Legal opinion please

DK man

Hi folks- I had an issue with a person today - nothing major or at least I think it was not a hanging offence. This person phoned my employer and said to my boss that they wanted to talk to me about an incident -

The 'incident! Happened after I had finished work and had nothing to do with my work. My boss phoned me and told me in a very concerned voice about this person who was seeking to talk to me about an incident....this individual was acting in her professional capacity.


I have no problem with anyone ringing my place of employment if they wish to contact me - but it was the manner and way it was done - I'm not sure what she told my employer but she was duly concerned and called me after work and asked me to contact her.

I feel that this call was done in a spiteful way in the hope that it would get me into trouble with my employer. I did phone her back but there was no answer and I left a message.

Is there any legal issues about the way this individual conducted herself. I'm not going to run off to a solicitor but I'm very annoyed and if she does bother to ring me back I'd like to be able to protect myself or defend myself

Many thanks

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

If what you say is fully correct, I would be inclined to ask the employer how the issue relates to work and the reason that she is phoning you about it.

That's if the issue has nothing to do with work, as you say.

It seems as though your employer thinks that it does, though.

Why do you think that might be?

DK man

The person is not a Garda

It's got nothing t do with my work -

Thanks

Incident - I drove into a teachers car park to collect my child who was in the shelter beside the car park. I literally drove in very slowly - reversed - she jumped in and was about to drive off when I was approached by a person who I don't know principal / vp / teacher who was irate - shouting at me in angry tones - telling me that I wasn't allowed to drive in to this car park - I apologised and said I won't do it again- she kept repeating herself - I drove off. My child goes to a school nearby and they are brought here by an after school who also pick up from this school.



Approx 1 hour later I get the call

colly10

How did she get your work number? This incident doesn't sound like an incedent at all and I wouldn't worry about your employer cause you did nothing wrong.
She made herself very clear in the car park, there was no need to phone your work to repeat it and if it happens again it could possibly be considered harassment

DK man

colly10 wrote: »

How did she get your work number? This incident doesn't sound like an incedent at all and I wouldn't worry about your employer cause you did nothing wrong.
She made herself very clear in the car park, there was no need to phone your work to repeat it and if it happens again it could possibly be considered harassment

I guess one of the ladies who mind the children told her where I work and my name... I finished early today - they are usually taken to the after school where I collect her.

I have no problem with their rule and I understand their right to enforce this rule - it is a small car park - hence I had to reverse to swing back out - it was pouring rain and I initially had intended parking outside at the entrance but I didn't want to block the entrance. I was in and out in a few mins.

When my boss phoned me it wasn't a casual - x phoned looking for u will u ring her back.. It was the tone and language 'an incident' ... I felt like I was offering children sweets or taking pictures of chldren or something... Maybe I'm a bit sensitive but this has really rattled my cage... 3 nice bottles of o hara's ale and this is still annoying me...

Thanks

colly10

She may have said an incedent in the school carpark which doesn't sound great. Just tell your boss on Monday morning what the incident was then you can forget about it

notharrypotter

if it happens again it could possibly be considered harassment

Which the stranger driving around the school property?

Or the proper action by a responsible member of the school staff to challenge strange activity in a car on school property?

esforum

Your boss doesnt care, he / she just like you and the rest of us found it strange that they felt the need to ring your work.

Your child doesnt go to that school so they were right but ya know, bigger pictures an all that, they shouted, you apologised and that should realistically be that.

Legally though, no theres nothing to be done about it unless they harassed you or started sabotaging your career.

DK man

notharrypotter wrote: »

Which the stranger driving around the school property?

Or the proper action by a responsible member of the school staff to challenge strange activity in a car on school property?

I was picking up my 9 year old - this would have been relayed onto the member of staff... Her issue was that I wasn't allowed / permitted to drive in the car park and as I've said I don't have an issue with that... I wasn't some sort of stranger cruising around.

My main issue was that she phoned up my employer and insinuated that I was involved in 'an incident' at her school. And my employer phoned me in a concerned tone about this call...

I'm no expert on legal matters but the law is a system to deal with issues of unfair treatment / injustice so that's why I posted on what I thought is a forum which discusses legal matters. Maybe I have no legal protections in this instance - but is it fair / just to ring a persons employer to deal with a matter like this? As I don't know what this person said / reported about this I feel that there maybe be issues of slander - again - it was the tone of my employer and her need for me to deal with this that is causing me to get so annoyed..

Thanks

esforum

DK man wrote: »

I was picking up my 9 year old - this would have been relayed onto the member of staff

I dont want to make a big deal of this but if your child doesnt go to that school how would the staff know who you are?

DK man

esforum wrote: »

I dont want to make a big deal of this but if your child doesnt go to that school how would the staff know who you are?

As mentioned above - an after schools service collects the children at the 2 schools - the children from both schools gather in this shelter before walking off to the after schools centre which is about 10 mins walk away. There is 2 staff who pick up the children and I'm assuming that 1 of these was asked and told her who I was.... They both have my number

MarkAnthony

I'd suggest phoning her boss and making a complaint that this has been followed up in this way. Stress you knew you were in the wrong and apologise and that the only reason you're ringing the employer is your employer has been contacted and you feel that is very unprofessional if the professional capacity was used.

The only thing is, and would be a reason I would ring a company to complain, is your company name and telephone number emblazoned down the side of your vehicle by any chance?

MarkAnthony

As for legal protections - very tenuously harassment (criminal) or defamation (civil).

Harassment can be one incident but it's unusual and this wouldn't fall into that category really.

Defamation is extremely expensive to run and the exact details would need to be known. I'm not suggesting you post them here; that would be a matter for you and your solicitor.

DK man

No company logo and as I've said that I was on the property / school in a private capacity in my own car collecting my child who was standing in their shelter. It was a very quick in and out - as I was driving towards the school I saw her walking in and if I hadn't seen her I probably would not have driven in. I picked her up there many times and have never driven in before.

As I've said that I wouldn't mind her ringing my place of employment asking to speak to me - but by the way my employer phoned me in an assertive concerned tone - "where are you? We had a call from x who wants to speak to you about an incident that happened at the school - will you ring her - ring her - she wants to talk to you....

It was a primary school principal - she is the de facto boss! The board of management I suppose would have some managerial role.

Many thanks - still annoyed!!!! I'm on holidays this week and this putting a damper on this break that I was looking forward to...

DK man

No company logo and as I've said that I was on the property / school in a private capacity in my own car collecting my child who was standing in their shelter. It was a very quick in and out - as I was driving towards the school I saw her walking in and if I hadn't seen her I probably would not have driven in. I picked her up there many times and have never driven in before.

As I've said that I wouldn't mind her ringing my place of employment asking to speak to me - but by the way my employer phoned me in an assertive concerned tone - "where are you? We had a call from x who wants to speak to you about an incident that happened at the school - will you ring her - ring her - she wants to talk to you....

It was a primary school principal - she is the de facto boss! The board of management I suppose would have some managerial role.

Many thanks - still annoyed!!!! I'm on holidays this week and this putting a damper on this break that I was looking forward to...

monkeysnapper

I only have advice.

I would be furious if this happened to myself.

I would write a letter of complaint to the school board and write a statement of what happened and let them know you will be requesting a letter of apology or you will be taking this further.

esforum

DK man wrote: »

As mentioned above - an after schools service collects the children at the 2 schools - the children from both schools gather in this shelter before walking off to the after schools centre which is about 10 mins walk away. There is 2 staff who pick up the children and I'm assuming that 1 of these was asked and told her who I was.... They both have my number

Yes but thats afterwards, when the staff member saw your car arriving in how would they know its a parent collecing from the after school?

notharrypotter

My child goes to a school nearby

I wasn't some sort of stranger cruising around.

I would believe that you would be "some stranger" as your child does not attend the school in question.

I was on the property / school in a private capacity in my own car collecting my child who was standing in their shelter.

Both you and your child were trespassing.
Yet its the other person who is at fault?

It was a primary school principal

I would like to think its a good idea that when the school principal spots unauthorized activity that they challenge it.

will be requesting a letter of apology or you will be taking this further.

But here we are seeking compensation for the perpetrator.

Arbiter of Good Taste

esforum wrote: »

Yes but thats afterwards, when the staff member saw your car arriving in how would they know its a parent collecing from the after school?

Not relevant. At the time she rang the OP's employer she knew damn well who he was.

OP, how dare she, seriously, how dare she ring your employer in that manner. It sounds to me that she is the type of teacher who thinks she can treat everyone like they are children.

I agree with the poster who suggested a letter of complaint to the board of management demanding an apology.

notharrypotter

I agree with the poster who suggested a letter of complaint to the board of management demanding an apology.

And don't for get €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ and lots of them.

Arbiter of Good Taste

notharrypotter wrote: »

I would believe that you would be "some stranger" as your child does not attend the school in question.

Both you and your child were trespassing.
Yet its the other person who is at fault?

I would like to think its a good idea that when the school principal spots unauthorized activity that they challenge it.

But here we are seeking compensation for the perpetrator.

Again, most of this is irrelevant. What the principal did at the time was absolutely correct. She has a duty to protect the children in the school. If the OP apologised as he claims then it should have ended there.

However, if the principal wanted to pursue it further then a private phonecall to the OP would suffice. There was absolutely no need to ring an employer. However if that was the only way she could contct him, then all she had to say is that she needed to speak to the OP on a "personal matter". End of.

Arbiter of Good Taste

notharrypotter wrote: »

And don't for get €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ and lots of them.

I never suggested that.

turbot

Sounds like this person is a bully. Not a legal opinion, but route to redress this for your consideration.

You could write to the school board, describe the incident in a factual way, and ask them to clarify their policy on this and all related matters. When you do, cc the council and the road safety authority.

Ask about signage related to car park rules.

Express concern that if the person was this unusually vindictive for you, they may have anger issues (which may affect students well being) or make emotionally erratic decisions (which may mean a mis-use of school resources.)

Ask if it is normal to contact workplaces for pulling into
a carpark, when you were not blocking anyone. If this is standard practice and what other things people should be aware of?

Ask if it is appropriate behaviour for someone to aggressively confront you for pulling into a car park?

You could tell your employer you have written to the school board about this peculiar behaviour.

esforum

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Not relevant. At the time she rang the OP's employer she knew damn well who he was.

OP, how dare she, seriously, how dare she ring your employer in that manner. It sounds to me that she is the type of teacher who thinks she can treat everyone like they are children.

I agree with the poster who suggested a letter of complaint to the board of management demanding an apology.

Board of management can do sweet **** All. Its the principal and can anyone here show me an Act that precludes a person from using a work place as a point of contact even when not working?

as for knowing or not, yes its relevent as its the original point of contact. The start of an event can never be irelevent in regards the subsequent actions

Companies are contacted about their staff when off duty on a pretty regular basis, Gardai for starters. Anyone in a uniform and schools would be a common one even when the pupil was on their own time. No undue information or false statements were made by the caller to the boss that the OP has said anyway. "Hello, Mark was incolved in an incident in our sschool, can you ask him to call us?" Perfectly legal, perhaps a little OTT in my opinion but still legal

ray giraffe

turbot wrote: »

Sounds like this person is a bully.

Express concern that if the person was this unusually vindictive for you, they may have anger issues (which may affect students well being) or make emotionally erratic decisions (which may mean a mis-use of school resources.)

Agree completely.

That principal is a bully. Totally unreasonable and spiteful.

If the principal acts that way to parents, you can only imagine how nasty she is to teachers and students.

NicoleW85

I would pay her a visit at the school, and take control. Be the bigger person and say you apologise if there was some sort of misunderstanding when you left that day but you were under the impression she had heard your apology. You were surprised to hear she had contacted your work and you'd like to know what you can do now to make things right. She sounds like a very high maintenance diva but sweet talk her and make her see how stupid she's been without actually saying so.
In other words, kill her with kindness - what have you got to lose?

TheChizler

OP what do you want out of this? If you're concerned that your employer now has concerns because they were told about an non-specific incident then a request for a letter from the principal to your employer apologising for any possible insinuation and clarifying that it was minor and sorted out there and then might be the best course of action.

VincePP

Bordering on defamation.

Nothing illegal or improper in driving into a school to pick up a child who is in a joint group from 2 schools including that school.

It is not her property. She is simply an employee and has zero right to contact a third party about you.

I would get a solicitor to write to her stating that her actions have caused you embarrassment and harm and as such you will enact defamation proceedings against her and the school unless she makes a full and comprehensive apology in writing to you and your employer within 7 days.

Copy the letter to the board of management of the school.

Maybe tell her to take some nurofen plus for her obvious pmt.

FAILSAFE 00

Firstly explain the story to your employer.

Then write a letter to board of management or whoever the principal reports to explaining the situation that occurred and describe the inappropriate actions taken by the principal and the stress it caused.

I wouldn't expect much of an outcome but the principal won't like it when they have to explain their actions to their boss. Don't forget to use the word incident quite a lot.

esforum

VincePP wrote: »

Bordering on defamation.

How? How haz she defamed anyone? He was involved in an incident. its a completely 100% accurate comment

VincePP wrote: »

Nothing illegal or improper in driving into a school to pick up a child who is in a joint group from 2 schools including that school.

She is the custodian of the property and as there are signs everywhere, it was tresspass.

VincePP wrote: »

zero right to contact a third party about you.

Can you point out any act, case law or common law that states this? Can your neighbours not talk about their interactions with you? no personal information was disclosed that had been retained under the data protection act so that doesnt apply


jesus, it was a stroppy woman, nothing more. tell your boss what actually happened, they will stop caring and get on with your life. the people screaming about rights, letters amd apologies are being just as bid drama queens as the principal

Victor

We can't give legal opinions here.

Many schools seem to ban non-staff vehicles from the premises. There are various reasons behind this:
* Child protection.
* Insurance - collision avoidance.
* Insurance - property protection.
* Discouraging parents and pupils from driving to school.
* Reserving parking for staff and authorised visitors.

You were a trespasser, a person unknown to the staff member. For all they knew, you were there to engage in behaviour contrary to one of the above.

Now, phoning your employer may have been inappropriate, but it may have been the only way they had to make contact. Saying there was a 'school yard incident' or similar hardly defamed you.

DK man

Victor wrote: »

We can't give legal opinions here.

Many schools seem to ban non-staff vehicles from the premises. There are various reasons behind this:
* Child protection.
* Insurance - collision avoidance.
* Insurance - property protection.
* Discouraging parents and pupils from driving to school.
* Reserving parking for staff and authorised visitors.

You were a trespasser, a person unknown to the staff member. For all they knew, you were there to engage in behaviour contrary to one of the above.

Now, phoning your employer may have been inappropriate, but it may have been the only way they had to make contact. Saying there was a 'school yard incident' or similar hardly defamed you.

As I've said above - I've no problem with school policy regarding driving into a staff car park. I did apologise when confronted and said I won't do it again. The childcare worker obviously told a member of staff who I was and what I was doing there - otherwise she wouldn't know my name and work location.

My issue is her ringing my employer about this. In my opinion she didn't simply ring up my employer to speak to me - if she did she would ring up and ask for me and then leave a message to contact her.

She involved my employer by discussing my involvement in an incident at her school. Again - I wasn't there as a representative of my work so her bringing this issue up with my employer is totally inappropriate and in my opinion was done to damage / punish me in some way..
Thanks for all responses above

VincePP

esforum wrote: »

How? How haz she defamed anyone? He was involved in an incident. its a completely 100% accurate comment



She is the custodian of the property and as there are signs everywhere, it was tresspass.


Can you point out any act, case law or common law that states this? Can your neighbours not talk about their interactions with you? no personal information was disclosed that had been retained under the data protection act so that doesnt apply


jesus, it was a stroppy woman, nothing more. tell your boss what actually happened, they will stop caring and get on with your life. the people screaming about rights, letters amd apologies are being just as bid drama queens as the principal

She says he was involved in an "incident" and by not stating what it was, it led it open to false interpretation. Turning a car in a school yard would not quite be classified as "an incident" and certainly not one you go ringing someone's employer about, hence it borders on defamation as her actions may have been designed to cause harm to his reputation.

Signs everywhere? Please show me what post says that! - Making assumptions is dangerous especially when talking about defamation.

Talking to an employer that has zero connection to the school about something and not giving full information and leaving it open to false interpretation is not a normal interaction.


I'd be insisting on a fullsome apology.

housetypeb

Have you called her back yet,to actually see what she wanted?

the_pen_turner

i would assume that deformation covers situations like this were something untrue was hinted at or implied. an incident in a school car park sounds a lot more sinister than x should not drive into the staff car park.
there is a lot more implied than is the truth.

i would tell your employer the truth. the ask them to record the time etc of any future calls for a case of harassment.
then send a letter asking for clarification on what her issue was and why she rang your employer. send it to the principle, and board of management .
demand an apology in writing to you and your employer

esforum

VincePP wrote: »

She says he was involved in an "incident" and by not stating what it was, it led it open to false interpretation. Turning a car in a school yard would not quite be classified as "an incident" and certainly not one you go ringing someone's employer about, hence it borders on defamation as her actions may have been designed to cause harm to his reputation.

When dealing with the law the definition of words is very important. I suggest you look up the definition of 'incident', 'defamation' and 'slander'. This was an incident, two people came together in a angry clash. there was no false interpretion nor does defemation go down that road. She did not by her actions lead anyone to believe the OP had engaged in behaviour that would result in his good name being lessened. At least theres no evidence suggesting she did. Hhis boss was by the OP's words "was casual" about the whole thing.

VincePP wrote: »

Signs everywhere? Please show me what post says that! - Making assumptions is dangerous especially when talking about defamation.

fair enough, I assumed because every single place I have ever been especially schools were the carpark is off limits, has signs stating that. I am confident this school would also have signs and as defamation is civil law, a reasonable held belief is completely acceptable for the arguement. In fact its a very important defence to defamation. regardless, the OP knew this and accepts that aspect of the interaction was his fault so its neither here nor there.

VincePP wrote: »

Talking to an employer that has zero connection to the school about something and not giving full information and leaving it open to false interpretation is not a normal interaction.

Possible not but its not illegal either. I wouldnt really think its that rare either, plenty of people use work contact for personal issues / arrangements. Personally and this is only my feelings on the issue, I think the person actually telling the OP's boss the ins and outs would be more innapropriate.

Even assuming it is a rare and unusual event, acts, common or case law showing an offence either in civil or criminal law has been committed please.

VincePP wrote: »

I'd be insisting on a fullsome apology.

You can absolutely do that of course and if two reasonable and calm people sit down and discuss an issue more often that not it gets resolved.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i would assume that deformation covers situations like this were something untrue was hinted at or implied.

deformation covers a visual defect such as being born with a 6th finger at birth (only joking, only joking).

Nothing was hinted at, you are reading more than the OP implied. the OP by his own post states the conversation between the school and his boss was short and only stated an 'incident' and please call her back. the boss did not apparantly, think any less of the OP as a result.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i would tell your employer the truth. the ask them to record the time etc of any future calls for a case of harassment.

So you would tell your BOSS, the person that gives you orders to make a complaint of harassment against another boss who made 1 phonecall? Now thats OOOOOOTT

the_pen_turner wrote: »

then send a letter asking for clarification on what her issue was and why she rang your employer. send it to the principle, and board of management .
demand an apology in writing to you and your employer

again you can certainly do that but you are only acting like a bigger drama queen than the principal plus I dont actually think the board of management have such powers over the principal nor does every school have one.

Another issue, the OP collecting his daughter from this school, thats not a once off, its a weekly event. I assume the child doesnt need his / her father and the principal dagger eyeing each other evey week. The principal could also stop the arranement of children from another school waiting there. Now that would be spiteful without a doubt but if you poke a bear.....

housetypeb wrote: »

Have you called her back yet,to actually see what she wanted?

Wouldnt it be funny if it turned out something had fallen from the car and she only wanted to give it back

DK man

housetypeb wrote: »

Have you called her back yet,to actually see what she wanted?

I called the school about 15 mins after getting the message to contact her. This was at 3.30 and no answer so I left a message with my number

DK man

Esforum

There was no angry clash between two people - I was being shouted at - I rolled down my window / apologised - I didn't raise my voice or argue.

The word incident is usually used to denote some sort of transgression - it is a favourite of Garda / police when describing some sort of criminal activity. the dictionary may present it as a more benign 'occurrence' but language is fluid and not fixed. My boss was not casual about it - she seemed quite concerned and assertively asked me to ring her - as she wanted to speak to me about an incident at the school'. It wasn't a simple passing on a message X phoned here looking for you will you give her a ring.

We live in an era were we are all ultra sensitive about child protection (and with good reason) I work with children - and my boss asked me to ring a principal about an incident at her school . My initial thought was omg - this sounds a bit like I was approaching children or taking pictures or something creepy - my boss wasn't simply relaying a message - as well as the dictionary definition language conveys meaning by other facets like tone of voice / speed of delivery etc.

I regularly get calls to my work looking for me and they are sometimes picked up by my boss - she has never phoned me up on my mobile in such a manner / concerned tone / urgency / assertive / to ring a person back. My employer was getting involved in this matter - she would not have if there wasn't so significant priming from the caller. The caller / principal discussed my private business with my employer either explicitly or implicitly - My employer was not a neutral messanger - I feared what she may have deducted from this exchange - I do feel that my name / reputation/ professional capacity was/ is tainted. And it has / is causing me stress and has spoiled my weekend and I'm bewildered that this could have come about by simply driving into a car park to collect my child and driving straight back out

DK man

Esforum

There was no angry clash between two people - I was being shouted at - I rolled down my window / apologised - I didn't raise my voice or argue.

The word incident is usually used to denote some sort of transgression - it is a favourite of Garda / police when describing some sort of criminal activity. the dictionary may present it as a more benign 'occurrence' but language is fluid and not fixed. My boss was not casual about it - she seemed quite concerned and assertively asked me to ring her - as she wanted to speak to me about an incident at the school'. It wasn't a simple passing on a message X phoned here looking for you will you give her a ring.

We live in an era were we are all ultra sensitive about child protection (and with good reason) I work with children - and my boss asked me to ring a principal about an incident at her school . My initial thought was omg - this sounds a bit like I was approaching children or taking pictures or something creepy - my boss wasn't simply relaying a message - as well as the dictionary definition language conveys meaning by other facets like tone of voice / speed of delivery etc.

I regularly get calls to my work looking for me and they are sometimes picked up by my boss - she has never phoned me up on my mobile in such a manner / concerned tone / urgency / assertive / to ring a person back. My employer was getting involved in this matter - she would not have if there wasn't so significant priming from the caller. The caller / principal discussed my private business with my employer either explicitly or implicitly - My employer was not a neutral messanger - I feared what she may have deducted from this exchange - I do feel that my name / reputation/ professional capacity was/ is tainted. And it has / is causing me stress and has spoiled my weekend and I'm bewildered that this could have come about by simply driving into a car park to collect my child and driving straight back out

DK man

A quick question for the legal eagles here.

Trespass was mentioned a few times by some posters above:

The issue here is that I drove my car into the car park - not that I myself was on the school premises - if I walked over to collect my child as I've done a number of times the school would not have flinched.

Is it possible for it to be okay to walk onto someone's property without trespassing but if you drive on then you are trespassing? And can the owner of a property arbitrarily use the laws of trespass?

Thanks

Thanks

DK man

A quick question for the legal eagles here.

Trespass was mentioned a few times by some posters above:

The issue here is that I drove my car into the car park - not that I myself was on the school premises - if I walked over to collect my child as I've done a number of times the school would not have flinched.

Is it possible for it to be okay to walk onto someone's property without trespassing but if you drive on then you are trespassing? And can the owner of a property arbitrarily use the laws of trespass?

could I reasonable claim that I was in the car park of a public building during opening hours and that trespass is an inappropriate ( school is a catholic school / probably a can of worms that I don't want opened!!!)

These musings might seem ott - im not after anything other than being able to defend myself - im assuming I'm going to get a call tomorrow and I already feel that this lady has overstepped the mark and while I will listen to her I won't sit back and take 10 mins of her giving out to me

Thanks



I wonder why I am double posting????

MarkAnthony

Trespass is a very minor issue and it's not unusual to trespass a number of times when going out for a nice stroll in the country.

As for your question yes it is possible to have an implied (or otherwise) licence to walk onto the premises but not to drive on to the premises.

esforum

DK man wrote: »

Esforum

There was no angry clash between two people - I was being shouted at - I rolled down my window / apologised - I didn't raise my voice or argue.

The word incident is usually used to denote some sort of transgression - it is a favourite of Garda / police when describing some sort of criminal activity. the dictionary may present it as a more benign 'occurrence' but language is fluid and not fixed. My boss was not casual about it - she seemed quite concerned and assertively asked me to ring her - as she wanted to speak to me about an incident at the school'. It wasn't a simple passing on a message X phoned here looking for you will you give her a ring.

We live in an era were we are all ultra sensitive about child protection (and with good reason) I work with children - and my boss asked me to ring a principal about an incident at her school . My initial thought was omg - this sounds a bit like I was approaching children or taking pictures or something creepy - my boss wasn't simply relaying a message - as well as the dictionary definition language conveys meaning by other facets like tone of voice / speed of delivery etc.

I regularly get calls to my work looking for me and they are sometimes picked up by my boss - she has never phoned me up on my mobile in such a manner / concerned tone / urgency / assertive / to ring a person back. My employer was getting involved in this matter - she would not have if there wasn't so significant priming from the caller. The caller / principal discussed my private business with my employer either explicitly or implicitly - My employer was not a neutral messanger - I feared what she may have deducted from this exchange - I do feel that my name / reputation/ professional capacity was/ is tainted. And it has / is causing me stress and has spoiled my weekend and I'm bewildered that this could have come about by simply driving into a car park to collect my child and driving straight back out

Yeah, that's all irrelevant waffle too be honest and doesn't really tally with your original post.

You asked about the law in the legal section. I am answering you from a legal standpoint.

Your feelings and opinions about what a word means carries zero weight. The word has a legal definition. The fact that police use it for crimes, so what? They also say vehicle a lot. Its irrelevant from a legal standing.

Being stressed over it is in itself irrelevant. there's no law against calling a place of work and as you know what its about, you cannot blame the call maker for stress, you know its a nothing event. In fact, why are you stressed about it at all? You said yourself it was a petty issue. Its going no where, your boss won't care and life goes on.

As for discussing your private business, there's no expectation of privacy in public and we as free citizens are free to discuss our daily interactions with whoever we choose. Did you not tell anyone about this interaction? Your partner, friends, etc?


That's the reality. If you don't like the answer there is not much I can do about it other than to say than in 4 pages I have only tried to give you good, honest opinions and suggestions and really with the manner your replying with, I'm not inclined to do so again

esforum

DK man wrote: »

A quick question for the legal eagles here.

Trespass was mentioned a few times by some posters above:

The issue here is that I drove my car into the car park - not that I myself was on the school premises - if I walked over to collect my child as I've done a number of times the school would not have flinched.

Is it possible for it to be okay to walk onto someone's property without trespassing but if you drive on then you are trespassing? And can the owner of a property arbitrarily use the laws of trespass?

could I reasonable claim that I was in the car park of a public building during opening hours and that trespass is an inappropriate ( school is a catholic school / probably a can of worms that I don't want opened!!!)

These musings might seem ott - im not after anything other than being able to defend myself - im assuming I'm going to get a call tomorrow and I already feel that this lady has overstepped the mark and while I will listen to her I won't sit back and take 10 mins of her giving out to me

Thanks



I wonder why I am double posting????

There's a reasonable expectation of entry granted under certain circumstances ie collecting your child from school, postman delivering mail. That expectation cannot exist if there's a sign forbidding it. You could in theory deny your postman access but you would then either have to go to the post office or get your post dumped in the rain at the gate.

And the double post is a glitch with the quick reply apparently

VincePP

esforum wrote: »

There's a reasonable expectation of entry granted under certain circumstances ie collecting your child from school, postman delivering mail. That expectation cannot exist if there's a sign forbidding it. You could in theory deny your postman access but you would then either have to go to the post office or get your post dumped in the rain at the gate.

And the double post is a glitch with the quick reply apparently

You keep making assumptions - and if you have experience of the legal field, you will know very well that making assumptions is a very dangerous game.

in other posts you say "people can legally say this that etc" - this wold suggest that your knowledge of defamation law is non existent.

If someone makes a comment and the intent was there to damage a persons reputation and cause harm, then that is defamation.

So far the OP has shown that that seems to have been the ntent of the principal and as such I would be of the opiniion that her aim was to defame the OP to the OP's employer in order to cause the OP harm to reputation.

As in any legal situation there is an opposing argument, but whilst I'm not involved in the legal profession, three members of my family are (senior counsel, solicitor and senior dept justice) and many many years of dinner conversatiomns has given me enough knowledge to say that the intention of the principal in this case was to cause harm or embarassment to the OP, hence defamation to character.

ohnonotgmail

VincePP wrote: »

You keep making assumptions - and if you have experience of the legal field, you will know very well that making assumptions is a very dangerous game.

in other posts you say "people can legally say this that etc" - this wold suggest that your knowledge of defamation law is non existent.

If someone makes a comment and the intent was there to damage a persons reputation and cause harm, then that is defamation.

So far the OP has shown that that seems to have been the ntent of the principal and as such I would be of the opiniion that her aim was to defame the OP to the OP's employer in order to cause the OP harm to reputation.

As in any legal situation there is an opposing argument, but whilst I'm not involved in the legal profession, three members of my family are (senior counsel, solicitor and senior dept justice) and many many years of dinner conversatiomns has given me enough knowledge to say that the intention of the principal in this case was to cause harm or embarassment to the OP, hence defamation to character.

Luckily dinner table conversations carry no weight in the eyes of the law. You forgot one essential element of defamation.

An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

• it must be published,
• it must refer to the complainant and
• it must be false

What did the principle say that was false?

TheChizler

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Luckily dinner table conversations carry no weight in the eyes of the law. You forgot one essential element of defamation.

An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

• it must be published,
• it must refer to the complainant and
• it must be false

What did the principle say that was false?

Wasn't there a successful defamation case recently where a security guard was found guilty of defamation where points 1 and 3 above were only implied? They stopped someone from entering a store and when asked why they said 'you know why'. I'm paraphrasing here.

ohnonotgmail

TheChizler wrote: »

Wasn't there a successful defamation case recently where a security guard was found guilty of defamation where points 1 and 3 above were only implied? They stopped someone from entering a store and when asked why they said 'you know why'. I'm paraphrasing here.

i dont see any correlation between that case and this.

TheChizler

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont see any correlation between that case and this.

I suppose I'm focusing on implicit versus explicit defamation and the lack of publicising in both cases. I could be very wrong but there are similarities at least in my untrained mind.

Probably going off topic from the OP though as at most they probably want an apology from the principal!

NUTLEY BOY

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Luckily dinner table conversations carry no weight in the eyes of the law. You forgot one essential element of defamation.

An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

• it must be published,
• it must refer to the complainant and
• it must be false

What did the principle say that was false?

Probably nothing.

However, you can make an ostensibly harmless statement that carries a defamatory innuendo. Could the statement have conveyed something to the employer that called the OP's character in to question ? If a judge or jury were satisfied that the reference to an "incident" constituted such an innuendo your three tests could be satisfied perfectly on the evidence.

I accept that a principal would carry heavy responsibilities in relation to children in their custody or control and that would extend to responding appropriately to the perceived presence of a car on the premises that may not have been allowed to be where it was. That said, the principal does not have an unfettered right to do or say anything that they like.

It was probably fair enough for the principal to leave a message at the OP's place of work. However, IMHO, by including a gratuitous reference to an "incident" the principal went too far and communicated a potential innuendo to a third party.

Interestingly, the OP complied promptly with the principal's request to ring her but has heard nothing back. I wonder if the principal has had time to cool down and if she is not feeling like a bit of a twit.

Presently, I am reading a book about his court experiences by Sir Patrick Hastings K.C. (sic). He has a view about defamation type cases of which he handled a number. People can be reasonably indignant and upset about statements made about them. The trouble starts when the indignation propels the matter in to the white fury of litigation and it all peters out with a big regret about having gone too far in response to a hurtful statement ! In short summary, his view was that many such cases were better to have never started and that a bit of time and space filled with silence is wisest.

I accept, understand and share totally the OP's feelings about what happened. However, I think that this is one of those matters where it would be simply best to now leave it alone - call it a score draw. I would suspect, on the evidence, that the principal will never be in the wrong in this matter anyway.....

BTW if the principal does contact the OP I would ask if her conduct at the scene of the "incident" set a good example given that it happened directly in front of a young child..........