Unless I read it incorrectly…he was on last day of sick leave so presumably he was fit to return to work next day..why did they have a problem with that ?

Plus, damages, I assume. Off work on medical grounds irrespective of pruning a hedge with a bad knee is not grounds for coworkers stalking a relatives house.

I’ve been a customer of AA for the last 15 years and this really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Makes me question do I really want to stay with them as a customer if this is how they treat their staff.

So you’ll get followed and recorded if you go on sick leave anytime working for the AA. Thank god I don’t have to work for them. Knowing that would permanently have you out on stress leave!

I hear he’s now self employed as a tree surgeon

Just proves the boss was right, he was spoofing while off work

It’s hard to judge when we don’t know the people involved. The guy could have been a waste of space and they were looking to get rid off him and this was their excuse or the manager is a real …. and wanted to use him as an example to scare other staff . Seems a bit extreme to creepy stalk someone when they are nearing the end of sick leave so I suspect its the first!

Your jobs, as “journalist”, is not to merely regurditate actions, counter-behaviours, and/or discourse.
Your job is to extract all facts, all actions, all statements, all claims and counterclaims, all alleged points of order and/or law and then to examine, explain and give analyses on all components therein.

Otherwise you are just spewing an absolute dose of scour that is marginally better than the braindead numpties in tabloids who regurgitate the aural, aka *radio*, weather forecast . . .in bleedin’ print!! [Sweet-mother-o'-divine-jaysus!]

For (bare minimum) example, how about you extract and explain:
“…it was claimed…that information had been recorded, used and processed ……. in violation of his constitutional rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.”
[correction: "Constitutional" and "Rights" are Capitalised words in this context]

How is this, or how might this be, a violation of Constitutional Rights? Yes. You do not yet know the full arguments, but you *can* attempt a multitude of hypotheses. You *can* put forward likely explanations as to how, or in what way, the Constitution affords Rights with regard to….what? Surveillance? Filming? Activities within the bounds of the Private and/or Residential Property?
Or maybe it is in relation to health/health recovery/injury?
Or maybe it directly relates to Employer? Or Employer-Employee relations? (which I personally would have assumed is not in the Constitution itself, but in subsequent and seperate Labour Laws only. Am I really alone in such a laypersons presumption?).

Same request regarding “ECHR”?

Do you lack journos versed in, or transient/temporary consultants for, Constitutional Law and/or European HR Law?
If so, why?

Let’s face it. If Journo (as sometimes inadequate as it is, occasionally kicking balls as it does) joins those profoundly inept government lackies at the Indo/Sindo, it is only gonna get worse!
Maybe don’t look “up” to the giant (full of hot air).
Maybe ‘cut yer cloth’ (budget/cost effectiveness) by recruiting the rare few solid hardworking journos left in the smaller County Papers. (Yennow the ones, among whom 1 was the first, *from both islands* of Ireland and Britain, to put their finger on the more profound and pertinent relevance of “Pound Per Square Inch” in relation to XL Bully vs Lion vs German Shepherd when it comes to “defining parameters of confirmation relating to prohibition vs breed identifiers vs cross-breeds vs dogs of ambiguous or unknown origin/breeding”). Maybe grab a few of those damn good ones, on temporary rotations for specific types of articles (while they simultaneously continue working permanently/fulltime with their County paper).

Maybe ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

But definitely cut the regurgitative waffle waffle.
It’s like reading the first Nature Scientists – mere observers “reporting” dry observations.
Or a written report on the observation of the first philosophical dialogues . . . . . without any philosophical content or context. Just merely a report “this person spoke. Then that person spoke. Then someone said “blah”, and I neither know nor wish to know nor intend to disclose the context or meaning or motive behind “blah”. It was just said. The end.”

Christ-on-a-bike!

If the journos of today were reporting on Plato – there would be no field of Philosophy.
And everyone (not just thick Americans) would be saying “Plato, who?” With profoundly blank and indifferent stares, and expressions of ‘resting bored AF face’.

Was he pruning a tree or really double AA7 Special Branch.

One would also think that so-called “journalists” would also, simultaneously, extract, examine and question – why the AA and/or Staunton were not *Criminally* Charged and Prosecuted for *Stalking* and *Harassment*?
One would expect a supposed “journo” to question and challenge everyone in the chain of Legislating to application of Legislation (Politicians who wrote Legislation on Stalking/Harassment, Campaigners for it, Gardaí enforcing it, DPP Prosecuting it and/or Solicitors both Prosecuting and Defending cases on such legislation).

Do the Laws on Stalking, Coercion, and Harassment include ALL existing and future projected, theoretical and real and historic, forms? Do they pertain to all and any forms of relationships between persons of imbalanced power?
Such as Employer/Employee.
And ***Cults, Cult Members, former Cult Members, Families of Cult Members***???
What about well established “group stalking”? (When the abuser recruits/grooms/exploits acquaintances or family or friends of the victims, for information on the victim. And/or, when a Cult, OCG, or “Political Org” [read: Fascists. Or anti-abortionists aka Christian-Supremacist-Fascists] weaponise groups, randomers, paid lackies, anonymous volunteers “for the cause” to Stalk and/or Harass and/or Coerce many persons of a certain type – thus a social sub-group – rather than a sole individual!?!).

And if such Legislation and Legislators have failed to protect citizens from ALL sources of Coercion, Harassment, and Stalking, during this early 21st Century Legislative opportunity.
Why have they?
And also, why have you – the Media – failed to challenge this during the Legislative process? (IF all persons aren’t protected from all sources, and types of sources, under the Law. So, are they?).

Wig