Anoymous email to my work

unforeseen

FBaby wrote: »

Do you work with vulnerable people?

Who? Me? Relevance?

nicechap

sangie595 wrote: »

Well, you have no idea whether it was sent from work. And if it was, then the IP address only will tell you that it was sent from the workplace - not who sent it.

If "we" got his details, in the case you mention, then "we" should not have been involved, because it is for the employers to decide how to handle things, not "we".

And it is an allegedly unfounded allegation. Someone who drinks only occasionally can still have a drink problem, if, for example, they beat up their partner every time they drink!

All you are doing here is demonstrating why getting in the middle of personal squabbles is a really bad idea, and why they escalate out of all control so quickly that they so often end badly. Let's say the employer gets some evidence it's the ex. They ask her about it, and she says that beat her up every time he drank, albeit he didn't drink often. So now she's putting in a grievance that she isn't safe because of his conduct. He's got a counter grievance in saying it's a lie. She's got another one in saying .... And before you know it the employer washes their hands of all of it and both of them. Understandably. And what if he's wrong anyway - who should then be disciplined? He's making allegations here based on no evidence - pot, kettle, black?

This is a mountain out of a molehill. But it has the capacity to become a range, and all that requires is for the OP to follow your advice and start a war.

As ever, put more accurately & focused than I ever could.

For me, its an example of posting for entertainment value rather than a serious attempt at helping the OP. I've come to realise the best way is not to engage directly with them and just correct their nonsensical posts. Otherwise it just encourages them to post further for fun.

EDITED TO ADD:
For instance they appear to have deliberately misread this bit of the OP:

James101ondon wrote: »

Hello ,
...I was called in to she HR last week ..... I asked for the details of the email , date of when it was sent and the email address all to which they said no. I asked if they were concerned about the content of the email and if my conduct at work had ever been a cause of concern which they said no.
......

xapprenticex

James101ondon wrote: »

Yes its my ex ! But we work together for the same company shes trying to ruin my name

Okay, do you now agree that you should not date anybody from work? It has crossed my mind but i hear to many horror stories.

JReacher1

sangie595 wrote: »

Well, you have no idea whether it was sent from work. And if it was, then the IP address only will tell you that it was sent from the workplace - not who sent it.

If "we" got his details, in the case you mention, then "we" should not have been involved, because it is for the employers to decide how to handle things, not "we".

And it is an allegedly unfounded allegation. Someone who drinks only occasionally can still have a drink problem, if, for example, they beat up their partner every time they drink!

All you are doing here is demonstrating why getting in the middle of personal squabbles is a really bad idea, and why they escalate out of all control so quickly that they so often end badly. Let's say the employer gets some evidence it's the ex. They ask her about it, and she says that beat her up every time he drank, albeit he didn't drink often. So now she's putting in a grievance that she isn't safe because of his conduct. He's got a counter grievance in saying it's a lie. She's got another one in saying .... And before you know it the employer washes their hands of all of it and both of them. Understandably. And what if he's wrong anyway - who should then be disciplined? He's making allegations here based on no evidence - pot, kettle, black?

This is a mountain out of a molehill. But it has the capacity to become a range, and all that requires is for the OP to follow your advice and start a war.

You should be able to pinpoint the exact computer in a work place from the IP address. This is what we did.

You say it is making a mountain out of a molehill but the OP has been accused of having a serious drinking problem and been sent to occupational health to discuss. Depending on what their career is this could have damage to his future career prospects.

It is not an unreasonable request to ask the HR department to check the header of the email to identify whether the IP addesss was sent from an internal office computer and if it was whether the person who sent it possibly had an agenda.

I do not know why you are so resistant to a suggestion which is perfectly sensible and would be helpful to the OP. I suspect it is because you did not think of it yourself ;-)

JReacher1

xapprenticex wrote: »

Okay, do you now agree that you should not date anybody from work? It has crossed my mind but i hear to many horror stories.

You can date people from work. You just need to be an adult about it

unforeseen

JReacher1 wrote: »

You should be able to pinpoint the exact computer in a work place from the IP address. This is what we did.

You say it is making a mountain out of a molehill but the OP has been accused of having a serious drinking problem and been sent to occupational health to discuss. Depending on what their career is this could have damage to his future career prospects.

It is not an unreasonable request to ask the HR department to check the header of the email to identify whether the IP addesss was sent from an internal office computer and if it was whether the person who sent it possibly had an agenda.

I do not know why you are so resistant to a suggestion which is perfectly sensible and would be helpful to the OP. I suspect it is because you did not think of it yourself ;-)

It is not unreasonable for HR to refuse as it is part of their investigation. The last thing they need or want is other employees screwing up an investigation by turning into vigilantes.

It all depends on the mail server. I think if it is exchange then the IP address may not be visible in the headers if it is internal email as it is not needed for routing.

And if the IP address was external? What then?

JReacher1

unforeseen wrote: »

It is not unreasonable for HR to refuse as it is part of their investigation. The last thing they need or want is other employees screwing up an investigation by turning into vigilantes.

It all depends on the mail server. I think if it is exchange then the IP address may not be visible in the headers if it is internal email as it is not needed for routing.

And if the IP address was external? What then?

You seem to be getting confused. I am asking the OP to ask HR to ask the IT department if they can identify the source IP of the email to aid the HR investigation.

It could well be an external IP address which would end this avenue of investigation. It still does not invalidate the idea of checking.

unforeseen

HR have said no for a very good reason. They do not want to identify the email writer to the OP probably because they have reason to beileve that OP will take matters into his own hands.

sangie595

unforeseen wrote: »

HR have said no for a very good reason. They do not want to identify the email writer to the OP probably because they have reason to beileve that OP will take matters into his own hands.

Quite. They have said no already, so why some people think that asking again will change their minds is beyond me. There are very good reasons not to disclose information. And actually, thinking about it, since the OP had not seen the email, we only have the employers word for it that it was anonymous, as opposed to them withholding the name of the complainant- which is actually quite a common thing for employers to do. Where there is a genuine reason to anonymise information, it is perfectly acceptable to do this.

JReacher1

sangie595 wrote: »

Quite. They have said no already, so why some people think that asking again will change their minds is beyond me. There are very good reasons not to disclose information. And actually, thinking about it, since the OP had not seen the email, we only have the employers word for it that it was anonymous, as opposed to them withholding the name of the complainant- which is actually quite a common thing for employers to do. Where there is a genuine reason to anonymise information, it is perfectly acceptable to do this.

Have they said no? Please can you quote the OP where he asked HR whether they have checked the IP address in the header to identify where it was sent from?

I suspect you are making this up for some unknown personal agenda

EDITED TO ADD...

Nice Chap I read that quote but it doesn't say that HR has checked the header of the email for the IP address. In my experience HR are not very IT literate and may not be aware this is something they could do to give them more information. Also it is good to know that one of your previous posts on a different thread where you claimed you put me on ignore were an exageration. It is good we can still interact together on this forum ;-)