Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
Little Johnny Howard
started it all but the rest of the retards who spread it all around.
They deserve to get their email addresses published and spammed to hell
(and, yes, I know Google tries to mung email addresses).
Like they all advise, start at the bottom and read up (stupid MS
top-posting email bullshit Outlook crap!).
Now, I wonder if its all really true. The story made it to TV real fast
(appeared on both ACA and TT on Thursday night). News Limited also
published it. And they included all the emails too plus images of the
two girls involved (I got emailed these too - too bad Google doesn't
let you post images).
It could only be somebody from within AAR that supplied the staff
images.
Two media reports -
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16525356-5001022,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16531641-36596,00.html
Notice how they offer the full transcript?
So, I was wondering is that entirely legal? Reports suggest the two
girls should sue AAR for being sacked over this. I think they should
also sue News Ltd and ACA and TT for publishing it too.
Say, has anyone seen my ham and cheese sanga?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Milne
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 2:22 PM
To: Wifey - Home (The5M...@yahoo.com.au); Jerome Wicks
(jez...@bigpond.net.au); David Brown; Steven Ham; Mark Morrison; Dean
Cleary; Joshua Nguyen
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
Start at the bottom and read up...
From: Kevin Mohi
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 12:39 PM
To: Brain Hedley (E-mail); Chris Bye; Craig Green; Glenn Doherty
(E-mail); Greg Ryan (E-mail); Kevin Mohi (Home) (E-mail); Mabel Yao
(E-mail); Marcus Vos; Matthew MA (E-mail); Nina Mcpherson (E-mail);
Richard Milne; Tim Carpainter hotmail (E-mail)
Cc: Phil Surtees; David Page
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
From: Nina McPherson [mailto:nmcph...@westpac.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:56 AM
To: chriswo...@yahoo.co.uk; cbar...@boehringer.com.au;
Kco...@tpg.com.au; et...@cubic.cc; ja...@leisuretech.com.au;
camero...@ssga.com; samanth...@gsjbw.com;
jank...@bigpond.com; brenden...@businessobjects.com;
asy...@mkhproperties.com.au; mark.m...@andrewwest.com.au; Kevin
Mohi; simon...@citigroup.com
Subject: Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
Start at the bottom and read up!
I'm fascinated by the email trail on this - just about every legal &
financial institution got in on this...
The moral of the story - don't fight your battles over email - the rest
of Sydney and Melbourne will find out for sure!
Kind Regards
Nina McPherson | Team Coordinator | Business Finance | Integrated Offer
Management | Westpac Banking Corporation | Tel: +61 2 9226 (2)1033 |
Level 5 60 Martin Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 | nmcph...@westpac.com.au
|
----- Forwarded by Nina McPherson/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG on 07/09/2005 11:50
AM -----
Simon Dezius/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG
07/09/2005 11:27 AM
To
James Cudmore/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Margaret
Aldersey/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Mark Yule/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Michael
Jones/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Monica Ahyee/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Nina
McPherson/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Olivia Ogilvie/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG,
Peter Pockaj/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Sanjeev
Nandkeolyar/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Scott Flaxman/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG,
Simon Dezius/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Tim Bray/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Tim
Howard/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Tracey Phillips/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG,
Trudy Grice/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Yvette Gearside/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG
cc
Subject
Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
----- Forwarded by Simon Dezius/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG on 07/09/2005 11:26 AM
-----
Lauren O'Brien/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG
07/09/2005 11:04 AM
To
Simone Bulters/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Paul A Brown/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG,
Simon Dezius/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Nathan Bode/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG,
Stephen Tassone/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG
cc
Subject
Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
----- Forwarded by Lauren O'Brien/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG on 07/09/2005 11:03
AM -----
Kara Densby/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG
07/09/2005 10:21 AM
To
Jasmine Stark/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Tracey Pascoe/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG,
Naomi Gardner/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Lauren O'Brien/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG
cc
Subject
Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
The morale of the story is: do not write something in an email that you
wouldn't want to see in tomorrow's newspaper.....
start at the bottom....
----- Forwarded by Kara Densby/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG on 07/09/2005 10:11 AM
-----
"Densby, Ryan" <ryand...@kpmg.com.au>
07/09/2005 10:00 AM
To
"Kara" <kde...@westpac.com.au>
cc
Subject
FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
Kind regards
Ryan Densby
Manager, Corporate Tax
Tax
KPMG
10 Shelley Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Tel
Fax
Mob
From: Michell...@au.ey.com [mailto:Michell...@au.ey.com]
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 4:01 PM
Subject: Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
if you haven't seen already . . .
----- Forwarded by Michelle Pigram/TAX/ErnstYoung/AU on 05/09/2005
03:55 PM -----
Just spreading the love....
--
"Robinson, Andrew C \(AU - Sydney\)" <andrro...@deloitte.com.au>
05/09/2005 12:29 PM
All email is logged and may be reviewed - Refer policy FP206
To
cc
Subject
FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read this
from the bottom
Read from the bottom.
From: Norris, Richard (AU - Sydney)
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 12:06 PM
To: Cooper, Lee (AU - Sydney); Robinson, Andrew C (AU - Sydney)
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Ng [mailto:Russe...@investec.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 11:26 AM
To: 'Connolly, Ben'; 'Marika Pavlis'; 'Kristina Lee'; Frewen Lam;
Mathew. Marasigan (E-mail); Kevin Lee (E-mail); Lily Nguyen; 'Waisavu,
Benjamin'; 'Wheeler, Lyndon'; 'kristophe...@au.abnamro.com';
kerrin...@perpetual.com.au; 'Xia, Steven (Australia)';
martin....@jpmchase.com
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
This is a cracker. Start from the bottom.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter White
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 10:49 AM
To: Andrew Henderson; Larry Porter; Adam Broder; Vered Shmukler;
Matthew Clark; Ben Gisz; Russell Ng; Richard Byrne; Karla Borland
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Goodman [mailto:TGoo...@gtnsw.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 10:39 AM
To: Peter White (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
Grant Thornton - Confidential Communication
This email is to be read subject to the disclaimer below.
Pete
have a read of this email corro. You need to start right from the
bottom though. Seems to have made it way around half of the lawyers and
investments banks in Sydney.
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Cooke
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 10:32
To: Tim Goodman; Fraser Ronald; Gayle Dickerson
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Griffin
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 09:54
To: Neil Cooke; Paul Gooley
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
from the bottom
-----Original Message-----
From: Suzan Griffin [mailto:sgri...@observatoryhotel.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 17:14
To: Scott Griffin
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
have you seen this? read from the bottom
From: Melanie Coppin [mailto:mco...@westpac.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 5:00 PM
To: marian_c...@hotmail.com; amy.c...@student.adelaide.edu.au;
bob_c...@cuenrg.com.au; tco...@iprimus.com.au; dar...@bigpond.com;
jules...@yahoo.com.au; anthony...@barclayscapital.com; Suzan
Griffin; and...@whitegate.com.au; eha...@fpcliving.com.au;
joy...@apra.gov.au; andrew.na...@rabobank.com;
Christop...@rabobank.com; rachs...@hotmail.com;
dawn...@metcash.com; pur...@bigpond.net.au;
peter....@slaughterandmay.com
Subject: Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom
A must read!
PS. Peter looks like Paul has read this one too, see further down the
chain.
Melanie Coppin | Counsel, Legal | Westpac Institutional Bank a division
of Westpac Banking Corporation ABN 33 007 457 141| Level 1, 255
Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 | Tel: +61 (02) 8254 8852 | Fax: +61
(02) 9283 1861| Email: mco...@westpac.com.au
----- Forwarded by Melanie Coppin/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG on 02/09/2005 04:52
PM -----
Jasmin Chew/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG
02/09/2005 04:39 PM
To
Melanie Coppin/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Alice
McDonough/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG, Melissa Abela/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG,
Andrew Faber/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG@WBG
cc
Subject
Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read this from
the bottom
bitchy ditzy carrying on !
Jasmin Chew | Counsel, Legal | Westpac Institutional Bank a division of
Westpac Banking Corporation ABN 33 007 457 141| Level 1, 255 Elizabeth
Street, Sydney NSW 2000 | Tel: +61 (02) 8254 8223 | Fax: +61 (02) 9283
1861
----- Forwarded by Jasmin Chew/CORPAU/WBCAU/WBG on 02/09/2005 04:37 PM
-----
"Nancy Har" <N...@cbp.com.au>
02/09/2005 04:32 PM
To
"Jasmin Chew" <jasmi...@westpac.com.au>, <phuong...@iag.com.au>
cc
Subject
FW: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm -read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious.
All Quiet on the Allens front ...
>>> "Kosterman, Paul" <Paul.Ko...@aig.com> 02/09/2005 3:55:25 pm >>>
This girl used to be my secretary at E&E...
From: Jordan, Brett
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 3:29 PM
To: Kosterman, Paul
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Nice effort
From: Sean O'Connor [mailto:soco...@leeandlyons.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 3:25 PM
To: Jordan, Brett
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Moderately amusing
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Kearins [mailto:jonathan...@lsre.com.au]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 3:04 PM
To: Nichola...@pwclegal.com.au; Sean O'Connor;
sean...@aapt.net.au
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Righto Lawyers this is how pathetic your industry is!!... real estate
is unblemished of course!
Go straight to the bottom!!
From: Timothy Neville [mailto:TNev...@oasisasset.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 2:42 PM
To: Hamish Stuart; Jonathan Kearins; Matthew Comensoli
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
This is magic. You can't script this sort of stuff.
From: Michael Hustler [mailto:MHus...@nsw.gadens.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 2:13 PM
To: Tim Neville; Paul Dalligan; Darryl Pereira; Phil Hustler
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Lets keep this moving.
-----Original Message-----
From: Emma Turner
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 2:07 PM
To: Anthony Whealy; Kersten King; Angela Knezevic; Melissa Dale;
Michelle Price; Ilana Sargeant; Kelly Dykman; Michael Hustler; Amy
McKevett; Rebecca Weers; 'Chin Chin'; 'Rachy'
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Nice..
-----Original Message-----
From: Meredith Mansourian
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 1:55 PM
To: Anita Pampalian; Shoma Advani; Nadine Eldridge; Kylie Borg; Emma
Turner; 'Georgie'; 'Sophie'; 'Kaelyn Meek'
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Oh dear...
-----Original Message-----
From: Clive Cachia
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 1:37 PM
To: Meredith Mansourian
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
I was engrossed in this email - read from the bottom
-----Original Message-----
From: Khadir, Mubeen (AU - Melbourne) [mailto:mkh...@deloitte.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 1:33 PM
To: hars...@mail.com; Lorenzo Crepaldi; andre...@mallesons.com;
Micah Jenkins; julia.n...@jpmorgan.com; Alison Hobbs; Matthew
Sealey; Ansari, Asad; ajaya...@hsbc.com.au;
dawn....@minterellison.com; Daniel...@deacons.com.au; Joey
Tooodddaaay; natasha....@macquarie.com;
nichol...@lendlease.com.au; Claire...@premiers.nsw.gov.au;
Clive Cachia; danielger...@yahoo.com.au
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
read from the bottom
harsh - do you know these people!
From: Melisa Cafasso [mailto:Melisa....@cancervic.org.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 12:44 PM
To: An work (E-mail); Cam (E-mail); Dawn (E-mail); Joss Work (E-mail);
Leah Work (E-mail); Leo work (E-mail); Lin & Giules (E-mail); Lise P
(E-mail); Lise Work (E-mail); Mari (E-mail); Michael Iorny (E-mail);
Khadir, Mubeen (AU - Melbourne); Nad Work (E-mail); Pri (E-mail); Tanya
Work (E-mail); Tanz Work (E-mail); Trish Work (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
-----Original Message-----
From: Caroline Petricola [mailto:Caroline....@phillipsfox.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 12:24 PM
To: Holly Weston; Amanda Masters; Emily O'Connell; Judy Cleggett; David
Jordan (E-mail); Elisa Milano (E-mail); Emily Petricola (E-mail); Emily
Petricola (E-mail 2); Hugh Lane (E-mail); Isabella Calabro (E-mail);
Melisa Cafasso; Michael Swann (E-mail); Nadia Morales (E-mail); Peter
Petricola (E-mail); Regan Richards (E-mail); Brianna Neumann
Subject: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read this
from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Scroll all the way to the bottom and get a load of this!
-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Asher
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 12:19 PM
To: Joanne Callander; Caroline Petricola; Rebecca Burke; Jin Lee
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
read from bottom up.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqueline Stracke
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 12:14 PM
To: Leigh Asher; Tanya Wood; Felicity Taylor; Josephine Rowland
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Get a load of this email. Apparently it started at Allens Arthur Robs
in Sydney and has made its way up here. How bitchy. Can you believe
it?
Read from the bottom up obviously.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim McGilvery
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 12:09 PM
To: Jacqueline Stracke; Fiona Blake
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
oh my god...
-----Original Message-----
From: Jenae Webb
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:57 AM
To: Kim McGilvery; David Charles; Anna Vella; Kiah Victor-Gordon
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
This is pretty funny - read when you get a moment. Happened yesterday
- read from bottom up obviously.
Jenae Webb | Personal assistant to Tom Nulty, Partner | Anna Vella,
Solicitor
Phillips Fox | 1 Eagle Street | Brisbane 4000
Phone +61 7 3246 4070 | Fax + 61 7 3229 4077
jenae...@phillipsfox.com
| http://www.phillipsfox.com |
-----Original Message-----
From: Belinda Mellino [mailto:Belinda...@bnlaw.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 11:09 AM
To: Jenny Carlson; Sally Parker; Jenae Webb (E-mail); Joanne Lake
(E-mail)
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
-----Original Message-----
From: Natalee Barr
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 10:56 AM
To: Joanna Atherinos; Alison Crane; Fiona Sennett; Yolande Addison;
Sarah Haigh; Belinda Mellino
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirsty MacDonald [mailto:kmacd...@nms.gadens.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 10:51 AM
To: Natalee Barr
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Have a read of this....
-----Original Message-----
From: Dominic Goosem
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 10:43 AM
To: Kirsty MacDonald
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from the bottom - it is hilarious....
Thought you might enjoy this one Kirst.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fraser Hardman [mailto:FHar...@mccullough.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2005 10:32 AM
To: matthew...@orica.com; Michael Highfield; Gavin Bartlett;
Dominic Goosem; Kade.B...@housing.qld.gov.au;
Kiralee...@bdw.com; Emma Hansford; Kellie Thomas; Kate Palethorpe;
Darren White
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from thebottom - it is hilarious....
This is pretty funny...
From: Jane McCormack
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 3:14 PM
To: Fraser Hardman
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from thebottom - it is hilarious....
Classic! Read from the bottom: all of this has just happened today
(these emails were sent this morning!!)
From: Sunil Dhupelia
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 3:06 PM
To: 1st Year Graduates; James Macaulay
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from thebottom - it is hilarious....
From: Nathan Taylor [mailto:Nathan...@macquarie.com]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 3:01 PM
To: Sunil Dhupelia; nathan...@bdw.com
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from thebottom - it is hilarious....
have a look at this guys...weird!
Kind Regards
Macquarie Bank Limited
Nathan Taylor
Business Analyst
Equity Capital Markets
Investment Banking Group
( +61 2 8232 8047
Fax +61 2 8232 4109
* nathan...@macquarie.com
NOTICE
The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, you must not disclose or use the
information in this email in any way. If you received it in error,
please tell us immediately by return email and delete the document. We
do not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files and are
not responsible for any changes made to them by any other person.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Newberry
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 2:49 PM
To: Nathan Taylor
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from thebottom - it is hilarious....
have a read from the bottom mate - all emails sent today
-----Original Message-----
From: James King (CAG)
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 1:35 PM
To: Daryn Lord; Leigh Oliver; James Armstrong; Ben Wolrige; Gavin Case;
Lisa Brandt; Tim Newberry
Subject: FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from thebottom - it is hilarious....
Newbs - I'm doing you a favour. Apparently some girl is looking for
number 6. Read from the bottom and it'll make sense lover boy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Chui [mailto:jason...@db.com]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 1:27 PM
To: Michael Wolfenberg; George Capozzi; Sonia Dickinson; Derek Theyers;
Gideon Levy; Andrew-R Taylor; Francis Ocampo; Despina Paltos; Pamela
Burns; Gary Saldumbide; Nigel Rutgers; Pasquale Guerrera; Melissa Lam;
Daryn Lord; James King (CAG); Gavin Case; Cathy Kim; Mark Proctor;
Rebecca Marshall; Pat Connolly; Peter Connolly; Geoff Dean
Subject: Fw: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read
this from thebottom - it is hilarious....
Read from the bottom, this is awesome stuff...
Jason Chui
Global Rates BAC, Deutsche Bank
L.17, 225 George Street, Sydney
Tel: +61 2 9258 1216
----- Forwarded by Jason Chui/Sydney/DBAustralia/DeuBa on 01/09/2005
01:23 PM -----
01/09/2005 12:46 PM
To
Jason Chui/Sydney/DBAustralia/DeuBa@DBAustralia
cc
Subject
FW: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read this from
the bottom - it is hilarious....
Ouch!
From: Premelaa Jagatheeson
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:41 p.m.
To: Samantha Haeusler; Hugh McGonagle; Matthew Russell
Subject: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read this
from the bottom - it is hilarious....
From: April Lucas [mailto:alu...@landers.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:37 p.m.
To: Juliette Derry; Thomas Wait; tim.kl...@pwclegal.com.au;
simon.f...@pwclegal.com.au; Carolyn Wilson; Premelaa Jagatheeson
Subject: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm - read this
from the bottom - it is hilarious....
-----Original Message-----
From: Pettett, Rebecca [mailto:Rebecca...@aar.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:33 PM
To: Amanda Beattie; April Lucas; Ellen_...@courts.nsw.gov.au; Kate
Macdonald
Subject: FW:
Ridiculous. Read from the bottom.
-----Original Message-----
From: Burrell, James
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:30 AM
To: Turton, Tim; Cresswell, Michael; Godhard, Peter; Leibowitz,
Matthew; Steele, Michael; Stewart, Timothy
Subject: FW:
-----Original Message-----
From: Levitt, Jeremy
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:29 AM
To: Pawlukowski, Dorothy; Cresswell, Michael; Thompson, James; Bechler,
Matti; Tehrani, Ash; Burrell, James
Subject: RE:
apparently (on good information) Backhouse is her cousin and they have
slept together
-----Original Message-----
From: Pawlukowski, Dorothy
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:27 AM
To: Cresswell, Michael; Thompson, James; Levitt, Jeremy; Bechler,
Matti; Tehrani, Ash; Burrell, James
Subject: FW:
ok this is the last one, it's getting too intense
Regards,
Dot Pawlukowski
Mergers & Acquisitions
Ext 4808
-----Original Message-----
From: Bird, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:24 AM
To: Pawlukowski, Dorothy
Subject: FW:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bird, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:24 AM
To: Watson, Amanda; Snowdon, Georgina
Subject: FW:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bird, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:23 AM
To: Nugent, Katrina
Subject: RE:
Oh my God I'm laughing! happy relationship (you have been with so many
guys - yep really happy relationship with Gav BACKHOUSE), beautiful
apartment (so what), brand new car (me too), high pay job (I earn
more)....say plenty more.....I have 5 guys at the moment! haha.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nugent, Katrina
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:21 AM
To: Bird, Melinda
Subject: RE:
Let's not get person "Miss Can't Keep A Boyfriend".
I am in a happy relationship, have a beautiful apartment, brand new
car, high pay job...say no more!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Bird, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:19 AM
To: Nugent, Katrina
Subject: RE:
I wouldn't trade places with you for the world...I don't want your
figure!
-----Original Message-----
From: Nugent, Katrina
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:17 AM
To: Bird, Melinda
Subject: RE:
I definitely wouldn't trade places with you for "the world"!
-----Original Message-----
From: Bird, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:16 AM
To: Nugent, Katrina
Subject: RE:
Being a brunette doesn't mean you're smart though!
-----Original Message-----
From: Nugent, Katrina
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:15 AM
To: Bird, Melinda
Subject: RE:
I'm not blonde!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Bird, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:14 AM
To: Nugent, Katrina
Subject: RE:
Katrina
Since I used to be a float and am still on the level 19 email list I
couldn't help but receive your ridiculous email - lucky me!
You use our kitchen all the time for some unknown reason and I saw the
items you mentioned in the fridge so naturally thought you may have
placed them in the wrong fridge.
Thanks I know I'm sweet and I only had your best interests at heart.
Now as you would say, "BYE"!
Regards
Melinda
-----Original Message-----
From: Nugent, Katrina
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:06 AM
To: Bird, Melinda
Subject:
Melinda
Probably best you don't reply to all next time, would be annoyed to the
lawyers.
The kitchen was not doing dinner last night, so obviously someone has
helped themselves to my lunch.
Really sweet of you to investigate for me!
Katrina Nugent
ext 4739
-----Original Message-----
From: Bird, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 9:55 AM
To: sydflr19A - Senior Associates; sydflr19L - Lawyers; sydflr19S -
Support Staff
Subject: RE: My lunch...
Katrina
There are items fitting your exact description in the level 20 fridge.
Are you sure you didn't place your lunch in the wrong fridge yesterday?
Regards
Melinda
x4142
-----Original Message-----
From: Nugent, Katrina
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2005 9:39 AM
To: sydflr19A - Senior Associates; sydflr19L - Lawyers; sydflr19S -
Support Staff
Subject: My lunch...
Yesterday I put my lunch in the fridge on Level 19 which included a
packet of ham, some cheese slices and two slices of bread which was
going to be for my lunch today.
Over night it has gone missing and as I have no spare money to buy
another lunch today, I would appreciate being reimbursed for it.
Katrina Nugent
ext 4739/4434
***********************************************************************
Allens Arthur Robinson online: http://www.aar.com.au
Please consider our environment before printing this email.
WARNING - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If
received in error, please delete and inform us by return email. Because
emails and attachments may be interfered with, may contain computer
viruses or other defects and may not be successfully replicated on
other systems, you must be cautious. Westpac cannot guarantee that what
you receive is what we sent. If you have any doubts about the
authenticity of an email by Westpac, please contact us immediately.
It is also important to check for viruses and defects before opening or
using attachments. Westpac's liability is limited to resupplying any
affected attachments.
This email and its attachments are not intended to constitute any form
of financial advice or recommendation of, or an offer to buy or offer
to sell, any security or other financial product. We recommend that you
seek your own independent legal or financial advice before proceeding
with any investment decision.
Westpac Institutional Bank is a division of Westpac Banking
Corporation, a company registered in New South Wales in Australia under
the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Westpac is authorised and regulated in
the United Kingdom by the Financial Services Authority and is
registered at Cardiff in the United Kingdom as Branch No. BR 106.
Westpac operates in the United States of America as a federally
chartered branch, regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.
Westpac Banking Corporation ABN 33 007 457 141.
fasgnadh
>
> Check out these fuckwits! And, no, I don't mean the two bimbos that
> started it all but the rest of the retards who spread it all around.
> They deserve to get their email addresses published and spammed to hell
> (and, yes, I know Google tries to mung email addresses).
>
>
> Now, I wonder if its all really true.
Oh Yes. The two secretaries lost their jobs.
A dozen lawyers and other white collar wankers who passed it around
for their amusement, including those who sent it outside the company,
where it became a cause of public embarassment for the organization,
were not sacked.
Sounds like standard practice for tory wankers... scapegoat the
small fry and protect the powerful.
http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/index.html
> The story made it to TV real fast
> (appeared on both ACA and TT on Thursday night). News Limited also
> published it. And they included all the emails too plus images of the
> two girls involved (I got emailed these too - too bad Google doesn't
> let you post images).
>
> It could only be somebody from within AAR that supplied the staff
> images.
tory media love to critically examine issues, so long as it
doesn't threaten advertising.. that means the rich
and powerful, the same plutocrats who own the media, are off-limits,
you NEVER hear a commercial TV station doing an expose on HIH
or Bond or Skase BEFORE the rip off...
but the crook mechanic, or fridge repairer.. or dumb secretary..
they are perfect for public execution in the court of the
self righteous media.
And Infidel thinks stoning is the only way to destroy people? B^p
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
>
> Check out these fuckwits! And, no, I don't mean the two bimbos that
> started it all but the rest of the retards who spread it all around.
> They deserve to get their email addresses published and spammed to hell
> (and, yes, I know Google tries to mung email addresses).
>
> Like they all advise, start at the bottom and read up (stupid MS
> top-posting email bullshit Outlook crap!).
>
> Now, I wonder if its all really true. The story made it to TV real fast
> (appeared on both ACA and TT on Thursday night). News Limited also
> published it. And they included all the emails too plus images of the
> two girls involved (I got emailed these too - too bad Google doesn't
> let you post images).
>
> It could only be somebody from within AAR that supplied the staff
> images.
>
> Two media reports -
>
> http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16525356-5001022,00.html
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16531641-36596,00.html
>
> Notice how they offer the full transcript?
>
> So, I was wondering is that entirely legal? Reports suggest the two
> girls should sue AAR for being sacked over this. I think they should
> also sue News Ltd and ACA and TT for publishing it too.
So you are saying they should sue News Ltd, TT and ACA for publishing
it, then you go ahead and post it on usenet. Can you see the irony?
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> Check out these fuckwits! And, no, I don't mean the two bimbos that
> started it all but the rest of the retards who spread it all around.
> They deserve to get their email addresses published and spammed to hell
> (and, yes, I know Google tries to mung email addresses).
Can I impose on someone, anyone, who has it to forward a copy to
wolfgangw...@yahoo.com.au ? I'm reading via Google, and as you
say it's munging the email addresses.
> Now, I wonder if its all really true. The story made it to TV real fast
> (appeared on both ACA and TT on Thursday night).
Was also Kochie and Mel's theme for the day on Sunrise, Friday morning:
"Send us your most embarrassing emails!" No doubt Kochie has enough
dirt to blackmail half of Sydney's lawyers by now.
Anthony Horan
> Check out these fuckwits! And, no, I don't mean the two bimbos that
> started it all but the rest of the retards who spread it all around.
> They deserve to get their email addresses published and spammed to hell
Damn right. But what this rather sad and sorry episode reveals is clear:
corporate suits have no lives, no sense of humour and are generally as sad
as they look at the pub on a Friday evening.
useNuts
Anthony Horan <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
but...the 2 girls are famous now. And if they don't get some (big) pay
out for unfair dismissal, some other company will eventually employee
them.
Zappy
"Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande" <suv...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:43227D48...@yahoo.fr...
Suzy, you really need to get a dictionary. That isn't IRONY.
F i r e f l y
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43227AB9...@yahoo.com.au...
> Oh Yes. The two secretaries lost their jobs.
>
> A dozen lawyers and other white collar wankers who passed it around
> for their amusement, including those who sent it outside the company,
> where it became a cause of public embarassment for the organization, were
> not sacked.
>
> Sounds like standard practice for tory wankers... scapegoat the
> small fry and protect the powerful.
You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because previously Ms
Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something else
and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they had
been warned Allens decided to sack them. Separately Allens seriously
considered sacking the staff (lawyers and other secretaries) who had passed
the emails outside of the company but there were so many of them that it
wasn't pactical as they'd have to hire enormous numbers of new staff. So,
you see, it wasn't just the powerful who were protected. Other small fry
were saved as well.
F i r e f l y
"useNuts" <dontb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dontbother-89A20...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
They won't get anything. They had previously been warned after having come
to physical blows.
> some other company will eventually employee them.
Not as legal secretaries. They're now infamous in the legal world and have
been blacklisted by most firms.
Little Johnny Howard
Fuck off, faggot. If I wanted your pinko commie opionion, I'd give it
to you.
Little Johnny Howard
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:43227AB9...@yahoo.com.au...
> > Oh Yes. The two secretaries lost their jobs.
> >
> > A dozen lawyers and other white collar wankers who passed it around
> > for their amusement, including those who sent it outside the company,
> > where it became a cause of public embarassment for the organization, were
> > not sacked.
> >
> > Sounds like standard practice for tory wankers... scapegoat the
> > small fry and protect the powerful.
>
> You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because previously Ms
> Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something else
> and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they had
> been warned Allens decided to sack them.
Where was that mentioned?
> Separately Allens seriously
> considered sacking the staff (lawyers and other secretaries) who had passed
> the emails outside of the company but there were so many of them that it
> wasn't pactical as they'd have to hire enormous numbers of new staff.
They should have just sacked the cunt that passed out the company
photos of them. Should be easy enough to trace the email history -
unless they are using more MS crap.
> So,
> you see, it wasn't just the powerful who were protected. Other small fry
> were saved as well.
They should have sacked them anyway. Fucking stupid lawyers.
Little Johnny Howard
Can you smell it, deadshit, because you're standing in it.
Its already out in the public domain. Besides I wanted to embarass the
other cunts who passed it around. Their names are out there now.
Little Johnny Howard
What the fuckwit is at it, she can look up bathos, litotes and
hyperbole.
Little Johnny Howard
> Little Johnny Howard wrote:
> > Check out these fuckwits! And, no, I don't mean the two bimbos that
> > started it all but the rest of the retards who spread it all around.
> > They deserve to get their email addresses published and spammed to hell
> > (and, yes, I know Google tries to mung email addresses).
>
> Can I impose on someone, anyone, who has it to forward a copy to
> wolfgangw...@yahoo.com.au ? I'm reading via Google, and as you
> say it's munging the email addresses.
Google's not so bad. You can click on the tiny little link to see the
real email address (after you painfully do their stupid test). The
funny thing is, you email shows up as unmunged in this reply. Anyway,
I'll forward you a copy - and the photos too.
> > Now, I wonder if its all really true. The story made it to TV real fast
> > (appeared on both ACA and TT on Thursday night).
>
> Was also Kochie and Mel's theme for the day on Sunrise, Friday morning:
> "Send us your most embarrassing emails!" No doubt Kochie has enough
> dirt to blackmail half of Sydney's lawyers by now.
Those fuckwits? Does anyone still watch them. I've noticed that the
crowds are thinning in Martin Place. Pretty soon they'll have to bus
people in.
Little Johnny Howard
I thought it was a lesson in how not to top post and to trim contents
and recipients.
Little Johnny Howard
They should make enough out of suing the media for publishing their
emails and photos without permission.
But one of them could go on to do ads for Kraft cheese slices and KR
Darling Downs smallgoods. I can see the ads now - "worth getting sacked
over".
Little Johnny Howard
> news:dontbother-89A20...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <137o102fc06wf$.15w0dkec...@40tude.net>,
> > Anthony Horan <anthon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 Sep 2005 22:16:45 -0700, Little Johnny Howard wrote:
> >>
> >> > Check out these fuckwits! And, no, I don't mean the two bimbos that
> >> > started it all but the rest of the retards who spread it all around.
> >> > They deserve to get their email addresses published and spammed to hell
> >>
> >> Damn right. But what this rather sad and sorry episode reveals is clear:
> >> corporate suits have no lives, no sense of humour and are generally as
> >> sad
> >> as they look at the pub on a Friday evening.
> >
> > but...the 2 girls are famous now. And if they don't get some (big) pay
> > out for unfair dismissal,
>
> They won't get anything. They had previously been warned after having come
> to physical blows.
So?
> > some other company will eventually employee them.
>
> Not as legal secretaries. They're now infamous in the legal world and have
> been blacklisted by most firms.
And you know this how? Anyway, once they sue the media, they won't need
to work in a long while.
F i r e f l y
"Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126351546.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>F i r e f l y wrote:
>> You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because previously
>> Ms
>> Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something
>> else
>> and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they had
>> been warned Allens decided to sack them.
>
> Where was that mentioned?
It was mentioned in a copy of an email that I received from an Allens Legal
secretary.
> They should have just sacked the cunt that passed out the company
> photos of them.
Why? The photos were made available AFTER the secretaries had been fired.
> They should have sacked them anyway. Fucking stupid lawyers.
As I said, it wasn't just lawyers and it wasn't practical to do so.
F i r e f l y
>F i r e f l y wrote:
>> "useNuts" <dontb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:dontbother-89A20...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>> > out for unfair dismissal,
>>
>> They won't get anything. They had previously been warned after having
>> come
>> to physical blows.
>
> So?
So the dismissal was justified as it wasn't the first (or second) time these
"ladies" had been in trouble.
>
>> > some other company will eventually employee them.
>>
>> Not as legal secretaries. They're now infamous in the legal world and
>> have
>> been blacklisted by most firms.
>
> And you know this how?
See my previous reply.
> Anyway, once they sue the media, they won't need
> to work in a long while.
Why would they be able to sue the media for reporting the facts?
fasgnadh
> news:43227AB9...@yahoo.com.au...
>
>>Oh Yes. The two secretaries lost their jobs.
>>
>>A dozen lawyers and other white collar wankers who passed it around
>>for their amusement, including those who sent it outside the company,
>>where it became a cause of public embarassment for the organization, were
>>not sacked.
>>
>>Sounds like standard practice for tory wankers... scapegoat the
>>small fry and protect the powerful.
>
>
> You can hop down off your high horse.
I'm not the one who sacked two low level flunkies for having
what they thought was a private disagreement, threatened
to sack those involved in the public embarassment by leaking
the organisations INTERNAL business to it's competitors,
and then had to back down because it would have had to
sack too many of the pathetic losers who eneed to get a life.
B^)
"That the troll is stalking me means I am affecting it which is what I
was aiming for. That's cool."
> They were sacked because previously Ms
> Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something else
> and had been warned of the consquences of any further action.
So you say, troll. Where's the evidence that anysuch episode occurred?
> As they had
> been warned Allens decided to sack them.
Oh come on! They were sacked because the whole sorry catfight was
a company sport that got revealed to the wider world.
Someone had to get the chop, and it wasn't going to be the
those the organisation would miss.
http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/index.html
> Separately Allens seriously
> considered sacking the staff
That was their initial line.. that all those involved would
be held accountable.
But, you know, the price of a moral position is
just too high for some;
> (lawyers and other secretaries) who had passed
> the emails outside of the company but there were so many of them that it
> wasn't pactical as they'd have to hire enormous numbers of new staff.
As I said.. expediency dictated their position not morality,
they did NOT sack the white collar voyeurs who were responsible
for the exchange becoming public.. instead they scapegoated
the two women who were used as entertainment by the other losers.
> So, you see, it wasn't just the powerful who were protected.
Of course it was, the organisation abandoned it's high horse
and closed ranks to protect its less expendable staff, and it's
own commercial interest.
> Other small fry were saved as well.
Whats your point, those responsibel for causing the
embarassment by revealing the exchange outside the
organisation were not punished because they were
less expendable.. they were the powerful in this situation
because the company needed them.. thus their breach of
trust was overlooked, while two women were sacked for
no more than a text argument that need not have affected anyone
else.
ant
> But one of them could go on to do ads for Kraft cheese slices and KR
> Darling Downs smallgoods. I can see the ads now - "worth getting
> sacked over".
yep. Any day now, she'll be heard saying that the Bread was Helga's.
--
ant
F i r e f l y
>F i r e f l y wrote:
>> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:43227AB9...@yahoo.com.au...
>>
>>>Oh Yes. The two secretaries lost their jobs.
>>>
>>>A dozen lawyers and other white collar wankers who passed it around
>>>for their amusement, including those who sent it outside the company,
>>>where it became a cause of public embarassment for the organization, were
>>>not sacked.
>>>
>>>Sounds like standard practice for tory wankers... scapegoat the
>>>small fry and protect the powerful.
>>
>>
>> You can hop down off your high horse.
>
> I'm not the one who sacked two low level flunkies for having
> what they thought was a private disagreement, threatened
> to sack those involved in the public embarassment by leaking
> the organisations INTERNAL business to it's competitors,
> and then had to back down because it would have had to
> sack too many of the pathetic losers who eneed to get a life.
>
It's really easy. Throw one leg over to the other side of the horse and step
down. What you've just said is nothing more than a continuing rant.
> B^)
You wear glasses and have a big nose but are still happy? What relevance is
this?
>
> "That the troll is stalking me means I am affecting it which is what I was
> aiming for. That's cool."
>
Or this? Of course if you can read message headers you'd know what this is
all about.
> > They were sacked because previously Ms
>> Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something
>> else and had been warned of the consquences of any further action.
>
> So you say, troll.
Again: *Yawn*. Not very smart I see. Try learning to read message headers.
> Where's the evidence that any such episode occurred?
Tis well known in the Sydney legal world. Some of the emails that were
posted out by numerous people explained that this wasn't a first time
occurence and that these two would probably get in trouble again. Why do you
think that Katrina Nugent got so catty after Melinda Bird's response to her
initial email? There's also a rumour that Bird moved Nugent's lunch from the
level 19 fridge to the level 20 fridge.
> > As they had
>> been warned Allens decided to sack them.
>
> Oh come on! They were sacked because the whole sorry catfight was
> a company sport that got revealed to the wider world.
Proof?
> Someone had to get the chop, and it wasn't going to be the
> those the organisation would miss.
Nice little conspiracy theory but the facts don't support it.
> < irrelevant url deleted>
Who seriously uses geocities for their website, other than drugged out
conspiracy theorists?
> > (lawyers and other secretaries) who had passed
>> the emails outside of the company but there were so many of them that it
>> wasn't pactical as they'd have to hire enormous numbers of new staff.
>
> As I said.. expediency dictated their position not morality,
> they did NOT sack the white collar voyeurs who were responsible
> for the exchange becoming public.. instead they scapegoated
> the two women who were used as entertainment by the other losers.
If your little theory was correct, and it certainly isn't, they would also
have sacked the legals secretaries, admin staff and other non-lawyers who
also forwarded the emails to numberous people outside Allens.
> > So, you see, it wasn't just the powerful who were protected.
>
> Of course it was, the organisation abandoned it's high horse
> and closed ranks to protect its less expendable staff, and it's
> own commercial interest.
So lowly paid admin staff are less expendable than legal secretaries?
> > Other small fry were saved as well.
>
> Whats your point,
My point is that your conspiracy theory is exactly that.
fasgnadh
> "Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126351546.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>F i r e f l y wrote:
>>
>>>You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because previously
>>>Ms
>>>Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something
>>>else
>>>and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they had
>>>been warned Allens decided to sack them.
>>
>>Where was that mentioned?
>
Check 'Firefly's headers you will find it's a troll:
"Organization: That the troll is stalking me means I am affecting it
which is what I was aiming for. That's cool."
>
> It was mentioned in a copy of an email that I received from an Allens Legal
> secretary.
>
Uh Huh! B^D
how convenient, and non-verifiable. ;-)
fasgnadh
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4322D9B2...@yahoo.com.au...
>
>>F i r e f l y wrote:
>>
>>>"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:43227AB9...@yahoo.com.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh Yes. The two secretaries lost their jobs.
>>>>
>>>>A dozen lawyers and other white collar wankers who passed it around
>>>>for their amusement, including those who sent it outside the company,
>>>>where it became a cause of public embarassment for the organization, were
>>>>not sacked.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like standard practice for tory wankers... scapegoat the
>>>>small fry and protect the powerful.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can hop down off your high horse.
>>
>>I'm not the one who sacked two low level flunkies for having
>>what they thought was a private disagreement, threatened
>>to sack those involved in the public embarassment by leaking
>>the organisations INTERNAL business to it's competitors,
>>and then had to back down because it would have had to
>>sack too many of the pathetic losers who eneed to get a life.
>>
>
> *Yawn*
http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10519/troll-mode-on2.jpg
>> "That the troll is stalking me means I am affecting it
>> which is what I was aiming for. That's cool."
>>
> Or this? Of course if you can read message headers you'd
> know what this is all about.
yup, Troll.
ant
>> and closed ranks to protect its less expendable staff, and it's
>> own commercial interest.
>
> So lowly paid admin staff are less expendable than legal secretaries?
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the firm tries to replace the
two legal secretaries. Such people have become harder to find than they used
to be (and legal secs have always been in demand), and I wonder if vast
numbers of legal secretaries are going to be queuing up to work for this
firm? Bit of a PR disaster for them, on several fronts.
--
ant
F i r e f l y
>F i r e f l y wrote:
>> "Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126351546.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>F i r e f l y wrote:
>>>
>>>>You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because
>>>>previously Ms
>>>>Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something
>>>>else
>>>>and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they
>>>>had
>>>>been warned Allens decided to sack them.
>>>
>>>Where was that mentioned?
>>
>
> Check 'Firefly's headers you will find it's a troll:
>
>>
>> It was mentioned in a copy of an email that I received from an Allens
>> Legal secretary.
>>
>
> Uh Huh! B^D
>
> how convenient, and non-verifiable. ;-)
Yes, I'm sure that will help your conspiracy theory. If you post your full
postal address to the ng I'll be happy to post you a printed copy of the
email. It's up to you.
F i r e f l y
F i r e f l y
"ant" <nig_national_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3og8ojF...@individual.net...
been warned for their actions, nothing more.
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
>
> F i r e f l y wrote:
> > "Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1126351546.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>F i r e f l y wrote:
> >>
> >>>You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because previously
> >>>Ms
> >>>Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something
> >>>else
> >>>and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they had
> >>>been warned Allens decided to sack them.
> >>
> >>Where was that mentioned?
> >
>
> Check 'Firefly's headers you will find it's a troll:
>
> "Organization: That the troll is stalking me means I am affecting it
> which is what I was aiming for. That's cool."
Isn't this a definition of what a troll does? To get a controlled
response?
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
What is it then?
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
Which makes you just as bad (if not worse) than ACA, TT and news ltd put
together.
Zappy
Irony is the use of words to express something different from and often
directly opposed to their literal meaning
"Thou shalt get kings though thou be none"
- Macbeth Act I Scene III
I can excuse you if English isn't your first language. I just get annoyed
when people use the word thinking they undertand the concept and really have
no idea.
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
I would have thought that it would ironic for someone to suggest that
someone be sued for publishing something, and then proceed to publish
the same thing themselves. Wouldn't that qualify as irony? If not, why
not? Or should I have said, 'that's the pot calling the kettle black'
instead?
fasgnadh
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4322EA09...@yahoo.com.au...
>
>>F i r e f l y wrote:
>>
>>>"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:4322D9B2...@yahoo.com.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>F i r e f l y wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>news:43227AB9...@yahoo.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh Yes. The two secretaries lost their jobs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A dozen lawyers and other white collar wankers who passed it around
>>>>>>for their amusement, including those who sent it outside the company,
>>>>>>where it became a cause of public embarassment for the organization,
>>>>>>were not sacked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sounds like standard practice for tory wankers... scapegoat the
>>>>>>small fry and protect the powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You can hop down off your high horse.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not the one who sacked two low level flunkies for having
>>>>what they thought was a private disagreement, threatened
>>>>to sack those involved in the public embarassment by leaking
>>>>the organisations INTERNAL business to it's competitors,
>>>>and then had to back down because it would have had to
>>>>sack too many of the pathetic losers who eneed to get a life.
>>>>
"Email spats go to court"
- 11sep05
"A SECRETARY sacked for sending catty emails is planning to
sue her former employer, leading law firm Allens Arthur Robinson,
for unfair dismissal.
And so she should, the whole affair has been turned by the
vindictive and inequitable punishment meted out by Allens
Arthur Robinson from a minor embarassment into a scandal and
a disgrace.
It was absolutely clear from the company's statements that
it intended to punish those involved with the catfight becoming
a public incident that it was THE EMBARASSMENT to the firm which
had motivated it's actions. It was only when it realized that
punishing those involved in the DISSEMINATION of the e-mails would
cost it too many valuable staff that it reneged and instead
punished the two victims of the office time wasters.
Those two women have been made scapegoats for others
who were responsible for the embarassment felt by Allens
Arthur Robinson.
"Melinda Bird spent much of Friday consulting a lawyer,
her father Gary said.
The move comes as unions and other law firms criticised
Allens for sacking Ms Bird and another secretary,
Katrina Nugent."
And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
The case, and the emails, have made headlines around the world.
"They have been shabbily treated in my view," said
Michael Want, executive president of the United
Services Union, which has members at Allens.
"Two young women have lost their jobs.
"But they didn't divulge any secrets and management
must have known these two people were not all that
fond of each other. They should have nipped it
in the bud."
The email spat was of no consequence in itself.
What alternative procedures did allen Arthur Robinson
have in place for resolving disputes over alleged lunch theft?
Are they claiming that an employee does not have the right
to pursue the misappropriation of her property?
Or that anothe employee should not point out their view that the
lunch is merely misplaced.
When such disputes occur, does the organization not prefer
that it be solved with verbal exchange rather than physical
violence?
The appropriate action when others became aware of the sustained
dispute would be to escalate it to management for resolution..
Not to broadcast it for general snide amusement.
I cannot see that the actions of the women brought Allens
Arthur Robinson into disrepute.. it was the actions of
the unpunished voyeurs and mischevous disseminators of the
Big Brother intrusion who did that.
"He said they were being poorly treated compared to others at Allens,
including lawyers, who had forwarded the emails to friends and colleagues."
Absolutely. The secretaries may have become intemperate in their
personal exchange, but the others behaved shabbily and imorally.
"At least 10 lawyers within the firm are believed to have passed on the
email or added their own remarks."
"Added their own remarks!" In other words they have escaped
punishment for IDENTICAL behaviour.
What a sham. Who would want representation from such people?
"Allens would not comment on what action had been taken against the
lawyers but it is believed all still work at the firm."
Then it is so suprise the management have gone to ground.
"Employment law expert David Taylor, from the firm Turner
Freeman, said the success of any legal action might depend
on whether Allens email policy was judged to be reasonable.
"On the face of it, it would appear they have been
treated harshly," he said.
"If the problem was damage to (Allens) reputation,
others seem to have been let off while these two relatively junior
people have been treated more harshly."
Spot on.
"Mr Taylor said it appeared the women were being punished
because the material had been widely disseminated, causing
embarrassment to Allens, one of the city's best known law firms."
And that was not their fault, but the fault of
(unpunished) others!
"They were not responsible for the explosion of this material,
for it going elsewhere.
"But it seems they are being punished for that."
....
"A spokesman for Allens said on Friday: "We are not prepared to discuss
any disciplinary action taken or the reasons for it".
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
>>>
>>>*Yawn*
>>
Go back to sleep, AAR Troll!
>>http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10519/troll-mode-on2.jpg
>>
>>
>>>>"That the troll is stalking me means I am affecting it
>>>>which is what I was aiming for. That's cool."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or this? Of course if you can read message headers you'd
>>>know what this is all about.
>>
>>
>>yup, Troll.
>
> PLONK!
the sound of a troll hitting the toilet bowl! B^D
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
FFS, they can't even get the basic facts right. It was NOT over a
missing ham and cheese sandwich at all. It was over two slices of
bread, once cheese slice and a 100gr pack of ham. Sure, you could MAKE
a sandwich out of that material, but calling that a sandwich is like
calling a forest full of trees a house.
Zappy
Probably.
The point I am trying to make is it is the words that constitute irony. It's
a turn of phrase, like sarcasm. Like I said, it's a difficult concept for
non english speakers to get.
Zappy
"F i r e f l y" <whataboringli...@loserville.org> wrote in message
news:4322d684$0$6355$c30e...@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
Is truth alone a defence to defemation in your state? I understand it is in
Victoria but not in NSW and I think Qld.
>
>
fasgnadh
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4322E904...@yahoo.com.au...
>
>>F i r e f l y wrote:
>>
>>>"Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1126351546.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>F i r e f l y wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because
>>>>>previously Ms
>>>>>Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something
>>>>>else
>>>>>and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they
>>>>>had
>>>>>been warned Allens decided to sack them.
>>>>
>>>>Where was that mentioned?
>>>
>>Check 'Firefly's headers you will find it's a troll:
>>
>
> You obviously didn't bother checking, did you?
>
>
>>>It was mentioned in a copy of an email that I received from an Allens
>>>Legal secretary.
>>>
>>
>>Uh Huh! B^D
>>
>>how convenient, and non-verifiable. ;-)
>
>
> Yes,
Well, I prefer to deal in facts. All the ones I present
are fully attributed so anyone can check the sources;
#
# Message-ID: <4323A41E...@yahoo.com.au>
# Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:27:26 +1000
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
# Subject: Email lawsuit - Allens Arthur Robinson turn
# embarassment into scandal
# Re: Another case of a stolen lunch at a top tier firm
#
# "Email spats go to court"
# - Herald Sun 11sep05
#
# "A SECRETARY sacked for sending catty emails is planning to
# sue her former employer, leading law firm Allens Arthur Robinson,
# for unfair dismissal.
#
# And so she should, the whole affair has been turned by the
# vindictive and inequitable punishment meted out by Allens
# Arthur Robinson from a minor embarassment into a scandal and
# a disgrace.
#
# It was absolutely clear from the company's statements that
# it intended to punish those involved with the catfight becoming
# a public incident that it was THE EMBARASSMENT to the firm which
# had motivated it's actions. It was only when it realized that
# punishing those involved in the DISSEMINATION of the e-mails would
# cost it too many valuable staff that it reneged and instead
# punished the two victims of the office time wasters.
#
# Those two women have been made scapegoats for others
# who were responsible for the embarassment felt by Allens
# Arthur Robinson.
#
# "Melinda Bird spent much of Friday consulting a lawyer,
# her father Gary said.
#
# The move comes as unions and other law firms criticised
# Allens for sacking Ms Bird and another secretary,
# Katrina Nugent."
#
# And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
#
# The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
# catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
#
# The case, and the emails, have made headlines around the world.
#
# "They have been shabbily treated in my view," said
# Michael Want, executive president of the United
# Services Union, which has members at Allens.
#
# "Two young women have lost their jobs.
#
# "But they didn't divulge any secrets and management
# must have known these two people were not all that
# fond of each other. They should have nipped it
# in the bud."
#
# The email spat was of no consequence in itself.
#
# What alternative procedures did allen Arthur Robinson
# have in place for resolving disputes over alleged lunch theft?
#
# Are they claiming that an employee does not have the right
# to pursue the misappropriation of her property?
#
# Or that anothe employee should not point out their view that the
# lunch is merely misplaced.
#
# When such disputes occur, does the organization not prefer
# that it be solved with verbal exchange rather than physical
# violence?
#
# The appropriate action when others became aware of the sustained
# dispute would be to escalate it to management for resolution..
#
# Not to broadcast it for general snide amusement.
#
# I cannot see that the actions of the women brought Allens
# Arthur Robinson into disrepute.. it was the actions of
# the unpunished voyeurs and mischevous disseminators of the
# Big Brother intrusion who did that.
#
# "He said they were being poorly treated compared to others
# at Allens, including lawyers, who had forwarded the emails
# to friends and colleagues."
#
# Absolutely. The secretaries may have become intemperate in their
# personal exchange, but the others behaved shabbily and imorally.
#
# "At least 10 lawyers within the firm are believed to have
# passed on the email or added their own remarks."
#
# "Added their own remarks!" In other words they have escaped
# punishment for IDENTICAL behaviour.
#
# What a sham. Who would want representation from such people?
#
# "Allens would not comment on what action had been taken against the
# lawyers but it is believed all still work at the firm."
#
# Then it is so suprise the management have gone to ground.
#
# "Employment law expert David Taylor, from the firm Turner
# Freeman, said the success of any legal action might depend
# on whether Allens email policy was judged to be reasonable.
#
# "On the face of it, it would appear they have been
# treated harshly," he said.
#
# "If the problem was damage to (Allens) reputation,
# others seem to have been let off while these two relatively junior
# people have been treated more harshly."
#
# Spot on.
#
# "Mr Taylor said it appeared the women were being punished
# because the material had been widely disseminated, causing
# embarrassment to Allens, one of the city's best known law firms."
#
# And that was not their fault, but the fault of
# (unpunished) others!
#
# "They were not responsible for the explosion of this material,
# for it going elsewhere.
#
# "But it seems they are being punished for that."
#
# ....
#
# "A spokesman for Allens said on Friday: "We are not
# prepared to discuss any disciplinary action taken
# or the reasons for it".
#
# Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
#
> I'm sure that will help your conspiracy theory.
I'm presenting publicly available accounts, easily
checked... you are the one claiming "secret Law firm
business" conspiracy nonsense!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA! You stupid troll!
You blew your intentions, confesssions of a troll;
"Organization: That the troll is stalking me means I am affecting it
which is what I was aiming for. That's cool."
I see that since I pointed out your bragging about trolling,
you have changed it... typical troll.
> If you post your full postal address to the ng I'll be happy
I'm not interested in DATING you..
just MOCKING you and your Secret-Law-Firm-Business conspiracy.. B^D
Stupid troll! B^)
> to post you a printed copy of the
> email.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!
More secret e-mail business? Don't you EVER learn? B^D
Must be one of Allens Arthur Robinsons E-mail losers who
think others are as fascinated with their stupid troll
games as they are!
ALL the evidence of Allens Arthur Robinsons unjust treatment
of the sacked scapegoats is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN..
stick your fantasy conspiracies up your corporate date, mate.
> It's up to you.
Sure, but what's up you?
I've already dismissed your troll games. B^)
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
It must be. But I do thank you for helping me out on this one. I truly
do.
Brissie
> And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
>
>The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
>catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
time to personally insult each other.
> What alternative procedures did allen Arthur Robinson
> have in place for resolving disputes over alleged lunch theft?
>
> Are they claiming that an employee does not have the right
> to pursue the misappropriation of her property?
That wasn't the problem. It was her later jibes at her colleague who
told her to check another fridge. Insulting other staff at most
companies means instant dismissal.
>"Mr Taylor said it appeared the women were being punished
>because the material had been widely disseminated, causing
>embarrassment to Allens, one of the city's best known law firms."
>
> And that was not their fault, but the fault of
> (unpunished) others!
So if the 2 women made pornography on staff premises, and other staff
sent it outside the firm, the 2 women shouldn't be punished?
ant
> So if the 2 women made pornography on staff premises, and other staff
> sent it outside the firm, the 2 women shouldn't be punished?
That analogy doesn't work. And if people can't use email for anything other
than fully justifiable work purposes, where does that leave phone use, smoke
breaks, toilets breaks etc?
--
ant
fasgnadh
>> And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
>>
>>The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
>>catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>
>
> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
> time to personally insult each other.
Others, many earnign an incredibly higher wage, participated,
adding their own snide, even sexist comments and forwarding them
on, ultimately to the wider audience which caused the Firm
embarassment.
Why aren't they sacked for 'using their work time to
personally insult each other.'? They clearly spent more
time reading, laughing, posting their sneering and denigration
of fellow workers than the two being ridiculed for entertainment.
Doesn't Allen Arthur Robinson have a policy on sexist denigration?
pfffft!
Is this how Allen Arthur Robinson functions as a team?
pfffft!
>
>
>
>> What alternative procedures did allen Arthur Robinson
>> have in place for resolving disputes over alleged lunch theft?
>>
>> Are they claiming that an employee does not have the right
>> to pursue the misappropriation of her property?
>
>
> That wasn't the problem.
The whole exchange was not the problem.. it's use for office
entertainment was the greater time waster, and it's dissemination the
cause of the firms embarassment.
> It was her later jibes at her colleague who
> told her to check another fridge. Insulting other staff at most
> companies means instant dismissal.
Bullshit. There are all kinds of workplaces
Imagine how empty sports fields would be if players (let alone
spectators and Coaches), were sacked for abusing each other.
Even vile racism often merely results in suspension or a fine.
Blue Collar workers greet each other with "You Old Bastard"
Jokes, jibes and insults are commonplace.
Even in anal-obsessive button down offices, cattiness and
put downs are common, slackers get told to pull their finger out.
I've worked in the corporate and public sector
from uni vacation factory and clerical jobs, fibreglass
work and pool installations, to CSO I II III, Software consultant
Project and Line Management.. and every where I've ever worked
people have joked, insulted and argued with each other.
IF the other person is offended and complains, then you have crossed
the line. Neither of the two women took it outside what they
thought was a private exchange. Their sacking is a gross over-reaction
and unjust because others were not punished.
I've been in board meetings where people get told not to be fucking
idiots... Have you ever heard an angry CEO? Ever listened to how
John Elliot or the Goanna talk..? Jesus, their language would strip
paint off walls.. and thats if they LIKE YOU!! B^D
What a bunch of prissy PC pansies you must all be.
I've worked with women who have more balls than the average PC
office drone you describe.
That little catfight was a minor amusement for everyone who read it.
It was clearly entertainment for the others in that opffice
MANY OF WHOM JOINED IN AND ADDED THEIR OWN COMMENTS.
If that is a sackable offence, (rather than their actual office
culture), then more heads should roll.
So don't twang it with us.. people know whats going on..
Cheney says Fuck on the campaign trail, televised nationally,
nothing happens. He's a white man. A powerful white man.
Connected.
Janet Jackson's tit flops out, and she's the devil incarnate,
corruptor of youth.. one of those Bush refers to as The Evil Ones.
B^D
Hypocritical wankers.
>
>>"Mr Taylor said it appeared the women were being punished
>>because the material had been widely disseminated, causing
>>embarrassment to Allens, one of the city's best known law firms."
>>
>> And that was not their fault, but the fault of
>> (unpunished) others!
>
>
> So if the 2 women made pornography on staff premises, and other staff
> sent it outside the firm, the 2 women shouldn't be punished?
B^D Now they are making Porn! Why not Snuff Movies!?
Talk about trial by rabid E-mail-xecution.
What if it was commercial information they exchanged, and others
released into the world?
That is a far more analagous situation, because the damage to the
firm was NOT in the exchange between the two, but in it's
dissemination to the outside world!
Now, who should be punished for that?
Soixante Un Jour Une Vieille Viande
>
> > And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
> >
> >The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
> >catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>
> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
> time to personally insult each other.
How do you know either of them was insulted? They may have taken it as
a joke - just like people take insults as jokes in this newsgroup.
Brissie
wrote:
Most companies don't allow smoke breaks outside regular breaks
Most companies don't allow personal phone and email usage. Especially
if it's to insult people.
Brissie
wrote:
>Brissie wrote:
>>> And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
>>>
>>>The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
>>>catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>>
>>
>> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
>> time to personally insult each other.
>
>Others, many earnign an incredibly higher wage, participated,
>adding their own snide, even sexist comments and forwarding them
>on, ultimately to the wider audience which caused the Firm
>embarassment.
>
>Why aren't they sacked for 'using their work time to
>personally insult each other.'?
Because they didn't insult each other.
>Imagine how empty sports fields would be if players (let alone
>spectators and Coaches), were sacked for abusing each other.
>Even vile racism often merely results in suspension or a fine.
Most grounds now throw people out if they yell out insulting things
and people complaion. I know now that the Gabba has a zero-tolerance
policy during AFL matches. One mention of the words shit, fuck, crap,
cunt, etc. even in the licensed section and someone complains means
immediate chucking out.
>Blue Collar workers greet each other with "You Old Bastard"
That's joking around. Not serious insults like these 2 women
>I've worked in the corporate and public sector
>from uni vacation factory and clerical jobs, fibreglass
>work and pool installations, to CSO I II III, Software consultant
>Project and Line Management.. and every where I've ever worked
>people have joked, insulted and argued with each other.
Joking with each other is fine.
Insulting is not. It's called Workplace Harrassment and the company
can get into seriously deepshit if they don't punish the person
insulting the other.
>> So if the 2 women made pornography on staff premises, and other staff
>> sent it outside the firm, the 2 women shouldn't be punished?
>
>B^D Now they are making Porn! Why not Snuff Movies!?
No they're not. If the 2 women did not have this email exchange it
couldn't have been sent outside the office by others. Ditto if they
made porn
Brissie
But one of them didn't which is why she lodged a complaint to her
supervisor and pointed the boss to the comments made in the email
exchange.
Ali
There was a similar incident reported on Snopes a couple of months
ago...
http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/email/ketchup.asp
(although the ketchup one was between a sec and a senior associate)
Clearly, legal secretaries get a bit touchy about things when
foodstuffs are involved! (Sample Size=2)
--
Ali
"It's gonna either kill us, eat us or hump us"
Poxy
>> And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
>>
>> The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
>> catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>
> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
> time to personally insult each other.
Legal secretary - incredibly high wage? Perhaps if you earnt more you could
afford to buy yourself a clue.
> Insulting other staff at most
> companies means instant dismissal.
Drivel.
> So if the 2 women made pornography on staff premises, and other staff
> sent it outside the firm, the 2 women shouldn't be punished?
To be even remotely relevant, you should ask, if 2 women have an altercation
on staff premises, and other stadd send it outside the firm, should the 2
women be punished. The answer is fairly obvious, to anyone with at least
half a clue.
Little Johnny Howard
> "Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126351546.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >F i r e f l y wrote:
> >> You can hop down off your high horse. They were sacked because previously
> >> Ms
> >> Nugent and Ms Bird had actually come to physical blows over something
> >> else
> >> and had been warned of the consquences of any further action. As they had
> >> been warned Allens decided to sack them.
> >
> > Where was that mentioned?
>
> secretary.
Typical.
> > They should have just sacked the cunt that passed out the company
> > photos of them.
>
> Why? The photos were made available AFTER the secretaries had been fired.
Another grounds to sue them for millions.
> > They should have sacked them anyway. Fucking stupid lawyers.
>
> As I said, it wasn't just lawyers and it wasn't practical to do so.
Too bad. The government should step in and prosecute them them. Lawyers
with criminal records aren't very popular.
Little Johnny Howard
> > And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
> >
> >The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
> >catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>
> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
> time to personally insult each other.
An incredibly high wage? So high they couldn't afford to buy lunch.
Yeah, right, shithead.
> > What alternative procedures did allen Arthur Robinson
> > have in place for resolving disputes over alleged lunch theft?
> >
> > Are they claiming that an employee does not have the right
> > to pursue the misappropriation of her property?
>
> That wasn't the problem. It was her later jibes at her colleague who
> told her to check another fridge. Insulting other staff at most
> companies means instant dismissal.
Since when? And what do you know about the issues between these two
women?
> >"Mr Taylor said it appeared the women were being punished
> >because the material had been widely disseminated, causing
> >embarrassment to Allens, one of the city's best known law firms."
> >
> > And that was not their fault, but the fault of
> > (unpunished) others!
>
> So if the 2 women made pornography on staff premises, and other staff
> sent it outside the firm, the 2 women shouldn't be punished?
And the other staff?
Little Johnny Howard
> Little Johnny Howard wrote:
>
> > Darling Downs smallgoods. I can see the ads now - "worth getting
> > sacked over".
>
> yep. Any day now, she'll be heard saying that the Bread was Helga's.
Or Katrina's (if you recall the stupid Malcolmshave/fulloshitshave
ads).
F i r e f l y
"Zappy" <zap...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4323...@news.comindico.com.au...
Here's what a NSW lawyer told me about defamation. These are his words, not
mine.
"It's not against the law to lie about someone.
It is, however, against the law to defame someone if you don't have a valid
defence.
Defamation is anything that will lessen someone's reputation in the mind of
an ordinary reasonable reader.
So, for instance, if someone published that Robbie Williams had slept with a
particular woman one night, and it was a lie, it's probably not defamatory.
He's a single guy and there's nothing generally wrong with a single guy
sleeping with someone. However, if someone published that (say) Russell
Crowe had slept with a particular woman one night, and she wasn't his wife,
that would be defamatory because it would convey the defamatory imputation
that he was unfaithful to his wife.
There are a range of defences to defamation, including that something is
both true AND in the public interest. In the Russell Crowe case, even if he
had slept with the woman there's no public interest in knowing that (you
need to differentiate public interest from public desire for gossip)."
If these women were to succeed they would have to prove that it was not in
the public interest for their story to be told. Unfortunately for them, by
continuing their email argument on an email list that included many other
people, rather than emailing each other directly, they made it public
themselves. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
F i r e f l y
"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
news:fpp7i19s1bkb8ri05...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:56:29 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>>Why aren't they sacked for 'using their work time to
>>personally insult each other.'?
>
> Because they didn't insult each other.
Maybe you should read the emails. They did insult each other.
>>Blue Collar workers greet each other with "You Old Bastard"
>
> That's joking around. Not serious insults like these 2 women
Hang on! You just said they didn't insult each other. Make up your mind.
F i r e f l y
Where did you read that?
atec
Made the Sunday Mail in Brisbane
Brissie
Re-read what I said. fasgnahdh said why weren't the people who passed
the email around sacked. I said they didn't insult each other which
they didn't. These 2 women did.
Please read Mr Fly before doing what you did
Brissie
It was reported that way. That's how the emails were discovered in the
first place. One of the women forwarded the emails on to complain to
her supervisor. If not they never would have been sent around the
firm.
Brissie
>Brissie wrote:
>>> And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
>>>
>>> The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
>>> catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>>
>> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
>> time to personally insult each other.
>
>Legal secretary - incredibly high wage? Perhaps if you earnt more you could
>afford to buy yourself a clue.
They say in the email that it's a "High paying job". And Legal
secretaries are usually on $80k+ a year.
>> Insulting other staff at most
>> companies means instant dismissal.
>
>Drivel.
Not so
>> So if the 2 women made pornography on staff premises, and other staff
>> sent it outside the firm, the 2 women shouldn't be punished?
>
>To be even remotely relevant, you should ask, if 2 women have an altercation
>on staff premises, and other stadd send it outside the firm, should the 2
>women be punished. The answer is fairly obvious, to anyone with at least
>half a clue.
That's totally irrelevant. That's physical assault, which can be
charged criminally. Both the email exchange and porn making are not
criminal offences.
Brissie
<pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Brissie wrote:
>> > And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
>> >
>> >The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
>> >catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>>
>> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
>> time to personally insult each other.
>
>An incredibly high wage? So high they couldn't afford to buy lunch.
>Yeah, right, shithead.
Some people prefer to eat healthy food. You can't buy healthy food
without waiting a long time for it to be prepared (and no Subway is
not healthy even though it's better than most fast food places)
>And the other staff?
They wouldn't be punished for distribution unless the video contained
illegal actions.
Fartman
go and do it yourself.
Brissie
<horacewac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:46:05 +1000, Brissie wrote:
>
>> On 11 Sep 2005 04:31:47 -0700, "Little Johnny Howard"
>> <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Brissie wrote:
>>>> > And so they should.. it was manifestly unjust.
>>>> >
>>>> >The two women were dismissed after getting into an email
>>>> >catfight over a missing ham and cheese sandwich.
>>>>
>>>> It was fair. They're paid an incredibly high wage, and use their work
>>>> time to personally insult each other.
>>>
>>>An incredibly high wage? So high they couldn't afford to buy lunch.
>>>Yeah, right, shithead.
>>
>> Some people prefer to eat healthy food. You can't buy healthy food
>> without waiting a long time for it to be prepared (and no Subway is
>> not healthy even though it's better than most fast food places)
>
>She said she didn't have the money, Brissie.
In her purse. Not everyone carries around cash with them.
>Are you seriously suggesting that, were a couple of the Senior Associates
>at AAR to decide to distribute pornographic movies filmed on firm premises
>(which is what I assume you to mean by "staff premises") involving AAR
>legal secretaries, those Senior Associates would not be sacked (so long as
>the movie didn't contain "illegal actions")?
Not if the Senior Assoicates didn't have anything to do with the
production.
Kwyjibo.
>
> "Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
> news:fpp7i19s1bkb8ri05...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:56:29 +1000, fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>>Why aren't they sacked for 'using their work time to
>>>personally insult each other.'?
>>
>> Because they didn't insult each other.
>
> Maybe you should read the emails. They did insult each other.
>
Maybe you should read the full post without snipping.
The bit you removed stated:
" >Others, many earnign an incredibly higher wage, participated,
>adding their own snide, even sexist comments and forwarding them
>on, ultimately to the wider audience which caused the Firm
>embarassment.
>
>Why aren't they sacked for 'using their work time to
>personally insult each other.'? "
>>>Blue Collar workers greet each other with "You Old Bastard"
>>
>> That's joking around. Not serious insults like these 2 women
>
> Hang on! You just said they didn't insult each other.
Correct, the people he was talking about didn't.
--
Kwyj.
(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)
kant69
Zappy
"F i r e f l y" <usenetzoneus...@OZTV.org> wrote in message
news:43241fa1$0$6365$c30e...@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
Firelfly, this is correct but only in NSW.
F i r e f l y
> "F i r e f l y" <usenetzoneus...@OZTV.org> wrote in message
> news:43241fa1$0$6365$c30e...@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
>> "Zappy" <zap...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4323...@news.comindico.com.au...
>>> "F i r e f l y" <whataboringli...@loserville.org> wrote in
>>>
>>> Is truth alone a defence to defemation in your state? I understand it is
>>> in Victoria but not in NSW and I think Qld.
>>
>> Here's what a NSW lawyer told me about defamation. These are his words,
>> not mine.
>>
>
> Firelfly, this is correct but only in NSW.
Little Johnny Howard
> "Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126352302.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >F i r e f l y wrote:
> >> "useNuts" <dontb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dontbother-89A20...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> >> > but...the 2 girls are famous now. And if they don't get some (big) pay
> >> > out for unfair dismissal,
> >>
> >> They won't get anything. They had previously been warned after having
> >> come
> >> to physical blows.
> >
> > So?
>
> So the dismissal was justified as it wasn't the first (or second) time these
> "ladies" had been in trouble.
On what basis do you make that claim?
> >> > some other company will eventually employee them.
> >>
> >> Not as legal secretaries. They're now infamous in the legal world and
> >> have
> >> been blacklisted by most firms.
> >
> > And you know this how?
>
> See my previous reply.
Which is nothing more than hearsay.
> > Anyway, once they sue the media, they won't need
> > to work in a long while.
>
> Why would they be able to sue the media for reporting the facts?
Illegally republishing their private emails. Illegally displaying their
images.
Little Johnny Howard
> Does anybody also have melinda bird's phone number?
Ring AAR. http://www.aar.com.au/women/index.htm
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
> > Can I impose on someone, anyone, who has it to forward a copy to
> > me?
> I'll forward you a copy - and the photos too.
Received that. Thank you, John Howard (words I never thought I'd see
myself write).
F i r e f l y
>F i r e f l y wrote:
>> "Little Johnny Howard" <pmjwh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126352302.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >F i r e f l y wrote:
>> >> "useNuts" <dontb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:dontbother-89A20...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>> >> > but...the 2 girls are famous now. And if they don't get some (big)
>> >> > pay
>> >> > out for unfair dismissal,
>> >>
>> >> They won't get anything. They had previously been warned after having
>> >> come
>> >> to physical blows.
>> >
>> > So?
>>
>> So the dismissal was justified as it wasn't the first (or second) time
>> these
>> "ladies" had been in trouble.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
On the basis that they had been warned previously and big law firms don't
make silly mistakes like unfairly dismissing people.
> Which is nothing more than hearsay.
Well, that's your problem, not mine.
>> > Anyway, once they sue the media, they won't need
>> > to work in a long while.
>>
>> Why would they be able to sue the media for reporting the facts?
>
> Illegally republishing their private emails. Illegally displaying their
> images.
It is not illegal to display images. Their emails weren't private. They sent
them to a "public" list. Everyone on the level 19 mailing list got their
e-mails.
F i r e f l y
Actually, No. The emails were sent to the level 19 mailing list. Everyone on
that list got a copy and several people on that list forwarded them to other
people both within and outside the firm as the fight was going on.
Brissie
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:13:24 +1000, Brissie <bri...@zwallet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>That analogy doesn't work. And if people can't use email for anything other
>>>than fully justifiable work purposes, where does that leave phone use, smoke
>>>breaks, toilets breaks etc?
>>
>>Most companies don't allow smoke breaks outside regular breaks
>
>The statistics of which are available where?
>
>My company allows smoke breaks as appropriate to the work-load, or
>smoking on the job when safe to do so.
So you can have a smoke break every 5 minutes if you want?
>>Most companies don't allow personal phone and email usage. Especially
>>if it's to insult people.
>
>All companies with which I've been involved allow reasonable amounts
>of personal email and phone calls.
To insult people?
Brissie
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:50:01 +1000, atec <ate...@xxxhotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> Most companies don't allow personal phone and email usage. Especially
>>> if it's to insult people.
>
>>Made the Sunday Mail in Brisbane
>
>This is asking the bleeding obvious, but it's usually necessary to
>go through your posts word by word.
>
>*What* made the Sunday Mail in Brisbane?
>
>Leaving out the obvious, that it's not a Brisbane paper ...
The Sunday Mail is a Brisbane paper. Comes out every Sunday. It's the
Sunday version of The Courier Mail
Brissie
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:17:24 +1000, Brissie <bri...@zwallet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:11:33 +1000, Craig Welch <cr...@pacific.net.sg>
>>wrote:
>
>>>My company allows smoke breaks as appropriate to the work-load, or
>>>smoking on the job when safe to do so.
>>
>>So you can have a smoke break every 5 minutes if you want?
>
>Which part of 'as appropriate to the work-load" did you not
>understand?
>
>If there's no immediate work that has to be done, of course you can
>have a smoke break every 5 minutes.
So as I said. If there's a period of 3-4 hours of no immediate work
that needs to be done, you can have a smoke break for the whole
period. And let the non-smokers do the work that isn't required
immediately. I'll have to make note never to work for your company who
treats their non-smoking workers so disgustingly. I'll have to also
make sure never to do business with them.
>>>>Most companies don't allow personal phone and email usage. Especially
>>>>if it's to insult people.
>
>>>All companies with which I've been involved allow reasonable amounts
>>>of personal email and phone calls.
>
>>To insult people?
>
>Do you not understand the meaning of the work 'personal'. That
>implies 'private'. If I telephone you on company time and insult
>you, that's quite OK.
Well most companies don't allow that. Because if you called from a
company phone, if the person you insult chooses to sue you for
emotional distress caused from the insults, they can also sue the
company for faciliating the phones for you to use.
Brissie
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:19:36 +1000, Brissie <bri...@zwallet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Leaving out the obvious, that it's not a Brisbane paper ...
>>
>>The Sunday Mail is a Brisbane paper. Comes out every Sunday. It's the
>>Sunday version of The Courier Mail
>
>The Sunday Mail, my dear boy, is a Queensland paper. Comes out every
>Sunday. It's the Sunday version of the Queensland Courier Mail.
It's a BRISBANE paper. Not QLD paper. Other cities have their own
paper - Gold Coast Bulletin, Townsville ???. etc.
Take a look at the parts where they hit the streets asking questions.
Every single one of them lives in Brisbane.
F i r e f l y
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:36:19 +1000, Craig Welch <cr...@pacific.net.sg>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:19:36 +1000, Brissie <bri...@zwallet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Leaving out the obvious, that it's not a Brisbane paper ...
>>>
>>>The Sunday Mail is a Brisbane paper. Comes out every Sunday. It's the
>>>Sunday version of The Courier Mail
>>
>>The Sunday Mail, my dear boy, is a Queensland paper. Comes out every
>>Sunday. It's the Sunday version of the Queensland Courier Mail.
>
> It's a BRISBANE paper. Not QLD paper.
When did Brisbane move? Oh fuck, it didn't cross the border into NSW did it?
Dean T
"Dyna Soar" <dynasoarR...@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:3on1lmF...@individual.net...
> Brissie wrote:
> > Craig Welch wrote:
>
> >> The Sunday Mail, my dear boy, is a Queensland paper. Comes out every
> >> Sunday. It's the Sunday version of the Queensland Courier Mail.
>
> > It's a BRISBANE paper. Not QLD paper.
>
> The company itself is *Queensland* Newspapers Pty Ltd.
>
> The editor, David Fagan, writes..
> "There's an optimism and vibrancy about Queensland which is reflected in
The
> Courier-Mail, Queensland's largest and best newspaper."
> "The Courier-Mail has been part of Queensland life for almost 70 years and
> it has constantly adapted to the changing tastes and aspirations of
> Queenslanders."
> http://newsmedianet.com.au/home/titles/title/index.jsp?titleid=7
>
> In Fagan's comments, he mentions Queensland or Queenslanders eight times.
> How many times does he mention Brisbane? Zilch, not once..
I agree. I grew up in Qld, and remember my Dad buying the Courier Mail every
day when we lived in towns such as Gympie, Bundaberg, Gladstone, etc....
Brissie
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:22:13 +1000, Brissie <bri...@zwallet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>My company allows smoke breaks as appropriate to the work-load, or
>>>>>smoking on the job when safe to do so.
>>>>
>>>>So you can have a smoke break every 5 minutes if you want?
>>>
>>>Which part of 'as appropriate to the work-load" did you not
>>>understand?
>>>
>>>If there's no immediate work that has to be done, of course you can
>>>have a smoke break every 5 minutes.
>>
>>So as I said. If there's a period of 3-4 hours of no immediate work
>>that needs to be done, you can have a smoke break for the whole
>>period.
>
>You didn't say that. Please do not make stuff up as you go.
Having a smoke break ever 5 minutes, means having 60-80 smoke breaks
back-to-back
>>And let the non-smokers do the work that isn't required
>>immediately.
>
>Oh, you've seen our workforce then? Oh, you haven't, you just made
>that up also. Why do you do this?
>
>Hint: Non-smokers can also have a break when there's no immediate
>work to do. It's just not called a 'smoke break'.
So it's a lunch break
>Hint: Smokers sometimes smoke *whilst doing* their work.
No they don't. It's against the law - in QLD at least.
>No need to. The Human Resources Department (aka Personnel
>Department) has been instructed to bin any job application that
>comes from you.
So they also break the law in that regard? Remember the law says every
applicant has to be treated equally. I might report them.
>>Well most companies don't allow that. Because if you called from a
>>company phone, if the person you insult chooses to sue you for
>>emotional distress caused from the insults, they can also sue the
>>company for faciliating the phones for you to use.
>
>Just as they sue Telstra in other cases?
They can't sue Telsta. Telstra don't allow it. If someone rings you up
an harrasses you, you can report them to Telstra. Telsta take action.
You just admitted your company does not, and lets you insult and
harrass people you call using their phones.
Brissie
<dynasoarR...@ozdebate.com> wrote:
>Brissie wrote:
>> Craig Welch wrote:
>
>>> The Sunday Mail, my dear boy, is a Queensland paper. Comes out every
>>> Sunday. It's the Sunday version of the Queensland Courier Mail.
>
>> It's a BRISBANE paper. Not QLD paper.
>
>The Courier Mail doesn't agree with you.
>The company itself is *Queensland* Newspapers Pty Ltd.
Queensland Newspapers also publish the Gold Coast Bulletin, and the
various local Quest newspapers as well.
So the Albert and Logan News isn't an Albert and Logan newspaper
because it's published by Queensland news? Craig say the Sunday Mail
isn't a Brisbane paper because it's published by QLD Newspapers.
Barbara
>
> No they don't. It's against the law - in QLD at least.
It is?
Best I advise the woman in my office...she has a cigarette whilst working,
whenever she feels like one, never even bothers to leave her desk.
Barbara
> No, Brissie just made it up ...
That would seem so.
>> Best I advise the woman in my office...she has a cigarette whilst
>> working, whenever she feels like one, never even bothers to leave
>> her desk.
>
> She's a disgrace! Wonder she hasn't been fired yet.
Yes! I suspect she has some sort of hold on the boss, as he never does or
says anything to stop her from smoking.
> Bloke in our company smokes cigars at work, would you believe?
tsk, tsk!
Barbara
> It's a BRISBANE paper. Not QLD paper. Other cities have their own
> paper - Gold Coast Bulletin, Townsville ???. etc.
Goodness, my regional town must have been annexed by Brisbane.
<note to self: Cancel subscription to Sunday Mail, so my town will no longer
be part of Brisbane>