Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That, tictax, is the joy & delight of being a Wills and Probate lawyer. You can charge your client a nice juicy fee for preparing their Will, in the certain knowledge that they can never complain or sue you if your work later (after their demise) turns out to be defective.
@susieq wrote:
@sarah_1 wrote:
@minim wrote:
So, having sold off our gold reserves for a fraction of their worth, Gordon Brown is set to sell off our libraries, our railways, our power supplies and our betting shops.
I think we should perhaps join him, and have garage sales, and car boot sales, and do sponsored cake bakes in order to help bring down our countries collosal debts.
Failing that… lets just blow up parliament.
Now there’s a thought. The last bloke that tried that fell, broke his neck & died trying to escape being hung drawn & quartered for treason in 1606. :lol:
Should have let a woman do it :lol: :lol:
Good God no !!! She’d have ditherd around indecisively, wondering if the gunpowder was placed ‘just right’ and did the barrels match the wallpaper etc.
She’d have been caught by the ‘police’ as she stayed to do her hair and make-up in anticipation of looking her best on the ‘big day’.
Anyway, she’d have forgotten the matches.
Yes will, 33 is far too young an age at which to die. However, I think I’ll save my ‘grief’ for all those youngsters who die through no direct fault of their own – i.e. from some form of terminal illness or mown down by a drunken driver etc etc.
Sad though it may be, this guy seems to have brought about his own demise in that (allegedly) he binged on booze and then later choked to death on his own vomit. Totally avoidable.
Incidentally, it appears that the ‘Bulgarian’ bloke that accompanied Stephen Gateley and his husband (Andy Cowles) back home, after their big night out in a Majorcan gay club, was none other than Giorgi Dochev.
Apparently, Giorgi and Andy went to bed together, leaving Stephen alone in the sittingroom (where he died), and it was Georgi who got up first and discovered Stephen’s body.
Maybe if the ‘husband’ hadn’t got carried away in the throes of what passes for passion, Stephen might not have died alone on the sitting room floor. Who knows?
I read The Sun this evening (as I waited for my Chinese takeaway) and saw that, in their usual caring and sensitive way, they had a huge two page spread on the unfortunate death of this young man.
According to The Sun, he had just spent 8 hours downing industrial quantities of booze in a gay night club (“a drink fuelled orgy”) before going home with his husband and a Bulgarian man – presumably for what passes for a nightcap in the circles that he frequents.
It was reported that his husband, overcome with grief, spent several minutes trying to give him mouth to mouth resucitation and cardiac compression to re-start his heart.
In the next paragraph, The Sun said that investigators found him, when they arrived, in a kneeling position with his face buried in a pillow having apparently choked on his own vomit.
Now call me cynical, but how on earth do you give somebody CPR in THAT position.
Of course The Sun wouldn’t make stuff up just to sensationalise matters ………. would they?????
I have always been a fan of ‘screaming’ Lord Sutch and given the opportunity would have voted for him every time.
I once even considered standing as a candidate for the Monster Raving loony party – but didn’t fancy losing my deposit.
Your comment about “moving on” is exactly right pol and Sharon S should really do so.
However, this is exactly what persuaded me to start this thread. You see she isn’t in that fortunate position where “moving on” is a realistic option.
She is in her mid 50’s and is therefore at the far end of her (no doubt) long and successful career. She was, as Director of Education & Children’s Services, a very highly paid local Authority officer (in excess of £120,000 per annum apparently) plus a generous pension arrangement and so on. She could reasonably have expected to work a very few more years and then retire with honour & dignity on her LA pension.
What is her position now???
She has been publicly named and shamed by a Government minister (Ed Ball no less).She has been summarily dismissed from her job without any form of compensation (for loss of office etc) after a brief appeal ‘hearing’ the outcome of which was never in doubt. She didn’t even get payment in lieu of notice. Simply booted out of the door with nothing at all.
Her LA pension is now down the drain….. so it’s State pension for her in 5 years’ time and that’s it.
She has no income at all … she will have been disqualified from JobSeeker’s Allowance under the rules…. and at best she might get some sort of Benefit from her Local Authority. (Ironic if it turns out to be L B Haringey eh?).
She is totally and utterly unemployable in the marketplace where she previously worked – what local authority would give her a job?
She has been hounded and humiliated by the tabloid media, by the TV media, in fact by ALL the media. Her name has been dragged through the mud in public. What employer would take her on in even the most junior clerical role?
“Move on”??? She hasn’t got a hope in hell of moving on.
On that basis we should have the Monster Raving Loony party as our next government.
Exhume ‘screaming Lord Sutch’ I say and let him run the country.
I see your point Minim … but to take your point a wee bit further.
In Haringey (as with most other Local Authorities) there is a children’s oversight & scrutiny committee. Also the ‘officers’ of the LA report to a ‘chief executive’ operationally and to an elected councillor politically.
The Councillor responsible for ‘children & young people’ is Councillor Reith
(Deputy Leader) – not a lot seems to have stuck to this person.The Chief Executive (to whom Sharon Shoesmith had a direct reporting line) is Dr. Ita O’Donovan – currently still in post.
These and others in the management structure of Haringey should surely also take their share of responsibility – but it seems that only Sharon Shooesmith was made the scapegoat for all the bad things that have happened to children in Haringey.
To an extent I agree with you pol … and there again I don’t.
What you have stated is in essence the doctrine of vicarious liability (i.e. being responsible for the ‘sins’ of others for whom you are ultimately responsible).
To the extent that Sharon Shoesmith was responsible overall for the entire children’s services department, as its director, then it follows that she must be vicariously liable for its faults.
However, it must also be taken into account that the children’s services department has (and still has) several deputy directors responsible for the separate functions of the directorate – and they in turn each have a whole management structure beneath them.
As far as I am aware, none of these people was disciplined …. much less summarily and very publicly dismissed without even the most basic form of compensation – i.e. salary in lieu of notice etc .
Maybe they should have been – to be fair to everybody – but they wern’t. Only Sharon (in her mid 50’s) was both publicly humiliated and summarily dismissed after the briefest of Kangaroo court hearings possible.
I have to accept that her infamous appearance on the TV, when the whole issue came to public light, was in retrospect a serious blunder – but one that should have had these consequences??? …… i think not.
You have to remember that her appearance on TV etc was ‘authorised’ and it is said encouraged by the leaders of Haringey council. Indeed, she has said in Court that afterwards she was warmly congratulated by these same leaders, for defending the Council in general and her department in particular.
She states that she was even invited out for a ‘celebratory’ dinner.
It was only after Ed Balls got involved and started to publicly condemn her, that her former colleagues and bosses hung her out to dry.
Without doubt she was ‘scapegoated’ to protect others and has been now been forced to pay an enormous penalty.
