The Ferrari thread !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

After his comments and conclusions regarding the Team Orders fiasco, I would have thought he would have refrained from giving legal advice ever again!! :D

---

I was proved correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

I was proved correct.

---

Nope.

The FIA, whilst satisfied that the rule breaking did in fact take place, conceded that the burden of proof, given the cunning deception used, was too great to guarantee a conviction, and so left it at that.

The fact that the Stewards indictment remains is the most telling factor, and that Ferrari are not challenging that decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Nope.

The FIA, whilst satisfied that the rule breaking did in fact take place, conceded that the burden of proof, given the cunning deception used, was too great to guarantee a conviction, and so left it at that.

The fact that the Stewards indictment remains is the most telling factor, and that Ferrari are not challenging that decision.

---

Ferrari are not challenging it because the FIA backed down. $100,000 is cheaper than legal action.

Capito?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

Ferrari are not challenging it because the FIA backed down. $100,000 is cheaper than legal action.

Capito?

---

Ferrari confirmed they would not challenge it before the WMSC met.

A man who claimed that Alonso was over-rated trying to be smart?

It is not such a smart thing to do when you have already shown yourself to be beyond foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Ferrari confirmed they would not challenge it before the WMSC met.

---

Because doing so would bring the sport into disrepute, and clearly break FIA protocol. And that, considering that they knew the FIA had no evidence to work with, would be much more trouble than it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

Ferrari are not challenging it because the FIA backed down.

---

In what way did the FIA "back down"?

The FIA German GP stewards found Ferrari to be in breach of Article 39.1, which bans team orders, and 151c, which relates to bringing the sport into disrepute. They were fined $50,000 for each offence.

Ferrari did not appeal.

The FIA WMSC upheld the decision of the stewards and

Quote:

---

remains convinced that Ferrari did use illegal team orders at the German Grand Prix - but it decided not to punish the team further at its disciplinary hearing on Wednesday because of inconsistencies in the way the rules have been applied in the past.

---

(Link)

Ferrari did not appeal.

In other words the original guilty verdict was rubber stamped by the sports governing body and Ferrari have accepted the FIA's rulings on this matter. Case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Whilst this remains off topic, you will find that a cleaner should be employed to clean, not a waitress. It depends also if the waitress was on a waitress wage, or a cleaners wage.

Then there are cross contamination issues, clothing blah blah blah.

If you are determined, you can have the book thrown at such establishments, and prove, very easily, that you had no choice than to not clean the toilet, or, that in asking you to do so was against your job description.

I just hope the rest of the staff change their clothing after performing their cleaning duties before serving or prepping in the restaurant. :eek:

---

My employees must be certified food handlers to be able to work for me .

In my small establishment , they are fully aware that all aspects of the running of the restaurant are on the job description .

Your final statement is walking a fine line , and I suggest you think about it before you make such an allegation again .
Upon being inspected , which is always without notice , we have never failed to achieve anything less than 100% rating , of which we are very proud .

You can kill a restaurant with such unfounded accusations .

So , experience it yourself , or don't think you have any personal knowledge .

Which brings me back to the topic .

I've met Felipe , and he's a mouse .
I'd fire him in a second for disobeying the first two suggestions .

You see , no matter who you are , if you don't see the bigger picture , you're not ever going to be a good employee for anyone .
If my employee has a good idea , we change to fit .
If I ask them to do something I wouldn't do myself , I am asking too much .
If the company does well , my employee does well .

Everybody is happy that the employee who left , left , by the way .

And , she quit , knowing she didn't fit .
Simply , she had a job she didn't want to do .

Felipe did the job , but grudgingly , and that's no good either . It just brings everyone down .
Don't play like you're trapped in a bad contract when you are happy to cash the cheque .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

My employees must be certified food handlers to be able to work for me .

---

Understood, and rightly so. But, if a certified food handler who felt they 'had' to leave your restaurant for not cleaning round the rim, I suspect that, a tribunal case would not work in your favour.

A cleaner in that position may well not have good grounds, but someone trained for food prep is NOT a cleaner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

I was proved correct.

---

I'm sure you will take great joy in choosing a single point in which you have been proved correct by opinion alone.

Only problem is, me ole rub a dub, apples and pears, hows yer father Italian National ( ;) ) that you are fundamentally wrong and were proved so in the WMSC ruling.

Do you really want to state what bit you think you were correct about and allow me to go back through that thread, extract your remarks and counter them with the EVIDENCE at hand or shall we leave this moot point and move forward seeing as you failed to answer my post on "that" thread last time when you were wrong.

:rolleyes:

As for me, I think at this time on a Friday afternoon, I would prefer to have a Brown Bottle or 2, a bit of the old English Ale if you follow my meaning or as I like to put it.... have a life!