Strong Claims about CCC/CET (2 Viewers)

[duffer]

I'm just talking about the law mate. I don't know what Les Reid lost his job for, but if he disobeyed his superiors instructions then that would be a sackable offence in most organisations.

Then it wouldn't seem that there would be much point in a tribunal, would there. I think you're making some pretty big assumptions here.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

I'm guessing you struggle to understand that you're not actually being very funny when you come out with this kind of bollocks, no?

When peoples eyes glaze over when you're telling another hilarious anecdote (maybe about someone wearing a tin-foil hat, or being sued for something), there's a clue there that you are probably missing. Jokes never work when you need to explain them, you know.

It's probably more likely that you don't have a sense of humour.

 

[duffer]

It's probably more likely that you don't have a sense of humour.

Says the man who gets the arse when he's asked a straight question - if you weren't trying to imply concern to Nick, then why not just explain that rather than heading down the old, tired 'tin-foil hat' route. That would have been fair enough. Maybe you're just not as funny as you think, eh.

 

[skybluetony176]

Says the man who gets the arse when he's asked a straight question - if you weren't trying to imply concern to Nick, then why not just explain that rather than heading down the old, tired 'tin-foil hat' route. That would have been fair enough. Maybe you're just not as funny as you think, eh.

Yep. Clearly no sense of humour.

Just to add. I also don't know how you came the conclusion I took the arse.

 

[duffer]

Yep. Clearly no sense of humour.

How would you know mate, given that you've never actually said something funny? Anyway, like you, this is a bit boring now and I wouldn't want to stop you working on your next hilarious posting. Good luck with that by the way.

 

[Grendel]

How would you know mate, given that you've never actually said something funny? Anyway, like you, this is a bit boring now and I wouldn't want to stop you working on your next hilarious posting. Good luck with that by the way.

He will probably find a comedic play on words on your user name -- actually he won't -- he will wait for someone else to come up with one and then claim it as his own.

 

[dongonzalos]

I'm not sure why Reid gets so much stick on here. The only reason I can think of is that he asks uncomfortable questions of the council. If he was exposing stuff about sisu then he would probably still retain his hero status. I still don't quite understand the affiliation that some posters have with CCC. I wonder if they even have a set of songs in support of them?

Personally I did not like the arrogance he showed towards a couple of members on here. Who notified the CET about a couple of things.
He printed it as an 'exclusive' yet there was nothing in the article not already mentioned on here days earlier.

When challenged about he was rude condescending and arrogant stating that he had been working on it for months. Yet the story contained nothing additional that had not been unearthed in 4 hours on here.

That and that alone put me off

 

[Philosoraptor]

I believe what it boils down to here is what is meant by in the public interest?

There is not a clear definition of what is, or is not, in the public interest.

Obviously any journalist would like to think their story is in the public interest.

Hearing what both sides in the Ricoh row had to say was in the public interest.

There is the 'middle ground' logical fallacy to watch out for here and this is to suggest that the truth laid between what the two parties were saying.

Having an opinion piece in the Telegraph from journalists who were following the Ricoh row and were more up to date then the general public was in the public interest.

Reporting on the finances of a company which could damage the company's future finances even more, is still in the public interest.

However, can reporting on a company who was being distressed by another for not paying money it was contractually owed, where reporting of this could damage the company's finances in its immediate future, be called public interest journalism?

Surely there is a balance here between the public interest in needing to know straight away, verses the private interest of the immediate future of the company being distressed.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Then it wouldn't seem that there would be much point in a tribunal, would there. I think you're making some pretty big assumptions here.

So are you. I'm just making assumptions from the opposite side.

 

[Moff]

So are you. I'm just making assumptions from the opposite side.

I think Duffer is spot on, you clearly are making big assumptions. Lets start by educating you on Employment law, that defying a superior is not 'a sackable offence in most organisations' as there is a lot more too it than that, that can sometimes lead to sackings, verbal/written warnings, no action, and just as easily disciplines against the Superior.

Your use of the word 'superior' says a lot about your thoughts on the matter, in the way that implys a manager is better than everyone else, and I would say that if most organisations followed the rule of bigfatronssba they would be heading for a lot of costly employment tribunal losses.

 

[covmark]

He will probably find a comedic play on words on your user name -- actually he won't -- he will wait for someone else to come up with one and then claim it as his own.

Shut it grendick! (you can have that one Tony)

 

[chiefdave]

However, can reporting on a company who was being distressed by another for not paying money it was contractually owed, where reporting of this could damage the company's finances in its immediate future, be called public interest journalism?

Surely there is a balance here between the public interest in needing to know straight away, verses the private interest of the immediate future of the company being distressed.

One of the things that came out yesterday, which CCC had previously denied, was that taxpayers money had been used to provision the loan to ACL. That fact alone makes it in the public interest. I don't see any circumstances in which taxpayers money is put at risk that it isn't in the interests of those same taxpayers to know about. Especially when CCC were outright denying that was what had happened.

 

[covcity4life]

disgusting council at it again?!!!!!!!

 

[Nick]

One of the things that came out yesterday, which CCC had previously denied, was that taxpayers money had been used to provision the loan to ACL. That fact alone makes it in the public interest. I don't see any circumstances in which taxpayers money is put at risk that it isn't in the interests of those same taxpayers to know about. Especially when CCC were outright denying that was what had happened.

People are only bothered when it is SISU wasting tax payers money with court costs though.