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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Shut it grendick! (you can have that one Tony)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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?