Re: Wallace - Again
Yep, people assume it's some kind of criminal investigation. It's not. It's a load of people saying one thing, and Wallace saying another. The organisation don't need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. They just need to satisfy themselves that if it went to a tribunal no reasonable judge would disagree with their actions, which were in the normal band of responses for an employer faced with a similar situation. END OF.
|
Message Thread | This response ↓
Wallace - Again - Sherpa July 14, 2025, 11:04 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - GwladysTreat July 15, 2025, 1:07 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Tonytaxi1970 July 15, 2025, 12:57 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Otto July 15, 2025, 9:18 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - Platinii July 14, 2025, 4:52 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - NoelBlakeFanClub July 15, 2025, 1:16 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Touching_Cloth July 15, 2025, 12:53 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Twainy July 15, 2025, 12:52 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Lick_Myons July 15, 2025, 12:23 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Brewtality July 15, 2025, 12:11 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - passinginterest July 15, 2025, 9:50 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - tricky9999 July 15, 2025, 9:20 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - No_One_Ever_Replies July 15, 2025, 8:57 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - Sherpa July 15, 2025, 8:21 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - StringerBellend01 July 15, 2025, 8:16 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - Barra6 July 14, 2025, 11:40 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - bluegenes July 14, 2025, 5:02 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Lance Drysdale July 14, 2025, 11:58 am
- Re: Wallace - Again - SnafflesBlue July 14, 2025, 12:16 pm
- Re: Wallace - Again - Yogi_Clementine July 14, 2025, 11:08 am
 « Back to index | View thread » |