Dignity and Respect at work

martinthebandit

xapprenticex wrote: »

Ahh i found it, way before my time. Try 'Aqua - Barbie Girl'. Very catchy.

Too modern for me, though I do remember it from TOTP

suki1964

Detroit wrote: »

I took Sangie's remark to be a comment on the OPs posting style, which was a little unclear.

I took it to be said in the way a person not making much sence might be asked if they'd had a few drinks.
It was also a play on words from the previous post.

I personally didn't see any link to MH, and am surprised by the strong reactions from those who did. Especially after Sangie explained.

I do think a bit of perspective is called for here. The world is full of injustice and discrimination that is inflicted intentionally, often with devastating effects, on vulnerable people.

From what I gather, Sangie has spent a career helping people fight and challenge just this.

To those who have attacked Sangie for this remark, I would have thought there'd be more important fights and more deserving targets.

Yes but you are clearly an adult

On here it's like a bunch of hyenas Or as someone posted the 'striasand effect '

I personally have a lot of respect for both sangie and tiddlywinks. They both have their place on these forums. For one to attack another is saddening

As sangie pointed out, a lot of good brains and experience have left here. Where else are you getting free Union and law advice in simple terms? As these people leave the advice is watered down and can perhaps be wrong


This thread really did become a witch hunt.

Those who are so ignorant and only post what they feel is right, well good luck to you.

Those that know better , why did you go this road?

wheezy57

sangie595 wrote: »

Not in the slightest bit spiteful. The OP has asked an incomprehensible question and expected answers, and then become belligerent and nasty when they didn't get the answers they wanted. I do wonder sometimes whether it would be helpful to have a two part new thread option - "what is your question" and "what are the answers you want". That way we could save time trying to help people who don't want advice.

At what point did I become belligerent and nasty. Do you need to know the finer details? I thought 'as a generalised scenario' I asked for someone to comment in a factual way, not misconstrue the post so much so that the poster could be on medication.

I find the tone in some of the posts to be absolutely horrendous and very unkind.

wheezy57

sangie595 wrote: »

Now, since the OP appears to be bored of not getting the answer they want, and nobody else has anything relevant to add and so are playing "which side are you on", I'm going to retire from this thread because you can't convince someone of something if they don't want to be - whether that is the OP or you. Frankly I have better things to do than spend the rest of my day arguing about a sentence that you misunderstood and read into it something that I did not say. And still haven't said.

Oh dear. Why do you assume Im bored because Im not getting an answer I want (your words not mine). I work full time and havent had time to catch up.

Again, where was I belligerent and nasty? Some of your responses have been at most unhelpful and at worst arrogant.

My OP was sincerely asked - I do not need to give you any more than I gave. If you found the post to be 'ununderstandable' - my word - then thats too bad.

Some people do have a different perspective on replies than what you had hoped, but it backfired on you.

I aoplogise if you find this post to be belligerent and nasty.

robatwork

OK I'll try. Your response to this:

Originally Posted by patman99
I got lost at ' It has been 6-7/52'. If you mean 6-7 weeks, then put it like that. Not everyone understands cryptic codes.

Was this:

wheezy57 wrote: »

Whats cryptic about that.

Your tone sounds either sarcastic or sneering. An answer that would have made you appear more reasonable and less bolshie would have been "Oh my apologies, it's my years in xxxxxxx that make me automatically write timescales like that. Yes I mean 6 to 7 weeks, thanks for replying".

I'm not being nasty but you can interpret this how you wish.

wheezy57

I have interpreted this in the spirit in which it was sent. Im neither sarcastic nor sneering. On this thread anybody can say anything and be misunderstood and be sent to the stocks by the great and the good, the high and the mighty, the long serving and the trolls.

Ah well. So much for a genuine question from a genuine poster.

xapprenticex

wheezy57 wrote: »

I have interpreted this in the spirit in which it was sent. Im neither sarcastic nor sneering. On this thread anybody can say anything and be misunderstood and be sent to the stocks by the great and the good, the high and the mighty, the long serving and the trolls.

Ah well. So much for a genuine question from a genuine poster.

Don't worry about it, continue using the forum though, things will hopefully get better. I look forward to a thread that has no flaming, assumption, nastiness or trolling (FAT CHANCE).... from anyone. As I've said before, if you are not prepared to say it to a persons face, don't be a keyboard warrior and say it over the internet.

If you believe you have been mistreated then there is a good chance you were mistreated, you are not stupid. On this occasion, I'm siding with you. Some posters ask for it, but I didn't see that with you.

IMO dont argue with members of the clique, your words wont reach them, just move on and enjoy life, something I fear many here don't do.

Detroit

I think the problem wheezy is that you didn't provide sufficient details for people to properly help you.

You seem to be asking if 6/7 weeks is a reasonable time for an investigation to be on going;
Whether people you see as involved in the matter should be investigating it;
and if you can do anything about it if the investigators lie or use bias when examining the evidence?

From the information you provided, it's not possible to tell if the investigation is taking a reasonable time.
A simple investigation could be completed more quickly than one involving numerous witnesses and the necessity to review a lot of complex data, for example.
You haven't told us what is being investigated, so we can't assess if it's reasonable.

Similarly, although on the face of it, it's not best practise for someone involved in a matter under investigation to investigate, this depends on their level of involvement. Again, you would need to explain the circumstances.

With regards to your options if you feel the investigation is biased or based on lies, you should have a right to appeal.

This is all very general, and I'm sure of limited assistance.
It's a great pity you did not provide the information Sangie and others requested, as then you would have benefited from their expertise.
Failing this, I would recommend you seek advice from ACAS or CAB.

wheezy57

Detroit wrote: »

I think the problem wheezy is that you didn't provide sufficient details for people to properly help you.

You seem to be asking if 6/7 weeks is a reasonable time for an investigation to be on going;
Whether people you see as involved in the matter should be investigating it;
and if you can do anything about it if the investigators lie or use bias when examining the evidence?

From the information you provided, it's not possible to tell if the investigation is taking a reasonable time.
A simple investigation could be completed more quickly than one involving numerous witnesses and the necessity to review a lot of complex data, for example.
You haven't told us what is being investigated, so we can't assess if it's reasonable.

Similarly, although on the face of it, it's not best practise for someone involved in a matter under investigation to investigate, this depends on their level of involvement. Again, you would need to explain the circumstances.

With regards to your options if you feel the investigation is biased or based on lies, you should have a right to appeal.

This is all very general, and I'm sure of limited assistance.
It's a great pity you did not provide the information Sangie and others requested, as then you would have benefited from their expertise.
Failing this, I would recommend you seek advice from ACAS or CAB.

Thank you for that post. I explained earlier that I didnt want to post the
nitty and gritty. I do write in a certain way but that certainly cant be helped. I am not a journalist! But, I think the thing that has come out of all this is that there are some/alot of horrible people on this forum. I work with horrible people, I am old enough to know that these vile people are the underbelly of all that is good, decent and true. For whatever reason. The thing is that I am not vile, horrible or cryptic. So my understanding of some of the posts are of incredulity and dismay. On the other hand there are some posters that are likeminded. Thank heavens for that!

I have sought advice from ACAS and CAB, Unison, GMB, USDAW, HR, own peer group and family, legal and otherwise. At the very least its up to me and at the very most its up to me.

As it happens, the Trust have exceeded their own timescale for this investigation which is in their own words unacceptable!

robatwork

wheezy57 wrote: »

I work with horrible people, I am old enough to know that these vile people are the underbelly of all that is good, decent and true.

My last input here as you haven't accepted that 6/7-52 is cryptic to those outside of your field. That sentence you just typed makes no sense, so I'm out, unsure whether I am vile or decent or a bit of both.