Declan Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 A former colleague of mine did something similar. He was convinced his letters weren't being checked properly before being returned to him to send out. So he typed up a joke letter and slipped it into the work for checking. Sadly, his suspicions were proved correct when an irate customer phoned up. In the DHSS case, I can understand the recipient being pissed off when she got the letter, what I don't understand is her going to the press and taking legal advice on the matter. I feel that a sincere apology from the Department head, an assurance that the matter was being dealt with through the internal disciplinary procedure and a bouquet of flowers or a bottle of wine, should suffice. I certainly wouldn't call the author a hero, more a silly boy, but I expect he'll learn his lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavsta Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 In the DHSS case, I can understand the recipient being pissed off when she got the letter, what I don't understand is her going to the press and taking legal advice on the matter. Because she obviously has too much time on her hands in between watching day time TV and scrounging for benifit. I would guess she has seen it as way to get even MORE free money off the state. KER CHING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted July 6, 2007 Author Share Posted July 6, 2007 Deffo an attempt to get more money. Cider doesn't grow on trees you know *checks wikipedia for origins of cider* I stand corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 No legal aid for defamation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 No legal aid for defamation if it was at all? i'd deny it too and get friends to vouch for pool little me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Ten Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I think we should not forget (me included) that some poor twat could lose his/her job for this, none of us know the facts as to if it was a prank that went horribly wrong or not. I suppose what I am trying to say is that whilst a lot of us are laughing about this, the alleged is now facing the possible sack, he or she may have all sorts of financial commitments and possibly a family that could also be affected by this. Hope it is all sorted out amicably on the behalf of both parties, and hopefully very soon as well. Last 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 If you can't do the time-don't do the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Oh dear, bit of a faux-pas for sure by the look of things, I can't believe someone would knowingly send out such a letter, no matter what they might personally think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I certainly wouldn't put any money on the Civil Service binning him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Ten Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 If you can't do the time-don't do the crime. Well homarus all I can say is that statement must have taken some thinking about! Hung drawn and quartered springs to mind with that pathetic blurb. Last 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 What does "blurb "mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 In the DHSS case, I can understand the recipient being pissed off when she got the letter, what I don't understand is her going to the press and taking legal advice on the matter. Because she obviously has too much time on her hands in between watching day time TV and scrounging for benefit. I would guess she has seen it as way to get even MORE free money off the state. KER CHING! and if its an completely untrue allegation the why does the woman not want to be named, unless of course there is a significant element of truth in what the DHSS person wrote about her. If she has nothing to hide then she should let her name be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Because idiots will believe that there's no smoke without fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 No legal aid for defamation She can't be that much of a waster if she can afford legal Advice ? Points more towards, the letter writer being an "asshole "in my humble opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 No legal aid for defamation She can't be that much of a waster if she can afford legal Advice ? Points more towards, the letter writer being an "asshole "in my humble opinion! but has she got legal advice? surely if she is on benefit she will soon discover she can't afford legal advice unless some local Advocate is going to represent her for free (can they do that?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.