Can I be sacked?

Comms69

Deleted_User wrote: »

This is no joke, but you are. You sound very much like the nasty people at work. Why would I make this up? you have issues if you think this is a joking matter, shame on you. I hope you are never treated this way.

It’s interesting though why you didn’t mention this at the start.

How exactly did you expect accurate answers if you won’t provide accurate information?

[Deleted User]

AylesburyDuck wrote: »

Normally i agree with, but in this case i think your wide of the mark.
Those kind of trolls tend to wind people, light the blue touch paper, the retreat to watch their handwork. Nope, non of that here.
I think the OP has been treated shockingly here, and frankly some people really should look at how they write things, because they may well be exactly right in the advice they give but do they have to be so damn nasty in how they phrase things. It's like they take pleasure in upsetting people.

OP, my advice for what its worth is......put the culprits that do this on Ignore, while you may miss out on their advice,mainly someone will come along and give you the advice without the need to make you feel less than 10 inches tall.
Shocking from full grown adults to be fair, you'd think it was a playground.

Thank you for being so kind and thank you to those of you who have helped me.

I will not be posting on here again, not because I am not genuine, but simply because it's just not a very nice place.

If I had mentioned the religion/faith to begin with, I still would have been slaughtered for being off work. Some of you really need to take a look at yourselves, may God help you, what an awful place this is.

Undervalued

Deleted_User wrote: »

This is no joke, but you are. You sound very much like the nasty people at work. Why would I make this up? you have issues if you think this is a joking matter, shame on you. I hope you are never treated this way.

Whether you like how it has been phrased or not, you have received good advice in the early part of this thread. What you do with it is up to you.

If you want proper advice, regardless of whether you are paying for it from a professional, getting it from a union official or using a free forum like this you need to put all your cards on the table at the beginning. If you need advice then, by definition, you are not able to judge what is relevant and what is not.

Finally, the best advice is often that which you least want to hear. Somebody saying "there there, poor you" may be soothing for a while but ultimately it doesn't get you anywhere.

I'm out!

ohreally

Deleted_User wrote: »

This is no joke, but you are. You sound very much like the nasty people at work.

Perhaps you are the common denominator for perceived issues at work and here.

Beverley_Hillbillies

Comms69 wrote: »

Yes get proper PAID for advice if you aren’t sure

Correct, why don't you have a disclaimer to that effect on your signature?

Trial by jury, ETs don't have a jury, they have a panel

From your many replies on here, including your most recent replies in red to my post, I get the impression you're annoyed with yourself not choosing law as a profession

I stand by my statement, don't reply on the comments posted by regular members as being the law, it's their "opinion" and only "opinion"

Of course, given their replies, the regulars would have you believe they are qualified in law!! hence, why they don't have a disclaimer on their signature.

Undervalued

Beverley_Hillbillies wrote: »

Correct, why don't you have a disclaimer to that effect on your signature?

Trial by jury, ETs don't have a jury, they have a panel

From your many replies on here, including your most recent replies in red to my post, I get the impression you're annoyed with yourself not choosing law as a profession

I stand by my statement, don't reply on the comments posted by regular members as being the law, it's their "opinion" and only "opinion"

Of course, given their replies, the regulars would have you believe they are qualified in law!! hence, why they don't have a disclaimer on their signature.

Actually, quite often in is a judge sitting alone. If there is a panel of three then the other two members will be "lay" people.

I stand by my statement, don't reply on the comments posted by regular members as being the law, it's their "opinion" and only "opinion"

As indeed is legal advice. Although from a qualified person it is still ultimately only an opinion as to what they expect a judge to decided based on the information that has been presented.

Beverley_Hillbillies

Deleted_User wrote: »

what an awful place this is.

You've received some support on here, therefore, it's not an awful place.

What makes it hostile are some members being a little bit above their pay scale :rotfl::rotfl:

Beverley_Hillbillies

Undervalued wrote: »

Actually, quite often in is a judge sitting alone. If there is a panel of three then the other two members will be "lay" people.

Correct, but ETs are not trial by jury which one "regular" posted

marliepanda

AylesburyDuck wrote: »

Normally i agree with, but in this case i think your wide of the mark.
Those kind of trolls tend to wind people, light the blue touch paper, the retreat to watch their handwork. Nope, non of that here.
I think the OP has been treated shockingly here, and frankly some people really should look at how they write things, because they may well be exactly right in the advice they give but do they have to be so damn nasty in how they phrase things. It's like they take pleasure in upsetting people.

OP, my advice for what its worth is......put the culprits that do this on Ignore, while you may miss out on their advice,mainly someone will come along and give you the advice without the need to make you feel less than 10 inches tall.
Shocking from full grown adults to be fair, you'd think it was a playground.

So that’ll be the second option then.

The first post is accurate. I can accept that.

I do not accept that she is experiencing religious discrimination too. That’s been made up after the fact.

If she hasn’t, I encourage her to sue the company for religious discrimination, and not for being ‘snapped at.’

Beverley_Hillbillies

marliepanda wrote: »

I encourage her to sue the company for religious discrimination, and not for being ‘snapped at.’

Maybe being "snapped" at is easier to defend rather than openly religious discrimination