E-Petition

FTBFun

Apparently this is how the police stopped the riots:

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=233385

Really2

chris_m wrote: »

Cheers - it is (or can be) a tricky situation. If someone were wrongly accused (apologies, I meant wrongly, not falsely earlier) and lost their job because of that it would be a grave injustice and I would expect a tribunal to come down on their side.

Obviously there is the issue of bringing the company into disrepute, and the company must take urgent action to avoid that in any such case, but if it transpired that the charges should never have been brought in the first place then the company should (or at least offer to) reinstate the employee because it was through no fault of their own.

I agree, the guy accepted it straight away. He knew is actions even if not found guilty for the main charge meant he had to go. Shame he was a nice guy, I hope he is well.

I think the greatest difficulty in this are the people who get charged for murder for protecting their property.
It all boils down to how strict a company is on illegal activity outside work.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't quite believe I am reading these two posts.

It's the right thing to do. For pities sake.

Well yeah, of course, anybody who commits any offence should walk straight into the nearest cop shop and confess. But there's something creepy about saints.

Doing the right thing in the first place, fine. Sinning and wanting to be punished for it, somewhere on the way towards a psychiatric disorder.

Meanwhile, kids are just kids. They don't ask to be born, but having been born, they really really need to trust their parents. What will it do to a kid if he can't rely on his own mother being on his side? That leaves him alone in the world long before he's ready.

wotsthat

pqrdef wrote: »

Meanwhile, kids are just kids. They don't ask to be born, but having been born, they really really need to trust their parents. What will it do to a kid if he can't rely on his own mother being on his side? That leaves him alone in the world long before he's ready.

She's helping him to learn a few life lessons and I'm pretty sure that she'll be supporting him through the process rather than just washing her hands of him.

I would have told my son that he either gives himself up or I'd do it for him. I did note that a couple of youth's did report to police stations - I wonder if their parents had encouraged them to do this.

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

Meanwhile, kids are just kids. They don't ask to be born, but having been born, they really really need to trust their parents. What will it do to a kid if he can't rely on his own mother being on his side? That leaves him alone in the world long before he's ready.

The mother IS on their side.

You just don't understand how.

The "didnt ask to be born" thing is pathetic.

Jennifer_Jane

FTBFun wrote: »

Apparently this is how the police stopped the riots:

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=233385

Kilts, bagpipes, and Mel Gibson? That would put the fear of God into any rioter.

You can't really blame the Libyans for wanting to give it back to us, though.

Jennifer_Jane

Really2 wrote: »

I agree, the guy accepted it straight away. He knew is actions even if not found guilty for the main charge meant he had to go. Shame he was a nice guy, I hope he is well.

I think the greatest difficulty in this are the people who get charged for murder for protecting their property.
It all boils down to how strict a company is on illegal activity outside work.

Quoting this to reference which bit of the thread I am commenting on: when I worked in South Africa every Company I worked for had a non-criminal charge mention in it's contract, except for political activity. So you could protest (a dangerous thing to do) and riot (if you felt very lucky that day), imprisoned for however long, but not steal etc.

I was always a little bit proud of this.

Ark_Welder

Really2 wrote: »

Hello, it's not me you will see it in your work contract.
Something like "the right to terminate contract should conduct outside work bring the employer into disrepute."

Under that you would have the right to sack them on drink driving should it effect their job. I am sure we have all seen the advert with the bloke at the bar "no money no job".

So it is contract law, not me.

Now I understand: it's a corporate 'shoot to kill' policy. Sounds like the sort of thing that would start a riot, actually. Or an e-petition...:A;)

Really2

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Now I understand: it's a corporate 'shoot to kill' policy. Sounds like the sort of thing that would start a riot, actually. Or an e-petition...:A;)

Really? it has been around for years.

I don't see why anyone would think that they could not get the sack if their private life effected their working life.

Totally different to riots, if you don't like the bit in a contract don't sign the contract, renegotiate it or get a job without it. But if someone wanted it taken out of a contract I think alarm bells would ring.

It is not in every contract, but most reasonable size organisations would have it.

I am surprised so few knew about it TBH. In the end of the day it is not your employers duty to make sure you keep your nose clean, can get to work, wont run over someone from being p!ssed up the night before, does not attack some one.
It is all down to the member of staff.

So if you got caught looting, a company has the right to sack you.
Are you really saying that is unfair and the company should support the person through it and keep their job for them?

StevieJ

wotsthat wrote: »

She's helping him to learn a few life lessons and I'm pretty sure that she'll be supporting him through the process rather than just washing her hands of him.

I would have told my son that he either gives himself up or I'd do it for him. I did note that a couple of youth's did report to police stations - I wonder if their parents had encouraged them to do this.

More likely their photo in the paper, I didn't have you down as one of the naive ones.