Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
I only ever had one union job. On the docks in Felixstowe, was great, double the money of my previous job. Had a policy that if a person didn't get into work their wages were split between the rest of the shift. Every perk going...
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
I've never had a union job, but even in the army, I was never forced to speak while under investigation without legal counsel, which in the army is an assisting officer, and in every case the assisting officer advised me to say nothing and to allow him to speak on my behalf, and for any soldier that I placed under investigation, I advised them to consult with their assisting officer before they said anything, and that was all entirely consistent with the Queen's Regulations and Orders, not a perk at all, merely due process of the law.Montegriffo wrote:I only ever had one union job. On the docks in Felixstowe, was great, double the money of my previous job. Had a policy that if a person didn't get into work their wages were split between the rest of the shift. Every perk going...
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 12950
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
- Location: The Great Place
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
Hey private, you were supposed to fuel the generator. It ran out last night, and the TOC lost power. What happened?Smitty-48 wrote:I've never had a union job, but even in the army, I was never forced to speak while under investigation without legal counsel, which in the army is an assisting officer, and in every case the assisting officer advised me to say nothing and to allow him to speak on my behalf, and for any soldier that I placed under investigation, I advised them to consult with their assisting officer before they said anything, and that was all entirely consistent with the Queen's Regulations and Orders, not a perk at all, merely due process of the law.Montegriffo wrote:I only ever had one union job. On the docks in Felixstowe, was great, double the money of my previous job. Had a policy that if a person didn't get into work their wages were split between the rest of the shift. Every perk going...
I want my lawyer
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
Fallacy, the case in question is a formal investigation, upon any formal investigation, you are entitled to legal counsel, or at least we are, maybe it doesn't work that way in America, but that's how it works under the rule of law.Okeefenokee wrote:Hey private, you were supposed to fuel the generator. It ran out last night, and the TOC lost power. What happened?Smitty-48 wrote:I've never had a union job, but even in the army, I was never forced to speak while under investigation without legal counsel, which in the army is an assisting officer, and in every case the assisting officer advised me to say nothing and to allow him to speak on my behalf, and for any soldier that I placed under investigation, I advised them to consult with their assisting officer before they said anything, and that was all entirely consistent with the Queen's Regulations and Orders, not a perk at all, merely due process of the law.Montegriffo wrote:I only ever had one union job. On the docks in Felixstowe, was great, double the money of my previous job. Had a policy that if a person didn't get into work their wages were split between the rest of the shift. Every perk going...
I want my lawyer
Moreover, said Private Soldier exampled would not be subject to termination of contract for such a mistake, wouldn't even be subject to formal investigation in fact.
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:39 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
Can't understand your POV on this one, Smitty.
Account abandoned.
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
My point of view is that America is ruled by partisan witch hunt and one would be a fool to cooperate with that without legal counsel present, but you are of course free to, if you would like to cooperate with the inquisitions of American torches and pitchforks, that is your prerogative, but I would recommend that you seek legal counsel before you said anything, go shooting your mouth off to a formal investigation without legal counsel at your own peril methinks.Kath wrote:Can't understand your POV on this one, Smitty.
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
See here; Do you think the President would ever speak to a formal investigation without legal counsel? Of course not, he would be a fool to do so, only rubes do things like that, people with wealth, power and prerogatives exercise every right at their disposal in all cases.
Good enough for your Commander-in-Chief, good enough for you, who knew?
Good enough for your Commander-in-Chief, good enough for you, who knew?
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 12241
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
Next time ol’ chap.
Next time.
"Hey varmints, don't mess with a guy that's riding a buffalo"
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:39 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
The employee is not under investigation, to my understanding. It's the process that is under investigation. The process doesn't need a lawyer.
Account abandoned.
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: Hawaii Missile Threat: False Alarm
The OP stated that the employee was refusing to cooperate with the investigation, which is legalese for the employee exercising their right to remain silent, likely on the advice of legal counsel, if you have a problem with that, more fool you, I however, would do exactly the same, so obviously I'm not going to decry someone for not being a rube, when I would do exactly as my Commander-in-Chief would, which is consult legal counsel and communicate entirely through them.Kath wrote:The employee is not under investigation, to my understanding. It's the process that is under investigation. The process doesn't need a lawyer.
Good enough of the Queen, good enough for the Queen's soldiers too.
Nec Aspera Terrent