Whistleblowing !!!

marybelle01

walks wrote: »

The person taking the back handers, I think its very wrong my self as people are losing job`s, But the person is under investigations but still in his position which i would of thought was wrong, but i do know he has friends in high places !

Or may in fact not be guilty! The fact that you or someone else has made an allegation does not make the person guilty of the alleged offence. That is what an investigation is for; to determine whether or not there is a case to answer. And a disciplinary is intended to determine the probability of guilt based on the evidence available. Allegations do not constitute guilt - because people are never mistaken or make things up, do they?

surreysaver

pjcox2005 wrote: »

My personal view is that where possible an investigation should be complete with the outcome confirmed before people are suspended.

Eh? I doubt any investigation would be that quick! Unless the person was off already while the investigation took place. And if the outcome was completed before suspension, whether a punishment was invoked or the person exhonorated, there would obvioulsy be no need for the suspension!

Fergie42

If you read my quote properly you would realise I said but in this case it definitely falls under gross misconduct so there would be no issue around dismissal - assuming the person is actually guilty.

surreysaver

Fergie42 wrote: »

If you read my quote properly you would realise I said but in this case it definitely falls under gross misconduct so there would be no issue around dismissal - assuming the person is actually guilty.

If who read which quote correctly?

wapow

walks wrote: »

:jHi,
If someone whistle blows on some one that is working for the goverment and taking back handers would they be suspended from there job do you think !!

You both get a promotion and bonus. :j

You write anonymously and submit anonymously or have someone deliver the letter of accusation to the manager. No one will know it was you. Dont be put off by some of the responses. Make sure you clearly outline what you have seen or heard.

Madjock

marybelle01 wrote: »

Or may in fact not be guilty! The fact that you or someone else has made an allegation does not make the person guilty of the alleged offence. That is what an investigation is for; to determine whether or not there is a case to answer. And a disciplinary is intended to determine the probability of guilt based on the evidence available. Allegations do not constitute guilt - because people are never mistaken or make things up, do they?

I'm sorry, completely unrelated to the thread, but that's a rather strange moniker to choose Marybelle. Why would you choose that for an internet name?

marybelle01

Madjock wrote: »

I'm sorry, completely unrelated to the thread, but that's a rather strange moniker to choose Marybelle. Why would you choose that for an internet name?

What? It's stranger than Madjock? But if you really must know, then it's a contraction of my name. I assume yours is a description?

Madjock

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/17/newsid_3261000/3261087.stm

Evilm

Madjock wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/17/newsid_3261000/3261087.stm

I can do that too:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2001/04/06/cold-hearted-killer-100252-11016558/

I could probably find stories about a large proportion of the user names used on this forum if I really tried! I don't see why you picked up on Marybelle in particular? Its not even the same spelling.

marybelle01

I really find what you are insinuating very offensive. I was not even born in 1968, and there are literally thousands of people of that name alive today. Do you find their parents choice of names equally interesting? I would also point out that the "bell" has an "e" and it isn't my family name. You do understand the meaning of contraction do you not? What a nasty individual you are.