Virgin Media Closing Albert Dock

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The information about you was provided by John East. He stated that no member of the CWU based at Albert Dock was called "Peter".

Now that shows how wrong you are as oddly I received an email from him today updating me with regards the tribunal.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

For the record, are you accusing John East of lying to me?

No he is not lying but you are lying about him keeping you updated especially that no one named Peter is or was a member of the CWU, oddly enough my union card is in my pocket.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As previously explained, and acknowledged by yourself earlier in the thread on more than one occasion, some members of staff were headhunted and some are also members of this forum.

Why you think you should automatically be made aware of the private business of your former colleagues is as conceited as it is bizarre.

As per my previous post anyone could have taken a job at Swansea as it was part of the agreement and no one who went down was headhunted.

The staff with qualifications went either to higher paid rival companies or as already stated were transferred to Knowsley or Wythenshawe, the staff who went to Swansea were the ones who thought the could not get a job up here but all their colleagues proved otherwise.

So who were the smart ones the ones who went to Swansea about 10 of them or the hundreds that got similar or better jobs in the Northwest, the is only one answer the hundreds who never moved in a panic.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You need to make your mind up. Either I know nothing and am looking for basic information, or, I am trying to obtain further information to weaken the unions' case as I am able to do this/would want to do this through my contacts. Which is it?*

Everyone on here just believes that you like to stir things up but when you are obviously posting about details you have absolutely no idea about it just shows you as being a fool with delusions of grandeur.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I don't believe that you were really suited to working for Virgin Media, so I don't understand your continued bitterness as things seem to have worked out to the benefit of both parties.

Oh how wrong you are as I received my bonus every month which is a performance related based payment as per most companies nowadays.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I was under the impression that this forum had a rule that you were not allowed to slag anyone off.

Therefore this certain 'Richard' has now broken that rule, and therefore should be expelled from this forum.

I am fully aware of free speech but when members start slagging off the good members of this forum, then action should be taken.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I was under the impression that this forum had a rule that you were not allowed to slag anyone off.

Therefore this certain 'Richard' has now broken that rule, and therefore should be expelled from this forum.

I am fully aware of free speech but when members start slagging off the good members of this forum, then action should be taken.

Well said Arthur

Here's a suggestion, lets ALL no longer reply to ANY thread created by Richard in ANY way.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Well said Arthur

Here's a suggestion, lets ALL no longer reply to ANY thread created by Richard in ANY way.

Just put him on ignore and be done with it.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

I have watched your behaviour towards VM employees who you felt gave you less respect than you deserved, on this forum and DigitalSpy, over many years. I have seen the response of many VM employees towards you on that forum and this one and read their opinions on the subject (as I recall, your brief appointment as a 'forum host' at DigitalSpy went down like a lead balloon).

For you to hope or expect any VM employee to take you into their personal confidence would, in my opinion, require such a complete lack of awareness of how others have reacted towards you in the past, as to be delusional.

It seems to me that either you have significant management contacts in VM, and think nothing of using them to try to put pressure on VM staff who frequent this forum (and DigitalSpy), or you don't, in which case who knows what strange game you're playing. Either way, I can't think of one single reason why any employee of VM (or any other individual, for that matter) should place their trust or confidence in an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

Does that expand it sufficiently for you?

Yes, your post now has more substance and can now be considered.

I am aware that there is a Richard Coulter on Digital Spy. Why the foregone conclusion that we are one and the same people? How many people do you think are called 'Chris' on the internet?

I believe that Forum Hosts on DS were a temporary experiment. Management decided not to continue the scheme when it came to it's natural end.

It has already been explained, and reassurances have been given, that my question is not ominous or anything to worry about.

I don't think that going through life being so suspicious and cynical of others, can be healthy at all.

Originally Posted by Sirius

If there is a case ongoing between the Union and Virginmedia and if that case ends up with the lawyers, then surely having a thread open here could prejudice that case if the wrong information is posted or is commented on.

That is a fair comment and a possibility, which is why I accept that people may not wish to comment on the subject at all, or would prefer to communicate via PM or email.

No-one is under any obligation to answer my question, but there is no need for the negative, snide and stirring attitude that I have witnessed from the usual few.

If anybody can and wishes to answer my question in public or in private, please do so. If you do not have the information asked for, or do not wish to discuss it, for any reason, it's perfectly fine to refrain from doing so.

It really is that simple!

Originally Posted by Peter_

Now that shows how wrong you are as oddly I received an email from him today updating me with regards the tribunal.

No he is not lying but you are lying about him keeping you updated especially that no one named Peter is or was a member of the CWU, oddly enough my union card is in my pocket.

As per my previous post anyone could have taken a job at Swansea as it was part of the agreement and no one who went down was headhunted.

The staff with qualifications went either to higher paid rival companies or as already stated were transferred to Knowsley or Wythenshawe, the staff who went to Swansea were the ones who thought the could not get a job up here but all their colleagues proved otherwise.

So who were the smart ones the ones who went to Swansea about 10 of them or the hundreds that got similar or better jobs in the Northwest, the is only one answer the hundreds who never moved in a panic.

Everyone on here just believes that you like to stir things up but when you are obviously posting about details you have absolutely no idea about it just shows you as being a fool with delusions of grandeur.

Oh how wrong you are as I received my bonus every month which is a performance related based payment as per most companies nowadays.

As previously explained, Mr East has stated to me that nobody by your name was a member of the CWU at Albert Dock. If you dispute this, contact him yourself.

Either way, do not call me a liar or a fool, as that is your domain.

All staff did what suited both what they had to offer and fitted their personal circumstances best- that is not in dispute.

VM aims to be a modern, customer focussed company, whose staff are polite, respectful, friendly and helpful.

Your attitude towards other people would have been in conflict with this, so, don't be bitter towards VM, as everything has turned out for the best.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I was under the impression that this forum had a rule that you were not allowed to slag anyone off.

Therefore this certain 'Richard' has now broken that rule, and therefore should be expelled from this forum.

I am fully aware of free speech but when members start slagging off the good members of this forum, then action should be taken.

I do not believe that the Cableforum Team need your input in order to do their job correctly, however, if there was a specific rule regarding "slagging off", there would be a certain few individuals who follow me round the boards to try and stir things up that would have had action taken against them.

In any case, I believe that your time would be better spent considering whether your attitude towards the VM employees, who recently visited your home, was entirely appropriate.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Well said Arthur

Here's a suggestion, lets ALL no longer reply to ANY thread created by Richard in ANY way.

Excellent idea, only can you also put me on ignore as you said you would last time?

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Just put him on ignore and be done with it.

Indeed-that's what any sensible person would do-but they like to have their puerile drama first

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The information about you was provided by John East. He stated that no member of the CWU based at Albert Dock was called "Peter".

I have decided a to post an edited version of the email sent by John East today to all ex employees that were affected by the closure and who are still part of the union due to the ongoing legal aspect of the closure.

Of course it has been heavily edited as the is no way that I am going to provide ammunition for someone like you but this is proof enough of how incorrect you have been once again.

From: REDACTED John East
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: Communication Workers Union v REDACTED.




Hi all.

I last wrote to you on REDACTED to say we were expecting information from Virgin and Adecco by mid REDACTED.

Well it finally arrived last REDACTED and it took REDACTED of us to photocopy the entire bundle so that our legal adviser and myself could have copies. We are now going through the bundle to see what we can discover from it.

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

Yours,

John East
AssistantSecretary (T&FS)
Tel: REDACTED
Mobile: REDACTED
email: REDACTED

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Hi Richard Coulter, if in your comment you are referring to myself, l think you are dealing with the wrong person.

In my time on this forum, l have been 'warned' off by my comments to fellow colleagues and have toned down my comments, I would however say that when you make comments that slag other members off, then you have no right on this forum.

All members have to abide by the 'fairness' rules and get blocked, everyone is entitled to give there comments in a dignified manner, but l think your comments are going a bit over the top. And yes, l am a union man.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As previously explained, Mr East has stated to me that nobody by your name was a member of the CWU at Albert Dock. If you dispute this, contact him yourself.

As I received the above email this afternoon from him somehow I think he is well aware of who I am as otherwise the would be no email to post, I did judiciously remove any tidbits you could hope to use hence the heavy use of the word REDACTED as the content of the email was not for anyone outside of the group affected by the legal action presently in place.

You are delusional and need to seek medical help as soon as possible if for one minute you believe that the were no CWU members with the name Peter at the Albert Dock.

But in reality you are probably just trying to find out my surname in the equally deluded hope that you could somehow sue me which makes you an even bigger fool as anything posted on a forum has no real legal standing especially considering the lies and mistruths that you have posted throughout this thread, I would have a much stronger counter argument against yourself.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yes, your post now has more substance and can now be considered.

I am aware that there is a Richard Coulter on Digital Spy.

(much sanctimonious guff snipped)

Yes, Richard, I know you are aware of that fact.

Here's something you may not be aware of. One of the key skills of a forum moderator is being able to spot the same person posting under multiple guises. We develop a keen nose for literary style, amongst many other things. Of course, it works in reverse as well. Many users have similar forum names without us so much as raising an eyebrow.

Trust me, when I assert that the Richard Coulter on DS is you, I'm not taking a stab in the dark just because the name is the same. The MO is a very nice match as well. The passive-aggressive bullying of VM staff combined with frequent allusions to high-up management contacts within the company, which you have made both on DS and here on CF, pretty much seal the deal.

[MovedGoalPosts]

The last few posts don't make pleasant reading.

We don't want to close this thread as in due course there may be a proper official update as to how the legal action has progressed.

Desist and move on please from the remarks about each other's characters, and whether information should be sent to anyone not privy to the legal dealings. Enough has been said on that. Any continuance could see intervention from the CF Team.

[RichardCoulter]

I've not heard anything for a quite a time about this case. Has there been any progress thus far?

If the law has been broken, it must and will take it's course.

I suspect, however, that justice is not the main driving force for the CWU, but money.

It should be borne in mind that any victory, however, could impact on remaining VM staff. The company is heavily laden with debt and any payout that people receive, will, effectively, be taken from the pockets of former colleagues- there simply isn't a slush fund within VM hanging around in case former staff decide to turn on their former employer. Any payout is likely to be paid for with jobs, pay, conditions and training.

Secondly, I always try to argue that jobs should be retained in the UK.

As a further knock on effect, incidences like this weaken the case for keeping jobs in the UK, where employees currently have rights which stifle job retention and creation.

Putting into context the fact that most former members of Albert Dock staff obtained their appropriate redundancy package and went straight onto alternative employment, this could turn out to be a very hollow victory indeed...

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I've not heard anything for a quite a time about this case. Has there been any progress thus far?

If the law has been broken, it must and will take it's course.

I suspect, however, that justice is not the main driving force for the CWU, but money.

It should be borne in mind that any victory, however, could impact on remaining VM staff. The company is heavily laden with debt and any payout that people receive, will, effectively, be taken from the pockets of former colleagues- there simply isn't a slush fund within VM hanging around in case former staff decide to turn on their former employer. Any payout is likely to be paid for with jobs, pay, conditions and training.

Secondly, I always try to argue that jobs should be retained in the UK.

As a further knock on effect, incidences like this weaken the case for keeping jobs in the UK, where employees currently have rights which stifle job retention and creation.

Putting into context the fact that most former members of Albert Dock staff obtained their appropriate redundancy package and went straight onto alternative employment, this could turn out to be a very hollow victory indeed...

Virgin Media makes money and is worth more than its debt so that isn't an issue.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I've not heard anything for a quite a time about this case. Has there been any progress thus far?

If the law has been broken, it must and will take it's course.

I suspect, however, that justice is not the main driving force for the CWU, but money.

It should be borne in mind that any victory, however, could impact on remaining VM staff. The company is heavily laden with debt and any payout that people receive, will, effectively, be taken from the pockets of former colleagues- there simply isn't a slush fund within VM hanging around in case former staff decide to turn on their former employer. Any payout is likely to be paid for with jobs, pay, conditions and training.

Secondly, I always try to argue that jobs should be retained in the UK.

As a further knock on effect, incidences like this weaken the case for keeping jobs in the UK, where employees currently have rights which stifle job retention and creation.

Putting into context the fact that most former members of Albert Dock staff obtained their appropriate redundancy package and went straight onto alternative employment, this could turn out to be a very hollow victory indeed...

If you haven't got a relevant update, which you haven't. Why post anything at all, especially the garbage that you have?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I've not heard anything for a quite a time about this case. Has there been any progress thus far?

What, your "high level contacts" in VM not able to give you any insider info? What a let-down.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Russ

What, your "high level contacts" in VM not able to give you any insider info? What a let-down.

There has been no further info and the chance of any members of staff posting that info is pretty dam zero

Funny i was under the impression this thread was locked until such time as there was new info