Someone got caught speeding, might have been me.
Discussion
LocoCoco said:
Gavia, what would you do if you were in the OP's situation (assuming everything they said is true)?
I’d own up, as I’m pretty much convinced the OP knows he was driving. I’m also more than capable of knowing which vehicle I was driving and when, but I only have a choice of seven. Oh and if I suspected I was the driver, as the OP does, I’d weigh up the impact of a £100 SAC vs losing my job / pissing management off and getting 6 points and a hefty fine in a court case.
LocoCoco said:
Gavia, what would you do if you were in the OP's situation (assuming everything they said is true)?
More to the point, what if he were in the employer’s position. If I as the employer had proof and the employee had offered to ‘fess up if shown the proof, I would have some faith in my employee’s word and show him the proof. The fact that the company has chosen not to implied one of two things - either (i) their proof is not as watertight as they have represented or (ii) for whatever reason they do not trust the employee to do the honourable thing.
NickCQ said:
More to the point, what if he were in the employer’s position. If I as the employer had proof and the employee had offered to ‘fess up if shown the proof, I would have some faith in my employee’s word and show him the proof.
The fact that the company has chosen not to implied one of two things - either (i) their proof is not as watertight as they have represented or (ii) for whatever reason they do not trust the employee to do the honourable thing.
If I had a troublesome (based exclusively on his stated views of his employer) employee with a contract that stated the driving licence requirements and he was about to break them, then I probably would comply with my legal obligations on the speeding matter only. Following the outcome of that I’d deal with employee with the employment issue and possibly remove a problem. The fact that the company has chosen not to implied one of two things - either (i) their proof is not as watertight as they have represented or (ii) for whatever reason they do not trust the employee to do the honourable thing.
I’m not saying that’s what they’re doing, but it is a distinct possibility that the OP needs to consider, instead of just getting support that he will take down the whole company’s management structure.
Philemon said:
Come on guys...
You are ruining what has been an interesting thread, but it is now becoming a pissing contest between you.
It’s not a pissing ocntest. All I’m trying to do is show the OP that he could be digging a very big hole amd whilst the posts on here are trying to be helpful, none of them have to live with outcome which could be life changing. You are ruining what has been an interesting thread, but it is now becoming a pissing contest between you.
Gavia said:
LocoCoco said:
Gavia, what would you do if you were in the OP's situation (assuming everything they said is true)?
1) I’d own up, as I’m pretty much convinced the OP knows he was driving. I’m also more than capable of knowing which vehicle I was driving and when, but I only have a choice of seven. 2) Oh and if I suspected I was the driver, as the OP does, I’d weigh up the impact of a £100 SAC vs losing my job / pissing management off and getting 6 points and a hefty fine in a court case.
2) Fine, you do realize that there are more possible scenarios than the two you've written though right? Or you are saying that it is impossible that the manager is bluffing about this evidence?
LocoCoco said:
Gavia said:
LocoCoco said:
Gavia, what would you do if you were in the OP's situation (assuming everything they said is true)?
1) I’d own up, as I’m pretty much convinced the OP knows he was driving. I’m also more than capable of knowing which vehicle I was driving and when, but I only have a choice of seven. 2) Oh and if I suspected I was the driver, as the OP does, I’d weigh up the impact of a £100 SAC vs losing my job / pissing management off and getting 6 points and a hefty fine in a court case.
2) Fine, you do realize that there are more possible scenarios than the two you've written though right? Or you are saying that it is impossible that the manager is bluffing about this evidence?
Neither of us has to live with the outcome though and Pyrrhic victories aren’t great.
Gavia said:
LocoCoco said:
Gavia said:
LocoCoco said:
Gavia, what would you do if you were in the OP's situation (assuming everything they said is true)?
1) I’d own up, as I’m pretty much convinced the OP knows he was driving. I’m also more than capable of knowing which vehicle I was driving and when, but I only have a choice of seven. 2) Oh and if I suspected I was the driver, as the OP does, I’d weigh up the impact of a £100 SAC vs losing my job / pissing management off and getting 6 points and a hefty fine in a court case.
2) Fine, you do realize that there are more possible scenarios than the two you've written though right? Or you are saying that it is impossible that the manager is bluffing about this evidence?
Neither of us has to live with the outcome though and Pyrrhic victories aren’t great.
Gavia said:
I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, but I’m trying to temper the approach that others are championing. Someone posted a bit ago about a Pyrrhic victory, I think that that’s the best the OP can hope for now.
I’ll leave you all to it now.
Yes, please do, you aren't adding anything to this thread other than an argument.I’ll leave you all to it now.
The OP was advised months ago on here how it could pan out if he chose to contest his employer's accusation. He made an informed decision to fight it/them back then. It was his problem and his decision.
Jonno02 said:
All I'm getting from this is that Gavia is a push over that will never stick to his guns; when the other person is most likely taking the piss.
To be fair to Gavia I think the strongest thing you could accuse him of is taking the employer at face value when he says he's got proof.Gavia said:
AndyDubbya said:
Gavia said:
<snip>
If the OP now knows the company has evidence that he was the driver, what are his responsibilities if he gets a new S172?
That's just it, he doesn't know. It's what they're telling him, sure, but he doesn't know. If the OP now knows the company has evidence that he was the driver, what are his responsibilities if he gets a new S172?
I’ll leave you all to it now.
I cannot understand why the employer isn't demonstrating the evidence to the OP.
From my point of view, if our Distribution Manager could not tell me who was driving our vans or hgvs at a given time, he'd be up for a disciplinary. With that in mind, this should not have got to this level at all.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read that the op uses a tacho in other vehicles. If correct, it's imperative the employer knows exactly what its drivers are doing, in order to keep the records straight.
We had one recently - 38 mph in average 30 mph roadworks. I rang the office and they told me the driver immediately. Job done, driver made aware and paperwork sent off. If they had to 'narrow it down', I'd get the driver into my office and run through the evidence - why wouldn't I? It seems simple enough to me. (and then I'd discipline the Manager as a matter of course)
Thankfully though, our records are spot on, so with confidence I know where all our drivers are at any given time. Nothing to be proud of, it makes makes things more straightforward when operating a fleet.
If I was the OP, and all his statements are correct, then I'd pursue it in the same manner. I'd also expect my employees to do the same, should I be unfortunate to have a manager subjecting them to the same behavior.
From my point of view, if our Distribution Manager could not tell me who was driving our vans or hgvs at a given time, he'd be up for a disciplinary. With that in mind, this should not have got to this level at all.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read that the op uses a tacho in other vehicles. If correct, it's imperative the employer knows exactly what its drivers are doing, in order to keep the records straight.
We had one recently - 38 mph in average 30 mph roadworks. I rang the office and they told me the driver immediately. Job done, driver made aware and paperwork sent off. If they had to 'narrow it down', I'd get the driver into my office and run through the evidence - why wouldn't I? It seems simple enough to me. (and then I'd discipline the Manager as a matter of course)
Thankfully though, our records are spot on, so with confidence I know where all our drivers are at any given time. Nothing to be proud of, it makes makes things more straightforward when operating a fleet.
If I was the OP, and all his statements are correct, then I'd pursue it in the same manner. I'd also expect my employees to do the same, should I be unfortunate to have a manager subjecting them to the same behavior.
sanguinary said:
I cannot understand why the employer isn't demonstrating the evidence to the OP.
Who cares, it's irrelevant, they aren't, end of.OP pretty much has his cards marked now anyway, so he might as well go all in and protest his innocence all the way. It doesn't sound like either party is going to make any concession at this point.
Company doesn't have to provide him with the evidence they have or possibly haven't got.
OP isn't going to get this evidence from them.
OP has to decide either to cop to the offence regardless, and maybe salvage his future career prospects with the company (though probably not), or protest his innocence all the way to the point at which the company could end up on the hook for not having sufficient records (if they're bluffing, which seems likely) leaving the OP's position with the company pretty much terminally ill.
ps. Don't fool yourself into thinking any conversation with an HR bod, no matter what they say or how sympathetic they might seem, means anything. HR exists to protect the company from its employees, not the other way around. They're employed by the company, they're not going to take sides or act against the company's interests.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 20th December 17:06
Again, interesting replies folks and I thank you.
I would hiwever ike to clear a few things up. These first two points are for Glavia, I respect that you e got your thoughts on this issue and I like your side of the argument. Firstly, I've got the letter in front of me and it does say 68 in a 60. Secondly, I know we don't know each other but I can assure you, if I knew, 100% it was me then I would have stood up and taken the fine and possible points or whatever. I knew full well what I would be getting myself in to should I deny it and here I am, in the very situation.
The vans, at the time had no sign out sheet and no vehicle check sheet. Both of which they have now and they are filled in as far as I'm aware. Back at the time of the offence they were allocated routes first thing in the morning. Upon their return after the route they were free for anyone to take but that wouldn't have been for a full route, just a redelivery, to fix a mistake, help someone else out etc.
This offence happened later on in the day and would have been one of those extra deliveries, not part of the main route of the day. Another one of the reasons that I was fingered is that I had, at some point, visited a delivery point that lies in that direction. The paperwork from that delivery does not have my name or signature on it either, just the original driver's signature from earlier that day. They are not even sure the van in question actually visited that delivery, then drove home that way past the camera.
I would hiwever ike to clear a few things up. These first two points are for Glavia, I respect that you e got your thoughts on this issue and I like your side of the argument. Firstly, I've got the letter in front of me and it does say 68 in a 60. Secondly, I know we don't know each other but I can assure you, if I knew, 100% it was me then I would have stood up and taken the fine and possible points or whatever. I knew full well what I would be getting myself in to should I deny it and here I am, in the very situation.
The vans, at the time had no sign out sheet and no vehicle check sheet. Both of which they have now and they are filled in as far as I'm aware. Back at the time of the offence they were allocated routes first thing in the morning. Upon their return after the route they were free for anyone to take but that wouldn't have been for a full route, just a redelivery, to fix a mistake, help someone else out etc.
This offence happened later on in the day and would have been one of those extra deliveries, not part of the main route of the day. Another one of the reasons that I was fingered is that I had, at some point, visited a delivery point that lies in that direction. The paperwork from that delivery does not have my name or signature on it either, just the original driver's signature from earlier that day. They are not even sure the van in question actually visited that delivery, then drove home that way past the camera.
Gavia said:
So here’s the situation as it stands now. He knows his company have said they have proof it was him driving. How does that affect his knowledge? Will he now admit it?
And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.
So what right minded individual/company would want to have this 'internal' proof revealed only in court? What sense does it make to conduct in house business and reveal key pertinent fact only in court? Why do people defend this tack?And once again, his company do not have to show him that evidence. They have to show it to the court if they ask, which they may well do if the OP persists in denying it was him when the company continue to say it was.
In fact I hope they would have themselves in a good bit of bother by taking it that far as if they DO reveal good honest proof the OP will concede it is him. Why waste a courts time by being shady and cagey? There can only be one explanation for that 'wont tell you' sillyness IMHO...
Gavia said:
I’m not sure how many times I have to say this, but let’s do it agin formthe umpteenth time.
HIS EMPLOYERS DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW HIM THE PROOF THAT IT WAS HIM DRIVING.
And I'm not sure how many times you're going to spectacularly miss the point: THE OP HAS SAID UMPTEEN TIMES IF THEY SHOW HIM THE PROOF HE'LL HOLD HIS HANDS UP. So although they don't have to, why wouldn't they? They show OP the proof, he's says fair cop, we all retire the lounge for medals and cigars and the whole thing's over and done with. What are the company gaining by not showing the OP their proof - are they desperate for a day in court?HIS EMPLOYERS DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW HIM THE PROOF THAT IT WAS HIM DRIVING.
Or is it that they don't have any proof and are trying to bully the OP into submission?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff