Violent estate agent Yasmin Thomas no longer working at estate agency after she is spared jail for glassing stranger

Estate agent who glassed stranger no longer at firm after she is spared jail

Estate agent who glassed stranger no longer at firm after she is spared jail

First published in News
Last updated

THE EMPLOYERS of disgraced estate agent Yasmin Thomas have confirmed she no longer works for the Westbourne-based firm.

Ronnie Lee was told he was lucky he wasn’t blinded after the 21-year-old sales negotiator lunged at him in a vicious attack at Bar So nightclub in February.

Despite having 17 previous convictions for violent offences, Thomas, who worked at Palmer Snell Estate Agents, walked free from the dock after she was handed a suspended prison term at Bournemouth Crown Court earlier this month.

Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her.

A spokesman from Countrywide Estate, the parent company of Palmer Snell, has since confirmed Thomas is no longer employed by the firm.

Judge John Harrow handed Thomas a 12 month sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered her to complete an anger management course. She was also ordered to carry out 80 hours unpaid community work and pay Mr Lee £1,000 in compensation.

Following the judgement, Mr Lee, a 24-year-old telesales company director, claimed Thomas was spared jail because she is a woman.

“If it was the other way around and I did that to her, I would be going straight to jail,” he said.

“What happens next time if she does something and it’s life-threatening? She could end up killing someone.”

Tobias Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth East, said he would be urging the Attorney General to review Thomas’ sentence.

He said: "This is now the third case of this nature that I have seen in Bournemouth in recent months, so I will now be seeking a meeting with the Attorney General to discuss these particular cases and to ask whether changes to the law are necessary to ensure that cases of this kind do not occur again in the future."

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:38pm Fri 22 Aug 14

UrbanCrab says...

Coming to an estate agent near you..
Coming to an estate agent near you.. UrbanCrab
  • Score: 43

1:08pm Fri 22 Aug 14

PhylH17 says...

Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get an
Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get an PhylH17
  • Score: -46

1:10pm Fri 22 Aug 14

PhylH17 says...

Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get any?
Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get any? PhylH17
  • Score: -54

1:18pm Fri 22 Aug 14

burgerboy says...

PhylH17 wrote:
Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get any?
What utter rubbish,she needs locking away for a very long time.......
Now we wait for the comments from her mates saying what a nice and loving person she is or she is not well and needs help.
[quote][p][bold]PhylH17[/bold] wrote: Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get any?[/p][/quote]What utter rubbish,she needs locking away for a very long time....... Now we wait for the comments from her mates saying what a nice and loving person she is or she is not well and needs help. burgerboy
  • Score: 75

1:21pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Townee says...

There was a choice jail or dole, either way we pay.
There was a choice jail or dole, either way we pay. Townee
  • Score: 24

2:15pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Sir Beachy-Head says...

No dole if you're sacked.
No dole if you're sacked. Sir Beachy-Head
  • Score: 24

2:41pm Fri 22 Aug 14

billy bumble says...

" so I will now be seeking a meeting with the Attorney General to discuss these particular cases and to ask whether changes to the law are necessary to ensure that cases of this kind do not occur again in the future."

The law in these instances is perfectly adequate - it's a change of judges that we need
" so I will now be seeking a meeting with the Attorney General to discuss these particular cases and to ask whether changes to the law are necessary to ensure that cases of this kind do not occur again in the future." The law in these instances is perfectly adequate - it's a change of judges that we need billy bumble
  • Score: 45

2:49pm Fri 22 Aug 14

muscliffman says...

I see that "Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references " but I'll hazard a guess that they were told absolutely nothing about the previous 17 offences!
I see that "Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references " but I'll hazard a guess that they were told absolutely nothing about the previous 17 offences! muscliffman
  • Score: 45

3:25pm Fri 22 Aug 14

seangal says...

She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently. seangal
  • Score: 32

3:28pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Gingertree says...

Sir Beachy-Head wrote:
No dole if you're sacked.
No you do get dole if you're sacked You don't get if you quit
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy-Head[/bold] wrote: No dole if you're sacked.[/p][/quote]No you do get dole if you're sacked You don't get if you quit Gingertree
  • Score: 18

3:47pm Fri 22 Aug 14

muscliffman says...

seangal wrote:
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did!
[quote][p][bold]seangal[/bold] wrote: She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.[/p][/quote]I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did! muscliffman
  • Score: 1

3:51pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Jack loveme says...

UrbanCrab wrote:
Coming to an estate agent near you..
we should'nt blame estate agents for their employees after hours lives , but it is fun
[quote][p][bold]UrbanCrab[/bold] wrote: Coming to an estate agent near you..[/p][/quote]we should'nt blame estate agents for their employees after hours lives , but it is fun Jack loveme
  • Score: 15

3:59pm Fri 22 Aug 14

wilkiemini says...

Good! I'm glad they saw sense at last she doesn't deserve a job where she deals with the public ...clearly she cannot control her temper!
Good! I'm glad they saw sense at last she doesn't deserve a job where she deals with the public ...clearly she cannot control her temper! wilkiemini
  • Score: 22

4:02pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Vicvic says...

I am so glad she has been sacked GREAT NEWS !!!!!!!!!!
I am so glad she has been sacked GREAT NEWS !!!!!!!!!! Vicvic
  • Score: 34

5:25pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Minty Fresh says...

I would imagine that Palmer Snell had placed her on leave from the moment they learned she had been arrested for "glassing" someone and through their staff disciplinary process dismissed her for gross misconduct when the verdict was in.
I would imagine that Palmer Snell had placed her on leave from the moment they learned she had been arrested for "glassing" someone and through their staff disciplinary process dismissed her for gross misconduct when the verdict was in. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 12

6:05pm Fri 22 Aug 14

old duffa says...

good riddance to trash women,looked bitchee from first picture and the yellow dress one
good riddance to trash women,looked bitchee from first picture and the yellow dress one old duffa
  • Score: 13

6:42pm Fri 22 Aug 14

yet_another_one says...

old duffa wrote:
good riddance to trash women,looked bitchee from first picture and the yellow dress one
Let's get it right - these women are TRAMPS.

Who the heck would want to get involved with something like this.
[quote][p][bold]old duffa[/bold] wrote: good riddance to trash women,looked bitchee from first picture and the yellow dress one[/p][/quote]Let's get it right - these women are TRAMPS. Who the heck would want to get involved with something like this. yet_another_one
  • Score: 15

6:43pm Fri 22 Aug 14

VeronikaJolova says...

ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh
ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh VeronikaJolova
  • Score: -58

7:09pm Fri 22 Aug 14

ShuttleX says...

VeronikaJolova wrote:
ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh
I'm sure she is happy in her new job, and the money may be better..... but what happens when one of her "punters" decides not to pay her for services rendered and glasses her instead?
[quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh[/p][/quote]I'm sure she is happy in her new job, and the money may be better..... but what happens when one of her "punters" decides not to pay her for services rendered and glasses her instead? ShuttleX
  • Score: 34

7:13pm Fri 22 Aug 14

scrumpyjack says...

Sir Beachy-Head wrote:
No dole if you're sacked.
You get JSA.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy-Head[/bold] wrote: No dole if you're sacked.[/p][/quote]You get JSA. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

7:19pm Fri 22 Aug 14

scrumpyjack says...

VeronikaJolova wrote:
ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh
1000 times better?

You actually believe that? Maybe you should take a long hard look at yourself if you do.

They say you can judge a person by the company they keep so I think we have your number.
[quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh[/p][/quote]1000 times better? You actually believe that? Maybe you should take a long hard look at yourself if you do. They say you can judge a person by the company they keep so I think we have your number. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 41

7:50pm Fri 22 Aug 14

spooki says...

VeronikaJolova wrote:
ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh
Really? A 1000 times better? Tell you what, when we've all been arrested for violence and found guilty of glassing some random person and STILL escaping a jail sentence, THEN you can tell us she's the better person.
I hate to think what the new job is. Please tell us so we can avoid the place.
[quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh[/p][/quote]Really? A 1000 times better? Tell you what, when we've all been arrested for violence and found guilty of glassing some random person and STILL escaping a jail sentence, THEN you can tell us she's the better person. I hate to think what the new job is. Please tell us so we can avoid the place. spooki
  • Score: 31

8:15pm Fri 22 Aug 14

justsayithowitis says...

PhylH17 wrote:
Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get any?
So the 18th time is a cry for help. What about the other 17
[quote][p][bold]PhylH17[/bold] wrote: Feel this could be a cry for help. Is she going to get any?[/p][/quote]So the 18th time is a cry for help. What about the other 17 justsayithowitis
  • Score: 11

8:19pm Fri 22 Aug 14

justsayithowitis says...

muscliffman wrote:
seangal wrote:
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did!
She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seangal[/bold] wrote: She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.[/p][/quote]I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did![/p][/quote]She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset justsayithowitis
  • Score: 6

8:34pm Fri 22 Aug 14

fizzy fert says...

I mean to say you could be viewing a nice cosy little pad in a quiet little avenue near the sea with sea breezes wafting through your kitchen
and finish up in a coffin with your throat slashed
**** that for a lark.
I mean to say you could be viewing a nice cosy little pad in a quiet little avenue near the sea with sea breezes wafting through your kitchen and finish up in a coffin with your throat slashed **** that for a lark. fizzy fert
  • Score: 6

10:24pm Fri 22 Aug 14

muscliffman says...

justsayithowitis wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
seangal wrote:
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did!
She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset
She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.
[quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seangal[/bold] wrote: She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.[/p][/quote]I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did![/p][/quote]She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset[/p][/quote]She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure. muscliffman
  • Score: 7

11:10pm Fri 22 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Sir Beachy-Head wrote:
No dole if you're sacked.
Are you saying you shouldn't get any dole if you're sacked or don't get any, it's hard to tell from the wording you've used?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy-Head[/bold] wrote: No dole if you're sacked.[/p][/quote]Are you saying you shouldn't get any dole if you're sacked or don't get any, it's hard to tell from the wording you've used? breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

11:17pm Fri 22 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Vicvic wrote:
I am so glad she has been sacked GREAT NEWS !!!!!!!!!!
How do you know she has been sacked? I see nothing in the report that says that. It may well have been by mutual consent, especially given the adverse publicity and apparently having a new job to go to.
[quote][p][bold]Vicvic[/bold] wrote: I am so glad she has been sacked GREAT NEWS !!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]How do you know she has been sacked? I see nothing in the report that says that. It may well have been by mutual consent, especially given the adverse publicity and apparently having a new job to go to. breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

11:21pm Fri 22 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

muscliffman wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
seangal wrote:
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did!
She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset
She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.
'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seangal[/bold] wrote: She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.[/p][/quote]I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did![/p][/quote]She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset[/p][/quote]She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.[/p][/quote]'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references? breamoreboy
  • Score: 4

11:34pm Fri 22 Aug 14

VeronikaJolova says...

You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be
You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be VeronikaJolova
  • Score: -24

11:55pm Fri 22 Aug 14

muscliffman says...

breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
seangal wrote:
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did!
She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset
She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.
'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references?
You appear to have completely missed the timeline in this case!

When the employer provided a character reference for the Court it seems very possible that they knew nothing about the previous offences nor certainly that she would actually be convicted. There is nothing here to suggest they have provided any subsequent references to anyone - only that she has ceased to work with them.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seangal[/bold] wrote: She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.[/p][/quote]I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did![/p][/quote]She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset[/p][/quote]She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.[/p][/quote]'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references?[/p][/quote]You appear to have completely missed the timeline in this case! When the employer provided a character reference for the Court it seems very possible that they knew nothing about the previous offences nor certainly that she would actually be convicted. There is nothing here to suggest they have provided any subsequent references to anyone - only that she has ceased to work with them. muscliffman
  • Score: 4

12:05am Sat 23 Aug 14

cgiggles says...

Veronika you seem to really be missing the point, and although you are sticking up for your friends disgusting behaviour, it is not having the effect you are aiming for. What she did was wrong and appauling behaviour to put it lightly. She did it, it is a fact. Wether she has a pay rise in a new job, or wether she spends her days watching Jeremy Klye makes no difference. She needs to have some cumupence for what she has done. You trying to dumb it down is only going to make people more infutiated as SHE DID IT! May I suggest you take your keyboard warrior attitude somewhere else and grow up.
Veronika you seem to really be missing the point, and although you are sticking up for your friends disgusting behaviour, it is not having the effect you are aiming for. What she did was wrong and appauling behaviour to put it lightly. She did it, it is a fact. Wether she has a pay rise in a new job, or wether she spends her days watching Jeremy Klye makes no difference. She needs to have some cumupence for what she has done. You trying to dumb it down is only going to make people more infutiated as SHE DID IT! May I suggest you take your keyboard warrior attitude somewhere else and grow up. cgiggles
  • Score: 33

12:19am Sat 23 Aug 14

Bournefre says...

Did anyone at the Echo contact Palmer Snell about their HR policy?
Is the cutoff 18 convictions, or as many as you like as long as they're not mentioned in the press?
Did anyone at the Echo contact Palmer Snell about their HR policy? Is the cutoff 18 convictions, or as many as you like as long as they're not mentioned in the press? Bournefre
  • Score: 9

10:14am Sat 23 Aug 14

justsayithowitis says...

VeronikaJolova wrote:
ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh
I think you are in more need of help than Yasmin . Is she the way she is due to friends like you who think it is so clever to glass someone in the face. Just glad there are not too many like you in the world
[quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: ahah Yasmin is 1000 times better than the trash who write on these pages . She worked right up until her case ( So wrong again ) She is V happy ,. New job all going well . More pay ,. so much happiness from me laughing at your letters . Mwahhhhhhh[/p][/quote]I think you are in more need of help than Yasmin . Is she the way she is due to friends like you who think it is so clever to glass someone in the face. Just glad there are not too many like you in the world justsayithowitis
  • Score: 16

10:33am Sat 23 Aug 14

muscliffman says...

Bournefre wrote:
Did anyone at the Echo contact Palmer Snell about their HR policy?
Is the cutoff 18 convictions, or as many as you like as long as they're not mentioned in the press?
And which 18 convictions would that be then, the ones that don't have to be declared because they are 'spent', the ones that must not be declared because they happened when a minor, the ones 'forgotten', the ones on record when using a different name, or the ones simply lied about?

I am sure the employer had no idea about all this history until after the Court case and then the person was probably immediately suspended.
[quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: Did anyone at the Echo contact Palmer Snell about their HR policy? Is the cutoff 18 convictions, or as many as you like as long as they're not mentioned in the press?[/p][/quote]And which 18 convictions would that be then, the ones that don't have to be declared because they are 'spent', the ones that must not be declared because they happened when a minor, the ones 'forgotten', the ones on record when using a different name, or the ones simply lied about? I am sure the employer had no idea about all this history until after the Court case and then the person was probably immediately suspended. muscliffman
  • Score: 3

1:36pm Sat 23 Aug 14

old duffa says...

VeronikaJolova

stop writing,you are not going to win
find new play mates

or better still go home
VeronikaJolova stop writing,you are not going to win find new play mates or better still go home old duffa
  • Score: 11

7:31pm Sat 23 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
seangal wrote:
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did!
She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset
She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.
'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references?
You can be hard working, even if you are a head case. In this case, I'd guess, she made her continued employment impossible due to her seriously damaged reputation - and the possibility that her next victim might be a customer.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seangal[/bold] wrote: She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.[/p][/quote]I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did![/p][/quote]She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset[/p][/quote]She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.[/p][/quote]'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references?[/p][/quote]You can be hard working, even if you are a head case. In this case, I'd guess, she made her continued employment impossible due to her seriously damaged reputation - and the possibility that her next victim might be a customer. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

7:43pm Sat 23 Aug 14

davecook says...

VeronikaJolova wrote:
You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be
It is actually unlikely she was actually sacked. She was probably "invited to resign", which is technically different, although the outcome is pretty well the same. She is pretty well unemployable. That's not hate, that's just the way it is..............
[quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be[/p][/quote]It is actually unlikely she was actually sacked. She was probably "invited to resign", which is technically different, although the outcome is pretty well the same. She is pretty well unemployable. That's not hate, that's just the way it is.............. davecook
  • Score: 5

7:59pm Sat 23 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

VeronikaJolova wrote:
You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be
If you must reference *THE* centre of *THE* universe please spell it correctly :) Other than that it looks as if several of the comments are based on what people thought they'd read, or had wanted to read, rather than what the report actually said. To be fair I had to read the report about three or four times to get things clear in my own head. Just goes to show how difficult communicating can be.
[quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be[/p][/quote]If you must reference *THE* centre of *THE* universe please spell it correctly :) Other than that it looks as if several of the comments are based on what people thought they'd read, or had wanted to read, rather than what the report actually said. To be fair I had to read the report about three or four times to get things clear in my own head. Just goes to show how difficult communicating can be. breamoreboy
  • Score: -3

8:09pm Sat 23 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

muscliffman wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
justsayithowitis wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
seangal wrote:
She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.
I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did!
She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset
She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.
'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references?
You appear to have completely missed the timeline in this case!

When the employer provided a character reference for the Court it seems very possible that they knew nothing about the previous offences nor certainly that she would actually be convicted. There is nothing here to suggest they have provided any subsequent references to anyone - only that she has ceased to work with them.
A good point, I missed that. I suspect as davecook has said she was probably asked to resign. She gets references and the employers don't have the hassle of following their disciplinary procedures.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seangal[/bold] wrote: She'll be virtually unemployable....I hope, I'd hazzard a guess the estate agent has lost a considerable amount of business recently.[/p][/quote]I doubt the Estate Agent will have lost much if any business because most thinking people will have thought this one through - and not just knee jerked. After all Palmer Snell did not glass anyone or commit 17 previous (undeclared?) violent offences, the convicted ex-employee did![/p][/quote]She has only just become an ex-employee so I would have thought that most people would have thought it through and not gone near the place in case this amazing person showed them round a property and got in a bit of a strop about something. Who knows what she is capable of when upset[/p][/quote]She is only just an ex-employee because her employer has wisely followed due process under employment law. I am sure it is reasonable to say she did not work after the Court case revealed all, but anyone in this position would normally have been suspended without prejudice pending a disciplinary hearing. If her ex-employer hadn't 'thought this through' and remained silent then in a few months we would all be reading about an unfair dismissal tribunal award based entirely upon failures of procedure.[/p][/quote]'Audrey Archer, mitigating, told the told court Thomas’ employers were aware of the offence and had provided character references describing her as was a “hard-working” employee with a “bright future” ahead of her. '. If she's been sacked how can the employers provide references?[/p][/quote]You appear to have completely missed the timeline in this case! When the employer provided a character reference for the Court it seems very possible that they knew nothing about the previous offences nor certainly that she would actually be convicted. There is nothing here to suggest they have provided any subsequent references to anyone - only that she has ceased to work with them.[/p][/quote]A good point, I missed that. I suspect as davecook has said she was probably asked to resign. She gets references and the employers don't have the hassle of following their disciplinary procedures. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

10:00pm Sat 23 Aug 14

twynhamob says...

old duffa wrote:
VeronikaJolova

stop writing,you are not going to win
find new play mates

or better still go home
To Poland?
[quote][p][bold]old duffa[/bold] wrote: VeronikaJolova stop writing,you are not going to win find new play mates or better still go home[/p][/quote]To Poland? twynhamob
  • Score: 5

10:04pm Sat 23 Aug 14

twynhamob says...

breamoreboy wrote:
VeronikaJolova wrote:
You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be
If you must reference *THE* centre of *THE* universe please spell it correctly :) Other than that it looks as if several of the comments are based on what people thought they'd read, or had wanted to read, rather than what the report actually said. To be fair I had to read the report about three or four times to get things clear in my own head. Just goes to show how difficult communicating can be.
With the echo writers of today I find myself having to read every story three or four times to understand what they are trying to say.
It is my belief that they "employ" twitterers and facers to write the story.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be[/p][/quote]If you must reference *THE* centre of *THE* universe please spell it correctly :) Other than that it looks as if several of the comments are based on what people thought they'd read, or had wanted to read, rather than what the report actually said. To be fair I had to read the report about three or four times to get things clear in my own head. Just goes to show how difficult communicating can be.[/p][/quote]With the echo writers of today I find myself having to read every story three or four times to understand what they are trying to say. It is my belief that they "employ" twitterers and facers to write the story. twynhamob
  • Score: 5

8:28am Mon 25 Aug 14

RedPete says...

VeronikaJolova wrote:
You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be
Seems her friends have the same arrogant lack of class as someone who glasses a stranger when drunk.
[quote][p][bold]VeronikaJolova[/bold] wrote: You got it BREMOREBOY haha The Mugs on here make things up as they go along ,, ha NoOne ever said she was sacked except the mugs on here ,, these people are truly sick ,. The hate these people have is so bad that they change the story to suit the way they want things to be[/p][/quote]Seems her friends have the same arrogant lack of class as someone who glasses a stranger when drunk. RedPete
  • Score: 9
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree