• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Incompetence kills, and pays well.

#3
She was unfairly sacked. Binned without due process for the sake of political grandstanding.
Yep. Don't follow the process to ensure a fair and proper outcome = instant loss at Tribunal. If anyone should be picking up the tab for this payout its Ed Balls...

Editted to Add - Balls fired her for making a crap decision. Firing her without due process was an even crapper decision... will he face any consequences... will he ****.
 
#4
I don't care if she'd been rogering the Duke of York with a prize winning leek. She showed a typical slopey shouldered attitude to responsibility for her own department and I wish she had been hung out to dry properly, rather than now probably popping up in an even better remunerated post somewhere else in the public sector.
 
#6
Is anyone surprised that New Labour in general and the reprehensible Ed Balls in particular, should bugger up a seemingly simple 'open and closed' case.

Maybe this harridan was far divorced in reality from the poor defenceless little mite Baby P, but she presided over, and was ultimately responsible for, the shambolic state of affairs and catalogues of errors in her department. She should have resigned in shame.

As an aside, and without knowledge, I reckon Human Rights legislation is somewhere to be found in this tragedy. What a sadness that no-one was concerned in detail with Baby P's 'human rights' - oh! silly me, this fearful woman was concerned - or she was supposed to be!

The law is an ass and has become more asinine than ever since the grinning spiv Blair took it upon himself to meddle with it.
 
#7
I don't care if she'd been rogering the Duke of York with a prize winning leek. She showed a typical slopey shouldered attitude to responsibility for her own department and I wish she had been hung out to dry properly, rather than now probably popping up in an even better remunerated post somewhere else in the public sector.
Very regrettably, the idiot Balls ensured her win at tribunal by failing to adhere to due process.

However, with regard to your point about her future career, would anyone really be stupid enough to employ a woman who has shown a total absence of shame, remorse or guilt for systematic departmental failings that so palpably took place under her nose and on her watch?
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#9
Good. I'm glad she won. It was on the cards and it shouldn't have come as any surprise either. ****, it was even hotly debated by a bunch of STABs/Ex squaddies and the odd Tesco employee on here months ago and despite the outrage, it was plainly pointed out just how she would win.

Now, does any **** want this Saturday's lottery numbers?
 
#10
However, with regard to your point about her future career, would anyone really be stupid enough to employ a woman who has shown a total absence of shame, remorse or guilt for failings that so palapably took place under her nose and on her watch?
Just read Rotten Boroughs & similar columns in Private Eye. Pound to a pinch of snuff she'll pop up again in a few months at another council, in the NHS or similar. Senior management in these organisations have a way of looking after each other.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#11
However, with regard to your point about her future career, would anyone really be stupid enough to employ a woman who has shown a total absence of shame, remorse or guilt for systematic departmental failings that so palpably took place under her nose and on her watch?
Rupert Murdoch? - he has previous for this!!! :)
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#12
Just read Rotten Boroughs & similar columns in Private Eye. Pound to a pinch of snuff she'll pop up again in a few months at another council, in the NHS or similar. Senior management in these organisations have a way of looking after each other.
As she was unfairly dismissed, why shouldn't she be able to take up new employment at that level?
 
#14
Just read Rotten Boroughs & similar columns in Private Eye. Pound to a pinch of snuff she'll pop up again in a few months at another council, in the NHS or similar. Senior management in these organisations have a way of looking after each other.
And just to rub salt in the wounds, her lawyer will probably be asking for damages to cover the cost of her being 'unemployable in the future'.

msr
 
#15
Just read Rotten Boroughs & similar columns in Private Eye. Pound to a pinch of snuff she'll pop up again in a few months at another council, in the NHS or similar. Senior management in these organisations have a way of looking after each other.
Yep, guaranteed she's already touting around the network.
 
#16
She should have resigned in shame.
Undoubtably she was unfairly dismissed. As for resignation? Why? Certainly it's an act and word that NuLiarbore has been endeavouring to remove from the lexicon of really usefull expressions for their apparatchiks. Those other one time usefull words such as Ethics, Morality, Values and a Sense of Duty were well battered during their tour in government. "Baby who?" "Died you say?"
 
#17
Very regrettably, the idiot Balls ensured her win at tribunal by failing to adhere to due process.

However, with regard to your point about her future career, would anyone really be stupid enough to employ a woman who has shown a total absence of shame, remorse or guilt for systematic departmental failings that so palpably took place under her nose and on her watch?
I'm afraid it was only ever partly about the money. If she had lost, she would now be unemployable in anything that involved the stautory care of others, be that young, elderly or whatever. Any prospective employers would say, sorry not with your track record.

By winning her case, she has effectively put her career back on track. Local Authorities are bound by statute to employ the individual with the most "merit" to posts funded by the public purse.

She is very well qualified in her field and can start to apply for similar jobs such as those she held in the past including the one where that child was so brutally ill treated and lost his life on her watch. If anyone says we are not considering you because of the Baby Peter occurance, she can legitimately say she was unfairly dismissed and that's been proven in court.

The prospective employer will have no option but to consider her for the post and if she is the candidate with the most "merit", they will have no choice but to appoint her, or face a legal claim for unfair discrimination.

So, I expect you will see her name pop up in the press somewhere in the future as the assistant director of this or the head of service of that. That's always been her aim since she was dismissed.

Incidentally, I don't think Ball's decision to make her go was in any way a wrong one but, he was obviously given very poor advice by someone who should have known better plus, Haringey Council seemed to be doing nothing. As the Minister with the protection of children in his portfolio, If he had done nothing, I can imagine the slating he would have got here and elswhere.
 
#18
Thought the communist bitch went a bit too quietly. Political Kabuki theatre to hide the fact that a child in Socialist Service care dies each and every week. And God help the poor little bastards who survive.
"The Times" was running a good campaign to bring back adoptions from birth for the offspring of no hopers, it would appear to be the solution for the likes of Comrade SHOESMITH
 
#19
I'm afraid it was only ever partly about the money. If she had lost, she would now be unemployable in anything that involved the stautory care of others, be that young, elderly or whatever. Any prospective employers would say, sorry not with your track record.

By winning her case, she has effectively put her career back on track. Local Authorities are bound by statute to employ the indivdual with the most "merit" to posts funded by the public purse.

She is very well qualified in her field and can start to apply for similar jobs such as those she held in the past including the one where that child was so brutally ill treated and lost his life on her watch. If anyone says we are not considering you because of the Baby Peter occurance, she can legitimately say she was unfairly dismissed and that's been proven in court.

The prospectively employer will have no option but to consider her for the post and if she is the candidate with the most "merit", they will have no choice but to appoint her, or face a legal claim for unfair discrimination.

So, I expect you will see her name pop up in the press somewhere in the future as the assistant director of this or the head of service of that. That's always been her aim since she was dismissed.

Incidentally, I don't think Ball's decision to make her go was in any way a wrong one but, he was obviously given very poor advice by someone who should have known better plus, Haringey Council seemed to be doing nothing. As the Minister with the protection of children in his portfolio, If he had done nothing, I can imagine the slating he would have got here and elswhere.
Interesting post - thanks. I'll agree that Balls would have also been crucified if he had been seen as failing to act. But a sad thought that she might be - God forbid - in charge of peoples welfare once more.
 
#20
Incidentally, I don't think Ball's decision to make her go was in any way a wrong one but, he was obviously given very poor advice by someone who should have known better plus, Haringey Council seemed to be doing nothing. As the Minister with the protection of children in his portfolio, If he had done nothing, I can imagine the slating he would have got here and elswhere.
Had he instructed that she be suspended pending the outcome of the inquiry, they could have fired her without a penny, everyone would have been protected from her ineptitude, and she by now would have been deservedly forgotten and perhaps working in Tesco.

He wanted to play the tough guy for the cameras, so he summarily dismissed her in violation of the most basic employment practices, leaving the taxpayer as ever to pick up the bill.
 

Latest Threads