Tolerate Assholes at your (financial) peril

Dennis now says - Now you're being silly - but that's your right.

Was Lord Justice Goddard silly or incoherent?

I criticised existing Law.

Deutshe has many possible reasons for now making such a statement.

Can you tell me why Deutshe did not settle out court?

Do "Inappropriate" solutions encourage litigation and recidivism?

Kindly respond here, and in detail, as I hope others will.

You simply cannot extend the argument in the way you are and maintain a coherent position as it applies to points of law. But that's your right and for others to assess.

As it relates to this case. The law is clear. Every employee should expect protection by his/her employer from the noxious actions of co-workers. In this case Deutsche Bank failed in its duty of care.

Deutsche has tacitly accepted the ruling having said it respects the court's judgment. Want to argue that?

Dennis has now followed with another e-mail - do you want a serious bebate on issues of importance or do you do wish to present an Asshoe View?

I'm happy to have a bebate or even a debate.

Goddard L J effectively said - it is more important that the law be certain than that it be just.

On the other hand The Law, in the making and in its interpretation, is frequently an ass - even in tax cases?

So a plane is hijacked and the perpetrators have vast Human Rights?

A bookkeeper, come thief, gets a 5 year sentence for defrauding his employer of a million pounds or so and all the other employees suffer and the community pay £000's more to keep him in jail?

Millions upon millions of people in our world suffer gross physical and mental torture, soldiers also die; yet a secretary who could have resigned and found other employment, is too poorly to work but well enough to withstand a High Court appearance?

Do you deny that the number of frivolous court cases is legion and do you not think that massive financial awards will further encourage such madness; eventually to the point of widespead economic ruin amongst whole communities?

My solution is "wickedly" hard though it would be dramatically effective (and cheap).

Dennis e-mailed me to say - The High Court judge didn't think it was frivolous

He omitted both the semi-colon and the full stop.

She was a secretarary. In nine years her salary rose from £26k pa to £60k pa.

Anyone can be downright offensive to me for £60k pa.

She should have been fined £800k for bringing a frivolous case.

I am in favour of the death penaltly for serious fraud; let alone crimes of violence.

whats ethics got to do with this - its just bullying! Unfortunately it sounds like the bullies have yet to get their just desserts?