I thought bad references were illegal?!

tomjonesrules

JonathanStewart wrote: »

the poster said that because it was written down it made it more of a 'fact' than if it wasn't written down. which seems more than a little short sighted to me.

None of the three people you have quoted stated that. And your answers to the questions I asked?

laganuk

Treat a bad reference as defamation of charater: falls under the Tort of Libal. For example a fair and legitimate reference may be, "Yes Mr/Ms X worked in Company Y for Z years and did a competent job". Short and sweet and semantics of words use may not be suitable to imply a good character.

kiwi07

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Yes good idea, but they still want the old employer as well, so I suppose at least there will be 1 good(hopefully) and you can say you have learned etc and the other one.
I dont think many employers will accept voluntary work insted of contacting the last employer.

So what is the point in voluntary work if perspective employer would prefer last employer? This a pointless exercise to go for a voluntary work and work hard to earn a good reference if it doesn't count...

dandelionclock30

You can put it down as the 2nd reference and it will if its good act as a counter to the first where there is a problem.Also employers like to see voluntary work as it shows that the person is putting something into society apart from signing on etc.

tomjonesrules

laganuk wrote: »

Treat a bad reference as defamation of charater: falls under the Tort of Libal. For example a fair and legitimate reference may be, "Yes Mr/Ms X worked in Company Y for Z years and did a competent job". Short and sweet and semantics of words use may not be suitable to imply a good character.

A bad reference is not defamatory if it is true.

SarEl

oki1875 wrote: »

So what is the point in voluntary work if perspective employer would prefer last employer? This a pointless exercise to go for a voluntary work and work hard to earn a good reference if it doesn't count...

What did your reference actually say? Why wasn't it satisfactory?

JonathanStewart

tomjonesrules wrote: »

None of the three people you have quoted stated that. And your answers to the questions I asked?

libel has been described as:

a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.

Nothing there stated about the 'truth' or otherwise, merely the effect the words have, and the reasoning behind the disclosure of those words. Lawful excuse I would describe as a requirement to disclose by law, not because you 'feel like it', which is what disclosure from one organisation to another amounts to.

You wouldn't have legally agreed references otherwise!

tomjonesrules

JonathanStewart wrote: »

libel has been described as:

a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.

Nothing there stated about the 'truth' or otherwise, merely the effect the words have, and the reasoning behind the disclosure of those words. Lawful excuse I would describe as a requirement to disclose by law, not because you 'feel like it', which is what disclosure from one organisation to another amounts to.

You wouldn't have legally agreed references otherwise!

What is the one absolute defence to defamation?

JonathanStewart

tomjonesrules wrote: »

What is the one absolute defence to defamation?

but defamation is something else, seperate from libel!

tomjonesrules

JonathanStewart wrote: »

but defamation is something else, seperate from libel!

You do understand that libel is simply a type of defamation, don't you?