Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Following Baby P
I seems that Rate payers are going to be landed with a Very large Bill
Legal and otherwise Following Councillors and Staffs PC Correct Policies
Will those responsible be refunding Haringey Ratepayers ?
Or will they be budget cutting further Services ?
BOB/R
Legal and otherwise Following Councillors and Staffs PC Correct Policies
Will those responsible be refunding Haringey Ratepayers ?
Or will they be budget cutting further Services ?
BOB/R
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Sorry, Bob. I don't understand what large bill you mean.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Ruggles on
-
Legal Bills for Fighting it getting Exposed -
Actions Against Staff Failures
Fighting Dismissal Cases
Now claim from Peter Father for Council neglect
Etc - Etc
-
-
Bob, I can't speak for the Council and have no information about legal costs. If anyone wants that, they can make a Freedom of Information Act request. But can I make two general points?
Firstly, it was a judge, not Haringey Council who made the original and subsequent ruling about the family names. And the issue was not about "exposing" adults who've been convicted. It was initially because other criminal proceedings were underway; and to protect other children in the family.
About the dismissals, I've not been involved as a councillor in any of the appeals. These are held in private and I know nothing more than anyone else who follows the media reports.
But among the questions I expect to come up is the one John has raised. Were the dismissals correct in law? This leads to a further question: were the correct procedures followed by everyone concerned? Councils, councillors; and even Chief Executives and Secretaries of State are subject to the courts.
Perhaps especially when the circumstances are as upsetting and horrifying as with Peter Connelly, it's important to remember that staff have employment rights and are entitled to take their cases to an Employment Tribunal and the High Court. (Where hearings will of course, be in public. )
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan, it seems that everyone's got Rights (and entitlements) these days ... not always matched with corresponding responsibilities.
Do you think its ever possible for some staff to have too many employment "rights"?
.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Better than "too few".
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
Clive C
'everyones got rights and entiltenments'
whats wrong with that ?
can you please explain a bit more what you say about 'these days'
-
-
Of course people have rights and entitlements: the question I posed was, is it ever possible that some staff (or criminals, or staff suspected of close to criminal neglgence) can have too many rights (not that they should not have rights). Can you see the distinction?
(The failings of the authorities have been so egregious that I am surprised criminal charges have not been brought against more than only the immediate perpetrators in the Baby Peter Connelly case. At an absolute minimum, we need a public enquiry)
The reason I emphasised "too many", was because I think we can take it as read that in order to live in a modern civilised society, the law must convey at least some rights. The question about "too many" is an attempt to get at the balance between rights and responsibilities.
Before the head of Childrens Services was sacked, an unnamed council official (possibly in the legal department) was quoted as saying that it would be difficult and expensive to get rid of her (that was before the Secretary of State – Ed Balls – directed a reluctant LBH to sack her).
One wonders just how many other staff the Haringey might wish to sack, but do not do so because of the difficulty and expense.
.
-
-
Remind me never to work for you.
-
-
Clive, I'm suggesting no more (nor less) than a basic legal framework. And that, however serious someone's alleged crimes, they are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. And for the outcome of that hearing to be based on evidence - not predetermined by fiat from high-ups.
This in turn rests on a basic ethical framework, sometimes called the 'Golden Rule'. Which I think, appears in most cultures and faiths. It's: "Do unto others . . .
Often refined and reformulated - e.g. Rawls' Theory of Justice'.
I was discussing this with an Indian friend who emailed me a Hindi version:
Jaisa apane bare men chahte ho vaisa hi dusaron ke saath (vyavhar) karo.
(Do to others what you expect for yourself.)
-
-
Well the public outcry over the case was sated by some nasty and perhaps illegal treatment of council employees by politicians and the press. We deserve the bill.
I don't think the natural father should get a penny though. The press tastelessly documented mum's negligent parenting (up all night on the Internets, asleep all day) but nothing was said about the baby's father.
-
-
up all night on the INTERNETS John ?
Bob are you simply being 'Mr controversial' ?
-
-
What I'm really looking forward to is paying tax on my pension in aeternum to provide Connelly, Barker and Owen with comfortably safe prison accommodation followed by change of identity and unending provision of safe houses (well, safer than they provided Baby Peter with). On the other hand, why not extradite this lot to the Libyan desert and let Muammar Qadhafi's Lockerbie lad die quietly in Scotland?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
