to be a doctor, dentist, vet, accountant, solicitor, barrister. I pay no attention to what they claim to be except to wonder why they need to claim it.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

starrystarry wrote: »

No, it was mostly a load of uninformed, biased, inconsistent codswallop by someone claiming to be in the legal profession.

And what exactly do you do for a living?

whitewing

gwen,

Try to trust that this will all come good in the end. However good mates the managers are supposed to be, each of us has our own moral compass and they would have to override their own uneasiness of the situation to support him. You may well find that you have much more support and respect on an individual level than you realise. It's a process that has to be followed strictly and this is appropriate as it affects people's lives. It is a horrible situation for you, but you hang on in there. There are a lot of good people out there. And there will be people on your side.