On 18/02/2022 4:40 pm, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-02-17 7:27 p.m., geoff wrote:
>> On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>>>>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>>>>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
>>>>>>>>> Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was inevitable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
>>>>>
>>>>> See below.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of the inquiry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No idea. But they should.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they would have.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race, and had
>>>> access to all comms involved.
>>>
>>> I don't of course.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision, yes, then
>>>> they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that job, or whatever
>>>> you want to call it.
>>>
>>> And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry and Masi
>>> is getting a new job and not being sacked.
>>
>> Sacked from that job, and given another position in the organisation.
>
> Sorry, but no.
>
> I asked you to show an example where sacking someone resulted in them
> getting another position with the same organization...
>
> ...and you failed.
>

Cos I'm not a pedantic dickhead.

geoff

On 2022-02-17 10:57 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 18/02/2022 4:40 pm, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-02-17 7:27 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>>>>>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>>>>>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
>>>>>>>>>> Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was inevitable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of the inquiry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No idea. But they should.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they would have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race, and had
>>>>> access to all comms involved.
>>>>
>>>> I don't of course.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision, yes, then
>>>>> they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that job, or whatever
>>>>> you want to call it.
>>>>
>>>> And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry and Masi
>>>> is getting a new job and not being sacked.
>>>
>>> Sacked from that job, and given another position in the organisation.
>>
>> Sorry, but no.
>>
>> I asked you to show an example where sacking someone resulted in them
>> getting another position with the same organization...
>>
>> ...and you failed.
>>
>
>
> Cos I'm not a pedantic dickhead.

No?

Well we do know that you haven't shown anything to support your claim
that even getting demoted is ever referred to as being "sacked".

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-17 10:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
> > > > > > > > move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
> > > > > > > > He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
> > > > > > > > whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role is
> > > > > > > > on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
> > > > > > > > precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
> > > > > > > > felt that a change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Called it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure you did. LOL!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly
> > > > > > "promote"
> >>>>> him)?"
> > > > >
> > > > > "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 'or possibly "promote" him'...
> > >
> >
> > He has not been promoted.
>
> Really?
>
> You think he's going to be demoted, do you?
>
> What's your prediction, sunshine?
>

What's yours, mealy mouth?

> >
> > > ...or could you just not read those words?
> > >
> > > Let's sum up:
> > >
> > > Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA
> > > position.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong. Masi has been sacked from the role as F1 Race Director. He
> > has been replaced.
>
> Nope. Simply, factually, incorrect.
>

Yet, you don't say how, Mealy.

> >
> > He currently has no role within the FIA. So he has not been promoted
> > out of the role... for doing such a good job in Abu Dhabi.
> >
> > So it's clear to anyone that the FIA are not standing behind him
> > supporting his actions in Abu Dhabi.
>
> "Scapegoat": look it up.

How can he be a scapegoat when he instigated and was solely responsible
for the actions that were deemed the problem.

No-one, not even miserable conspiracy theorists like you have named
anyone else.

>
> >
> > You called it wrong then and you continue to call it wrong now.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-17 3:00 p.m., alister wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:21:48 -0800, Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-17 1:04 p.m., alister wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:47:06 -0800, Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:16 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > On 18/02/2022 7:15 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
> > > > > > > > > > > > decided to move Michael Masi out of the role of
> > > > > > > > > > > > F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be offered
> > > > > > > > > > > > another FIA role, but whether the Australian
> > > > > > > > > > > > wants to accept whatever role is on offer
> > > > > > > > > > > > remains to be seen. This is not a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > precedent for the federation but obviously Ben
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sulayem felt that a change would be a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW DLM
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Called it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sure you did. LOL!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or
> > > > > > > > > > possibly "promote"
> >>>>>>>>>   him)?"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not
> > > > > > > > YOU.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'or possibly "promote" him'...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...or could you just not read those words?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's sum up:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different
> > > > > > > FIA position.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote,
> > > > > > > there's no chance that YOU can read between the lines...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...but I bet there are those that can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tell me:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a company finds someone has committed major
> > > > > > > misconduct...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...do they typically offer that person a different
> > > > > > > position in the company?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a
> > > > > > > different position?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sacked 'from a position' and given another is not misuse of
> > > > > > the term.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > geoff
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Show an example of it being used in that manner.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've got the entire internet to choose from.
> > > >
> > > > As everyone knows any possition he is offered is simply a
> > > > sweetener to prevent any protest on his part after removal
> > > > (probably a better word than sacked in this case but the
> > > > implication is the same you are just being a pedantic twat
> > > > playing with words as normal)
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > I'm making the very salient point that if Masi acted solely on
> > > his own, they could have actually sacked him, and nothing he
> > > could say would matter.
> > >
> > > It's clear from the fact that they aren't disclosing what the
> > > inquiry found that there are things they don't want to reveal,
> > > and from the fact that they're offering Masi another position,
> > > it's clear he's being incented not to relate what he knows on the
> > > matter.
> >
> >
> > Expect a tinfoil shortage as you will need all of it for your hat
>
> So what's your explanation?
>
> It was all Masi's fault... ...but they're offering him another
> position, why?
>
> They held an inquiry, but they won't release their findings...
>
> ...why?

If you weren't so busy defending the indefensible you might take the
time to look at the changes they are making and consider what that says
about the situation. Of course as you like to put your conclusions
before any consideration you might struggle...

....but just ask for help.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-17 3:32 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > On 18/02/2022 9:39 am, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2022-02-17 12:15 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > On 18/02/2022 6:46 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
> > > > > > > > move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
> > > > > > > > He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
> > > > > > > > whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role is
> > > > > > > > on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
> > > > > > > > precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
> > > > > > > > felt that a change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Called it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure you did. LOL!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly
> > > > > > "promote"   him)?"
> > > > >
> > > > > "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well somebody has to sweep the floor.
> > > >
> > > > geoff
> > >
> > > You won't keep him quiet about what happened by giving him that
> > > job.
> >
> > He is unlikely, in any position, to say "Yes. I fucked up and admit
> > I am to susceptible to bullying to be objective in that position".
>
> He's quite likely to say "I was under pressure from my bosses to make
> sure the race ended with excitement rather than under a yellow flag".

What bosses? Have you even the slightest evidence to make such an
assertion?

All your evidence... here... now?

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
> > >
> > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
> > > Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
> > > will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
> > > wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
> > > This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
> > > Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
> > >
> > > FWIW
> > > DLM
> >
> > Was inevitable.
>
> Yup.
>
> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>

No, they didn't.

If they could have supported Masi's decisions... and those of the
stewards... they would have done so and by doing so saved face and
their integrity would have remained intact.

geoff wrote:

> On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
> > On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
> > > > > > > > move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
> > > > > > > > He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
> > > > > > > > whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role
> > > > > > > > is on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
> > > > > > > > precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
> > > > > > > > felt that a change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Was inevitable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The FIA needed a scapegoat.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
> > > >
> > > > See below.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of the
> > > > > > inquiry?
> > > > >
> > > > > No idea. But they should.
> > > >
> > > > And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they would
> > > > have.
> > >
> > > Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race, and had
> > > access to all comms involved.
> >
> > I don't of course.
> >
> > >
> > > If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision, yes,
> > > then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that job, or
> > > whatever you want to call it.
> >
> > And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry and
> > Masi is getting a new job and not being sacked.
>
> Sacked from that job, and given* another position in the organisation.
>
> Not to split hairs .....
>

*"is to be offered"

;-)

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-17 10:57 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > On 18/02/2022 4:40 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2022-02-17 7:27 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
> > > > > > > > > > > decided to move Michael Masi out of the role of
> > > > > > > > > > > F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be offered
> > > > > > > > > > > another FIA role, but whether the Australian
> > > > > > > > > > > wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains
> > > > > > > > > > > to be seen. This is not a good precedent for the
> > > > > > > > > > > federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a
> > > > > > > > > > > change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Was inevitable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yup.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The FIA needed a scapegoat.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of
> > > > > > > > > the inquiry?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No idea. But they should.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they
> > > > > > > would have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race,
> > > > > > and had access to all comms involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision,
> > > > > > yes, then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that
> > > > > > job, or whatever you want to call it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry
> > > > > and Masi is getting a new job and not being sacked.
> > > >
> > > > Sacked from that job, and given another position in the
> > > > organisation.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but no.
> > >
> > > I asked you to show an example where sacking someone resulted in
> > > them getting another position with the same organization...
> > >
> > > ...and you failed.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Cos I'm not a pedantic dickhead.
>
> No?
>
> Well we do know that you haven't shown anything to support your claim
> that even getting demoted is ever referred to as being "sacked".

Now you claim he is being "demoted".

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-17 10:57 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > On 18/02/2022 4:40 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2022-02-17 7:27 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
> > > > > > > > > > > (joeblogsf1):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
> > > > > > > > > > > decided to move Michael Masi out of the role of
> > > > > > > > > > > F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be offered
> > > > > > > > > > > another FIA role, but whether the Australian
> > > > > > > > > > > wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains
> > > > > > > > > > > to be seen. This is not a good precedent for the
> > > > > > > > > > > federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a
> > > > > > > > > > > change would be a good thing."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > FWIW
> > > > > > > > > > > DLM
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Was inevitable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yup.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The FIA needed a scapegoat.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of
> > > > > > > > > the inquiry?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No idea. But they should.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they
> > > > > > > would have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race,
> > > > > > and had access to all comms involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision,
> > > > > > yes, then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that
> > > > > > job, or whatever you want to call it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry
> > > > > and Masi is getting a new job and not being sacked.
> > > >
> > > > Sacked from that job, and given another position in the
> > > > organisation.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but no.
> > >
> > > I asked you to show an example where sacking someone resulted in
> > > them getting another position with the same organization...
> > >
> > > ...and you failed.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Cos I'm not a pedantic dickhead.
>
> No?
>
> Well we do know that you haven't shown anything to support your claim
> that even getting demoted is ever referred to as being "sacked".

Look up "constructive dismissal" cases.

You will find plenty of examples.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

In article <sum3bh$r25$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>
> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a different position?
>

Of course they are. If someone refuses to take up said offer, do they
still have a job? Does that count as resignation? Do they still get
redundancy? Of course not.

--
Alan LeHun

In article <sume9e$12b$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> It's clear from the fact that they aren't disclosing what the inquiry
> found that there are things they don't want to reveal,
>

That they have concurred that the WDC title was won outside of the rules
of the sport. This, for a multitude of reasons (not least, legal action
by outside parties) is something that they can not admit.

I would also not be surprised if a large chunk of that "transparent
internal inquiry that we won't be releasing" was spent on working out
the cheapest method of getting Masi out of that position. More laundry
that they wouldn't want aired in public.

--
Alan LeHun

In article <sumllj$fpr$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they would have.
>

This is such a simplistic logical fallacy as I have seen recently. Such
an inquiry would be difficult to conduct without touching on non-public
internal structure, policy and ip issues that they wouldn't want made
public.

If they found that Masi's actions were a contravention of the rules
then they can't make that public. Not officially, at any rate.

If anything, the fact that they have reneged on previous statements of
transparency intent suggests that the inquiry was quite a thorough one.

--
Alan LeHun

On 2022-02-18 12:29 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sum3bh$r25$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>
>> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a different position?
>>
>
> Of course they are. If someone refuses to take up said offer, do they
> still have a job? Does that count as resignation?

Yes.

> Do they still get
> redundancy? Of course not.

I'm not familiar with "redundancy" in this context.

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 3:04:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I'm not familiar with "redundancy" in this context.

fuck off asshole
understand that?

In article <sup54r$vvm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> > Of course they are. If someone refuses to take up said offer, do they
> > still have a job? Does that count as resignation?
>
> Yes.
>

So you believe that employers have the right to turn to their employees
and demand they move to a different job, and if they refuse, that would
be resignation with no penalty or reparation?

--
Alan LeHun

On 2/19/2022 9:44 AM, Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sup54r$vvm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>> Of course they are. If someone refuses to take up said offer, do they
>>> still have a job? Does that count as resignation?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> So you believe that employers have the right to turn to their employees
> and demand they move to a different job, and if they refuse, that would
> be resignation with no penalty or reparation?
>
>
>

absolutely in US at least many states have "at-will employment" - they
can do whatever the fuck they want to their employees, they are even
loopholes for ways they get around discrimination cases - it's basically
organized slavery for non-union employers - if you dont like it go elsewhere

In article <sur3r6$4ii$1@dont-email.me>, n.nut@comcast.net says...
>
> absolutely in US at least many states have "at-will employment" - they
> can do whatever the fuck they want to their employees, they are even
> loopholes for ways they get around discrimination cases - it's basically
> organized slavery for non-union employers - if you dont like it go elsewhere
>

Well we do have something similar over here. Zero hours contracts. But
even these are beginning to attract legislative attention and many
companies are moving away from them because of public pressure.
McDonalds now offer fixed term contracts to all their employees. Sports
Direct have stopped using them all together. They are only generally
used for low skill, low wage jobs for younger people.

--
Alan LeHun

On 20/02/2022 10:51 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:33:31 +1000, keithr0 <user@account.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/02/2022 2:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>
>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>
>>> FWIW
>>> DLM
>> Now that Mercedes have his head on a pike, perhaps Ham can stop being so
>> petulant.
>
> How on earth does Masi being sacked mitigate Ham's annoyance at
> unfairly being deprived of a record WDC win?

The only 'mitigation' is that Ham will return this year, rather than
quitting in disgust/despair/dis-whatever.

geoff

Martin Harran wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:33:31 +1000, keithr0 <user@account.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On 18/02/2022 2:05 am, D Munz wrote:
> >> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
> >>
> >> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi will
> be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian wants to
> accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen. This is not a
> good precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that
> a change would be a good thing." >> >> FWIW >> DLM
> > Now that Mercedes have his head on a pike, perhaps Ham can stop
> > being so petulant.
>
> How on earth does Masi being sacked mitigate Ham's annoyance at
> unfairly being deprived of a record WDC win?

Not having the person who fucked him over in a position where he could
do it again at least acknowledges the wrongdoing and addresses the lack
of trust there would be in the culprit.

On 2022-02-18 1:45 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 10:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
>>>>>>>>> (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
>>>>>>>>> move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
>>>>>>>>> He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
>>>>>>>>> whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role is
>>>>>>>>> on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
>>>>>>>>> precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
>>>>>>>>> felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly
>>>>>>> "promote"
>>>>>>> him)?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not YOU.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'or possibly "promote" him'...
>>>>
>>>
>>> He has not been promoted.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> You think he's going to be demoted, do you?
>>
>> What's your prediction, sunshine?
>>
>
> What's yours, mealy mouth?

I asked you first, so pony up, pussy.

>
>>>
>>>> ...or could you just not read those words?
>>>>
>>>> Let's sum up:
>>>>
>>>> Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different FIA
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. Masi has been sacked from the role as F1 Race Director. He
>>> has been replaced.
>>
>> Nope. Simply, factually, incorrect.
>>
>
> Yet, you don't say how, Mealy.

"Sacked" means dismissed from an organization.

'verb [with object ]
1 informal dismiss from employment: any official found to be involved
would be sacked on the spot.'

>
>>>
>>> He currently has no role within the FIA. So he has not been promoted
>>> out of the role... for doing such a good job in Abu Dhabi.
>>>
>>> So it's clear to anyone that the FIA are not standing behind him
>>> supporting his actions in Abu Dhabi.
>>
>> "Scapegoat": look it up.
>
> How can he be a scapegoat when he instigated and was solely responsible
> for the actions that were deemed the problem.

And you know he was solely responsible... ...how?

On 2022-02-18 1:48 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 3:00 p.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:21:48 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-17 1:04 p.m., alister wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:47:06 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:16 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 7:15 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 10:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to move Michael Masi out of the role of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be offered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains to be seen. This is not a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> precedent for the federation but obviously Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sulayem felt that a change would be a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW DLM
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly "promote"
>>>>>>>>>>>   him)?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, sacked as RD as several of us said; notably not
>>>>>>>>> YOU.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'or possibly "promote" him'...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...or could you just not read those words?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's sum up:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Masi is not being fired: he is being offered a different
>>>>>>>> FIA position.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The FIA won't disclose what their inquiry discovered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you can't read the words that I actually wrote,
>>>>>>>> there's no chance that YOU can read between the lines...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...but I bet there are those that can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a company finds someone has committed major
>>>>>>>> misconduct...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...do they typically offer that person a different
>>>>>>>> position in the company?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is someone "sacked" when he's actually offered a
>>>>>>>> different position?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sacked 'from a position' and given another is not misuse of
>>>>>>> the term.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show an example of it being used in that manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've got the entire internet to choose from.
>>>>>
>>>>> As everyone knows any possition he is offered is simply a
>>>>> sweetener to prevent any protest on his part after removal
>>>>> (probably a better word than sacked in this case but the
>>>>> implication is the same you are just being a pedantic twat
>>>>> playing with words as normal)
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> I'm making the very salient point that if Masi acted solely on
>>>> his own, they could have actually sacked him, and nothing he
>>>> could say would matter.
>>>>
>>>> It's clear from the fact that they aren't disclosing what the
>>>> inquiry found that there are things they don't want to reveal,
>>>> and from the fact that they're offering Masi another position,
>>>> it's clear he's being incented not to relate what he knows on the
>>>> matter.
>>>
>>>
>>> Expect a tinfoil shortage as you will need all of it for your hat
>>
>> So what's your explanation?
>>
>> It was all Masi's fault... ...but they're offering him another
>> position, why?
>>
>> They held an inquiry, but they won't release their findings...
>>
>> ...why?
>
> If you weren't so busy defending the indefensible you might take the
> time to look at the changes they are making and consider what that says
> about the situation. Of course as you like to put your conclusions
> before any consideration you might struggle...
>
> ...but just ask for help.
>

I notice you failed to address anything I said.

On 2022-02-18 1:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 3:32 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022 9:39 am, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:15 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 6:46 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:32 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 8:05 a.m., D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
>>>>>>>>> (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
>>>>>>>>> move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
>>>>>>>>> He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
>>>>>>>>> whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role is
>>>>>>>>> on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
>>>>>>>>> precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
>>>>>>>>> felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Called it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure you did. LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly
>>>>>>> "promote"   him)?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He says Masi will be offered another FIA role,"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well somebody has to sweep the floor.
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> You won't keep him quiet about what happened by giving him that
>>>> job.
>>>
>>> He is unlikely, in any position, to say "Yes. I fucked up and admit
>>> I am to susceptible to bullying to be objective in that position".
>>
>> He's quite likely to say "I was under pressure from my bosses to make
>> sure the race ended with excitement rather than under a yellow flag".
>
> What bosses? Have you even the slightest evidence to make such an
> assertion?

Are you pretending that there are not officials/employees of the FIA who
are Masi's bosses?

>
> All your evidence... here... now?

Why?

You claimed he was "solely responsible" without any evidence, didn't you?

On 2022-02-18 1:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward (joeblogsf1):
>>>>
>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to move
>>>> Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director. He says Masi
>>>> will be offered another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains to be seen.
>>>> This is not a good precedent for the federation but obviously
>>>> Ben Sulayem felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>> DLM
>>>
>>> Was inevitable.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>
>
> No, they didn't.

Yes... ...they really did.

>
> If they could have supported Masi's decisions... and those of the
> stewards... they would have done so and by doing so saved face and
> their integrity would have remained intact.

They did that by not overturning the results.

On 2022-02-18 1:57 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>
>> On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
>>>>>>>>> (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has decided to
>>>>>>>>> move Michael Masi out of the role of F1 Race Director.
>>>>>>>>> He says Masi will be offered another FIA role, but
>>>>>>>>> whether the Australian wants to accept whatever role
>>>>>>>>> is on offer remains to be seen. This is not a good
>>>>>>>>> precedent for the federation but obviously Ben Sulayem
>>>>>>>>> felt that a change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was inevitable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
>>>>>
>>>>> See below.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of the
>>>>>>> inquiry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No idea. But they should.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they would
>>>>> have.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race, and had
>>>> access to all comms involved.
>>>
>>> I don't of course.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision, yes,
>>>> then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that job, or
>>>> whatever you want to call it.
>>>
>>> And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry and
>>> Masi is getting a new job and not being sacked.
>>
>> Sacked from that job, and given* another position in the organisation.
>>
>> Not to split hairs .....
>>
>
> *"is to be offered"
>
> ;-)
>

Isn't it funny how you normally hang on every word Hamilton says:

<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-10538695/F1-Lewis-Hamilton-says-able-FIAs-report-Michael-Masi-firing.html>

On 2022-02-18 1:57 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-17 10:57 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022 4:40 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-17 7:27 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:49 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:37 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:27 pm, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 3:24 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-17 12:19 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 5:05 am, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have decided. From Joe Saward
>>>>>>>>>>>> (joeblogsf1):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to move Michael Masi out of the role of
>>>>>>>>>>>> F1 Race Director. He says Masi will be offered
>>>>>>>>>>>> another FIA role, but whether the Australian
>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to accept whatever role is on offer remains
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be seen. This is not a good precedent for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> federation but obviously Ben Sulayem felt that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> change would be a good thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW
>>>>>>>>>>>> DLM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was inevitable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The FIA needed a scapegoat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Made easy by an obviously culpable party.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do YOU think they won't disclose the results of
>>>>>>>>>> the inquiry?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No idea. But they should.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if Masi were the only one involved at the FIA, they
>>>>>>>> would have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't realise that you sat in on his role at that race,
>>>>>>> and had access to all comms involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If anybody else was involved in coming to that decision,
>>>>>>> yes, then they too should be re-assigned, sacked from that
>>>>>>> job, or whatever you want to call it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's why we're not getting the results of the inquiry
>>>>>> and Masi is getting a new job and not being sacked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sacked from that job, and given another position in the
>>>>> organisation.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but no.
>>>>
>>>> I asked you to show an example where sacking someone resulted in
>>>> them getting another position with the same organization...
>>>>
>>>> ...and you failed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cos I'm not a pedantic dickhead.
>>
>> No?
>>
>> Well we do know that you haven't shown anything to support your claim
>> that even getting demoted is ever referred to as being "sacked".
>
> Now you claim he is being "demoted".
>

Nope. I'm responding to someone else's claim that it will be a demotion.