Sharon Shoesmith in line for £1 Million - Outrage bus ready to go....

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by alfred_the_great, Aug 2, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rustles Telegraph, nods sternly and harrumphs.
  2. I was hoping for much more outrage than that reasonable sober discussion.

    I shall have to return to the holy grail of unseen celeb tits to read about Stonker talking about fat gingers.....
  3. Why the outrage again?
  4. Something a baby dying. Who knows? Ennui is a terrible thing.
  5. Right, but I thought this was about her pay out?

  6. The champion of the outraged, The Sun, should have to pay it..fucking arsewipe rag.
  7. It's a non story. She was sacked by a faceless politician on the back of a massive outrage bus. Due process was not followed therefore the payout was banked way before the case ever went to Tribunal.
  8. As distasteful as it is, the Courts are right; she was unfairly dismissed, and that's Ed Balls' fault. She should have carried the responsibility, and been fired, not just in the way she was.

    Had Balls ever held a real job he might have known this.

    Now she comes out of this a "winner"... and might possibly even be able to make a future claim against the government for being unable to find employment....
  9. This was originally posted by Ancient Mariner in another thread. I have paraphrased him here.

    "Balls didn't sack Shoesmith. The limit of his authority was to require Haringey to remove her from her post. He emphasised this at the press conference when the Ofsted report was published. In theory, she could have been given another job at the council.

    Haringey Council no doubt have a very well remunerated Director of Human Resources. It was his/her/its job to ensure that dismissals were carried out strictly in accordance with employment law. They didn't."
  10. I stand corrected on point... it was still a fcuk up.
  11. There is something intrinsically wrong in all this - and I am not speaking out of outrage here. But commonsensically speaking, she was sacked for incompetence. Unfortunately there were some t and i bits not dotted and crossed. This doesn't alter the facts of the dismissal. If, after several years, she can go back and complain of unfair dismissal on what are technical grounds, I reckon the Council should be able to go back and have her hanged by the tits for neglect and manslaughter, on grounds of reality.

    Instead she is laughing all the way to the bank and her lawyers are laughing even more.

    Meanwhile in the real world, the military still doesn't have a hospital, the army is being slashed to the bone to save money, whilst the judiciary hand out huge amounts of taxpayers cash to people (who actually need to die of shame) on some technicality, and the government is paying out billions of tax payers money in intelligen err, foreign aid.

    Wouldn't it be nice if some Lord Chancellor would rear up on his hind legs and harrumph a change bringing some common sense into the law instead if sitting in his chambers coining it in at public expense? Bewigged parasite. (Lord Somebody of Clashfern was the last Lord Chancellor I dealt with, a mendacious old buffoon if ever I met one).

    Anyway I hope she dies in a freak social experiment involving 2 under age mothers with triplets and some lesbian rights outreach workers who lure her to a pig farm.

  12. I was going to look up "ennui" but I couldn't be bothered. Too tired, not really interested, heard enough about it.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. I agree, is this not the equivilent of say a murderer getting let of and suing for wrongfull arrest just because a copper swore and didn't follow guidelines when carrying out the arrest?