Scratch on colleagues car

[Graveworm]

Black_S3 said:

What type of company do you work for? If it's got a proper HR department who will protect you I'd be arranging a meeting with them with the complaint being that an accusation of criminal behavior has been made against you based on circumstantial evidence, tell them you didn't do it and you expect that your employers should be reporting the matter to the police to deal with and that unless the police find evidence to charge you this will be the last you hear of it - with the exception of a written apology from all who accused you. If possible take union rep to the meeting, but at a minimum take someone you trust.

Loads of employers can and do discipline/sack employees for what could be criminal including the equivalent of theft assault criminal damage etc. they don't have to involve the police and don't need to meet the criminal burden of proof, not even close. You can also be acquitted of a crime and still sacked.

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

the criminal burden of proof

Come again?

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

Come again?

Often called beyond reasonable doubt - certain so you are sure etc etc.

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

Often called beyond reasonable doubt - certain so you are sure etc etc.

You don't mean 'burden'.

[graylag]

janesmith1950 said:

Graveworm said:

the criminal burden of proof

Come again?

You pulled me up on that earlier too. It might not be the precise wording a solicitor would use, but pretty much everyone knows what’s meant by it.

Pedantry for pedantry’s sake marks you out for all the wrong reasons

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

You don't mean 'burden'.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-502-6...

[anonymous-user]

graylag said:

You pulled me up on that earlier too. It might not be the precise wording a solicitor would use, but pretty much everyone knows what’s meant by it.

Pedantry for pedantry’s sake marks you out for all the wrong reasons

The burden of proof relates to who has to do the proving. The standard of proof is to how convincing the evidence must be.

Getting them the wrong way around when attempting to sound authoritative on a subject marks you out for all the wrong reasons.

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

The burden of proof relates to who has to do the proving. The standard of proof is to how convincing the evidence must be.

Getting them the wrong way around when attempting to sound authoritative on a subject marks you out for all the wrong reasons.

You are not wrong. But my use is pretty common.
" .. Plaintiffs in civil cases typically have the burden of proving their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases, the prosecution typically has the burden of proving its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

You are not wrong. But my use is pretty common.
" .. Plaintiffs in civil cases typically have the burden of proving their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases, the prosecution typically has the burden of proving its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Firstly, there are no plaintiffs in English courts. Secondly, the quote you provide illustrates my point- 'burden' relates to who has to do the proving. 'Standard' relates to the, erm, standard required (beyond reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities etc.).

Mixing them up is like saying the APR on your credit card is £5000 and your credit limit is 18%

[Countdown]

pavarotti1980 said:

Countdown said:

Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave are different things

https://www.gov.uk/paternity-pay-leave

Somebody at our workplace suggested that people be given paid adoption leave when they get a new cat or dog as this is similar to adopting a new baby......

Paternity leave is 2 weeks. OP has been off for 2 months + and had KIT days. Hence parental leave being upwards of 2 weeks.

But well done on realising the difference yourself

Thanks. You said “Shared Parental Leave (Paternity in the old days)...”

There’s never been any such thing as SPL “in the old days”. They’re two separate things and always have been.

Hope that helps.

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

Firstly, there are no plaintiffs in English courts.

Ehm well if we are being pedantic ..
From the UK County Court Rules Definitions
We do get
“plaintiff” includes applicant, petitioner and appellant;

Other people who are wide of the mark ..
https://www.niccocapozzilaw.com/articles/what-is-t...
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1...
https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/2-4-t... "2 parts to Burden of proof Burden of production & Burden of persuasion "
https://www.sydneymitchell.co.uk/news/proceeds-cri... "The civil (as opposed to criminal) burden of proof is that of the 'balance of probabilities' "
Or how about the Solicitors regulation authority https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-downbeat-on-... The higher burden of proof also creates an incentive for defendants to fight cases, rather than to settle them through a paper-based process and the other person trying to make the,selves sound good Lord Justice Leveson, president of the Queen’s Bench Division when he said "The current criminal burden of proof at the SDT needs to be looked at again"

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 18th December 20:16

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 18th December 20:16

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

Ehm well if we are being pedantic ..
From the [url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/1687/article/3/made]UK County Court Rules Definitions[url]
We do get
“plaintiff” includes applicant, petitioner and appellant;

Keep digging. You are clearly an expert and stand out as such. The only mistakes you've made so far are mixing up burden and standard, quoting what looks to be a US website regards the US legal system and some old definitions from an act that in no way relates to how the parties are described in the courts of England and Wales in modern times.

And to point out a raft of your inaccuracies is somehow being a 'pedant'. Do work as a GDPR consultant or something?

[Black_S3]

Graveworm said:

Black_S3 said:

What type of company do you work for? If it's got a proper HR department who will protect you I'd be arranging a meeting with them with the complaint being that an accusation of criminal behavior has been made against you based on circumstantial evidence, tell them you didn't do it and you expect that your employers should be reporting the matter to the police to deal with and that unless the police find evidence to charge you this will be the last you hear of it - with the exception of a written apology from all who accused you. If possible take union rep to the meeting, but at a minimum take someone you trust.

Loads of employers can and do discipline/sack employees for what could be criminal including the equivalent of theft assault criminal damage etc. they don't have to involve the police and don't need to meet the criminal burden of proof, not even close. You can also be acquitted of a crime and still sacked.

There's a slight difference between meeting any accepted ''burden of proof'' and assuming who ever damaged the car left the car park in the next vehicle that went through the barriers.... If the OP mentioned something else to cause suspicion along the lines of the two being sworn enemies then sure he'd be looking at an unfortunate position but a decent company with a decent HR team would still be wary of taking sides and making wild accusations.

Edited by Black_S3 on Tuesday 18th December 20:12

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

eep digging. You are clearly an expert and stand out as such. The only mistakes you've made so far are mixing up burden and standard, quoting what looks to be a US website regards the US legal system and some old definitions from an act that in no way relates to how the parties are described in the courts of England and Wales in modern times.

And to point out a raft of your inaccuracies is somehow being a 'pedant'. Do work as a GDPR consultant or something?

That act is the current rules for county courts and refers to plaintiffs dozens of times - which is why it defines them from the outset. We have modernised the terms a lot and it is not being used.

Take a look at the other links I have just added which took all of 10 seconds to find as well. All UK but they are all wrong as well I guess including Lord Justice Leveson. I am definitely not a legal expert but I do have an old LLB.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 18th December 20:25

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

That act is the current rules for county courts and refers to plaintiffs dozens of times - which is why it defines them from the outset.

Take a look at the other links I have just added which took all of 10 seconds to find as well. All UK but they are all wrong as well I guess including I am definitely not legal expert but I do have an old LLB.

How about this. Go and sit in a county court, high court, appeal court or supreme court in England or Wales and see how many times you hear the word plaintiff. I will pay you £50 for each one. Or you could accept the obvious.

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

ow about this. Go and sit in a county court, high court, appeal court or supreme court in England or Wales and see how many times you hear the word plaintiff. I will pay you £50 for each one. Or you could accept the obvious.

I agree and never argued that. It is being phased out and modernised, hence why I said it was pedantic .. My usage of burden as you can clearly see is in widespread use including by the president of the Queen's Bench but somehow it's wrong and you are not being pedantic.

[Flumpo]

I couldn’t be bothered reading past page 2 as the op not knowing the difference between an m3 or m5 had me suspicious.

That coupled with him admitting his ‘big coat’ (during the hottest August for ages) May have caused the scratch.

Did we ever find out how this worked out or are we all more interested in what a plaintiff is now?

[Graveworm]

Black_S3 said:

There's a slight difference between meeting any accepted ''burden of proof'' and assuming who ever damaged the car left the car park in the next vehicle that went through the barriers.... If the OP mentioned something else to cause suspicion along the lines of the two being sworn enemies then sure he'd be looking at an unfortunate position but a decent company with a decent HR team would still be wary of taking sides and making wild accusations.

Edited by Black_S3 on Tuesday 18th December 20:12

The OP didn't say it was because it was the next car to leave they said " they only found it was me because they saw me get into my car and it got clocked as the next car to drive out of the car park via the number plate recognition system."
So IF the CCTV does show what they claim - Whoever they are talking about got into the OPs car and drove out of the car park, and the OP seems to accept that was him.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 18th December 20:53

[Black_S3]

Graveworm said:

The OP didn't say it was because it was the next car to leave they said " they only found it was me because they saw me get into my car and it got clocked as the next car to drive out of the car park via the number plate recognition system."
So IF the CCTV does show what they claim - Whoever they are talking about got into the OPs car and drove out of the car park, and the OP seems to accept that was him.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 18th December 20:53

I had missed that bit, the point still stands though... CCTV of being the only person to walk past a damaged car does not show that he did it, intentionally or by accident..... Even if the OP had taken a detour past the car, this happens loads in office car parks when people haven't parked in their usual space... For all anyone knows it could have happened outside the ''victims'' house the previous night & the victim could be in the wrong about where/when the damage occurred.

[Graveworm]

Black_S3 said:

I had missed that bit, the point still stands though... CCTV of being the only person to walk past a damaged car does not show that he did it, intentionally or by accident..... Even if the OP had taken a detour past the car, this happens loads in office car parks when people haven't parked in their usual space... For all anyone knows it could have happened outside the ''victims'' house the previous night & the victim could be in the wrong about where/when the damage occurred.

I get it might not have been the OP and the victim could be wrong. But that's the point we are just at the Burchell test. If the employer believes they did it, following a reasonable investigation then that's all they need. Yes the BMW driver could have got it wrong but we believed him and it fitted with the facts. A tribunal is incredibly unlikely to get into did they didn't they.