Third tech manager in 18 months gone........

[facthunter]

The truth is a point of view that is reached when one has certain "FACTS" from their particular sources. Some truths are simple. 2+2 =4, but if opinion is an ingredient , there may be several "truths". possible.. Somehow I don't feel in the current circumstances, there is much point in deceiving the masses on a grand scale or NEED to deceive. I think we are past that point. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I somehow doubt if all the board and the GM are lying about this.

I made no suggestion whatsoever that anyone was lying.

 

 

[Teckair]

I made no suggestion whatsoever that anyone was lying.

My understanding is the whole board and the GM felt the situation was unrecoverable and they had no option but to take the action they did. This was because they felt the job was not right for Wayne. What the so the called 'missing truth' could be I have no idea, but to cover something up like that I think people would have to lie. I think there is nothing to be gained from going on about it here.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you have no idea then stop getting in the way.

 

 

[Teckair]

If you have no idea then stop getting in the way.

OK.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I somehow doubt if all the board and the GM are lying about this.

.... I personaly think this is a good case of "Lying by the fact omision" not "A balant fib"....At the moment this is how I am interpreting the situation, others may see the picture at a different angle.

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Teckair, Copies of letters sent to the GM from Attorneys, do not qualify as gossip.................Maj...

Without Prejudice letters are not evidentiary, neither are they tested as to accuracy. They are generally ambit claims and may well stretch the facts to suit the client's case in any event. They prove nothing.

 

Letters of advice are protected by the lawyer-client privilege. It's very unusual for a client to reveal the contents of letters of advice because they forfeit the privilege when doing so. It would be very unusual for a lawyer to agree to a client revealing the contents of such a letter, too.

 

Sadly, because a lawyer says it, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Without Prejudice letters are not evidentiary, neither are they tested as to accuracy. They are generally ambit claims and may well stretch the facts to suit the client's case in any event. They prove nothing.Letters of advice are protected by the lawyer-client privilege. It's very unusual for a client to reveal the contents of letters of advice because they forfeit the privilege when doing so. It would be very unusual for a lawyer to agree to a client revealing the contents of such a letter, too.

 

Sadly, because a lawyer says it, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

 

Kaz

Well time will tell if they are true in this case, as they deal with very clear cut Fair Work laws...stay tuned..........Maj...