Another case of the managers taking things too far i see / Coastguard team resign

[nightspirit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8600925.stm

The was i read this is some manager in a cosy office not realising that in stressfull situations need to let off steam, however these guys have just taken the buscuit - to take this further thatn a verbal warning is way over the top. Now some people may say that there is never an excuse for swearing but tbh we all do it and in stressful situation it helps . I think you will mostly agree in backing that stance of the coast gaurd staff (They are VOLENTEERS after all) in backing their station commander. I really gets my goat when peolpe in power abuse it so i thought i wopuld throw this open to discussion.

[Sara Jevo]

I dont know anything about this situation. But experience suggests it is usually an accumulation of things. A single episode, which by itself might be ignored, becomes a tipping point.

[Tubthumper]

If I thought that the tale as reported comprised the whole unadulterated story, I'd side with the volunteers. I am however sceptical about anything reported in the press nowadays. There's usually other issues under the surface.
By the way, when one is a 'volunteer', one undertakes to follow the rules of the organisation. Sometimes people get a bit selective then hide behind the 'I'm a volunteer' excuse. Note that I'm not suggesting that's what happened here.

[The Drunken Duck]

Fully support them. Ridiculous situation. I did my last tour in the ARCC and if I had a quid for every time someone swore during a search/medevac/incident I would be a rich man. Those are heated situations where emotions can get the better of you.

If the guy is making that big a deal over one swearing incident during a rescue he needs to unbunch his panties and get a grip.

[nightspirit]

Well said drunken duck that is how i felt - - yes we do not know the "full"story but it is well over the top and that was the reson for the post.

[Gronnuck]

When the going gets tough, the tough get going - and they often swear while doing so. Speak to the police, the fire service and any of the military where the language and humour can be 'uncomfortabe' to sensitive ears.

[Tubthumper]

What was 'well over the top'? The volunteers for throwing the toys/ supporting their mate or this manager's response to swearing?
I support the volunteers for sticking together. But I don't for a minute think that serious disciplinary action came about as a result of a single epsiode of swearing in the heat of the moment - no rescue organisation, services, statutory or volunteer, is that naive. There is more to this. Could someone summarise the case for us please?

[bella]

I think most people would have sworn to let off a bit of steam under pressure, and these guys more so when adrenalin is running high when on an emergency,

the article even says that mr macleod had said sorry and then received one back later after things had cooled down, which youd think would have ben the end,

so i also think there is more to it because i wouldnt every for a moment think that the coastguards would leave there area unmanned for the sake of 2 grown men having a tiff over swearing.

[Tubthumper]

Exactly Bella, I doubt that the volunteers or the organisation would want to compromise public safety over something like a sweary under pressure.

[northener]

I believe there was a thread pulled off here a couple of days back that appeared to suggest the situation is a little more complex than would first appear.

[Wick66]

Once worked with someone that said that there was three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth.

[Tubthumper]

Once worked with someone that said that there was three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth.
Good one. These days we should always take a wee breath and think of that saying before we form an opinion on anything!

[annemarie482]

either way its a blooming shame that we now only have 3 volunteers!
i have every respect for the coastgaurd, they can't be praised enough.

[Margaret M.]

Mr. Macleod had been station officer for almost 30 years and I think the fact that seven other Coastguard volunteers, with loads of experience, resigned in support speaks volumes. These are dedicated folks who put their lives on the line to come to the aid of others -- so what if they let loose with a swear word now and then. The ones I know are very dedicated and really love what they do -- I seriously doubt they would give it up without very good reason. Almost 200 years of coastguard experience walked out the door -- that is a huge loss.

[annemarie482]

if i was being plucked from the wild sea i wouldn't be giving too hoots if they had sworn or done it naked!

[Tubthumper]

I hardly think seven committed volunteers would walk away and leave people at risk just because their mate didn't like getting told off by the boss. There's more to this than just a wee sweary, believe me.

[John Little]

Tubthumper is right - more to this than meets the eye.

But swearing! My wife's uncle is a lovely man in mixed company - well spoken, polite and mannerly- and moral. He's a bloke who has spent all his working life on building sites.

When no ladies are present it's f...... this and F...... that every other word- I think nothing the less of him; it's just salt on his words.

And on the sites and warehouse and farms I worked on it was the same.

If a sailor can't cuss things have come to a pretty pass.

[bekisman]

I don't know what you think, but personally I think this is pathetic. This chap, Norman Macleod, has been accused of Gross Misconduct - what was that for? Oh my God; he swore in the heat of a rescue!!

Is this Ian Burgess for real? (or have I got this wrong?)

'Part of the north of Scotland coastline has been left with just three volunteer coastguards when there ought to be 10, it has emerged. The volunteers have left the Wick service in support of their station commander, who resigned after being accused of gross misconduct. Norman Macleod, 63, swore while talking to his Aberdeen-based sector officer, during a search.
A coastguard chief said the Wick area was "well covered" by other stations. Mr Macleod said his expletive was not directed at any specific individual and that he apologised to sector officer Sandy Taylor immediately, when told his language was unprofessional. He said he was later given an apology by Mr Taylor, who accepted they had been working in a stressful situation at the time.

Mr Macleod said: "I thought that would have been the end of it." But he was called into a meeting with coastal safety manager Ian Burgess earlier this week.
He added: "I was given two options. I was told I could be suspended and given 10 days to appeal, or I could resign.
"I resigned as I was very, very hurt and saddened by what happened after such a long involvement in the coastguards."

More here:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8600925.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8600925.stm)

[northener]

Ahem:

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=104152

;)

[ronmck]

Another case of gross stupidity by a "Jobsworth". I have known Norman and his family since I was a bairn and know of their dedication to the Coastguard organisation and the training that has gone in over the years, as well as the danger to their own lives whilst effecting rescues.

Surely Ian Burgess should be at least investigated by the Coastguard heirarchy for this monumental blunder, and the Wick volunteers reinstated. (if this is their wish)

Can someone explain why swearing comes under the remit of a Safety Manager,

[bekisman]

Ahem:

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=104152

;)

Yes, I am fully aware that this subject was already posted on a different thread, but I was so disgusted I wanted to bring it up again.. Nah, I just did not see the other one - I'm getting too old for this lark! Can a mod merge or delete or something?
Ta Northener ;)

[trix]

i think its crazy....i da ken 'e manie but iv herd alot o' guid things aboot him.

if ma boss swore 'at me i wid probly be a bit taken back, she niver wid as she is superduper professional, but if she did, then apologsed i wid think alot o' her as it shows that she is only human.

perhaps 'e guy who forced his resignation should apologise publicly, then maybe 'e service wid be able til continue wi' its full capacity o' staff.

wonder if he feels a bit o' a plonker now, or dis he still stand by his decision :confused

very holyier than thou.....if ye ask me!!

[wicker8]

i know mr macleod well hes a very good citizen of this society he was a dedicated man one wrong word and it ends like this a bit over the top if you ask me

[~~Tides~~]

I hardly think seven committed volunteers would walk away and leave people at risk just because their mate didn't like getting told off by the boss. There's more to this than just a wee sweary, believe me.
Mr Macleod, has said himself that there was more to it than that. He is quoted in the Groat as saying there was a personality clash.

Everyone who knows Norrie, kens he is a topper of a man, as are his son and grandson, who also served in the Wick coastguard. Nobody should be treated the way he was after 44 years of service to the community.

A few years back I was in the ATC, and on a couple of occasions we did training things, abseiling and the like, with the coastguards, and I could appreciate the his professionalism then. He also gave time in giving lessons in VHF radio etc, which people in my family have benefited from, and he is extremely knowledgeable and experienced in that field.

There clearly wasn't a problem at a local level, given that Sandy Taylor apologised. Norrie is well known in the local community and has dedicated the greater part of his life to the service of that community, as has his family,. I have every respect for those that walked out, acknowledging this and the disgusting manner of his dismissal. As will, I believe, the community that he served for so many years.

The management have clearly got what they wanted, as shown by their 'we'll just hold a recruiting drive' attitude. But, as has been previously said, what they have got is the loss of hundreds of years of collective experience, and the tireless services of trusted members of the community.

[John Little]

Apparently he was accused of 'gross misconduct' by the jobsworths.

That's pretty strong language.

"good name in chiel an woman, dear ma lord, e immediate jewel o thur souls. steals ma purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'twas mine, 'tis his, an hez been slave till thousands;
but he at filches fey me ma good name
robs me o at fit-na no enriches him, makes me poor indeed. "


If someone accused me of gross misconduct just because I swore I should do the same as Mr Mcleod. It takes the power to throw such accusations out of the hands of those who make them and makes it his again.

He's clearly an honourable man; unlike those above him who have little concept of what their words mean.

[Sara Jevo]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this - and I imagine there is a lot more to it than a single episode of effing and blinding - the real victims here are those whose chances of survival may be diminished by this petty squabble.

[Tighsonas4]

I hardly think seven committed volunteers would walk away and leave people at risk just because their mate didn't like getting told off by the boss. There's more to this than just a wee sweary, believe me.
it seems quite obvious that there is a lot more than meets the eye to all this, as for the papers there more interested in getting a story than saving life tony

[wickscorrie]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116352405041814&ref=nf&v=info#!/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=116352405041814 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116352405041814&ref=nf&v=info#%21/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=116352405041814)

facebook group raising support to get our local folk reinstated, have seen Mr Macleod and the local coastguards in operation and have never found them to be anything but professional,
and if they were responsible for saving my life or one of my family and i was easily offended then i would just stick my god given fingers in my ears and let them get on with it

[bella]

It says that Norman Macleoad has served 44+ years and is son 20+ as a coast guards, now you would think that after such along time that if(and i dont believe it for a second) they were so bad at being in charge of a team that they would have been sacked a long time ago, and the team would have left along time ago insteady of sticking by them.

[northener]

I wonder how the local community would react to any new members taking up the positions of those who have left?

[jimbews]

I wonder how the local community would react to any new members taking up the positions of those who have left?

Will there be new members? Any comparison with what happened in Orkney and wonder if the situation has been engineered?

http://www.orcadian.co.uk/archive/2009/archive10.htm

[catran]

I think most people would have sworn to let off a bit of steam under pressure, and these guys more so when adrenalin is running high when on an emergency,

the article even says that mr macleod had said sorry and then received one back later after things had cooled down, which youd think would have ben the end,

so i also think there is more to it because i wouldnt every for a moment think that the coastguards would leave there area unmanned for the sake of 2 grown men having a tiff over swearing.

I was under the impression that coastguards were highly trained and would not let the adrenalin run amok in an emergency.
Surely a swear word could not account for all this upheaval by leaving the station unmanned.As Jim Bews says "Is it case of engineering?"

[wickscorrie]

655 folk have now joined the facebook group, interesting

[bettedaviseyes]

support him on facebook

[Moira]

This is one of these situations where the local guys, who have put their butts on the line over the years, should present a united front to Mr Ian Burgess and challenge the stupidity of his stance.

[Tubthumper]

This is one of these situations where the local guys, who have put their butts on the line over the years, should present a united front to Mr Ian Burgess and challenge the stupidity of his stance.
Can I ask, what was the nature of the 'gross misconduct'? It can't possibly have just been for swearing in the heat of the moment.

[Moira]

You can ask but I don't have the answers - sorry. I should have headed up my previous post IMHO.

[Tubthumper]

I suspect that the clash has been sparked by one of those 'Done it this way here for 40 years, why should we change?' vs 'The organisation has to adapt and modernise, like it or leave it' situations.
Which is very sad, for both sides. And for the people who have lost a valuable service because people can't see the other side.

[Moira]

I don't know why you would suspect that TT unless you have insider info?

[Kirdon]

I suspect that the clash has been sparked by one of those 'Done it this way here for 40 years, why should we change?' vs 'The organisation has to adapt and modernise, like it or leave it' situations.
Which is very sad, for both sides. And for the people who have lost a valuable service because people can't see the other side.

From the horses mouth, as the saying goes, Wrong!!. After having a chat with one of the team in question it appears approximately 7 months ago Mr Macleod brought up with lower management, an issue of the team missing callouts to Wick Airport (as Wick is a small place all the emergency services muck in). Lower management gave no backing so he had to go higher, eventually higher management tasked lower management to get it sorted out and the issue was put back to the original situation. Proving Mr Macleod right. 44 years as a coastguard and 27 years as a special constable and not even a verbal reprimand, 7 months after going to higher management he was put out by lower management? The words quoted to me were "WITCH HUNT".

[bella]

That about sums it up WITCH HUNT

[jimbews]

That about sums it up WITCH HUNT
Seems like there's a precedent from 2007 in Stornoway:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-169982061.html


From the horses mouth, as the saying goes, Wrong!!. After having a chat with one of the team in question it appears approximately 7 months ago Mr Macleod brought up with lower management, an issue of the team missing callouts to Wick Airport (as Wick is a small place all the emergency services muck in). Lower management gave no backing so he had to go higher, eventually higher management tasked lower management to get it sorted out and the issue was put back to the original situation. Proving Mr Macleod right. 44 years as a coastguard and 27 years as a special constable and not even a verbal reprimand, 7 months after going to higher management he was put out by lower management? The words quoted to me were "WITCH HUNT".

If I read this correctly, do I assume the "lower management" is the author of, for example:


There are some good indications that category one responders are working far more closely now than ever before. During the Elgin floods and the hosting of G8 summit, many different agencies acted in support of the primary responder. This support and cooperation is imperative if we are to respond to multiple major incidents. So in terms of supportive working relationships and joined up response Scotland is better prepared now then it was ten years ago.


Taken from:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/168939/0046999.pdf

[Average]

Seem wrong to me to have such a vociferous facebook campaign in favour of Mr Macleod when it appears no one actually knows the true reason for the reprimand. Would he really be suspended for using a swear word in conversation towards a superior. I read somewhere that it was in relation the a lady in a control centre. Was this the case? Did Mr Macleods comment have a sexist angle?

[Tighsonas4]

would hate to be lying at the foot of a cliff until they got this sorted out, would have to go through face book tony

[catran]

would hate to be lying at the foot of a cliff until they got this sorted out, would have to go through face book tony

Well said. Sad that things have to go through Facebook or even the Org. It would appear that there is something far wrong. There were no Facebook or Org twenty years ago.

[Kirdon]

Seem wrong to me to have such a vociferous facebook campaign in favour of Mr Macleod when it appears no one actually knows the true reason for the reprimand. Would he really be suspended for using a swear word in conversation towards a superior. I read somewhere that it was in relation the a lady in a control centre. Was this the case? Did Mr Macleods comment have a sexist angle?

I think the 2 females in his team would not have resigned if his comments had been sexist. I say good luck to him he started with a back up team of 8 now on facebook it's 800 and still rising.

[Tighsonas4]

I wonder how the local community would react to any new members taking up the positions of those who have left?
do i detect a veiled threat if there was someone ready to step in/ it is after all a lifesaving excerise were discussing tony

[Rourkee]

What ever happened to the democratic process of verbal warning, written warning and then dismissal or does this not happen in government positions?

[northener]

do i detect a veiled threat if there was someone ready to step in/ it is after all a lifesaving excerise were discussing tony

Whoa! Easy, boy!

Tony, I was looking at it from the angle that maybe people who would be willing to 'take up the slack' may be a little unsure about their reception around Wick.
No veiled threat -quite the opposite, concern that the CG may be compromised when it comes to recruiting replacements.

Wick's a small town and I'll bet there's plenty who would be unable to seperate past problems from those who want to help safeguard the Wick coastline in the future.

[Kirdon]

For anyone who is interested, I have been advised this subject is featured on the ITV news at six tonight.

[Rourkee]

Interesting to see that this is not the first time HM Coastguard have "got rid" of someone who did not tow the party line.

[Tubthumper]

Or disciplined someone who behaved in an inappropriate manner...

[Moira]

For anyone who is interested, I have been advised this subject is featured on the ITV news at six tonight.
Sorry I missed this. Any links?

Interesting to see that this is not the first time HM Coastguard have "got rid" of someone who did not tow the party line.

Did you mean "tow" or "toe" or neither? Again links would be good. I like to form my own opinion. Thanks. :)

[trix]

i can see that 'iss is all getin hyped up....til 'e extreme.

at 'e end o' 'e day, 'e guy swore, spoke indecently...used blastphemy. in a professional position, under enormous pressure. he lost his cool. he made a mistake.
is 'at acceptable?? there are rules, codes o' practice an' ither policies which hev til be adheared til.
in a professional position ye must be in control o' yer behaviour at all times, more so when tension levels are high.

am no fishin for an arguement. i da even ken 'e guy, am choost bein diplomatic.

i da ken if i even agree wi' what am sayin :roll:

[catran]

i can see that 'iss is all getin hyped up....til 'e extreme.

at 'e end o' 'e day, 'e guy swore, spoke indecently...used blastphemy. in a professional position, under enormous pressure. he lost his cool. he made a mistake.
is 'at acceptable?? there are rules, codes o' practice an' ither policies which hev til be adheared til.
in a professional position ye must be in control o' yer behaviour at all times, more so when tension levels are high.

am no fishin for an arguement. i da even ken 'e guy, am choost bein diplomatic.

i da ken if i even agree wi' what am sayin :roll:

Well who knows? It appears to be getting out of control whoever is in control eh????? Hope no one needs rescuing tonight. What is the problem? No one appears to be answering to what is wrong? As said surely one should be with all the said training be in control at all times so what has happened that this has made the headlines, did not this sort of thing happen before a long time ago??????? but no Org, telle or that then????????So why all this carryon through the auspices of the media????????Surely they all have SOLAS certificates so what is the problem??????????Does volunteers get paid???????Thought volunteers did not get paid.

[Moira]

I think you would do well to go lie down in a darkened room. Apart from anything else you seem to be abusing question marks.

[bella]

Well who knows? It appears to be getting out of control whoever is in control eh????? Hope no one needs rescuing tonight. What is the problem? No one appears to be answering to what is wrong? As said surely one should be with all the said training be in control at all times so what has happened that this has made the headlines, did not this sort of thing happen before a long time ago??????? but no Org, telle or that then????????So why all this carryon through the auspices of the media????????Surely they all have SOLAS certificates so what is the problem??????????Does volunteers get paid???????Thought volunteers did not get paid.


No one can be in control all the time were only human after all, has anyone every been on a search to find a missing person that could be hurt when the weather and time is against them, I personal think that if were me i would be saying a swear word too, tensions are very high emotions wild if Norman Macleod only said ONE than gee whiz, he was out searching for hours, and i bet even when he got home the phone would be ringing and he would be working on new areas/ideas for the next day,

i wonder if some people relise how much work and effort go into a operation like this, i certainly dont and if the out come of this was different i would think about trying to join such a dedicated team of men and women who to me look like they would do absultoutly anything to help anyone.

[Tubthumper]

No-one doubts the commitment of the Coastguard volunteers, and the valuable servce they provide, but I think a lot of the outrage and support is based on the assumption that a wee sweary was the cause of this.
I'd like to know what the issue with the mysterious lady at the control centre was, and how the disciplinary case against Mr Mcleod relates to his comments about her.
When one joins an organisation like this (with a combination of full-time and volunteer staff) one accepts the rules of the organisation regardless of one's commitment. The managers have to consider the organisation as a whole, and must also consider the laws relating to employment, equality, discrimination etc.
And if one breaks the rules or behaves in an inappropriate manner, one should expect there to be consequences, regardless of one's previous service or how highly regarded one is in the community.
Also, the mass resignation makes me wonder about loyalty in the organisation - loyalty to one's mates, against dreadful management, is no doubt a fine thing, but at the expense of public safety... What's that all about? :eek:

[Kirdon]

No-one doubts the commitment of the Coastguard volunteers, and the valuable servce they provide, but I think a lot of the outrage and support is based on the assumption that a wee sweary was the cause of this.
I'd like to know what the issue with the mysterious lady at the control centre was, and how the disciplinary case against Mr Mcleod relates to his comments about her.
When one joins an organisation like this (with a combination of full-time and volunteer staff) one accepts the rules of the organisation regardless of one's commitment. The managers have to consider the organisation as a whole, and must also consider the laws relating to employment, equality, discrimination etc.
And if one breaks the rules or behaves in an inappropriate manner, one should expect there to be consequences, regardless of one's previous service or how highly regarded one is in the community.
Also, the mass resignation makes me wonder about loyalty in the organisation - loyalty to one's mates, against dreadful management, is no doubt a fine thing, but at the expense of public safety... What's that all about? :eek:

1, A "wee sweary" was the cause and it was only said on front of two policemen and the Wick Sector Manager. No public, as reported in the papers, heard/overheard the statement.
2, The issue was that when the lifeboat was calling to Mr Macleod and because of poor radio coverage,he did not reply the said lady called him on his mobile (because she could not contact him by radio due to poor radio coverage) and asked him angerly, "what he was playing at as the lifeboat was calling him and he was not replying". This is all on the offical records stored in I think Aberdeen.
3, Agreed, but as in a previous post what happened to verbal warnings and written warnings etc, etc.
4, "at the expense of public safety" the Coastguard in the paper said that the Wick area was aptly covered by the stations on either side (don't know why they bother with a station in Wick if this is the case). On the other hand Mr Macleod has been quoted as saying that if he was contacted by the coastguard for help then he would not hesitate and he would guarantee the rest of the ex team would attend post ASAP. Also Mr Macleod has been approched by the press/tv for statements etc not the other way around.

And no I am NOT Ex station officer Macleod but I am proud to say I know him.

[peedie man]

if everybody had to resign that said a swearword ,,not many poeple would be working

[mac 1]

these managers should shut their mouths and act stupid,rather than open them and remove any reasonabel doubt.

[trix]

these managers should shut their mouths and act stupid,rather than open them and remove any reasonabel doubt.

but 'e whole point is that, "these managers" are actin in a professional manner, followin company policy....

noone is at fault here, nobody has broken any rules....except 'e man that swore....in all said an done.

am no sayin that i agree wi' 'e situation, am choost sayin.....

everyone cries oot when things are no carried oot professionally, and when things are followed by 'e book, everyone still cries oot.

i bet some people signed 'at facebook campaigne but da hev a clue what its aboot...no' 'e proper, true facts...so, really...it means nothin.

[Boozeburglar]

Yeah, you are top quality Trix.

:)

[trix]

Yeah, you are top quality Trix.

:)

cheers boozy, its all political billshiit if ye ask me...

[sandyr1]

Trix I agree.......
You know the World changes and at about 55 years of age I was becoming a dinosaur within my own organization, thus I took retirement.
Not that I was wrong but things change/ we all think for the worse, but perhaps not!
So new blood takes over and another evolution occurs.
What was acceptable 30/40 years ago is not now, whatever it may be.
We serve our time, we enjoy our profession and then we leave it to someone else.

[Tubthumper]

If ye should cowp right ower a cliff
Or crash ashore in fishin' skiff
When grandad's gone out walkin, if
He's no in rightest mind
Make sure it's no in Wick ye do
Because ye'll shortly find

'E Coastguards hev struck
They've all throw in the towel
Over words that were said
Whether sweary or foul
They've taken the humph
All the young and old stagers
Their ropes are hung up
And they've handed their pagers

An argument and words in haste
With action formal, left bad taste
To all walk out seems like a waste
Who goes to rescue now?
But sticking by your sweary mate's
A real Wick sacred cow

'E Coastguards hev struck
They all walked oo 'e door
Leavin' finding deid bodies
(A bit of a chore)
To the bold mountain rescue
With crampon and beard
Who of climbing down rocks
Are like coastguards, not fear'd

[to be continued]

[wickscorrie]

never mind that fine cheilie norman can still rescue a fair damsel on the street even if he ain't being official

[John Little]

oh i'm e cox'n o e wicker crew

(all) an a richt good cox'n too

you're exceedingly polite, an ah think id only right
to return e compliment

(all)we're exceedingly polite an he thinks id only right
to return e compliment.

Fou' language or abuse ah nivvur nivvur use
whate'er e emergency
though 'bother it!' ah may occasionally say
i nivvur swear a beeg beeg 'd'

(all) then gie three cheers an wan cheer more
for e well bred cox'n o e wick inshore.
Then gie three cheers an an wan cheer more -
for e cox'n o e brave inshore.



With a nod to G&S

[Tighsonas4]

cheers boozy, its all political billshiit if ye ask me...
an e wid ken, try sending me a pm or hev barred me tony

[Moira]

never mind that fine cheilie norman can still rescue a fair damsel on the street even if he ain't being official

I read about that in the Press and Journal today. Here's the link to the online version :-
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1684256?UserKey=

[John Little]

"He had clocked up more than 44 years’ service when he was told he could resign or face disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct."

For swearing!
Ye Gods!

[Rourkee]

Another article I read in the Scotsman on the subject of Norman.


http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Mind-your-language-Is-swearing.6218114.jp

[bella]

seen the coastguard truck out last night, does any no how they got on without the majority of the wick team?

[dollycat]

It was an attempt to rescue our dog Holly. Outcome was not good. That is all the family have been told. We heard through friends. :(

[dollycat]

I would like thank Brian Cardosi for bringing Holly up from the dangerous place she was stuck in. Holly was not reported to them as missing but she was reported as missing to the police. The police were contacted however they didnt phone the family and we heard second hand and as normal the wrong version of events which was quite distressing. All 14 of the men who put theirselves on a very dangerous piece of ground are to be thanked from all the Henderson family. Unfortunately Holly made a wrong decision after the successful rescue and plunged down again. I certainly was not having a go at the professionalism of the men, from a fishing background, i know how important the coastguard team are. Thanking you all that were last night.

[Kirdon]

I would like thank Brian Cardosi for bringing Holly up from the dangerous place she was stuck in. Holly was not reported to them as missing but she was reported as missing to the police. The police were contacted however they didnt phone the family and we heard second hand and as normal the wrong version of events which was quite distressing. All 14 of the men who put theirselves on a very dangerous piece of ground are to be thanked from all the Henderson family. Unfortunately Holly made a wrong decision after the successful rescue and plunged down again. I certainly was not having a go at the professionalism of the men, from a fishing background, i know how important the coastguard team are. Thanking you all that were last night.

Believe it was the john o groats team and the thurso team, well done! pity about the unfortunate outcome.

[sandyr1]

14 people put themselves in danger to rescue a dog?

[dollycat]

They are trained for the job. Crossing the road is dangerous. And spare a thought for my boy who lost his dog when you feel the need to be sarcastic

[catran]

They are trained for the job. Crossing the road is dangerous. And spare a thought for my boy who lost his dog when you feel the need to be sarcastic

quite agree with you, they are highly trained for the job

[Dog-eared]

Whether it's rescuing a person, dog or sheep it's still all in a day's work for them and good training experience as well.

[Blarney]

14 people put themselves in danger to rescue a dog?
Unbelievable! ...and yes whilst I can sympathise with anyone who has lost a pet, I find it unbelievable that fourteen human lives can be put at risk for the sake of one animal. I don't think that this post was sarcastic - just realistic.

[Tubthumper]

That's the nature of the Coastguard, isn't it? Selfless commitment. Unless one's mate gets a row, of course.

[dollycat]

This thread is not intended to be about my dog. I was thanking the coastguards involved. should have sent the station a thankyou note instead. will appreciate you just dropping it and i promise I will stay in the pets forum from now on.

[Tubthumper]

Sorry about wee Holly dollycat. :~( And I'll shut up.

[sandyr1]

They are trained for the job. Crossing the road is dangerous. And spare a thought for my boy who lost his dog when you feel the need to be sarcastic

No sarcasm meant.

[Dadie]

Sweary words are used by proffessional people to diffuse stress in difficult situations.
The armed forces/police/firebrigade/ambulance crew etc all use bad language when faced with difficult situations to vent anger/stress and they all manage to do a difficult job.. so miscalling someone is generally not seen as a bad thing as long as the main event is being seen to so is swearing such a bad thing in these stressful type jobs (often volentary)??
EG come on you ....(fill it in yourself) breathe...etc...
those (fill it in yourself) are trying to kill us
It is a tension release usually and not aimed at anyone in particular!

[_Ju_]

It is a tension release usually and not aimed at anyone in particular!

I think part of the problem is exactly that it was aimed at a person in particular (from the article posted by Rourkee, in what seems to be a credible newspaper http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Min...ing.6218114.jp ). Whilst I can understand being under stress and letting go of an expelitive, making them a personal comment about someone infront of their professional peers is not so much an inadverted slip of the tongue.

Yet apologies seem to have been made and accepted. The manager in question does not deem this "enough" of "a penance". Maybe because, as some suspect, there is a hidden agenda for getting rid of certain people or even shutting the station here. Or maybe, as others think, there is more to this situation than calling your collegue names. Either way this is very damaging to the coast guard. A little information can be a dangerous thing.

[exweeker]

From the horses mouth, as the saying goes, Wrong!!. After having a chat with one of the team in question it appears approximately 7 months ago Mr Macleod brought up with lower management, an issue of the team missing callouts to Wick Airport (as Wick is a small place all the emergency services muck in). Lower management gave no backing so he had to go higher, eventually higher management tasked lower management to get it sorted out and the issue was put back to the original situation. Proving Mr Macleod right. 44 years as a coastguard and 27 years as a special constable and not even a verbal reprimand, 7 months after going to higher management he was put out by lower management? The words quoted to me were "WITCH HUNT".

was you sitting on the horses back when you got your info.

weel anyway lets get it all out about the back stabbing going on inside that org. the ex milkman will let nobody stand on his toes or maybe you stood on his pipe maybe shud have been his neck.

im with you lot 100 percent one man should not be allowed to ruin 8 ppls carriers stand your ground and take him to task .but be carefull he might take another wobbler. not sure was it the rum or stress

[silverfox57]

if 1500 people supported wick coast guards on facebook and 88posts on org .think they could get 7 new members out of such a number people who would train to get wick cc up to strength.and move on ,and before any one says why dont i put myself forward .am to old.

[catran]

Isnt this all going a bit too far? There have been forced redundancies in the Wick CC beforee the day and no word about it.

[silverfox57]

Isnt this all going a bit too far? There have been forced redundancies in the Wick CC beforee the day and no word about it.
totally agree with you blow out of all proportion .

[Tubthumper]

1, A "wee sweary" was the cause and it was only said on front of two policemen and the Wick Sector Manager. No public, as reported in the papers, heard/overheard the statement.
2, The issue was that when the lifeboat was calling to Mr Macleod and because of poor radio coverage,he did not reply the said lady called him on his mobile (because she could not contact him by radio due to poor radio coverage) and asked him angerly, "what he was playing at as the lifeboat was calling him and he was not replying". This is all on the offical records stored in I think Aberdeen.
3, Agreed, but as in a previous post what happened to verbal warnings and written warnings etc, etc.
4, "at the expense of public safety" the Coastguard in the paper said that the Wick area was aptly covered by the stations on either side (don't know why they bother with a station in Wick if this is the case). On the other hand Mr Macleod has been quoted as saying that if he was contacted by the coastguard for help then he would not hesitate and he would guarantee the rest of the ex team would attend post ASAP. Also Mr Macleod has been approched by the press/tv for statements etc not the other way around.
And no I am NOT Ex station officer Macleod but I am proud to say I know him.
Pardon my rudeness Kirdon, I didn't notice your post until just now.
I'm a bit surprised at 'poor radio coverage' issue: I was under the impression that both MCGA and RNLI were users of some pretty decent radio equipment, and if there was a mobile phone signal I wonder what the problem was with their VHF and/or UHF radios?
Anyway, circumstances have shown that the emergency services can function without the people who resigned, so luckily we're OK. It'll all blow over, and Wick will have emergency cover provided from elsewhere.

[catran]

Pardon my rudeness Kirdon, I didn't notice your post until just now.
I'm a bit surprised at 'poor radio coverage' issue: I was under the impression that both MCGA and RNLI were users of some pretty decent radio equipment, and if there was a mobile phone signal I wonder what the problem was with their VHF and/or UHF radios?
Anyway, circumstances have shown that the emergency services can function without the people who resigned, so luckily we're OK. It'll all blow over, and Wick will have emergency cover provided from elsewhere.

One would have thought in this day and age radio coverage would be first class. Does seafarers and CG still need radio certificates? An interesting subject.

[Latino]

Hi, I can't help but draw similarities in the way MCA management are alleged to be operating and those of police forces.

In both John Stalker's "Stalker" and Allison Halford's "No Way Up The Greasy Pole" we read about a Deputy and an Assistant Chief Constable who lay open the tactics employed by their colleagues and members of their Police Boards, as well as Gov Ministers to destroy their careers.

Although both fine police officers they found themselves challenging their own or other forces and as such had their good names dragged through the mud, were suspended from duty and each eventually cleared their names. Allison Halford's treatment led to her winning cases at the European Court of HumanRights and new legislation being introduced to govern phone tapping.

Tactics employed included leaking false info to the media, which mostly was along the lines of xxxx has been under investigation for some time or this isn't the first time xxxx has been in trouble. This is similar in the Wick Coastguard situation and the other ones around the country.

Interestingly, Procurators Fiscal no longer accept Breach of the Peace charges consisting of people swearing at police officers - apparently it's just routine daily language. But if a cop swears..... Seems there's one rule for the ned and another for people on the ground who do their best for society.

Auxiliary Coastguard, Special Constables, Retained Firefighters, Community First Responders and TA - your country needs you but don't expect it to back you up even when you are right. The status quo of power is what Government, local authorities and emergency services need to continue to exist and people who are prepared to think independently, even if they are extremely professional and capable are deemed dangerous and disposable.

[Tubthumper]

Auxiliary Coastguard, Special Constables, Retained Firefighters, Community First Responders and TA - your country needs you but don't expect it to back you up even when you are right. The status quo of power is what Government, local authorities and emergency services need to continue to exist and people who are prepared to think independently, even if they are extremely professional and capable are deemed dangerous and disposable.
However if they are dangerously amateur, resent interference in 'their' game or refuse to change 'the way it's done' regardless of the pressures from outside, then what should the wage-payers do?

[Latino]

Oh, Tubthumper- are you talking about Mountain Rescue now?

I was talking about the thousands of women and men in the UK who give up many hours each week, paid or not, to assist the emergency services and our military. I have nothing but praise and admiration for all of them.

Having once been in one of these services as a regular / full time member I can honestly say that many of the volunteers beat the regulars into second place for their time keeping, professionalism, dedication and enthusiasm.

I haven't heard anyone say anything bad about Norman or his colleagues, except for the hierarchy and seems like you imply something too.

As for animal rescues - they are part of the service and again I don't know of anyone except those who shouldn't be in the emergency services criticise such rescues. The procedures and equipment along with training and experience ensure no-one's life is at risk - unless some freak accident occurs.

[Tubthumper]

Pardon me Latino, didn't mean to cast any particular organisation in a bad light.
When an organisation with a specific and essential role, which relies in part or in whole on volunteers (paid or not), has to step up a gear because either its role becomes more formalised, the 'regulations' become clearer as a result of experience, or simply because the insurance won't cover the volunteers, problems can occur. I used to know of people in mountain rescue teams who were in it for the beard and the jacket but turned out for no training. There were long-standing members of the TA who drank long into the night on stories of exercises and competitions, but who were nowhere to be found once deployment came into the equation.
Yet nowadays there are no TA members who won't go to the 'stan, there are few MR members who are not adequately trained in search techniques. Every organisation, including the Scouts and Guides, the Retained Firefighters, even the Salvation Army, must play the game properly or risk being sued either by a victim of incompetence or a member who's been slighted, just like in professional organisations.
What are the management supposed to do if confronted with incompetence or poor performance? Put up with it? Try to fix it? Invoke disciplinary action?
What would YOU do if you were in the position the MCGA area manager was in? (And I assume you know the whole story).

[catran]

Why oh why cant the media leave this alone. Mr macLeod must be so frustrated. Are the papparatzi (cant spell it)following him by the time the poor female who fell on the street had her picture getting first aid by Mr MacLeod?. It must have been awful for whoever took the turn to see it through the auspices of the media, terrible I would say and not very fair on Mr Macleod.

[Margaret M.]

Why oh why cant the media leave this alone.

They are probably sticking around until Mr. Macleod gets what he rightly deserves -- a sincere apology and a reinstatement offer.

[Tubthumper]

They are probably sticking around until Mr. Macleod gets what he rightly deserves -- a sincere apology and a reinstatement offer.
If he's a volunteer, how can he get a reinstatement offer? :confused

[scotsboy]

Been watching this with interest and have checked out most of the items in the news, been invited onto the Facebook support page - but chose not to join as I don't know all the facts......and I would postulate that goes for the majority who have joined the facebook site.
I would imagine that thereis a lot more to this than a swear word, but I don't know........what I do know is that the gentleman resigned, that was his decision.

[Margaret M.]

If he's a volunteer, how can he get a reinstatement offer?

Where there's a will there is a way. It could go something like this:

Mr. Macleod, management acknowledges that we have acted very inappropriately. Of course we understand that when one is in a very stressful situation, stress may be alleviated by uttering a string of naughty words – who among us has not done that? Bottom line is that you have given 44 years to your community, placing your own life in danger to save others. You did not deserve to be harassed to the point of tendering your resignation. We wish we could have been upfront and stated the real reason for your dismissal and not used a couple of curse words as the reason. We simply did not want the public to think badly of us but we did not anticipate this level of backlash. Shame on us for setting such a negative tone for your departure -- we should have permitted you to leave this organization with some dignity, that was the very least we could have done for you. We now realize that experienced volunteers should be treasured. Please accept our sincere apology and we want you and the other volunteers, who are fully aware of what took place, to join us again to continue the life saving work you have been doing all these years.

[Venture]

Where there's a will there is a way. It could go something like this:

Mr. Macleod, management acknowledges that we have acted very inappropriately. Of course we understand that when one is in a very stressful situation, stress may be alleviated by uttering a string of naughty words – who among us has not done that? Bottom line is that you have given 44 years to your community, placing your own life in danger to save others. You did not deserve to be harassed to the point of tendering your resignation. We wish we could have been upfront and stated the real reason for your dismissal and not used a couple of curse words as the reason. We simply did not want the public to think badly of us but we did not anticipate this level of backlash. Shame on us for setting such a negative tone for your departure -- we should have permitted you to leave this organization with some dignity, that was the very least we could have done for you. We now realize that experienced volunteers should be treasured. Please accept our sincere apology and we want you and the other volunteers, who are fully aware of what took place, to join us again to continue the life saving work you have been doing all these years.



Well said Margaret M. Let's hope they follow your example.;)

[bella]

does anyone know if Mr McLeod and his team are getting an apology or is the war still on going

[scotsboy]

does anyone know if Mr McLeod and his team are getting an apology or is the war still on going

War? Toys out of the pram more like.

[Fran]

There are two sides to every story, dont think we know it all!!

[catran]

There are two sides to every story, dont think we know it all!!

Now with the Harbour Authority making redundancies it makes one wonder what is going on around the Wick seafaring front.

[Tubthumper]

Now with the Harbour Authority making redundancies it makes one wonder what is going on around the Wick seafaring front.
Very little, hence the redundancies.

[Balvenie5]

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/35709.html

There is a petition to have Norman Macleod reinstated and also asking for an independent inquiry as to what actually happened here. There are not two sides to this story . Norman was stitched up by Taylor and Burgess as were Murdo Morrison and Willy Macrae over in Stornoway.

The point is if you have an employment contract - you cannot be sacked on the spot- there are laws to protect you and you have a right of appeal. Norman has given his free time for 44 years to save the lives of others . He deserves better.

Also Norman has only been the tip of the iceberg . There are plenty more shocking stories out there of brave and dedicated coastguard volunteers being sacked on the spot.

It is a national scandal and should be addressed.

We have now lost virtually 2 whole coastguard teams in northern scotland in the last few years and that doesn't include the redundancies in Orkney.
Ian Burgess is Coastal safety manager. How is he improving safety on our Coast??

[northener]

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/35709.html

There is a petition to have Norman Macleod reinstated and also asking for an independent inquiry as to what actually happened here. There are not two sides to this story . Norman was stitched up by Taylor and Burgess as were Murdo Morrison and Willy Macrae over in Stornoway.

The point is if you have an employment contract - you cannot be sacked on the spot- there are laws to protect you and you have a right of appeal. Norman has given his free time for 44 years to save the lives of others . He deserves better.

Also Norman has only been the tip of the iceberg . There are plenty more shocking stories out there of brave and dedicated coastguard volunteers being sacked on the spot.

It is a national scandal and should be addressed.

We have now lost virtually 2 whole coastguard teams in northern scotland in the last few years and that doesn't include the redundancies in Orkney.
Ian Burgess is Coastal safety manager. How is he improving safety on our Coast??

I believe that if you are serving in a voluntary capacity, you have no contract of employment with the MCA as you are not in an employed role.

Therefore you can be dismissed on the spot. Employment law cannot cover those who are not employed......

Not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out the difference.

[Balvenie5]

I know that is the law and I think it is disgraceful.

The Facebook group and the petition are campaigning to get the law changed with respect to volunteers

[catran]

I know that is the law and I think it is disgraceful.

The Facebook group and the petition are campaigning to get the law changed with respect to volunteers

Was there ever any respect since a long time? Yes. long long ago when you had proper coastguards in charge of the station but when that changed it all went down hill faster than fast. What about all the long term serving members who were made redundant and was very quickly replaced a number of years back in Wick? No hue and cry then????? No petitions or the auspices of the media to make their plight known. to the public in general

[NapalmDeath74]

With other rescue agencies and others listening in to CoastGuard vhf radio communications a CoastGuard members needs to follow radio protocol that means Sending and receiving radio messages is very straight forward clear manner without the use of foul language. 30years of service in the CoastGuard would of taught Norman that?

[bella]

refering to napalmdeath74, if youve read all the post Norman DID NOT swear on or anywhere near a radio, and its 44 years not 30.

[Balvenie5]

Was there ever any respect since a long time? Yes. long long ago when you had proper coastguards in charge of the station but when that changed it all went down hill faster than fast. What about all the long term serving members who were made redundant and was very quickly replaced a number of years back in Wick? No hue and cry then????? No petitions or the auspices of the media to make their plight known. to the public in general

Well things are only going to change if you DO something about them.

“You must be the change you want to see in the world.” Ghandi

[WICKER10]

1, A "wee sweary" was the cause and it was only said on front of two policemen and the Wick Sector Manager. No public, as reported in the papers, heard/overheard the statement.
2, The issue was that when the lifeboat was calling to Mr Macleod and because of poor radio coverage,he did not reply the said lady called him on his mobile (because she could not contact him by radio due to poor radio coverage) and asked him angerly, "what he was playing at as the lifeboat was calling him and he was not replying". This is all on the offical records stored in I think Aberdeen.
3, Agreed, but as in a previous post what happened to verbal warnings and written warnings etc, etc.
4, "at the expense of public safety" the Coastguard in the paper said that the Wick area was aptly covered by the stations on either side (don't know why they bother with a station in Wick if this is the case). On the other hand Mr Macleod has been quoted as saying that if he was contacted by the coastguard for help then he would not hesitate and he would guarantee the rest of the ex team would attend post ASAP. Also Mr Macleod has been approched by the press/tv for statements etc not the other way around.

And no I am NOT Ex station officer Macleod but I am proud to say I know him.

Having just read the Freedom of Information reply sent to Norman by Ian Burgess HM Coastguard Stornoway it states the "Complaint was MADE by the Sector Manager who witnessed the event.The Complaint was a verbal report and therefore no written record exists"
As the Foi reply is a Public record the ref is SAR D0000696
This proves it was a Inside Job and Not a letter from a member of the Public public as stated in the Groat.

[trix]

jeasus christ.....

[Rourkee]

Having just read the Freedom of Information reply sent to Norman by Ian Burgess HM Coastguard Stornoway it states the "Complaint was MADE by the Sector Manager who witnessed the event.The Complaint was a verbal report and therefore no written record exists"
As the Foi reply is a Public record the ref is SAR D0000696
This proves it was a Inside Job and Not a letter from a member of the Public public as stated in the Groat.


What a sneaky, evil, two faced so and so the Sector Manager is.
He accepts the mans apology, agrees it was all said in the heat of the moment in a highly stressful situation and then stabs him in the back by reporting him. This to me is the actions of a coward and not a man in a position of authority , a manager who cannot manage.
He should hang his head in shame.

[series2A]

How come when you watch the police stop programs the cops are swearing at the people they been chasing for half an hour while trying to get the cuffs on, they don't get reprimanded. OK the swearing is bleeped out but it's pretty obvious what's been said.

[sandyr1]

Quoting Fran some time ago, I would even go a step further.....there are 3 sides to every story. i.e one side, the other side, and something in the middle! It is I think quite unfair to 'slag' someone you don't know when all the facts are not known.....Hardly objective is it?
And as far as TV bleeping stuff out, I think you will find sometimes they do that for effect! Unfortunately we are all at the mercy of the Media and their primary object is to try and raise their ratings, thus being able to charge more for their advertising! Sad but true...
Remember when you were told, take that with a 'pinch of salt'!

[catran]

My OH saw some activity at the old CG Station tonightas he drove down Scalesburn and went and had a look have the old team been reinstated?

[Tubthumper]

How can the old coastguards be reinstated? They resigned from their voluntary role of providing emergency support to their community.

[scotsboy]

How can the old coastguards be reinstated? They resigned from their voluntary role of providing emergency support to their community.

Agree Tubthumper, it was their decision.

[south view 7]

My OH saw some activity at the old CG Station tonightas he drove down Scalesburn and went and had a look have the old team been reinstated?
The new team were getting training on cliff rescue....

[Tubthumper]

I wonder if supporters of the old team (who have refused to volunteer) will refuse help from the new team (who have agreed to volunteer) should they be in the unfortunate position of needing it?
Anyway, all water under the bridge now.

[florence]

I haven't followed all the discussion here but it seems a bit of an circular situation to me. After 44 years service the Maritime Agency cannot realistically allow Mr MacLeod to walk away from a service he has put so much work into. However, a safety-of-life service cannot function on the basis of walk-outs. It would be prudent to award Mr MacLeod for his service allowing him to draw a line under this and move on.

[Kirdon]

I wonder if supporters of the old team (who have refused to volunteer) will refuse help from the new team (who have agreed to volunteer) should they be in the unfortunate position of needing it?
Anyway, all water under the bridge now.

Mr Macleod is quoted in the newspapers and elsewhere saying if he was phoned to help he would attend asap as would all the other ex coastguards, but by looking at wicker10's post it looks like the Sector manager would not ask for help as he wanted to get rid of Mr Macleod. Jealous of Mr Macleod's respect in the community?

[Tubthumper]

...Jealous of Mr Macleod's respect in the community?
Aye, that'll be what it is. But there is no need for the resignees to be called out. A series of willing volunteers have stepped forward to fill the gap left by those who refused to be part of the statutory body. They are surely worthy of the respect of the community.
I've no dobt there are plenty of uninsured amateurs who would roll their sleeves up and help in the event of an emergency, but that's not really the point, is it? :D

[Rourkee]

but that's not really the point, is it? :D[/quote]

No it's not!

[Iceman]

I would imagine that possibly Mr Taylor would be sick of Mr Macleod wanting to be in "charge" the whole time , because from what i have seen of him and i have known of him for a long time he likes to be very much the main man and as previous orgers have put he resigned he walked away , so we should all just congratulate the other new volunteers who have taken over and let them get on with it !!

[Margaret M.]

I would imagine that possibly Mr Taylor would be sick of Mr Macleod wanting to be in "charge" the whole time , because from what i have seen of him and i have known of him for a long time he likes to be very much the main man and as previous orgers have put he resigned he walked away , so we should all just congratulate the other new volunteers who have taken over and let them get on with it !!

Well that’s a huge assumption on your part. Based on what we know as fact, this is my take on it. Mr. McLeod gave 44 years of his life to saving others in the community on a voluntary basis. As so many do when adrenalin is pumping and one is in a high stress situation, he used bad language. He apologized, Mr. Taylor accepted his apology but ended up accusing Mr. Macleod of gross misconduct. Kinda slimy, huh? Mr. Macleod was given two insulting options -- suspension with 10 days to appeal or he could submit his resignation.

If Mr. Taylor had other reasons for wanting to be rid of Mr. Macleod, he should have been forthright and honest about those reasons, being suspended or asked to resign for cursing is ridiculous. So if the handling of this situation is any indication of Mr. Taylor’s managerial/decision making skills who could blame Mr. Macleod if indeed he felt the need to be in “charge” as you assume, there was probably much need.

The situation was evaluated by the volunteers, those who knew both men best, and the majority chose to walk with Mr. Macleod. The fact that so many experienced volunteers, who were much more familiar with the situation than you or I (unless you are Mr. Taylor), chose to walk out in support of Mr. Macleod really says it all. These guys obviously loved what they did and would probably have never given it up were it not for a very compelling reason.

[scotsboy]

Well that’s a huge assumption on your part. Based on what we know as fact, this is my take on it. Mr. McLeod gave 44 years of his life to saving others in the community on a voluntary basis. As so many do when adrenalin is pumping and one is in a high stress situation, he used bad language. He apologized, Mr. Taylor accepted his apology but ended up accusing Mr. Macleod of gross misconduct. Kinda slimy, huh? Mr. Macleod was given two insulting options -- suspension with 10 days to appeal or he could submit his resignation.

If Mr. Taylor had other reasons for wanting to be rid of Mr. Macleod, he should have been forthright and honest about those reasons, being suspended or asked to resign for cursing is ridiculous. So if the handling of this situation is any indication of Mr. Taylor’s managerial/decision making skills who could blame Mr. Macleod if indeed he felt the need to be in “charge” as you assume, there was probably much need.

The situation was evaluated by the volunteers, those who knew both men best, and the majority chose to walk with Mr. Macleod. The fact that so many experienced volunteers, who were much more familiar with the situation than you or I (unless you are Mr. Taylor), chose to walk out in support of Mr. Macleod really says it all. These guys obviously loved what they did and would probably have never given it up were it not for a very compelling reason.

But gave it up they did, so why not respect THEIR decision.

[WICKER10]

Well that’s a huge assumption on your part. Based on what we know as fact, this is my take on it. Mr. McLeod gave 44 years of his life to saving others in the community on a voluntary basis. As so many do when adrenalin is pumping and one is in a high stress situation, he used bad language. He apologized, Mr. Taylor accepted his apology but ended up accusing Mr. Macleod of gross misconduct. Kinda slimy, huh? Mr. Macleod was given two insulting options -- suspension with 10 days to appeal or he could submit his resignation.

If Mr. Taylor had other reasons for wanting to be rid of Mr. Macleod, he should have been forthright and honest about those reasons, being suspended or asked to resign for cursing is ridiculous. So if the handling of this situation is any indication of Mr. Taylor’s managerial/decision making skills who could blame Mr. Macleod if indeed he felt the need to be in “charge” as you assume, there was probably much need.

The situation was evaluated by the volunteers, those who knew both men best, and the majority chose to walk with Mr. Macleod. The fact that so many experienced volunteers, who were much more familiar with the situation than you or I (unless you are Mr. Taylor), chose to walk out in support of Mr. Macleod really says it all. These guys obviously loved what they did and would probably have never given it up were it not for a very compelling reason.

Well Said .
The truth will come out at the Industrial Tribual and Taylor and Burgess will Look very Silly.
MCA thought this would go away well there are Lots of people working on it.
If Mr Taylor was so Good why did he Pass all the PR Jobs on to Norman eg School Talks ,WRi etc etc.
The reason Norman was first Class at it !!:lol:

[Tubthumper]

...Lots of people working on it.
Ah, working hard to keep the winds of change at bay...

[ducati]

With tribunals now, I wonder how much all this will cost from the budget of an Emergency Service?

Win or lose a tribunal will cost very big bucks!

[Tubthumper]

With tribunals now, I wonder how much all this will cost from the budget of an Emergency Service?
Win or lose a tribunal will cost very big bucks!
These people walked away and left their community without emergency cover, are they likely to care about a few tens of thousands out of the already stretched budget? Nah.
As long as their axe gets ground, happy, happy, happy.

[WICKER10]

These people walked away and left their community without emergency cover, are they likely to care about a few tens of thousands out of the already stretched budget? Nah.
As long as their axe gets ground, happy, happy, happy.
No it is only going to a Tribual to get things Put right and to Correct the Witchhunt that took Place to get a Few yes Men on the New Team that will Not Question the Sector Manager.
Norman and his Team did a First Class Job over the Years the New team all they are fit to do at the moment are Searches for missing people.

[scotsboy]

No it is only going to a Tribual to get things Put right and to Correct the Witchhunt that took Place to get a Few yes Men on the New Team that will Not Question the Sector Manager.
Norman and his Team did a First Class Job over the Years the New team all they are fit to do at the moment are Searches for missing people.

What a noble way to talk about volunteers............but at least they are offering to look for missing people, the others no longer wish to do so.

[Tubthumper]

No it is only going to a Tribual to get things Put right and to Correct the Witchhunt that took Place to get a Few yes Men on the New Team that will Not Question the Sector Manager.
Norman and his Team did a First Class Job over the Years the New team all they are fit to do at the moment are Searches for missing people.Maybe the old team were a wee bit too highly trained to be doing missing people searches or looking for lost old mannies. That would explain their reputation...;)

[Tubthumper]

No it is only going to a Tribual to get things Put right and to Correct the Witchhunt that took Place to get a Few yes Men on the New Team that will Not Question the Sector Manager.
Norman and his Team did a First Class Job over the Years the New team all they are fit to do at the moment are Searches for missing people.
It's an Employment Tribunal, not an Industrial Tribunal. It will cost a lot of money. The side which 'loses' can be billed for the costs. I hope they do, because I would hate to think that my tax money was being squandered on some small-time argument over someone's feelings getting hurt during paid voluntary work.
That said, the government has initiated a consultation to look at roles that could be more suitably managed by voluntary groups as opposed to Government bodies. So the outcome of any tribunal is likely to be interesting for those of us who do paid voluntary work backed by professional (ie government) support.
Questions arise in my mind re MCGA activities, for instance:


Who is in charge - the voluntary chap or the pro?
Who sets the standards of behaviour & performance required?
Who does the measuring against standards and assessing of performance?
What happens when people don't measure up - can the manager sack the volunteers?
What other options does the manager have if a strong-willed volunteer who is used to getting his own way steps out of line?
What protection do the volunteers have from poor management?

I hope it does go before a Tribunal. But if the MCGA are found to have acted within their remit, I hope Mr McLeod isn't left to foot the bill by himself.

[Iceman]

Well that’s a huge assumption on your part. Based on what we know as fact, this is my take on it. Mr. McLeod gave 44 years of his life to saving others in the community on a voluntary basis. As so many do when adrenalin is pumping and one is in a high stress situation, he used bad language. He apologized, Mr. Taylor accepted his apology but ended up accusing Mr. Macleod of gross misconduct. Kinda slimy, huh? Mr. Macleod was given two insulting options -- suspension with 10 days to appeal or he could submit his resignation.

If Mr. Taylor had other reasons for wanting to be rid of Mr. Macleod, he should have been forthright and honest about those reasons, being suspended or asked to resign for cursing is ridiculous. So if the handling of this situation is any indication of Mr. Taylor’s managerial/decision making skills who could blame Mr. Macleod if indeed he felt the need to be in “charge” as you assume, there was probably much need.

The situation was evaluated by the volunteers, those who knew both men best, and the majority chose to walk with Mr. Macleod. The fact that so many experienced volunteers, who were much more familiar with the situation than you or I (unless you are Mr. Taylor), chose to walk out in support of Mr. Macleod really says it all. These guys obviously loved what they did and would probably have never given it up were it not for a very compelling reason.


Margaret M Firstly may i apologise to you , for me not knowing all the facts that you seem to no , and secondly i am not wanting involved in a slanging match we you but i am old enough in the teeth to know "That it takes two too Tango" and no i am not Mr Taylor nor do i have any connection with Mr Taylor nor Mr Macleod for that matter - Mr Macleod may be a well respected man in the community in some peoples eyes , possibly not so in some others , Technically swearing is gross misconduct I think you will also find that two of the "rest" that walked away were family as well - so i think we have to take our hats off to the others that have come in and taken over and give them our backing , rather than focus on the personnel that walked out their choice in the end.

[Tubthumper]

I note that the supporters of the 'resigners' are very happy to pour scorn onto the abilities and personality of the manager(s) concerned, in this public forum.
As many of our readers will know, being a manager requires one to have a thick skin. Also to make unpopular decisions based on the bigger picture. I know the MCGA has been working hard to modernise, I just wonder how difficult it is to try and drag people who have been running the show for 44 years without meaningful challenge into the modern age.
When it's a family business it must be even harder. And with a community which is resistant to change - hard job!:D

[Margaret M.]

I note that the supporters of the 'resigners' are very happy to pour scorn onto the abilities and personality of the manager(s) concerned, in this public forum.
As many of our readers will know, being a manager requires one to have a thick skin. Also to make unpopular decisions based on the bigger picture. I know the MCGA has been working hard to modernise, I just wonder how difficult it is to try and drag people who have been running the show for 44 years without meaningful challenge into the modern age.
When it's a family business it must be even harder. And with a community which is resistant to change - hard job!

As many who have supervised/managed know, at some time in their careers, managers will have to deal with an employee who has been with the organization since the beginning of time and shows resistance to any hint of change. I’ve had to deal with a fair number through the years. More often than not, a decent manager can handle these situations very successfully. If, as you have implied, Mr. Macleod would not be dragged into new ways, then Mr. Taylor’s management skills are obviously lacking. If he cannot deal with what he considers to be a problem volunteer without having it turn into a public debacle, how on earth can anyone have confidence in his ability to handle the crisis situations the Coastguard members encounter?

If Mr. Macleod was a volunteer that Mr. Taylor could not handle and Taylor had exhausted all possibilities of turning the situation around, then he should have been honest about why he and Mr. Macleod could not work together. Instead, Mr. Taylor chose to latch on to a ridiculous reason to get rid of a man who gave 44 years to his community -- 44 years of putting himself in harm’s way to save others. Whether one likes Mr. Macleod or not, he deserves respect for his years of service and not the public humiliation provided by Mr. Taylor’s handling of the situation.

I do not think that this should be brushed aside or treated as water under the bridge. It is important to find the truth here to ensure the Coastguard operation is managed by competent individuals.

[Margaret M.]

Margaret M Firstly may i apologise to you , for me not knowing all the facts that you seem to no , and secondly i am not wanting involved in a slanging match we you

No need to apologise, Iceman, all the facts I have learned about the situation are right here in this thread so you may want to take a lookie at some of the links to the newspaper articles, etc. I assume they are correct since no one has disputed them.

No worries about this turning into a slanging match – I don’t do those – you have your say and I have mine that’s hardly a slanging match.

I think you will also find that two of the "rest" that walked away were family as well


Then obviously the majority of those who walked were not family.

[Tubthumper]

If he cannot deal with what he considers to be a problem volunteer without having it turn into a public debacle, how on earth can anyone have confidence in his ability to handle the crisis situations the Coastguard members encounter?
I think you will find that it was Mr McLeod's supporters that have turned it into a public debacle. Remind me of the situation: was it 'man screws up, gets option to take a short suspension which no-one else needs to know about (employee confidentialty etc) or resign.' Chose to resign. Chose to make a noise. That's mature, that's really playing the big man that is. And who chose to make all the noise?

It is important to find the truth here to ensure the Coastguard operation is managed by competent individuals.
Tell me, in how many other situations is a decision on the competent management of an organisation carried out by faceless clowns (edit - among whom I include myself)on the pages of a web forum? Do we do it about the Council? The High School? No we don't. So what makes it right for you to do it here? Because your pal's nose is out of joint? What do YOU know about Coastguard operations? As an experienced manager, do you think you, or anyone else on this website, have the right to identify management competence for an organisation you are not part of and know nothing about through a campaign like this? I would hate to be an employee of yours (or your manager for that matter!)
You've been in this situation before, so what would YOU be doing if it was YOUR name and YOUR organisation that was being vilified over an internal matter?
Did it never occur to you, as an experienced manager, that this public and nasty campaign is likely to have a fairly negative effect on any tribunal that is held?
Witch-hunt - aye that's exactly what it is.:lol:

[Tubthumper]

...Mr. Macleod was given two insulting options -- suspension with 10 days to appeal or he could submit his resignation...

I just noticed this. Did he appeal?

[sandyr1]

It's an Employment Tribunal, not an Industrial Tribunal. It will cost a lot of money. The side which 'loses' can be billed for the costs. I hope they do, because I would hate to think that my tax money was being squandered on some small-time argument over someone's feelings getting hurt during paid voluntary work.
That said, the government has initiated a consultation to look at roles that could be more suitably managed by voluntary groups as opposed to Government bodies. So the outcome of any tribunal is likely to be interesting for those of us who do paid voluntary work backed by professional (ie government) support.
Questions arise in my mind re MCGA activities, for instance:


Who is in charge - the voluntary chap or the pro?
Who sets the standards of behaviour & performance required?
Who does the measuring against standards and assessing of performance?
What happens when people don't measure up - can the manager sack the volunteers?
What other options does the manager have if a strong-willed volunteer who is used to getting his own way steps out of line?
What protection do the volunteers have from poor management?
I hope it does go before a Tribunal. But if the MCGA are found to have acted within their remit, I hope Mr McLeod isn't left to foot the bill by himself.

After having read the 'story' it seems that the above question/ statements are very appropriate and meaningful.
I was a Volunteer and was in charge of Volunteers....And Margaret M (whoever that person is, male or female) definitely takes the cake with her 'slagging' of the Manager. It is a well known fact that People who volunteer, after some time do take ownership of the program. Life marches on and changes have to be made and thus many organizations nowadays have a 'tenure' attached...thus you can only serve so many years. If this man served these many years, perhaps it was time for him to retire and get his Certificate/ Watch or whatever and let younger people, fit younger people do the job.
BTW...didn't he resign/ there were other options/ and those who chose to follow also resigned/ Why beg people to come back when they walked away from such an important organization!
You make your bed and you lie in it!
**I just thought I would add.....Things do change, and after 32 years of doing my job, I retired as I was becoming a dinosaur, so I could imagine doing something for 40 plus years and how that would make me. Move over, give to the young but impart your skills to them, not fight!

[Corrie 3]

Just to put Tubthumper straight, if Mr.Macleod loses his case at the Employment Tribunal he will not be billed for any costs at all. The whole idea of the Tribunal system is for the little man to take on the big man, the bully bosses and the incompetant Managers who dont know how to manage properly and who have had no training in Man-management. From what I have read of Tubthumpers posts on here he would make a perfect Manager at the MCA, arrogant, aggressive and incompetant springs to mind!
Mr. Mcleod is entitled to a proper disciplinary hearing the same as everyone else, verbal warning with time to improve, written warning if he doesnt improve in that time given, final written warning if he doesnt improve after the written warning...Not 10 days suspension or write out your notice while I stand over you!!!
Tubthumper, get your facts right or shut up, you havent a clue what you are on about!!!

Corrie3,,!!

[Tubthumper]

Oh no?

By the way, the 10 days to appeal. did he take advantage of the offer?

[Tubthumper]

Apologies if I appear arrogant, but the following may be of interest...

The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1171) came into force on 16 July 2001.

The Tribunal now has power to assess costs in the sum of up to £10,000 (increased from £500). The ability for the parties to agree a higher sum of costs, or for the Tribunal to refer the costs to the county court for taxation, remains (Rules 14(3) and (6)).
This means that representatives need to be aware of the risks that costs of up to £10,000 can be ordered against their client:


if they or the client act abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in the Tribunal



if they or the client are responsible for the bringing of a claim, or the conduct of proceedings, in a manner which is misconceived

Misconceived’ claims
The term ‘frivolous’ has been replaced by the term ‘misconceived’. This is defined as including ‘having no reasonable prospect of success’, although this definition is not exhaustive (‘misconceived’ applies if the applicant cannot make their case out in law or if the employer’s defence does not stand up at all).
Under Rule 7, a party whose case has been deemed to have no 'reasonable prospect of success', can be ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being permitted to continue to participate in proceedings. The amount of this deposit has now been increased from £150 to £500 (Rule 7(4)).

I get a little feeling that Mr Mcleod just wants it to be over, and that he's being shoved by others. Some of whom are claiming expertise and knowledge they don't have.
Incompetent, was it Corrie3?

[sandyr1]

Just to put Tubthumper straight, if Mr.Macleod loses his case at the Employment Tribunal he will not be billed for any costs at all. The whole idea of the Tribunal system is for the little man to take on the big man, the bully bosses and the incompetant Managers who dont know how to manage properly and who have had no training in Man-management. From what I have read of Tubthumpers posts on here he would make a perfect Manager at the MCA, arrogant, aggressive and incompetant springs to mind!
Mr. Mcleod is entitled to a proper disciplinary hearing the same as everyone else, verbal warning with time to improve, written warning if he doesnt improve in that time given, final written warning if he doesnt improve after the written warning...Not 10 days suspension or write out your notice while I stand over you!!!
Tubthumper, get your facts right or shut up, you havent a clue what you are on about!!!

Corrie3,,!!
After 40 plus years, given time to improve in that field? Wow...we are not cats!! And obviously you have some vested interest. 1st post and telling people to 'shut up'. Nice piece of prose! Welcome 'friend'.

[Tubthumper]

After 40 plus years, given time to improve in that field? Wow...we are not cats!! And obviously you have some vested interest. 1st post and telling people to 'shut up'. Nice piece of prose! Welcome 'friend'.
Yeah, first post and dog's abuse. Hey-ho! Arrogant, aggressive AND incompetent - whew!!
It's obvious that angry people with little idea are advising this poor bloke. Although it's highly unlikely costs would be awarded against either side, his 'representatives' should have picked up on that simple fact, if they were any good.

[sandyr1]

Just to put Tubthumper straight, if Mr.Macleod loses his case at the Employment Tribunal he will not be billed for any costs at all. The whole idea of the Tribunal system is for the little man to take on the big man, the bully bosses and the incompetant Managers who dont know how to manage properly and who have had no training in Man-management. From what I have read of Tubthumpers posts on here he would make a perfect Manager at the MCA, arrogant, aggressive and incompetant springs to mind!
Mr. Mcleod is entitled to a proper disciplinary hearing the same as everyone else, verbal warning with time to improve, written warning if he doesnt improve in that time given, final written warning if he doesnt improve after the written warning...Not 10 days suspension or write out your notice while I stand over you!!!
Tubthumper, get your facts right or shut up, you havent a clue what you are on about!!!

Corrie3,,!!

Just re-read your quite insulting comments to another Member of this Board....3 Warnings in a position like this...I would beg to differ in that these warnings can be used, not Must be used. One can I am sure Miss out any step here and go to the end if one wishes. I am sure that no one, perhaps with the exception of you, would consider 3 Warnings...Not in Life and Death situations. One wrong word, one wrong whatever has forever consequences....Been there....Done that!
You could have, as most people do, come here and convey your opinion........Poor Mr McLeod....with friends like you......

[gleeber]

Yeah, first post and dog's abuse. Hey-ho! Arrogant, aggressive AND incompetent - whew!!
It's obvious that angry people with little idea are advising this poor bloke. Although it's highly unlikely costs would be awarded against either side, his 'representatives' should have picked up on that simple fact, if they were any good.
So how many posts would you suggest someone should have before they begin behaving in an arrogant, aggressive and incompetant way?

[Corrie 3]

This is the route that ACAS say should be followed......

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=919

[WICKER10]

Just to put Tubthumper straight, if Mr.Macleod loses his case at the Employment Tribunal he will not be billed for any costs at all. The whole idea of the Tribunal system is for the little man to take on the big man, the bully bosses and the incompetant Managers who dont know how to manage properly and who have had no training in Man-management. From what I have read of Tubthumpers posts on here he would make a perfect Manager at the MCA, arrogant, aggressive and incompetant springs to mind!
Mr. Mcleod is entitled to a proper disciplinary hearing the same as everyone else, verbal warning with time to improve, written warning if he doesnt improve in that time given, final written warning if he doesnt improve after the written warning...Not 10 days suspension or write out your notice while I stand over you!!!
Tubthumper, get your facts right or shut up, you havent a clue what you are on about!!!

Corrie3,,!!

Well said there is a lot of this story yet to be let loose in the Public Domain.
Bill McFadyen the Coastguard Director does Not wish a Tribunal as it would expose the Failings of Taylor and Burgess in the whole Handling of the Macleod matter.

[sandyr1]

So how many posts would you suggest someone should have before they begin behaving in an arrogant, aggressive and incompetant way?

Well said.....tongue in cheek kinda................

[Tubthumper]

This is the route that ACAS say should be followed......

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=919

That's right. It's good stuff. Please explain where the MCA erred? And also where the appeal process fits in? You know, the bit that seems to have been forgotten.

And which bit of that covers your erroneous claim that either side can't be billed for costs?

Am I arrogant for being right?:eek:

[Tubthumper]

So how many posts would you suggest someone should have before they begin behaving in an arrogant, aggressive and incompetant way?
I'd say at least 6. Maybe 10. However it's always better to make sure you're correct when you post.

[Corrie 3]

That's right. It's good stuff. Please explain where the MCA erred?
Am I arrogant for being right?:eek:
The MCA erred on just about all of it, and although I have only been a member on here for a wee while I already realise that you are always right, on every post you make and on every topic!!!!!

[Tubthumper]

The MCA erred on just about all of it, and although I have only been a member on here for a wee while I already realise that you are always right, on every post you make and on every topic!!!!!
I beg to differ, I've made mistakes, been wrong, been out of order and said sorry quite a few times.
I don't think that the MCA (I originally said MCGA, sorry about that mistake) was completely right in this case. Or that Mr Mcleod was completely wrong. I think this campaign is very misguided. But if it goes to Employment Tribunal, I'll be very interested as there could be precedents set for others in the strange crossover world of the paid volunteer (and lets not forget that Mr Mcleod was paid for his voluntary work).
But get real - I've heard a number of other rumours, sorry facts about the background to this case and I just wonder... oh never mind; as you suggest Corrie3, I know nothing and should just shut up. Or is 'shut up' too aggressive for you?? [lol]

[boschbosch]

I beg to differ, I've made mistakes, been wrong, been out of order and said sorry quite a few times.
I don't think that the MCA (I originally said MCGA, sorry about that mistake) was completely right in this case. Or that Mr Mcleod was completely wrong. I think this campaign is very misguided. But if it goes to Employment Tribunal, I'll be very interested as there could be precedents set for others in the strange crossover world of the paid volunteer (and lets not forget that Mr Mcleod was paid for his voluntary work).
But get real - I've heard a number of other rumours, sorry facts about the background to this case and I just wonder... oh never mind; as you suggest Corrie3, I know nothing and should just shut up. Or is 'shut up' too aggressive for you?? [lol]

I have been following this hole thing very closely and agree that you really should shut up, as while reading your comments i have found that you no nothing abot this topic and are in the wrong again. If you have heard so many facts why not tell us? Or are you just lookin for another confrontation as all you seem to do is stir things up in every topic you comment on.

[Tubthumper]

I have been following this hole thing very closely and agree that you really should shut up, as while reading your comments i have found that you no nothing abot this topic and are in the wrong again. If you have heard so many facts why not tell us? Or are you just lookin for another confrontation as all you seem to do is stir things up in every topic you comment on.
Another first poster offering only scorn! Ironic isn't it? Those who seek fairness & justice for their hobby horse, seek to silence those who query the agenda. Not using any argument, just a bold 'shut up!'

If I'm in the wrong, how come I'm in the right? As you've been following the 'hole' thing, you'll have noticed that your mysterious first-posting compadre made claims regarding employment tribunal liability which were 'wrong'. I made a post that was 'right'. And if i 'no' nothing about this topic, why would I bother adding my tuppence worth?

The things I've heard could influence any legal action, that's why I'm not sticking them on here. As far as stirring things up is concerned, is a bland unquestioning acceptance of YOUR version of events what you actually want? That's what you and your friends seem to be demanding. And I don't think the org would be very exciting if we all just accepted the first thing posted by a group with an eye for vengeance at any cost.

I said right at the start that there was more to this than meets the eye. Considering the irate responses offered, I think I could be right!
Have a nice day.:)

[Corrie 3]

And now you make a mockery of someones poor knowledge of spelling.

Tubthumper, I feel real sorry for you, a sad individual with a "Holier than Thou" attitude and a big chip on your shoulder...how sad indeed !!

[disgust]

[Tubthumper]

And now you make a mockery of someones poor knowledge of spelling. Tubthumper, I feel real sorry for you, a sad individual with a "Holier than Thou" attitude and a big chip on your shoulder...how sad indeed !!
That's right. Sad sad sad. Very sad. Very chipped shoulders too. Should I just give up on this? And the WADF thread? Am I just a nosey person with nothing in my poor sad life?:(

By the way, have you had any thoughts about the Employment Tribunal liability issue? You know, the one you were wrong about?:)

And that bit about the '10 days to appeal' which might have a bearing on any Tribunal outcome - any thoughts on that?[lol]

[sandyr1]

Then obviously the majority of those who walked were not family.[/quote]


What I find interesting is that those who volunteer to 'protect and save us'..............walked out. Does that show comittment. What if there had been an emergency. All very strange.....

[findam]

the volunteers were very committed, AND also told mca that if a emergency did arise that all was needed was a phone call and the team would respond asap!!

[WICKER10]

the volunteers were very committed, AND also told mca that if a emergency did arise that all was needed was a phone call and the team would respond asap!!

Ian Burgess and Alexander Taylor Sector manager and Sector officer would Never call them out they would call Thurso,Melvich,Durness,Dornoch,Groats,Inverness, Helmsdale
Lochinver,Scourie, teams out first and wait till they arrive before calling out Norman and his team.
To call in norrie and co would be a sign of Weakness and defeat !

[sandyr1]

I have been following this hole thing very closely and agree that you really should shut up, as while reading your comments i have found that you no nothing abot this topic and are in the wrong again. If you have heard so many facts why not tell us? Or are you just lookin for another confrontation as all you seem to do is stir things up in every topic you comment on.

It seems that all these new people on here are one and the same...to 'boschbosch' and Team, do you think that you mite post in some normal prose, so that this would be a discussion rather than a bunch of you coming on here to tell people to shut up.
Methinks you all protesteth far too much!
And if someone resigns...walks out...how can they be trusted. I don't personally know any of those involved, but I can assure you that I would have some difficulty working with people who quit.....There are ways to deal with issues one doesn't agree with, not to leave what you have all consider such a worthwhile and important team.

[Corrie 3]

I am sorry Sandy if you think that all the newcomers who have posted on here are one of the same and a "team"...I think you could be wrong on that score...I know no one on here. All I want in this case is for the truth to be out in the open, my view is that there has been one heck of a cover up and if there has then this needs to come out. As you would have difficulty working with someone who has walked out dont you think these Lads and Lasses might find it difficult to work with someone who has stitched up their Team leader?
Not to worry, it wont be long before the truth is out !!
[disgust]

[Corrie 3]

That's right. Sad sad sad. Very sad. Very chipped shoulders too. Should I just give up on this? And the WADF thread? Am I just a nosey person with nothing in my poor sad life?

By the way, have you had any thoughts about the Employment Tribunal liability issue? You know, the one you were wrong about?

And that bit about the '10 days to appeal' which might have a bearing on any Tribunal outcome - any thoughts on that?
Yes I have to admit Tubthumper that you are right again...Right about the Tribunal, right about the 10 days, right that you are very sad and have a chip...
Whats it like to be so perfect???
[lol]

[John Little]

This is a new member??? :eek:

[Corrie 3]

This is a new member??? :eek:
Who do you mean John?

:confused

[John Little]

I mean that your tone is rather astringent and acerbic for one newly joined this forum - it reads as if you have a long-standing knowledge and animosity towards Tubthumper.

Of course that cannot be - because you are new.

But the acidulated tone of that last post and the use of 'shut up' does tend to make one do a double take.

[Corrie 3]

I mean that your tone is rather astringent and acerbic for one newly joined this forum - it reads as if you have a long-standing knowledge and animosity towards Tubthumper.

Of course that cannot be - because you are new.

But the acidulated tone of that last post and the use of 'shut up' does tend to make one do a double take.
So when you join a Forum you have to be "nice" to people for a few weeks/posts John?
I am usually "nice " to everyone John whether I meet them in person or online but I have spent the last few weeks looking at all of Tubthumpers posts and I do not like what I see and it gives me an instant impression of the said person!
Many of the posts I have read that have been posted by said person have been on hearsay and not on facts and he/she has a knack of making out that he/she is right about everything when nothing could be further from the truth. This thread especially leads me to believe that nothing would give Tubthumper greater satisfaction if Mr. Macleod was to lose out in this case. It sounds like a case of a clash of personalities to me, perhaps Mr.Macleod and Tubthumper have met up in the past, I dont know and to be honest I dont care. I am proud to say that I was one of the thousands who joined in his support on Facebook and signed the petition calling for reforms with in the MCA.
The low point came this afternoon when said person did his/her best to belittle someones spelling, how low can you get?
[disgust]

[Walter Ego]

......... All I want in this case is for the truth to be out in the open, my view is that there has been one heck of a cover up and if there has then this needs to come out........


...Not to worry, it wont be long before the truth is out !!


[disgust]


You speak of 'truth', yet present absolutely nothing.

What is this 'truth' you speak of?

[aurora32]

After all is said and done the most of what has been said on this thread is misguided hearsay and gossip, there are only the people directly involved who know and will ever know what was said at that meeting so why cant you all stop bickering amongst yourselves about who is right or wrong. :roll:

[John Little]

"So when you join a Forum you have to be "nice" to people for a few weeks/posts John?"

You infer what I did not say.

What I infer seems more usual - that when someone joins a forum they usually feel their way a bit before letting fly with the heavy ordnance. Indeed I think it more common than not.

It makes me think.

Tubthumper has had run-ins in the past with someone whose spelling, either by design or actuality is not good.
A reasonable inference , since we are doing such, might be that they are the same person.

Dual identities are not unknown on this forum as I understand it.

[Walter Ego]

After all is said and done the most of what has been said on this thread is misguided hearsay and gossip, there are only the people directly involved who know and will ever know what was said at that meeting so why cant you all stop bickering amongst yourselves about who is right or wrong. :roll:

Thankyou Aurora.

A lot of shouting about a subject upon which those who post have only limited knowledge.

It is refreshing to see that those involved (on all sides) have had the good sense to keep out of this ridiculous thread.

[bekisman]

Blinking heck - lot of sock puppets suddenly coming back! :eek:

[sandyr1]

Gosh, more and more 'Newbies'!
So pray tell us all when this issue will be aired in the public, or will this be an 'in camera' tribunal'?
And W.....Alter Ego..,if this is such a ridiculous thread...u know the rest!

[catran]

Is this carry on still on the go. Thought it was sorted and a new team in place.