[Archived] Lt

[SAS]

Todays letters page, 50 years ago today. Repeated from last week.....

[stuwilky]

Also and this is something that you might not have considered coming from your side of the fence.... to get rid of somebody for whatever reason, unless gross misconduct or similar is involved, takes months of plotting and planning which the employer really must never be gone back on. Ultimately it's not nice for the employee and also a complete waste of their time, but it's also not nice either for the person planning the dismissal. It involves a devious and heartless route to the inevitable outcome in order to avoid the comapny paying out thousands in one way or another. Nothing like as clean and honest as the old fashioned 'collect your cards on the way out' approach of the past.

Sorry Drog, this is pretty inaccurate and sounds a rather cumbersome and industrious way of doing things.

Having advised people on how to dismiss people correctly there is very little of this involved.

You do need evidence, and you should give them an opportunity to improve. But ultimately if they don't its the big elbow - or rather should be.

A bigger issue is malicious complaints lodged by disgruntled former employees which are costly to defend - but dismissing someone for being crap is, as it should be, pretty easy. Any employer who says otherwise should probably invest in some legal support.

[Guest Wen Y Hu]

"Duely", Mr C?

OK Mr B, you've got me "bang to rights." (Full stop inside the quotation marks.)

Okay. Interesting one for all you language lovers...

Which is correct?

You've got me "bang to rights."

OR

You've got me "bang to rights".

First to give the correct answer without asking their mum gets the usual kudos. Your one and only hint is that jim mk2 will know the answer and is going apoplectic just thinking about it...

[broadsword]

I'd say the second one was correct as the quote isn't a sentence in its own right.

Wouldn't want to bet on it though.

[Friarsnig]

It should be written as follows;

You've got me 'banged to rights'.

There's no need for double apostrophe quotation marks, because the original sentence wasn't quoting anyone in particular. The poster was using, incorrectly, an often used phrase 'banged to rights'. The single apostrophe quote marks are appropriate in this case as the phrase 'banged to rights' is not attributable to any individual's quote, he was simply highlighting the use of a commonly used figure of speech, and therefore indicating that it was not his own.

[Guest Wen Y Hu]

Bryan is quite correct in what he says, but not absolutely correct. He is wise to keep his money in his pocket. Friarsnig's observations are most interesting, especially in view of the issue at stake. But the full answer...

[American]

Used to typeset and our proofreader thought he was an editor. He actually photocopied the part of the style guide that says "put the full stop inside the quote."