hehe, funny ebay story

[The Negotiator]

Well this:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=42387&item=2294229404&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

led to this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14986853&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=palace-worker-sacked--for-selling-queen-s-xmas-pud-name_page.html


NB: i think the first one is the genuine auction but it might not be! It took a little bit of finding but only 218 people had looked when I found it. FYI, it didn't receive any bids but he got the sack!

 

[James M]

Poor bugger

 

[beau]

thats well funny!!!!!

 

[The Negotiator]

Supposedly the reason is because "he took the photos within the palace" - what a stupid employer, hope he takes them to an employment tribunal lol. From what I understand the palace is one of the worst employers in the country.

Oh and people already cashing in on it

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=60608&item=6139827778&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

 

[Helz]

Miserable gits!

 

[philbo]

poor guy! sacked this close to xmas? all because he took pics of it inside buck palace. and if you look at the pics its obvious how id get in there dressed in a spiderman costume....NOT!!! so he was given the chance of buying the pudding too for twice what it was worth? robbing b*****ds! i know the queen is hard up but jeez. maybe we'll see the queen flogging stuff on ebay soon. hehe.

ps - want another funny ebay related site? look at this...or listen to it...or whatever!

http://www.erikasfriends.com/for_net/lj/song_for_you.htm

 

[Steven]

Sure if it was given to him he can do whatever he wants with it. The royals need a collective kick in hole IMO.

 

[philbo]

well it wasnt given to him was it? he had only worked there for 7 weeks so 'didnt qualify' for a xmas pudding. this is starting to sound ridiculous. the one he got his mitts on was a spare. which begs the question why couldnt he have been given a pudding anyway if they had spares?

 

[The Negotiator]

He had to pay £12.50 for it.

They sacked him (from what 5live said) because photos were taken inside the palace or something.

 

[The Negotiator]

Sorry philbo repeated what you said before.

 

[gaz.d]

the carpet isnt very nice inside the palace

 

[The Negotiator]

My thoughts too Gaz! The royals are an odd lot!

 

[Alex]

diserves (sp?) what he gets... not the sort of thing you can get away with having worked there for 7 weeks, 7 years, and selling his own pudding is a different matter.

 

[James M]

Yeah, I get it is a little cocksure pulling a prank like that being so new and that.

 

[Neofolis]

Just sounds like another good reason to get rid of the royals to me. How would that possibly stand up in a court as a justifiable reason to sack someone. Why are the royals above the law in such situations, they shouldn't have the right to do what they like.

I realise the royals may not have played any part in any of this, but I don't care, they still need to be sent to some unihabitable part of the planet with royals from many other countries and learn how much use their blue blood is to them then.

 

[James M]

How would that possibly stand up in a court as a justifiable reason to sack someone. .

Because a taliban member could use a similar method to get pics out

I know its tenuous, but they do sort of have a point, though I think in this case it is clear to see it wasn't a security breach.

And you forget, who owns the courts

 

[The Negotiator]

James, I fail to see how you can in any way support this? Seriously, how can their action be condoned? I just don't know the reason?

It's his item to sell, pictures taken inside palace? Is there a law against that! there's a site showing thousands of stolen pictures of cars - they get away with copyright infringement, this guy just took the photo inside the palace.

I don't think 7 weeks or 7 years makes a difference, nor do I think it matters that it's the royals. FOr instance, Ikea give away fantastic xmas gifts (2 years ago was a bike, last year a digi cam (not a crap one either) not sure what this year as most of my friends have stopped working there). Can you imagine if people were sacked for selling these on ebay?! (which they all of course did!)

It's madness, bloody royals! lol

 

[James M]

Paul...

I don't condone it, I think its crap, I also think though they might have some success in court, using the above reasoning.

 

[The Negotiator]

Re: Paul...

Sorry, misunderstood what you were saying

 

[Neofolis]

Because a taliban member could use a similar method to get pics out

I know its tenuous, but they do sort of have a point, though I think in this case it is clear to see it wasn't a security breach.

And you forget, who owns the courts

They have no point whatsoever. From looking at the pictures, there is nothing to indicate where they were taken and nothing that would give anyone any useful information about the palace.

I have also forgotten nothing, owning the courts should mean they are the most obliged to follow the rules of them, not be immune to the rules. The courts are after all supposed to be places of justice. Does this mean the royals don't care about justice? and, if that is the case, why should all of their subjects have to be bound by it?

I don't know how the royals ever expect to command any level of respect when the allow things like this to happen.