Bellefield Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 by the way, here is the full report of the employment tribunal. Its only a 101 pages long, so if you're a work shy time waster, its best to read it in the office. https://www.gov.im/lib/docs/registries/tribunal/et1622.pdf Post 301 - get with the program oops! Sorry I missed that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Back on the real topic ... To be fair smokers do stink, I could smell a 'grandad' smell in my office yesterday, upon investigation I found my colleagues were smoking outside (out of the shop which is a room and a corridor away from my office) and hadn't closed the door. When they came back in I passed them in the shop, the smell made me roll my eyes and tut. I empathise with her. Bloody 'reformed' smokers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottyLisa Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 A 'quick check' with a qualified person would have -a- cost them money, and -b-still not addressed the question of her claim. You're focussing on the evidence she provided in the form of an official HR letter, rather than what she claimed to IOM newspapers was going on behind the scenes. What she claimed (and tried to support with text messages) contradicted that evidence/letter. That's what the story was about. My frustration is with the approach taken by the journalist, They have been presented with one side of the story, and have asked the DHSC to comment and were unsurprisingly told no. Rather than attempt to balance the claimants story with some reference to employment law they have just gone for the sensationalist approach. I know that sells papers but it really annoys me because in most cases, such as this one, the claimants allegations are proved to have no foundation, however, they never get followed up by the media (and I am including the UK media here). The only reason this one got any follow up was because Inglis lied about how the press came to have the story. I can guarantee you that the Sun will never have followed up on it, Sadly factual reporting does not sell papers or gain clicks online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Back on the real topic ... To be fair smokers do stink, I could smell a 'grandad' smell in my office yesterday, upon investigation I found my colleagues were smoking outside (out of the shop which is a room and a corridor away from my office) and hadn't closed the door. When they came back in I passed them in the shop, the smell made me roll my eyes and tut. I empathise with her. Bloody 'reformed' smokers...Ha! I'm not reformed, I never was a smoker, I was tricked into drug addiction at a very early age & now I'm no longer a drug addict Don't drink, smoke, take drugs, can cook, love my husband and kids blah blah blah - I do have a secret liking for Justin Bieber though so I'm not totally amazing 😉 ETA - I woke up in total panic! I meant Justin Timberlake not Bieber.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Manxman I think you have an unrealistic idea of the resources available to a local newspaper and the role of the journalist. This story was accurate Iglis claimed that she was going to be sacked for having cancer. Naturally they sought the other side's perspective but ultimately it's like many stories (DED vs Bushys for example) it's one opinion against another. It would have been more wrong had they refused to print this woman's story, simply because a government department disagreed with her. What benefit would speaking to an hr professional bring? A little perspective towards the end of a longer article. "Local HR professional Manxman Busybody said it would be illegal to sack someone simply because they had cancer and an employee sacked for this reason would have a very strong case at a tribunal." An HR rep could only say what the rules were, not whether they were being applied correctly in this instance. In fact you only have to review this thread to see many people doubted the veracity of her claim from the original article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.