An example of a heat of the moment exchange involving a licence holder which is likely to attract the attention of the police
Threats to shoot employee
Threats to shoot employee
One way to put your FAC/SGC at risk
- Thread starter mark2853118
- Start date
Andy seatrout
Well-Known Member
The employer used intemperate language and whilst the employee was contributory it’s never advisable to threaten……
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.
Just beggars belief that a drunk employee and boss can end up in a tribunal which you and I pay for when at a later and more sober time a simple apology and handshake would likely have sorted it. Just another example of the world going mad but then I am old……
Beam me up Scottie.
Just beggars belief that a drunk employee and boss can end up in a tribunal which you and I pay for when at a later and more sober time a simple apology and handshake would likely have sorted it. Just another example of the world going mad but then I am old……
Beam me up Scottie.
Clearly it isn’t right to threaten to shoot someone but let me tell you this, it is a complete nightmare being a manager of people in today’s world. You only need one or two troublemakers in a team and it puts everyone on edge. You are watching every word that is said and wondering when the next complaint will come in.
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
As a manager i once had an occasion where i had to speak to our labourer about some of the time it took making local deliveries and one or two other minor issues that needed nipping in the bud, no big deal.
Lovely fella, was just an informal chat but it went from that to him producing a notepad with pretty much everything i’d said to him that he took issue with going back over 5 years, dates, times, sarcastic comments, swear words the whole lot.
Since then I work on the basis that if you assume everyone you deal with is either stupid or a nutcase you won’t go far wrong.
Did laugh at the names in the OP link.
Jingles-Smith vs Supaman.
Lovely fella, was just an informal chat but it went from that to him producing a notepad with pretty much everything i’d said to him that he took issue with going back over 5 years, dates, times, sarcastic comments, swear words the whole lot.
Since then I work on the basis that if you assume everyone you deal with is either stupid or a nutcase you won’t go far wrong.
Did laugh at the names in the OP link.
Jingles-Smith vs Supaman.
Maybe I missed something, but how could the judge reasonably state that the verbal threats were made with absolutely zero corroboration??
Given the seriousness of such threats, surely this cannot simply be ruled on without such corroboration? Think the guy could now be up on serious charges following this ruling, apart from the obvious loss of firearms.
Given the seriousness of such threats, surely this cannot simply be ruled on without such corroboration? Think the guy could now be up on serious charges following this ruling, apart from the obvious loss of firearms.
Employment Tribunals operate on a "balance of probabilities" which is a less stringent evidential test than the criminal burden of proof. In essence after hearing evidence from witnesses and/or reviewing documents etc, if something that is being alleged to have been said/done is considered more likely to have happened than not, then a finding is made it did.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
There was a bloke in Surrey who threatened to shoot his wife and step daughter, the police took away his guns, he objected so they gave them back. Guess what? He shot them both dead!
Corroboration is a legal requirement in Scotland not England. Poor you.
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. How very reminiscent of african/american tribal elders but without the expense then!
how "poor me"?
Yeah, I get that, but the judge stated he didn't think there were any threats of physical violence so then why would he think the verbal threats did take place when there was a similar lack of evidence of their existence? I just thought that the potential outcomes of such a ruling are significant so therefore the judge would need to be fairly certain they had indeed taken place.
Sounds familiar. I am better now at spotting these sort of people at interview but they still occasionally slip through the net. Sad thing for me is that it makes you feel that you can’t have any kind of informality in the workplace anymore, everything has to be black and white.As a manager i once had an occasion where i had to speak to our labourer about some of the time it took making local deliveries and one or two other minor issues that needed nipping in the bud, no big deal.
Lovely fella, was just an informal chat but it went from that to him producing a notepad with pretty much everything i’d said to him that he took issue with going back over 5 years, dates, times, sarcastic comments, swear words the whole lot.
Since then I work on the basis that if you assume everyone you deal with is either stupid or a nutcase you won’t go far wrong.
Did laugh at the names in the OP link.
Jingles-Smith vs Supaman.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
The wife of a colleague who worked in HR, once said to me about 'problem' staff:-
"If you do not write it down, you can rest assured that they are".
All well and good, when you have a 'day job' to be getting on with.
The issue being that "problem' staff, often have both the time and the inclination to 'record' everything - the bastards.
long_range_rob
Well-Known Member
To clarify the daughter made a complaint, the guns were seized, she then WITHDREW the complaint and as the gentleman then had no case against him Surrey police had to return his guns. Several good police employees were thrown under the bus after the enquiry and nobody came out of it well.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Once the tribunal has made its “ balance of probability “ finding that finding will be used as the justification to revoke the certificates if it hasn’t been done already.
kenbro
Well-Known Member
There was CCTV evidence that the judge viewed that made him conclude that the guy's body language didn't suggest violence.
K.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Especially the two dead women! But you are slightly incorrect as insofar as even as the complaint had been withdrawn the police were under no obligation to return the firearms. Likewise with the Plymouth shootings attendance at an anger management course did not oblige the police to return the shotgun
Similar threads
