In reply to:

---

So can I also see a copy of Plusnet's procedure?

---

Dunno, you'd better ask Plusnet.

In reply to:

---

if that's ok with you.

---

Of course, why shouldn't it be?

And even if it wasn't OK with me, would it make any difference?

No, but I have excellent manners.

Lets assume (based on what we know so far) that said procedure said that the work involved should have had two folk working on it. Lets also assume that the individual did it alone.

I'll leave it at that. All assumption, but so are the other potential scenarios.

I think the issue was that plusnet initially said it was down to their own policies, however since the engineer got the sack they've renegged on that statement and are now saying it was the engineers fault.

The reality of the situation is that the said "lone" engineer was working on two identical terminals with identical monitors with identical colour schemes, one was the live email system and the other was an offline system, he executed a command on the live one by mistake deleting the emails. The fact he was working alone and was unaware of which was the live and which was the offline systems was in reality a plusnet policy issue.

Now he's gone, a plusnet rep is blaming the engineer for his actions when previously the company had admitted it was plusnets lack of common sense in its policy that caused the issue.

In reply to:

---

All assumption, but so are the other potential scenarios.

---

Not entirely.

PN did state that the engineer was following the correct procedures, and that what happened was a genuine mistake. I saw the posts myself, but cba'd to find them at this time of night.

What those procedures were, and what happened afterwards is, I will agree, conjecture. Maybe the engineer told the PN management where they could shove the job, sharp end first, I don't know. (I wouldn't blame him ).

In reply to:

---

I'll leave it at that.

---

No argument from me.

PS.

In reply to:

---

No, but I have excellent manners.

---

Can I quote that in FC?

Shall I add my tuppence worth. I recall statements, allbeit vividly, that as far as PN were concerned at the time that it was a genuine mistake and the engineer felyt bad enough without adding more misery to him. Now, they publicly slate him and he's sacked? Well, yet another inconsistency to me I'm afraid, that's why I'd care so much!

If people follow the link then it doesnt say the engineer was sacked, but no longer working for the company, which can mean a number of things.

Also anyone who has read the thread will see that there are much larger issues as far as customers are concerned later on.

Andrew

OK Point taken

My tuppence worth:

I care becasue I am still a customer, although probably not for much longer (I'm just waiting to a) move and b) make sure I'm not jumping out of the furnace into a supernova)

IMHO PN should be trying to boost their image (and most of all customer numbers) and show themselves as a professional and trustworthy company.

Releasing some of the tripe their marketing director has lately does little to show this, but this really caps it off. It shows and unprofessional attitude to staff - you NEVER slate a current or ex member of staff publicly. This in turn leads to mistrust within the organisation (mainly of management) and can lead to a general paranoia. If this is how they treat people, they will struggle to recruit quality staff. In turn these factors all lead to poor customer relations for any number of reasons.

If PN want to be taken seriously, they need a REAL shakeup from top to bottom and instill a proper professional attitude to staff and customers. That could turn things around for them. Whilst we have this constant inconsistency of information from all forums PN interact in, I and many like me will take them less and less seriously and I personally would be concerned about the survival of any company in any industry that behaves like this.

"Actually we agree with you. We also believe that no competent engineer would be attempting work of that magnitude without asking another engineer to shadow them. The engineer responsible is no longer employed by Plusnet."

This implies one meaning alone. He was fired for incompetence.

Where is the ambiguity, Mr S?