Plusnet is looking for a new CEO now that it has been announced that Lee
Strafford, the former CEO, is no longer with the company. A copy of the
announcement as posted by Ian Wild on The Official Plusnet Usergroup and
also in the Plusnet member centre is shown below:

"Today we announced to staff that Lee Strafford, our CEO, is no longer with
PlusNet. Lee was instrumental in growing PlusNet from a small ISP in
Sheffield into a nationally recognised brand, and oversaw the acquisition of
PlusNet by BT earlier this year. Neil Laycock, who has been wit PlusNet for
3 years, will take over the position of acting CEO with immediate effect."

Read more here: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/3007.html

Motion wrote:
[snip]

The Indy has a different take on it:

Plusnet founder threatens to sue BT for sacking
Published: 07 March 2007

Lee Strafford, founder and former chief executive of Plusnet, has
threatened the telecoms company's new owner, BT, with legal action after
his shock dismissal earlier this week.

http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...cle2334958.ece

Allan Gould wrote:

" Mr Strafford, alongside finance director Neil Comer, was unexpectedly
dismissed with immediate effect on Monday for misconduct. "

It just gets better and better !

Graham

In article <45EE88C5.13CA7A69@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you read the full article it's clear that Strafford is mounting a
pre-emptive defence against potentially much more serious charges - ie
that he diverted BT funds into an unauthorised international venture.
If true, he could face charges of fraud.

Stan

"Allan Gould" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:557e1eF2361o2U1@mid.individual.net...
Such sackings are standard following takeovers.
You just don't want the people who put the company in a position where it
could be bought out running the show.

Rubbish! Sacking anyone without notice is just not sensible unless you have
cast iron reasons to do so. It almost certainly makes the dismissal
fundamemtally unfair. Particularly when the buyout has been done in an
agreed manner. It will be interesting to here more details. Until then it
does look as though BT have shot themselves in the foot.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" <g6jns@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45eeeb90$0$8757$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
You're talking out of your arse. You don't know the facts and therefore can
only surmise.

BT may or maybe not have a very good case for dismissal, only when the facts
come out will we really know.

Really? And what facts do you know that that allow you to think that? More
that a little hypocrisy on your part I would say.

Indeed they may, but it is highly unlikely that they had a case for INSTANT
dismissal which was the point.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" <g6jns@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45ef14d6$0$8752$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
I'm not the one making assumptions, you are. I'm saying you need to know the
facts first, otherwise you're just surmising.

But you are saying that I am wrong and YOU have no facts to support that
statement. AFAIK from the public statements the CEO was instatly dismissed.
I repeat that instant dismissal without notice is almost always
fundamentally unfair.

Peter Crosland

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:45:46 +0000, Stan The Man <man@pr100.com>
wrote:

Oh I do hope thats true. I found him to be an obnoxious areshole.

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:39:02 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
<g6jns@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Its also his point. You dont know the facts, so cant claim they dont
have a case for instant dismissal.

But its pretty obvious, they wouldnt undertake such a thing unless
they thought they had a very good case. (That isnt an assumption -
thats logic!)

I did not say that they did not have a case for instant dismissal. What I
said was that in a very large percentage of cases instant dismissal is
unfair. Indeed there is a general presumption that instant dismissal is
unfair. Speaking from personal experience I would not like to bet on a big
company like BT getting it right. Lots of large companies have come
seriously unstuck with dismissing people and not following the proper
procedures. Usually the appropriate thing is to suspend the person and send
them on "gardening leave" that means they are kept out of the company's
premises. It has all the hallmarks of a corporate cockup!

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:
Oh, I don't think so, Road Hog is saying that "You're talking out of
your arse." (because) "You don't know the facts and therefore can only
surmise."

He also said, which you snipped, "BT may or maybe not have a very good
case for dismissal, only when the facts come out will we really know."

He is saying (correctly) that you are making assumptions and do not know
why BT dismissed Strafford, nor if they had good reason to do that
instantly. That is *not* saying that you are wrong.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

All the quotes I have seen refer to "his shock dismissal" or something
similar. The dismissal may have been a shock, and it may have been without
warning, but that is different from instant dismissal when you are fired on
the spot and your pay is terminated. Odds are he has got a decent length
contract, and BT will pay him.
Obviously if people are in sensitive positions where they could do damage in
revenge, you get them off the premises at once, this principle applying to
people at all levels (particularly software gurus), not just ex-CEOs

Retired

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:38:12 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
<g6jns@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

No, you said " it is highly unlikely that they had a case for
INSTANT dismissal".

Which amounts to the same thing AFAIAC.

Whether the case sticks is a mute point, but they must feel they have
good grounds, else they would not have done so.

Hopefully in this case, they haven't messed up. My dealings with
Strafford indicate him to be a very unpleasant individual.

Retired wrote:
According to the reports I have seen, no compensation was paid.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

"Tx2" <this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20594ca39a91ac47989744@News.Individual.NE T...
i hope he beat up stan the man simon chapman pr100 and his love bud sharma
with a baseball bat but i suspect theyd have given him a medal or a
knighthood for that

Peter Crosland wrote:

In case of misconduct it's quite normal.

Graham

Tx2 wrote:

For alleged misconduct.

It's in the damn newspaper article.

Graham