yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 4, 2021 18:54:29 GMT
It's not actually, there is no admission of guilt or liability by the government who were happy to defend the case,having been involved in loads of these it used to pee me off when the Bank would pay out rather than defend as it was cheaper even though they were allmost certain to win the case. Fair enough, still begs the question why the tax payer should pay out for her bullying? An cabinet office inquiry found her guilty , the inquiry concluded she broke the ministerial code of conduct but Johnson chose to ignore it. That’s why they paid out because they knew they would lose the case , despite what others are claiming. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 18:58:46 GMT
Fair enough, still begs the question why the tax payer should pay out for her bullying? An cabinet office inquiry found her guilty , the inquiry concluded she broke the ministerial code of conduct but Johnson chose to ignore it. That’s why they paid out because they knew they would lose the case , despite what others are claiming. We have no idea whether they would have lost the case or not,we have not been privy to the evidence and the bar at a tribunal is much higher to prove guilt than any internal code. Tribunals are notoriously difficult arenas to make a judgement of guilt in all aspects of employment law. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 4, 2021 19:03:21 GMT
An cabinet office inquiry found her guilty , the inquiry concluded she broke the ministerial code of conduct but Johnson chose to ignore it. That’s why they paid out because they knew they would lose the case , despite what others are claiming. We have no idea whether they would have lost the case or not,we have not been privy to the evidence and the bar at a tribunal is much higher to prove guilt than any internal code. Tribunals are notoriously difficult arenas to make a judgement of guilt in all aspects of employment law. We do by the size of the payout. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 19:10:41 GMT
We have no idea whether they would have lost the case or not,we have not been privy to the evidence and the bar at a tribunal is much higher to prove guilt than any internal code. Tribunals are notoriously difficult arenas to make a judgement of guilt in all aspects of employment law. We do by the size of the payout. Nope did you read my previous post to Gassy,in relation to a case of this nature,the costs involved the payout is I'm afraid not as big as you may think. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 4, 2021 19:24:59 GMT
We do by the size of the payout. Nope did you read my previous post to Gassy,in relation to a case of this nature,the costs involved the payout is I'm afraid not as big as you may think. Yes I did , but I’ve also read quite a lot by people who know their stuff on this and value their opinions. They seem pretty certain the government would of lost the case , the payout was high in this case because of that. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 4, 2021 19:33:06 GMT
Nope did you read my previous post to Gassy,in relation to a case of this nature,the costs involved the payout is I'm afraid not as big as you may think. Yes I did , but I’ve also read quite a lot by people who know their stuff on this and value their opinions. They seem pretty certain the government would of lost the case , the payout was high in this case because of that. How would they know that when no one has seen the evidence? |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 4, 2021 20:28:12 GMT
Yes I did , but I’ve also read quite a lot by people who know their stuff on this and value their opinions. They seem pretty certain the government would of lost the case , the payout was high in this case because of that. How would they know that when no one has seen the evidence? She’s already been found guilty by a cabinet office inquiry...... the bloke that led it resigned in protest because his findings weren’t acted on. So the evidence he saw and others led them to find d her guilty. You’d think that if she was found guilty then there’s more than a fair chance she would be found guilty again ..... or maybe not in your opinion. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, are you insinuating she’s not guilty or the gov have coughed up 400k just because they want the easy life and can’t be arsed to defend the case ? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 4, 2021 20:33:27 GMT
An cabinet office inquiry found her guilty , the inquiry concluded she broke the ministerial code of conduct but Johnson chose to ignore it. That’s why they paid out because they knew they would lose the case , despite what others are claiming. We have no idea whether they would have lost the case or not,we have not been privy to the evidence and the bar at a tribunal is much higher to prove guilt than any internal code. Tribunals are notoriously difficult arenas to make a judgement of guilt in all aspects of employment law. If that’s the case, why pay out? This is a woman who’s been accused of bullying many many times where someone tried to kill themselves. This isn’t the first time she’s paid out for bullying either. She was found guilty, apologised and considering the bar at tribunal is much higher, they still paid him out £340,000 plus legal fees. It would have been a home run, if they were that confident, surely? I just find it interesting that your first response to the case wasn’t about whether she was guilty or not, or whether it’s the right call - but instead to accuse him of wanting the cash. Stooping a tad low there? |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 4, 2021 23:14:06 GMT
We have no idea whether they would have lost the case or not,we have not been privy to the evidence and the bar at a tribunal is much higher to prove guilt than any internal code. Tribunals are notoriously difficult arenas to make a judgement of guilt in all aspects of employment law. If that’s the case, why pay out? This is a woman who’s been accused of bullying many many times where someone tried to kill themselves. This isn’t the first time she’s paid out for bullying either. She was found guilty, apologised and considering the bar at tribunal is much higher, they still paid him out £340,000 plus legal fees. It would have been a home run, if they were that confident, surely? I just find it interesting that your first response to the case wasn’t about whether she was guilty or not, or whether it’s the right call - but instead to accuse him of wanting the cash. Stooping a tad low there? Do they not have to pay the others sides costs as well ? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 5, 2021 7:47:23 GMT
How would they know that when no one has seen the evidence? She’s already been found guilty by a cabinet office inquiry...... the bloke that led it resigned in protest because his findings weren’t acted on. So the evidence he saw and others led them to find d her guilty. You’d think that if she was found guilty then there’s more than a fair chance she would be found guilty again ..... or maybe not in your opinion. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, are you insinuating she’s not guilty or the gov have coughed up 400k just because they want the easy life and can’t be arsed to defend the case ? I am not saying she is not guilty,I am trying to explain that you have made a judgement based on breach of an internal code when the evidential bar is much higher in a tribunal You cannot say she is guilty as case has never been to the tribunal and the evidenced set out,if we work on your principle there would be no point in having a justice system . Any way settlement was 340 not 400 and as I said before in the context of his seniority that is not exceptional. My expectations is that everyone no matter who has a trial before anyone can pronounce guilt or innocence or we may as well be in Hitlers Germany. Hope that's clear. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 5, 2021 7:50:01 GMT
We have no idea whether they would have lost the case or not,we have not been privy to the evidence and the bar at a tribunal is much higher to prove guilt than any internal code. Tribunals are notoriously difficult arenas to make a judgement of guilt in all aspects of employment law. If that’s the case, why pay out? This is a woman who’s been accused of bullying many many times where someone tried to kill themselves. This isn’t the first time she’s paid out for bullying either. She was found guilty, apologised and considering the bar at tribunal is much higher, they still paid him out £340,000 plus legal fees. It would have been a home run, if they were that confident, surely? I just find it interesting that your first response to the case wasn’t about whether she was guilty or not, or whether it’s the right call - but instead to accuse him of wanting the cash. Stooping a tad low there? See my response to Yatton,re your last sentence, you are right getting a bit old and cynical😆 Re is she guilty she may well be ,the fact is we will never know,I have sat through many tribunals where the evidence looked so strong for a particular outcome then it went the other so I never prejudge,tribunal benches consist mainly of lay people and sometimes their views /interpretation of evidence is very different to a trained judge/lawyer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2021 10:28:16 GMT
Coincidence? Happens regardless of who is in government of course, but hardly subtle. Of 45 towns (and 56 constituencies) involved: "Forty-seven are Conservative constituencies - including 14 gained from Labour at the 2019 election plus quite a few more recent Conservative gains, while nine are Labour constituencies. Fifty-three of the constituencies voted "leave" at the EU referendum. Three voted "remain". In a way that's not very surprising - Labour seats and "remain" areas are concentrated in cities - but it's still pretty striking." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281774Standard politics 101 really. If only that Keir fella was in a position of some relative power. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 5, 2021 11:04:02 GMT
She’s already been found guilty by a cabinet office inquiry...... the bloke that led it resigned in protest because his findings weren’t acted on. So the evidence he saw and others led them to find d her guilty. You’d think that if she was found guilty then there’s more than a fair chance she would be found guilty again ..... or maybe not in your opinion. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, are you insinuating she’s not guilty or the gov have coughed up 400k just because they want the easy life and can’t be arsed to defend the case ? I am not saying she is not guilty,I am trying to explain that you have made a judgement based on breach of an internal code when the evidential bar is much higher in a tribunal You cannot say she is guilty as case has never been to the tribunal and the evidenced set out,if we work on your principle there would be no point in having a justice system . Any way settlement was 340 not 400 and as I said before in the context of his seniority that is not exceptional. My expectations is that everyone no matter who has a trial before anyone can pronounce guilt or innocence or we may as well be in Hitlers Germany. Hope that's clear. You have to add the costs of both sides, so yes it probably is over 400k The gov says they were going to fight the case but caved in and paid out a shed load of money because they knew they’d lose the case.... otherwise they’d of fought it wouldn’t they ? ! |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 5, 2021 11:39:07 GMT
I am not saying she is not guilty,I am trying to explain that you have made a judgement based on breach of an internal code when the evidential bar is much higher in a tribunal You cannot say she is guilty as case has never been to the tribunal and the evidenced set out,if we work on your principle there would be no point in having a justice system . Any way settlement was 340 not 400 and as I said before in the context of his seniority that is not exceptional. My expectations is that everyone no matter who has a trial before anyone can pronounce guilt or innocence or we may as well be in Hitlers Germany. Hope that's clear. You have to add the costs of both sides, so yes it probably is over 400k The gov says they were going to fight the case but caved in and paid out a shed load of money because they knew they’d lose the case.... otherwise they’d of fought it wouldn’t they ? ! Nope,the majority of cases of this nature are settled out of court it's part of the process,offers and counter offers are made and as in this case there is a negotiated settlement. It used to annoy me no end particularly when we had a strong case however,it was deemed to be more cost effective to chuck money at it to make it go away to save costs,time and the risk of precedents. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 5, 2021 11:49:42 GMT
You have to add the costs of both sides, so yes it probably is over 400k The gov says they were going to fight the case but caved in and paid out a shed load of money because they knew they’d lose the case.... otherwise they’d of fought it wouldn’t they ? ! Nope,the majority of cases of this nature are settled out of court it's part of the process,offers and counter offers are made and as in this case there is a negotiated settlement. It used to annoy me no end particularly when we had a strong case however,it was deemed to be more cost effective to chuck money at it to make it go away to save costs,time and the risk of precedents. We’re not going to agree here ! Have a good day 😃 |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 5, 2021 11:51:41 GMT
Nope,the majority of cases of this nature are settled out of court it's part of the process,offers and counter offers are made and as in this case there is a negotiated settlement. It used to annoy me no end particularly when we had a strong case however,it was deemed to be more cost effective to chuck money at it to make it go away to save costs,time and the risk of precedents. We’re not going to agree here ! Have a good day 😃 Your right,all part of good debate ,take care😊😊 |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 5, 2021 12:07:35 GMT
We’re not going to agree here ! Have a good day 😃 Your right,all part of good debate ,take care😊😊 It’s you’re not your .... 1-0 to me and I win😀 |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 5, 2021 12:14:30 GMT
Your right,all part of good debate ,take care😊😊 It’s you’re not your .... 1-0 to me and I win😀 Haha touchez😆😆 Let's hope we win 1 nil tomorrow! ! |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 5, 2021 13:11:14 GMT
Don't want to cause a thread drift on the Coronavirus thread, so posting this here. Looks like strike action is in the offing. Although I'm not usually in favour of industrial action as it tends to get hijacked for political reasons, can't see the Government getting much public support if push comes to shove. "The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) is to set up a £35 million industrial action fund in response to the government's recommendation of a 1% pay rise for NHS workers. RCN chief executive and general secretary Dame Donna Kinnair condemned health minster Nadine Dorries' claim that 1% was "the most" the government could afford, calling it "pitiful and bitterly disappointing". The nursing union has now said it has set up a fund that can be used to provide compensation for loss of earnings and campaigning should members resort to strike action." news.sky.com/story/nursing-union-sets-up-35m-strike-fund-after-news-of-1-nhs-pay-rise-12236607 |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 5, 2021 14:21:27 GMT
Don't want to cause a thread drift on the Coronavirus thread, so posting this here. Looks like strike action is in the offing. Although I'm not usually in favour of industrial action as it tends to get hijacked for political reasons, can't see the Government getting much public support if push comes to shove. "The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) is to set up a £35 million industrial action fund in response to the government's recommendation of a 1% pay rise for NHS workers. RCN chief executive and general secretary Dame Donna Kinnair condemned health minster Nadine Dorries' claim that 1% was "the most" the government could afford, calling it "pitiful and bitterly disappointing". The nursing union has now said it has set up a fund that can be used to provide compensation for loss of earnings and campaigning should members resort to strike action." news.sky.com/story/nursing-union-sets-up-35m-strike-fund-after-news-of-1-nhs-pay-rise-12236607I mean how crass from the government,classic own goal and showing no political nous at all,there will be a huge outcry and low and behold money will be found. Not sure about GPs though thought they were relatively well paid. |
|
