Originally Posted by alistairboyle

Just a thought; what would have happened had she not been wearing a bra?

Originally Posted by sonlymewalter

her boobs would be scalded by the teabags

Is this a trick question mate? you were there, not me

Originally Posted by alistairboyle

Not as flippant as it may seem. The award is being claimed for touching her bra strap. Had there been no strap, would the claim be for more or less money?

Originally Posted by sonlymewalter

oh look Im not playing if you're gonna be all serious like

No point asking me thesethings. I'm in the "shag me senseless" tshirt brigade

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

"These poor innocent investors (got DJ shares by any chance?)"
No but I know a few pensioners that do. My concern is more for the employees that I notice you've conveniently dropped from this discussion twice now.

Originally Posted by alistairboyle

Actually it was entirely flippant....let me tell you a story....in the nick where I called in to get my paperwork, there were three young ladies who worked in the front office. A new inspector had taken over and as I walked in he was assuring them that while he was in charge, there would be no sexual harrassment in his police station. To which one of the girls replied, "Right I'm f***ing leaving then!" The truth, I swear.

Originally Posted by BenandPam

Ah yes, these employees you are so concerned about. You haven't really explained how they are going to suffer have you? Are they going to be publicly flogged, only fed on gruel, made to dress in rags? What is going to happen to them exactly that you can see in your crystal ball?

While you are looking at Google, you can read McInnes' statement from when he was fired, and see how much he was paid to leave. So far he has made substantially more money than Fraser-Kirk out of this, but that isn't really going to get the masses all riled up is it?

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

Can someone explain why $37m is a reasonable claim? What's the justification for such a large amount?

I can't see how taking something like 30-35% of the company's profits doesn't go beyond punitive and end up being vindictive.

If the company has to hand over 35% of it's profit there's surely going to be knock ons that affects hundreds (maybe 1000s) of innocent people. I can't see how the company would be able to pay employee bonuses without cutting them by 35%. Or how they can pay dividends without cutting them by 35%. With that sort of cut in profits surely the company would have to make cost savings (read retrenchment).

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

I've had a quick google on Anne-Marie Kelly.

So it looks like DJs is going to be taken down because some female middle manager screwed up. Fantastic. It'll be worth the redundancies to remedy that!

Originally Posted by BenandPam

Where does the 35% come from?? $37 million is not 30 - 35% of $156 million (2009 profits for David Jones, 2010 is looking like a 5%ish growth). So, given that the company are NOT looking at handing over 35% of it's profit, NOT cutting bonuses by 35% and not cutting dividends by 35%, does that change things for these 1000s of innocent people? It is also good to see that the retrenchment won't be necessary.

I am happy to report that the sky is not falling down just because a senior manager has been caught sexually harassing an employee.

Originally Posted by BenandPam

"Help, help, the sky is falling!"

I don't think it was a female middle manager that screwed up here. Try looking at a more senior level for behavior that led to this situation.

Originally Posted by BenandPam

I am happy to report that the sky is not falling down just because a senior manager has been caught sexually harassing an employee.

Originally Posted by BenandPam

"Help, help, the sky is falling!"

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

The last person to report that the sky was not falling in got it spectacularly wrong.

Originally Posted by moneypenny20

So is the sky falling in or not?

Originally Posted by Deancm_MKII

Welcome to the litigious society!