Lunch with Colleagues - don't know what to do

aliasojo

skintchick wrote: »

Yes, although those of us who have been on here a long time probably still treat it like it used to be - pretty small, with no-one you ever met in real life having heard of it. Now you can;t move without people saying 'I saw it on MSE'.!

It used to be very different on here, a smaller community, friendlier, not so many mouthy trolls.

Sometimes it's hard to remember that.

I remember when Martin was delighted to hit 2million people on the email and now it is 7 million! :eek:

The forums have expanded as well, so there's loads more people on here than there used to. It's partly why I don;t post loads on here any more. This used to be my at-home social life lol, I'd never dare share so much on here now. (Although obviously it's all in the archives somewhere...)

I don't know how I missed your post before but I completely agree with you (especially the bits I put in bold).

I think I would do well to recall these comments when I'm next tempted to post about my personal rubbish.

Nicki

aliasojo wrote: »

In your scenario above, you have specifically stated the case to be one where a single strong character manipulates things or lies, so another child is left out.

.

Yes I have and deliberately so to counterbalance those who are accepting as fact thingy is a thief. If you read the whole thread I am happy to accept she MAY be and if so there are ways to deal with this just not this way.

If you read the WHOLE thread thingy was being excluded before this incident and before the other allegations were made so yes that is bullying IMO.

The OP in this case decided she did not have enough evidence to go to management or the police about this. Nor has she given thi by a chance to give her version of events. On the basis of suspicion alone she has galvanised her colleagues to exclude thingy who may for all anyone here knows be completely innocent of wrongdoing from future events. That's not how I would treat a colleague nor how I would like to be treated. Would you do this to anyone personally or be happy if anyone did it to you or yours?

Hermia

tara747 wrote: »

:T:T:T:T


EXACTLY.

!!!!!!, they're all adults. Everyone has friends at work and socialises in smaller groups. Nobody should be forced to invite anyone to a non-work social occasion. End of.

Exactly. In all the places I have worked there have been different groups of people. Sometimes the whole department will go out, sometimes just a section, sometimes just the women, sometimes just the bosses, sometimes just the older people. Sometimes you are invited out and sometimes not. Sometimes people are excluded because they will make a fuss about the venue etc. I would rather just be invited sometimes than always be invited and not know whether it's because people just feel obliged to invite me.

aliasojo

Nicki wrote: »

Yes I have and deliberately so to counterbalance those who are accepting as fact thingy is a thief. If you read the whole thread I am happy to accept she MAY be and if so there are ways to deal with this just not this way.

It seems daft (to me) to post as you did simply to 'counterbalance', as you say. However we all have different thoughts and takes on things.

Despite not agreeing with your bullying accusation, I do agree there were better ways to deal with this situation than the way the OP chose to follow. A 'beat around the bush' approach is usually ineffective and I can't help but feel things should have been clearly spoken about.

Nicki

aliasojo wrote: »

It seems daft (to me) to post as you did simply to 'counterbalance', as you say. However we all have different thoughts and takes on things.

See, I think it is "daft" as some others have done to post strategies for taking revenge on this poor woman, when everything is hearsay, and I include in this the plan to exclude her from further events. It is just wrong to whisper behind someone's back and to punish them for supposed crimes without ever letting them know what they are alleged to have done and giving them a chance to defend themselves/apologise and try to make amends.

I feel strongly there are only 3 possible decent things to do if you find yourself in OP's situation:

1. (my preferred choice) involve a neutral third party in authority to investigate the allegation - either management or the police

2. (my second choice) confront the accused with your suspicion and give them an opportunity to explain. If you are then not happy with their explanation or they admit it, then you can decide not to include them and/or tell others what has happened

3. (not my choice but an ethical decision nonetheless) do and say nothing.

Accusing her behind her back to colleagues, giving her no opportunity to know the accusation about her or to defend herself, and imposing a punishment is just the coward's way out IMO.

aliasojo

Nicki wrote: »

See, I think it is "daft" as some others have done to post strategies for taking revenge on this poor woman, when everything is hearsay, and I include in this the plan to exclude her from further events.

It is just wrong to whisper behind someone's back and to punish them for supposed crimes without ever letting them know what they are alleged to have done and giving them a chance to defend themselves/apologise and try to make amends.

You really do have a mental picture of her as a victim, don't you?

Agree with the last bit of your quoted comment.

Nicki

aliasojo wrote: »

You really do have a mental picture of her as a victim, don't you?

Yep

From the moment I read the first post, where the OP had behaved like a complete and utter cowbag to her before the bill was even presented to the table, right through reading how the OP dealt with the matter and ending up with Martin sending this out as a moral dilemma to 7 million people.

I find it hard to see how she had the whole being bullied and excluded by the OP coming to her, BEFORE she actually committed the offence which is said to justify it. So she may be a victim and a thief, but she was a victim first (and there is only incontrovertible evidence that she is a victim on this thread not that she is also a thief)

Treevo

Nicki wrote: »

Yep

From the moment I read the first post, where the OP had behaved like a complete and utter cowbag to her before the bill was even presented to the table, right through reading how the OP dealt with the matter and ending up with Martin sending this out as a moral dilemma to 7 million people.

I find it hard to see how she had the whole being bullied and excluded by the OP coming to her, BEFORE she actually committed the offence which is said to justify it. So she may be a victim and a thief, but she was a victim first (and there is only incontrovertible evidence that she is a victim on this thread not that she is also a thief)

She behaved like a cow bag because she chose to sat away from the person she disliked? Should she have sat next to her? Maybe on her lap?

Nicki

Treevo wrote: »

She behaved like a cow bag because she chose to sat away from the person she disliked? Should she have sat next to her? Maybe on her lap?

Yes if that would have been the natural place to sit based on the way the whole group walked into the restaurant, or a few seats away if that was also the natural place. And made token polite professional conversation too. Making a point of going to the other end of the table is ostentatiously rude and childish.

In fact refusing to sit next to people you don't like is generally something people grow out of in nursery or at least by the end of KS1. It's beyond petty and immature.

aliasojo

Nicki wrote: »

In fact refusing to sit next to people you don't like is generally something people grow out of in nursery or at least by the end of KS1. It's beyond petty and immature.

This wasn't a work situation that required professionalism and a stoic demeanour, it was a social setting. Social settings normally allow for personal choice/preference.