CEO Lee Strafford no Longer With Plusnet
Motion
Strafford, the former CEO, is no longer with the company. A copy of the
announcement as posted by Ian Wild on The Official Plusnet Usergroup and
also in the Plusnet member centre is shown below:
"Today we announced to staff that Lee Strafford, our CEO, is no longer with
PlusNet. Lee was instrumental in growing PlusNet from a small ISP in
Sheffield into a nationally recognised brand, and oversaw the acquisition of
PlusNet by BT earlier this year. Neil Laycock, who has been wit PlusNet for
3 years, will take over the position of acting CEO with immediate effect."
Read more here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/3007.html
Allan Gould
> Plusnet is looking for a new CEO now that it has been announced that Lee
> Strafford, the former CEO, is no longer with the company. A copy of the
> announcement as posted by Ian Wild on The Official Plusnet Usergroup and
> also in the Plusnet member centre is shown below:
[snip]
The Indy has a different take on it:
Plusnet founder threatens to sue BT for sacking
Published: 07 March 2007
Lee Strafford, founder and former chief executive of Plusnet, has
threatened the telecoms company's new owner, BT, with legal action after
his shock dismissal earlier this week.
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2334958.ece
Eeyore
Allan Gould wrote:
" Mr Strafford, alongside finance director Neil Comer, was unexpectedly
dismissed with immediate effect on Monday for misconduct. "
It just gets better and better !
Graham
Stan The Man
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you read the full article it's clear that Strafford is mounting a
pre-emptive defence against potentially much more serious charges - ie
that he diverted BT funds into an unauthorised international venture.
If true, he could face charges of fraud.
Stan
Gordon Hudson
"Allan Gould" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:557e1eF...@mid.individual.net...
Such sackings are standard following takeovers.
You just don't want the people who put the company in a position where it
could be bought out running the show.
Peter Crosland
>>> Plusnet is looking for a new CEO now that it has been announced
>>> that Lee Strafford, the former CEO, is no longer with the company.
>>> A copy of the announcement as posted by Ian Wild on The Official
>>> Plusnet Usergroup and also in the Plusnet member centre is shown
>>> below:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> The Indy has a different take on it:
>>
>> Plusnet founder threatens to sue BT for sacking
>> Published: 07 March 2007
>>
>> Lee Strafford, founder and former chief executive of Plusnet, has
>> threatened the telecoms company's new owner, BT, with legal action
>> after his shock dismissal earlier this week.
>>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2334958.ece
>
> Such sackings are standard following takeovers.
> You just don't want the people who put the company in a position
> where it could be bought out running the show.
Rubbish! Sacking anyone without notice is just not sensible unless you have
cast iron reasons to do so. It almost certainly makes the dismissal
fundamemtally unfair. Particularly when the buyout has been done in an
agreed manner. It will be interesting to here more details. Until then it
does look as though BT have shot themselves in the foot.
Peter Crosland
Road_Hog®
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45eeeb90$0$8757$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> Such sackings are standard following takeovers.
>> You just don't want the people who put the company in a position
>> where it could be bought out running the show.
>
> Rubbish! Sacking anyone without notice is just not sensible unless you
> have cast iron reasons to do so. It almost certainly makes the dismissal
> fundamemtally unfair. Particularly when the buyout has been done in an
> agreed manner. It will be interesting to here more details. Until then it
> does look as though BT have shot themselves in the foot.
>
> Peter Crosland
You're talking out of your arse. You don't know the facts and therefore can
only surmise.
BT may or maybe not have a very good case for dismissal, only when the facts
come out will we really know.
Peter Crosland
>>> You just don't want the people who put the company in a position
>>> where it could be bought out running the show.
>>
>> Rubbish! Sacking anyone without notice is just not sensible unless
>> you have cast iron reasons to do so. It almost certainly makes the
>> dismissal fundamemtally unfair. Particularly when the buyout has
>> been done in an agreed manner. It will be interesting to here more
>> details. Until then it does look as though BT have shot themselves
>> in the foot. Peter Crosland
>
> You're talking out of your arse. You don't know the facts and
> therefore can only surmise.
Really? And what facts do you know that that allow you to think that? More
that a little hypocrisy on your part I would say.
> BT may or maybe not have a very good case for dismissal, only when
> the facts come out will we really know.
Indeed they may, but it is highly unlikely that they had a case for INSTANT
dismissal which was the point.
Peter Crosland
Road_Hog®
>> You're talking out of your arse. You don't know the facts and
>> therefore can only surmise.
>
> Really? And what facts do you know that that allow you to think that? More
> that a little hypocrisy on your part I would say.
I'm not the one making assumptions, you are. I'm saying you need to know the
facts first, otherwise you're just surmising.
Peter Crosland
But you are saying that I am wrong and YOU have no facts to support that
statement. AFAIK from the public statements the CEO was instatly dismissed.
I repeat that instant dismissal without notice is almost always
fundamentally unfair.
Peter Crosland
guv
wrote:
Oh I do hope thats true. I found him to be an obnoxious areshole.
guv
Its also his point. You dont know the facts, so cant claim they dont
have a case for instant dismissal.
But its pretty obvious, they wouldnt undertake such a thing unless
they thought they had a very good case. (That isnt an assumption -
thats logic!)
Peter Crosland
I did not say that they did not have a case for instant dismissal. What I
said was that in a very large percentage of cases instant dismissal is
unfair. Indeed there is a general presumption that instant dismissal is
unfair. Speaking from personal experience I would not like to bet on a big
company like BT getting it right. Lots of large companies have come
seriously unstuck with dismissing people and not following the proper
procedures. Usually the appropriate thing is to suspend the person and send
them on "gardening leave" that means they are kept out of the company's
premises. It has all the hallmarks of a corporate cockup!
Peter Crosland
Old Codger
>> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:45ef14d6$0$8752$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>>> You're talking out of your arse. You don't know the facts and
>>>> therefore can only surmise.
>>> Really? And what facts do you know that that allow you to think
>>> that? More that a little hypocrisy on your part I would say.
>> I'm not the one making assumptions, you are. I'm saying you need to
>> know the facts first, otherwise you're just surmising.
>
> But you are saying that I am wrong and YOU have no facts to support that
> statement.
Oh, I don't think so, Road Hog is saying that "You're talking out of
your arse." (because) "You don't know the facts and therefore can only
surmise."
He also said, which you snipped, "BT may or maybe not have a very good
case for dismissal, only when the facts come out will we really know."
He is saying (correctly) that you are making assumptions and do not know
why BT dismissed Strafford, nor if they had good reason to do that
instantly. That is *not* saying that you are wrong.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Retired
>>> Lee Strafford, founder and former chief executive of Plusnet, has
>>> threatened the telecoms company's new owner, BT, with legal action
>>> after his shock dismissal earlier this week.
>>>
>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2334958.ece
>>
>> Such sackings are standard following takeovers.
>> You just don't want the people who put the company in a position
>> where it could be bought out running the show.
>
> Rubbish! Sacking anyone without notice is just not sensible unless you
> have cast iron reasons to do so. It almost certainly makes the dismissal
> fundamemtally unfair. Particularly when the buyout has been done in an
> agreed manner. It will be interesting to here more details. Until then it
> does look as though BT have shot themselves in the foot.
>
> Peter Crosland
>
All the quotes I have seen refer to "his shock dismissal" or something
similar. The dismissal may have been a shock, and it may have been without
warning, but that is different from instant dismissal when you are fired on
the spot and your pay is terminated. Odds are he has got a decent length
contract, and BT will pay him.
Obviously if people are in sensitive positions where they could do damage in
revenge, you get them off the premises at once, this principle applying to
people at all levels (particularly software gurus), not just ex-CEOs
Retired
guv
No, you said " it is highly unlikely that they had a case for
INSTANT dismissal".
Which amounts to the same thing AFAIAC.
Whether the case sticks is a mute point, but they must feel they have
good grounds, else they would not have done so.
Hopefully in this case, they haven't messed up. My dealings with
Strafford indicate him to be a very unpleasant individual.
Old Codger
According to the reports I have seen, no compensation was paid.
El Luchador
"Tx2" <this.is...@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20594ca39...@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <45ef2854$0$8719$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Peter
> Crosland
> of g6...@yahoo.co.uk, felt we'd be interested in the following...
>
>
> > > "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:45ef14d6$0$8752$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> > >>> You're talking out of your arse. You don't know the facts and
> > >>> therefore can only surmise.
> > >>
> > >> Really? And what facts do you know that that allow you to think
> > >> that? More that a little hypocrisy on your part I would say.
> > >
> > > I'm not the one making assumptions, you are. I'm saying you need to
> > > know the facts first, otherwise you're just surmising.
> >
> > But you are saying that I am wrong and YOU have no facts to support that
> > statement.
>
> Strafford was dismissed.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you were saying in your original post when
> you said "It almost certainly makes the dismissal fundamemtally unfair."
>
> You also suggest "BT have shot themselves in the foot."
>
> Can you clarify?
>
> If you were referring to Strafford's departure alone, then to my
> knowledge, you /do not/ have facts to support such, as has been pointed
> out. Subsequently, why have BT 'shot' themselves?
>
> BT may have a "cast iron" reason to sack Strafford. He may have been
> acting illegally, or assualted a member of staff, for example.
i hope he beat up stan the man simon chapman pr100 and his love bud sharma
with a baseball bat but i suspect theyd have given him a medal or a
knighthood for that
>
> Perfectly good reasons for instant dismissal.
>
> Do you have additional information concerning his departure?
>
> --
> My reply address is invalid.
> Please post replies to the group.
> Messages sent via Google Groups are 'auto-ignored'
> XPS M1710 / 2.16 GHz dual core / 2Gb DDR2 / nVidia GeForce 7950GTX
Eeyore
Peter Crosland wrote:
> > "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>> You're talking out of your arse. You don't know the facts and
> >>> therefore can only surmise.
> >>
> >> Really? And what facts do you know that that allow you to think
> >> that? More that a little hypocrisy on your part I would say.
> >
> > I'm not the one making assumptions, you are. I'm saying you need to
> > know the facts first, otherwise you're just surmising.
>
> But you are saying that I am wrong and YOU have no facts to support that
> statement. AFAIK from the public statements the CEO was instatly dismissed.
> I repeat that instant dismissal without notice is almost always
> fundamentally unfair.
In case of misconduct it's quite normal.
Graham
Eeyore
Tx2 wrote:
> *Nobody* in here (AFAIC) knows exactly why or on what grounds the idiot
> Strafford was dismissed.
For alleged misconduct.
It's in the damn newspaper article.
Graham
Peter Crosland
>
> No, you said " it is highly unlikely that they had a case for
> INSTANT dismissal".
>
> Which amounts to the same thing AFAIAC.
Absolutely not! It means just what it says i.e. that there is a degree of
doubt. The degree of doubt may be small but there is doubt i.e it is not a
certainty.
> Whether the case sticks is a mute point, but they must feel they have
> good grounds, else they would not have done so.
They may have or indeed thought they had. However, as I said before if is
not uncommon for large companies to get it wrong. You only have to look at
the high profile cases that appear in the papers when matters go to court.
Plenty more will have been quietly settled to avoid the inevitable bad
publicity. The fact remains that it is very seldom wise to dismiss someone
in such a way. Been there, done that, got the compensation!
> Hopefully in this case, they haven't messed up. My dealings with
> Strafford indicate him to be a very unpleasant individual.
That may or may not be true. I have never had any dealings with him. In any
case it is a complete red herring because is as entitled to his legal rights
just as anyone else is.
Peter Crosland
Eeyore
Tx2 wrote:
> Eeyore of rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com, felt we'd be interested in
> the following...
>
> > Tx2 wrote:
> >
> > > *Nobody* in here (AFAIC) knows exactly why or on what grounds the idiot
> > > Strafford was dismissed.
> >
> > For alleged misconduct.
>
> But why, or on what grounds, nobody here knows, like I said.
>
> > It's in the damn newspaper article.
>
> No it's not.
Yes *IT IS* !
> All that is in the article is that he was dismissed for alleged misconduct.
That's what I damn well said. Can't you read ?
> Alleged misconduct could mean *anything*.
No it *COULDN'T* !
Graham
Eeyore
Tx2 wrote:
> Eeyore of rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com, felt we'd be interested in
> the following...
>
> > Tx2 wrote:
> >
> > > Eeyore of rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com, felt we'd be interested in
> > > the following...
> > >
> > > > Tx2 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > *Nobody* in here (AFAIC) knows exactly why or on what grounds the idiot
> > > > > Strafford was dismissed.
> > > >
> > > > For alleged misconduct.
> > >
> > > But why, or on what grounds, nobody here knows, like I said.
> > >
> > > > It's in the damn newspaper article.
> > >
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > Yes *IT IS* !
>
> No, you are wrong.
FYI.....
" Mr Strafford, alongside finance director Neil Comer, was unexpectedly dismissed
with immediate effect on Monday for misconduct. "
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2334958.ece
Do you wish to whine about anything else whilst you're at it ?
Graham
Stan The Man
<this.is...@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:
>In article <45F05DA8...@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
>of rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com, felt we'd be interested in
>the following...
>
>
>> FYI.....
>>
>> " Mr Strafford, alongside finance director Neil Comer, was unexpectedly
>> dismissed
>> with immediate effect on Monday for misconduct. "
>
>OK, please define misconduct; and then - as per my original post - tell
>us exactly why or on what grounds a misconduct charge leading to
>dismissal was bought.
The clear *implication* in both the Independent and FT stories is that
Strafford misused BT funds to set up a rival enterprise without BT's
authority. Strafford denies it of course but I would be surprised to
find that this is smoke without fire - especially given Strafford's
reputation as an arrogant chancer.
Stan
Eeyore
Tx2 wrote:
> Eeyore of rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com, felt we'd be interested in
> the following...
>
> > FYI.....
> >
> > " Mr Strafford, alongside finance director Neil Comer, was unexpectedly dismissed
> > with immediate effect on Monday for misconduct. "
>
> OK, please define misconduct
Tell me something.
Are you a fuckwit ?
Graham
mis·con·duct [n. mis-kon-duhkt; v. mis-kuhn-duhkt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–noun
1. improper conduct; wrong behavior.
2. unlawful conduct by an official in regard to his or her office, or by a person in
the administration of justice, such as a lawyer, witness, or juror; malfeasance.
–verb (used with object)
3. to mismanage.
4. to misbehave (oneself).
[Origin: 1700–10; mis-1 + conduct]
—Synonyms 1. wrongdoing, misbehavior, misdeed, misstep.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
mis·con·duct (m?s-k?n'd?kt) Pronunciation Key
n.
Behavior not conforming to prevailing standards or laws; impropriety.
The act or an instance of adultery.
Dishonest or bad management, especially by persons entrusted or engaged to act on
another's behalf.
Deliberate wrongdoing, especially by government or military officials.
v. (m?s'k?n-d?ct')
tr.v. mis·con·duct·ed, mis·con·duct·ing, mis·con·ducts
To mismanage.
To behave (oneself) improperly.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
misconduct (n.)
1710, "bad management, neglect;" see mis- (1) + conduct (n.). Meaning "wrong conduct"
is attested from 1729.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source
misconduct
noun
1. bad or dishonest management by persons supposed to act on another's behalf
2. activity that transgresses moral or civil law; "he denied any wrongdoing" [syn:
wrongdoing]
verb
1. behave badly; "The children misbehaved all morning" [syn: misbehave] [ant: behave]
2. manage badly or incompetently; "The funds were mismanaged" [syn: mismanage]
WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
Eeyore
Stan The Man wrote:
> Tx2 <this.is...@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:
> >Eeyore of rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com, felt we'd be interested in
> >the following...
> >
> >> FYI.....
> >>
> >> " Mr Strafford, alongside finance director Neil Comer, was unexpectedly
> >> dismissed
> >> with immediate effect on Monday for misconduct. "
> >
> >OK, please define misconduct; and then - as per my original post - tell
> >us exactly why or on what grounds a misconduct charge leading to
> >dismissal was bought.
>
> The clear *implication* in both the Independent and FT stories is that
> Strafford misused BT funds to set up a rival enterprise without BT's
> authority. Strafford denies it of course but I would be surprised to
> find that this is smoke without fire - especially given Strafford's
> reputation as an arrogant chancer.
" A source said that Mr Strafford and Mr Comer were dismissed after being
accused of plotting to establish a new business that would have been to the
detriment of Plusnet. "
It seems that Tx2 is reading-challenged.
Graham
Eeyore
Tx2 wrote:
> The implied reason may be far from the actual events.
Is your name Mystic Meg or something ? What's that crystal ball telling you ?
Yeah right. Any ignorant twat can speculate. How about you provide some facts
instead ?
Graham
Mark McIntyre
<an...@privacy.com> wrote:
>> Rubbish! Sacking anyone without notice is just not sensible
>>
>Nowhere did it say he was sacked without notice
Indeed. I strongly suspect he's been given the standard 3 months
notice, and has gone on "gardening leave", possibly with a sub judice
golden goodbye of some sort.
>Obviously if people are in sensitive positions where they could do damage in
>revenge, you get them off the premises at once,
Absolutely.
Though I know of one sad case where the company decided they didn't
want the b*gger sitting on his ar*e during the summer chatting up
competitors, so they set him up an office sans phone or computer,
changed his security card to deny access to everything and forced him
to work his notice twiddling his thumbs. Argh.
--
Mark McIntyre
Mark McIntyre
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Tx2 wrote:
>
>> Alleged misconduct could mean *anything*.
>
>No it *COULDN'T* !
Well, it could mean anything from groping his secretary's bum to
stealing biros to fiddling his expenses to doing an Enron. They didn't
say Gross misconduct, or negligence, so that rules out a few things I
guess.
--
Mark McIntyre
kraftee
Trouble with that is that BT is very quick to strike & very often has
to retracted/back pedal if pushed. We recently had a case where 5
engineers where instantly dismissed (for time sheet/paperwork fraud).
Within 3 months they were all back in employment with BT (that is if
they wanted to come back) & since then all have been prgogressed up
the 'tree' so none of them are on the same grade as they were when
they were sacked. That's the positive side of having a very good
local Union rep.
Eeyore
kraftee wrote:
Dare I ask how they managed that ?
Graham
Waltzing My ~
news:esrr2r$94n$1...@news.datemas.de...
That's the positive side of having a very good
> local Union rep.
>
Waltzing ma ~
kraftee
You didn't read my last sentence did you...
guv
<g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I did not say that they did not have a case for instant dismissal.
>>
>> No, you said " it is highly unlikely that they had a case for
>> INSTANT dismissal".
>>
>> Which amounts to the same thing AFAIAC.
>
>Absolutely not! It means just what it says i.e. that there is a degree of
>doubt. The degree of doubt may be small but there is doubt i.e it is not a
>certainty.
A small degree of doubt is hardly the same as highly unlikely!
Opposite ends of the scale!
>> Whether the case sticks is a mute point, but they must feel they have
>> good grounds, else they would not have done so.
>
>They may have or indeed thought they had. However, as I said before if is
>not uncommon for large companies to get it wrong. You only have to look at
>the high profile cases that appear in the papers when matters go to court.
>Plenty more will have been quietly settled to avoid the inevitable bad
>publicity. The fact remains that it is very seldom wise to dismiss someone
>in such a way. Been there, done that, got the compensation!
Yes - and likewise! Funny thing is, I got contracted to work back for
the same company when they took things back in house a few years ago!
I would imagine they will think twice about it again. That 5 figure
payout could go to 6 if they tried it on again!
>> Hopefully in this case, they haven't messed up. My dealings with
>> Strafford indicate him to be a very unpleasant individual.
>
>That may or may not be true. I have never had any dealings with him. In any
>case it is a complete red herring because is as entitled to his legal rights
>just as anyone else is.
Quite true. However, if he has broken his contract to earn instant
summary dismissal (which is what I am saying), then I'm quite happy! I
certainly wouldnt want him receiving large sums of cash for
compensation!
Gifted
"Motion" <throwawaya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:esln6r$su1$1...@aioe.org...
> Plusnet is looking for a new CEO now that it has been announced that Lee
> Strafford, the former CEO, is no longer with the company. A copy of the
> announcement as posted by Ian Wild on The Official Plusnet Usergroup and
> also in the Plusnet member centre is shown below:
>
> "Today we announced to staff that Lee Strafford, our CEO, is no longer
> with PlusNet. Lee was instrumental in growing PlusNet from a small ISP in
> Sheffield into a nationally recognised brand, and oversaw the acquisition
> of PlusNet by BT earlier this year. Neil Laycock, who has been wit PlusNet
> for 3 years, will take over the position of acting CEO with immediate
> effect."
Just the start of a well needed Cull I hope.
Next on the list should be Ian Wild, David Tomlinson and Neil Armstrong,
these were guys that wallowed in Plusnets bad era, have personal
recollections of David Tomlinson making it difficult for me to migrate out
of that hell ... *shudder* He really made it difficult for me and seemed to
take personal satisfaction in grinding my Plusnet service to dial up speeds
in my migration time when I talked back to him on Plusnets own forums ....
Bastard!!!
Oh lets not forget, the PUG need to go too, what a useless bunch of
teenagers and students grovelling for jobs at Plusnet, they are just puppets
with no customer interests whatsoever.
Gifted
>> Strafford, the former CEO, is no longer with the company. A copy of the
>> announcement as posted by Ian Wild on The Official Plusnet Usergroup and
>> also in the Plusnet member centre is shown below:
>
>
> The Indy has a different take on it:
>
> Plusnet founder threatens to sue BT for sacking
> Published: 07 March 2007
>
> Lee Strafford, founder and former chief executive of Plusnet, has
> threatened the telecoms company's new owner, BT, with legal action after
> his shock dismissal earlier this week.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2334958.ece
LOL, altogether now ..... He's got high hopes, he's got high hopes :)
LOL, its good to see that cunt squirming, what goes around comes around.
lwi...@gmail.com
> Plusnet is looking for a new CEO now that it has been announced that Lee
> Strafford, the former CEO, is no longer with the company. A copy of the
> announcement as posted by Ian Wild on The Official Plusnet Usergroup and
> also in the Plusnet member centre is shown below:
>
> PlusNet. Lee was instrumental in growing PlusNet from a small ISP in
> Sheffield into a nationally recognised brand, and oversaw the acquisition of
> PlusNet by BT earlier this year. Neil Laycock, who has been wit PlusNet for
> 3 years, will take over the position of acting CEO with immediate effect."
>
Gifted
Stafford was marched out of the building and told not to come back again, he
lost his job in disgrace and shame, and quite right too.
Deal with it fanboy, and yes I think its bloody wonderful, but just a start
of more Plusnet Culls to come I hope:)
What goes around, comes around, I bet there are many in the Sheffield sweat
shop awaiting the chop now ... let them sweat, wonder and wait!
These people treated customers like scum, have no sympathy for them at all.
Halleluiah!!!!