Wow! Now your crew are actually employees - or so says a lawyer!

JumbleDuck said:
If your girlfriend told you she was being victimised at work, would you reply "you need a good kick in the genitals"?
Click to expand...

yes I would support her with all guns blazing....


Thing is, this lawyer was not at work, she had paid to go on an adventure requiring her to take part.

She chose not to take part despite the preliminary training which should have told her what it was all about and would entail.

She bottled out and lost her deposit, full stop.

Being a lawyer, she now seeks to have the whole experience paid for by someone else, conveniently forgetting the spirit of the Challenge which she must have gone along with earlier on...
 
She chose not to take part despite the preliminary training which should have told her what it was all about and would entail.

She bottled out and lost her deposit, full stop.


How do you know this? You repeatedly make assertions about what happened and what she was thinking that cannot possibly be more that mere speculation. Are you stupid or do you not understand the difference between between what you imagine might have happened and FACT?
 
Lakesailor said:
Perhaps, when you pit yourself against the elements, the competition and, yes, your own team, things may not pan out as you expected.
However, maybe you should use that as a learning experience and not fall back on others to fight your corner.
If you are beaten, accept it and move on.
Click to expand...

Of course. No doubt about that, if you find it's just not your thing. However, it's rather different if you find that it is your thing but other people make the experience unendurable.

Seajet said:
She chose not to take part despite the preliminary training which should have told her what it was all about and would entail.

She bottled out and lost her deposit, full stop.
Click to expand...

The article quoted in the OP says that she started off with the fleet but withdrew later.
 
Sandgrounder said:
She chose not to take part despite the preliminary training which should have told her what it was all about and would entail.

She bottled out and lost her deposit, full stop.


How do you know this? You repeatedly make assertions about what happened and what she was thinking that cannot possibly be more that mere speculation. Are you stupid or do you not understand the difference between between what you imagine might have happened and FACT?
Click to expand...

Agree. Some people seem to live in a fantasy world where facts do not matter and only their prejudices count. Big advantage of that approach is you are always right. Thank goodness the Tribunal will start by trying to establish the facts.
 
As to the claim being valid no one can tell at this stage
She has scrapped together a large sum of money for the experience of a lifetime & now probably skint
If she has a. Valid claim then good luck to her
I suspect that the "employment" approach is well thought out
Having been taken to employment tribunal 5 times in my business career i do think that there are some advantages in the system
First it is relatively quick
Second it is final - appeals being allowed on point of law only
Third the defence costs are cheaper- disregarding sums agreed if one looses that is
It is a bit like construction adjudication - it can be a bit rough & ready but it sorts the problem quickly & at relatively lower cost
So i suspect that the lady in question is using her brains by claiming to be an employee she gets a quick cheap result
As far as Clipper are concerned it may actually be to their advantage as well . They may loose but will not have to spend so much in employing QC etc to defend theirosition
I also seem to recall that payouts under employment law are now limited in value although i am not certain
 
Seajet said:
yes I would support her with all guns blazing....


Thing is, this lawyer was not at work, she had paid to go on an adventure requiring her to take part.

She chose not to take part despite the preliminary training which should have told her what it was all about and would entail.

She bottled out and lost her deposit, full stop.

Being a lawyer, she now seeks to have the whole experience paid for by someone else, conveniently forgetting the spirit of the Challenge which she must have gone along with earlier on...
Click to expand...

Exactly!
Can't understand how they accepted her on that basis, cos she as an 'unknown', would have been a potential liability.
 
Thankyou; the glaringly obvious is apparently no obstacle to berks who like to have a dig at me even when the answer is in front of them; I feel sorry for some petty little people.

If RKJ is half the man I think he is, he'll take this fight on head first and blow this lawyer out of the water.
 
That in no way led her to misjudge what the Challenge is all about, in fact should have reinforced it; of course one can't hop from boat to boat just because one is having a tantrum.
 
alant said:
Seajet said:
She chose not to take part despite the preliminary training which should have told her what it was all about and would entail.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
Can't understand how they accepted her on that basis, cos she as an 'unknown', would have been a potential liability.
Click to expand...

I think you are reading "she choose not to take part despite the preliminary training" as "she choose not to take part in the preliminary training". Both of which are wrong.
 
Seajet said:
That in no way led her to misjudge what the Challenge is all about, in fact should have reinforced it; of course one can't hop from boat to boat just because one is having a tantrum.
Click to expand...

OK then what do you think the challenge is about? I assume you don't agree with the suggestion that it's gang rape, so let's go from there.
 
Seajet said:
That in no way led her to misjudge what the Challenge is all about, in fact should have reinforced it; of course one can't hop from boat to boat just because one is having a tantrum.
Click to expand...

She may well have misjudged taking part, as indeed it may also have been a misjudgement to allow her to take part. Again, it is worth reading the link http://www.bulliedonboard.com/ . I believe that she recognised that the group dynamics were not working, and was hoping to have another bite at that cherry with a different group. Perhaps it would have worked, maybe it would not, we shall never know. There were obviously other elements to the group that was not helpful to her. It sounds as though she was a weak link in the group in terms of ability, and perhaps chastised for this at the time as she is here?

I am not saying that she should necessarily take this through the courts - she clearly has found it difficult to move on, and put this down to a poor life experience as some would. Some people are only human, and not the perfect deities that post on here.
 
Pye_End said:
Sometimes worth reading the links in these threads before jumping to conclusions and posting inaccurate/misleading statements-

'However, it hadn’t started well. During training I had broken my finger and been very lucky not to lose the third digit which was reattached by two fantastic surgeons at Bangor Hospital, who advised that I must not endanger their handiwork and that I could not return to normal duties until after the stitches were removed. This meant I was late joining the ‘Glasgow’ .

'Through these I am trying to figure out what, apart from me, might have contributed to my being handed a “YOU’RE FIRED” letter after completing only five of the seven legs for which I had signed on, and for which I had paid.'

In addition she had asked on multiple occasions to change boats, but was not allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

Makes a whole new picture IMO.
Sticking it out for 5 legs, is pretty impressive, not to be dismissed as a 'spat'!
 
laika said:
Are some people confusing the lawyer in the case being discussed with the author of that blog, who was a competitor in a previous race?
Click to expand...

Yep, sorry, my mistake. She talks about similar issues - ie legalities of an employment situation, so assumed it was the same story. Would be interesting to hear the full story in this case as well and see how they compare.
 
Seajet said:
no I always read it as ' she took part in the preliminary training, and despite that rather big clue thought she was on a pleasure cruise not an adventure '...
Click to expand...

I have seen no description of her expectations after training, but I gather from alant (correct me if I'm wrong, alant) that the training is intensive and leaves no doubt about the experience to come.
 
Perehaps this is inappropriate, but if you are on a racing yacht and your fellow crew begin to feel you are not up to the job or pehaps swinging the lead which is costing them time and damaging their prospects in the race...

You are likely to become very unpopular in a great hurry.

For normal offshore racing you can get off at the end of a couple of days max... But in the middle of the ocean it is rather different matter. What we don't know is what actually happened on board day by day and bit by bit.
 
Tomahawk said:
Perehaps this is inappropriate, but if you are on a racing yacht and your fellow crew begin to feel you are not up to the job or pehaps swinging the lead which is costing them time and damaging their prospects in the race...

You are likely to become very unpopular in a great hurry.

For normal offshore racing you can get off at the end of a couple of days max... But in the middle of the ocean it is rather different matter. What we don't know is what actually happened on board day by day and bit by bit.
Click to expand...

I think that is the point. we are not looking at a team player here. She has had her expectations dashed and doesn't want to look too closely into the mirror.

Just on percentages alone I think we can deduce that this is an extreme reaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top