Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 17:22:27 GMT
Things will survive, the staff will get paid and do the work where necessary, what happens if a senior doctor is suspended, another one covers, so a neighbouring MP could.again if the LD's suspended him then he should be suspended from all posts. Even by your standards Ian that is a ridiculous suggestion. not it is not, why do you protect an MP so much ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 17:23:40 GMT
I discussed this with a relation who is an academic. They said that even if this was just going out after work the Uni would throw the book. I personally think that is silly. yes they would, a senior person at the Uni makes an approach to a female junior member of staff then that would be treated seriously and he would be suspended ASAP and especially if multiple reports. Just like any job
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 27, 2014 17:34:37 GMT
I discussed this with a relation who is an academic. They said that even if this was just going out after work the Uni would throw the book. I personally think that is silly. yes they would, a senior person at the Uni makes an approach to a female junior member of staff then that would be treated seriously and he would be suspended ASAP and especially if multiple reports. Just like any job That is absolute codswallop . The country has hundreds of thousands of people who met their wives or at some stage dated people they met at work . That is an awful lot of employees you would have suspended .
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jan 27, 2014 17:41:28 GMT
But that is the level we are at. Even people on the same rank it counts as harassment. The younger generation will not breed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 18:05:10 GMT
The problem with the Mike Hancock situation is not that he was the victim of ludicrous accusations (as mentioned above by MarkS) in the past, but that he has been shown to be behaving in a way likely to a) bring parliament, the local authority and his party into disrepute, and b) could be seen as being a misuse of a position of authority against a vulnerable person. The truth is that a) is not something that the police would be involved in and b) has level of proof for criminal prosecution different from a level for civil prosecution. It is wrong to claim that only police action would/should lead to suspension by a party. The QC's report commissioned by Portsmouth seems to show that both a) and b) appear to have occurred, hence the suspension (somewhat delayed) by the Liberal Democrat Party. I am surprised by Nick Clegg's claim not to have been aware of the accusations until recently, even given the fact that he does not deal with day to day issues, this seems incredible as it has been a matter of public discussion in Westminster and beyond for some time. I must admit to being shocked that he is still alloewd to keep his Cabinet post on the council, surely he shoul be invited to step aside, at least while the matter is dealt with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 18:14:25 GMT
The last 2 comments are ludicrous , a commercial organisation would be liable to be sued for millions if it interfered in people's private lives and sacked them when no criminal offenses had been committed . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545824/Anton-Casey-British-banker-living-Singapore-provoked-fury-ridiculing-poor-people-parted-ways-company-gone-Australia.htmlThe relevant section being: However, in a message posted on Facebook, Crossinvest Asia, a wealth management company, said: ‘The online comments made by Mr Casey do not represent the culture that we have built over many years. 'Accordingly, Crossinvest Asia and Mr Casey have parted ways with immediate effect.’ Some UK legal advice - " Bringing the employer into disrepute is taken to mean the situation whereby conduct by an employee outside of the workplace becomes apparent and due to their employment within a particular job, that conduct becomes associated with that employer." with an interestingly relevant caveat - " The most likely kind of conduct which has been deemed as bringing the company into disrepute is sexual conduct." One example " a primary school teacher who posed for photographs which were featured on a website for glamour models ...... the employee’s conduct was held to have brought her employer into disrepute considering her role within the school. The teacher was subject to disciplinary proceedings but was not fired. However, it was stated that she would have been fired if the website was pornographic." Sorry you think that behavior outside of work is not relevant when you are 'in' work. You are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 27, 2014 18:25:31 GMT
The last 2 comments are ludicrous , a commercial organisation would be liable to be sued for millions if it interfered in people's private lives and sacked them when no criminal offenses had been committed . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545824/Anton-Casey-British-banker-living-Singapore-provoked-fury-ridiculing-poor-people-parted-ways-company-gone-Australia.htmlThe relevant section being: However, in a message posted on Facebook, Crossinvest Asia, a wealth management company, said: ‘The online comments made by Mr Casey do not represent the culture that we have built over many years. 'Accordingly, Crossinvest Asia and Mr Casey have parted ways with immediate effect.’ Some UK legal advice - " Bringing the employer into disrepute is taken to mean the situation whereby conduct by an employee outside of the workplace becomes apparent and due to their employment within a particular job, that conduct becomes associated with that employer." with an interestingly relevant caveat - " The most likely kind of conduct which has been deemed as bringing the company into disrepute is sexual conduct." One example " a primary school teacher who posed for photographs which were featured on a website for glamour models ...... the employee’s conduct was held to have brought her employer into disrepute considering her role within the school. The teacher was subject to disciplinary proceedings but was not fired. However, it was stated that she would have been fired if the website was pornographic." Sorry you think that behavior outside of work is not relevant when you are 'in' work. You are wrong. Re Crossinvest Asia , they are not and have never been a UK company .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 18:29:34 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545824/Anton-Casey-British-banker-living-Singapore-provoked-fury-ridiculing-poor-people-parted-ways-company-gone-Australia.htmlThe relevant section being: However, in a message posted on Facebook, Crossinvest Asia, a wealth management company, said: ‘The online comments made by Mr Casey do not represent the culture that we have built over many years. 'Accordingly, Crossinvest Asia and Mr Casey have parted ways with immediate effect.’ Some UK legal advice - " Bringing the employer into disrepute is taken to mean the situation whereby conduct by an employee outside of the workplace becomes apparent and due to their employment within a particular job, that conduct becomes associated with that employer." with an interestingly relevant caveat - " The most likely kind of conduct which has been deemed as bringing the company into disrepute is sexual conduct." One example " a primary school teacher who posed for photographs which were featured on a website for glamour models ...... the employee’s conduct was held to have brought her employer into disrepute considering her role within the school. The teacher was subject to disciplinary proceedings but was not fired. However, it was stated that she would have been fired if the website was pornographic." Sorry you think that behavior outside of work is not relevant when you are 'in' work. You are wrong. Re Crossinvest Asia , they are not and have never been a UK company . Which is why I also quoted the UK advice. Also have you heard that we are living in a global market, where international companies operate worldwide..... however feel free to keep digging.
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 27, 2014 18:35:07 GMT
The problem with the Mike Hancock situation is not that he was the victim of ludicrous accusations (as mentioned above by MarkS) in the past, but that he has been shown to be behaving in a way likely to a) bring parliament, the local authority and his party into disrepute, and b) could be seen as being a misuse of a position of authority against a vulnerable person. The truth is that a) is not something that the police would be involved in and b) has level of proof for criminal prosecution different from a level for civil prosecution. It is wrong to claim that only police action would/should lead to suspension by a party. The QC's report commissioned by Portsmouth seems to show that both a) and b) appear to have occurred, hence the suspension (somewhat delayed) by the Liberal Democrat Party. I am surprised by Nick Clegg's claim not to have been aware of the accusations until recently, even given the fact that he does not deal with day to day issues, this seems incredible as it has been a matter of public discussion in Westminster and beyond for some time. I must admit to being shocked that he is still alloewd to keep his Cabinet post on the council, surely he shoul be invited to step aside, at least while the matter is dealt with. With respect , Mike Hancock has not been proved or even to have been shown to have behaved in a way to bring , parliament , the local authority and the Lib Dems into disrepute . There are many people who have judged him to have done so without knowing the full details and all the background behind the story . The police have looked at all the evidence and ( possibly after consulting with the CPS ) brought no prosecution . Now that may be because they did not consider that the level of proof was there for a criminal prosecution , but it may also because they had decided that it was a load of tosh . We do not know but yourself and others simply want to believe him guilty of something and proof and evidence do not come into your considerations of whether he is .
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 27, 2014 18:44:09 GMT
Re Crossinvest Asia , they are not and have never been a UK company . Which is why I also quoted the UK advice. Also have you heard that we are living in a global market, where international companies operate worldwide..... however feel free to keep digging. Yes , clearly there are cases where conduct nearly always criminal ( see the full CPS guidelines ) would lead to charges of malfeasance . Any company can try and impose its own standards on its employees but where those standards exceed those of UK law then are laying themselves open to a potential law suit if they do so .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 19:04:07 GMT
Which is why I also quoted the UK advice. Also have you heard that we are living in a global market, where international companies operate worldwide..... however feel free to keep digging. Yes , clearly there are cases where conduct nearly always criminal ( see the full CPS guidelines ) would lead to charges of malfeasance . Any company can try and impose its own standards on its employees but where those standards exceed those of UK law then are laying themselves open to a potential law suit if they do so . The example of the school teacher is clearly one where there was no criminal conduct but there were disciplinary sanctions. Part of the disciplinary statement was that there could have been dismissal, but again not for any illegal activity, which is one of reasons for 'bringing into disrepute'.
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 27, 2014 20:48:46 GMT
Yes , clearly there are cases where conduct nearly always criminal ( see the full CPS guidelines ) would lead to charges of malfeasance . Any company can try and impose its own standards on its employees but where those standards exceed those of UK law then are laying themselves open to a potential law suit if they do so . The example of the school teacher is clearly one where there was no criminal conduct but there were disciplinary sanctions. Part of the disciplinary statement was that there could have been dismissal, but again not for any illegal activity, which is one of reasons for 'bringing into disrepute'. The example you quote is in the USA . They have a different legal system as I am sure you know .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 22:20:51 GMT
The problem with the Mike Hancock situation is not that he was the victim of ludicrous accusations (as mentioned above by MarkS) in the past, but that he has been shown to be behaving in a way likely to a) bring parliament, the local authority and his party into disrepute, and b) could be seen as being a misuse of a position of authority against a vulnerable person. The truth is that a) is not something that the police would be involved in and b) has level of proof for criminal prosecution different from a level for civil prosecution. It is wrong to claim that only police action would/should lead to suspension by a party. The QC's report commissioned by Portsmouth seems to show that both a) and b) appear to have occurred, hence the suspension (somewhat delayed) by the Liberal Democrat Party. I am surprised by Nick Clegg's claim not to have been aware of the accusations until recently, even given the fact that he does not deal with day to day issues, this seems incredible as it has been a matter of public discussion in Westminster and beyond for some time. I must admit to being shocked that he is still alloewd to keep his Cabinet post on the council, surely he shoul be invited to step aside, at least while the matter is dealt with. With respect , Mike Hancock has not been proved or even to have been shown to have behaved in a way to bring , parliament , the local authority and the Lib Dems into disrepute . There are many people who have judged him to have done so without knowing the full details and all the background behind the story . The police have looked at all the evidence and ( possibly after consulting with the CPS ) brought no prosecution . Now that may be because they did not consider that the level of proof was there for a criminal prosecution , but it may also because they had decided that it was a load of tosh . We do not know but yourself and others simply want to believe him guilty of something and proof and evidence do not come into your considerations of whether he is . You do me a disservice Mark, I would never condemn without evidence. The point is that he sent inappropriately suggestive emails to a presenting mentally ill woman - that is not only uncontested, but admitted. It is this issue that the QC raised and considered a matter of concern. To me, that is enough for him to bring disrepute on himself and his position.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 27, 2014 22:27:59 GMT
Things will survive, the staff will get paid and do the work where necessary, what happens if a senior doctor is suspended, another one covers, so a neighbouring MP could.again if the LD's suspended him then he should be suspended from all posts. Even by your standards Ian that is a ridiculous suggestion. Neighbouring MPs cover when there is a vacancy or the MP is unable to carry out their duties for some other reason. There is the difficulty that the convention calls for a neighbouring MP of the same party, but for most casework that shouldn't be a deal-breaker and even if it was then there's Lib Dem MP up the road in Eastleigh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 22:36:21 GMT
It is being reported that he has been deselected and that the local party is seeking a new PPS.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 27, 2014 22:45:51 GMT
Well - up to a point. As Hancock does not have the Liberal Democrat whip, he is ineligible for selection as a candidate. The local party could choose to wait to see if he's cleared, on the assumption that he would once again be granted the whip, and then go through reselection. But instead they've gone for a selection now, when they know Hancock is not eligible to be selected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 23:11:21 GMT
Well - up to a point. As Hancock does not have the Liberal Democrat whip, he is ineligible for selection as a candidate. The local party could choose to wait to see if he's cleared, on the assumption that he would once again be granted the whip, and then go through reselection. But instead they've gone for a selection now, when they know Hancock is not eligible to be selected. It amounts to the same thing. It makes you wonder if there is a difference of opinion between the councillors and local constituency party members? Or, maybe they are trying to play two sides at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 9:05:46 GMT
It is strange how Hancock appears to have a grip on the councillors like that but reading other reports it is getting dirty there as well. Hancock will never go quietly but the LD's should have suspended the whip ages ago.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jan 28, 2014 15:23:17 GMT
Well - up to a point. As Hancock does not have the Liberal Democrat whip, he is ineligible for selection as a candidate. I don't think it's because of the whip (which he hasn't had for ages). I think it's because his membership of the party is suspended, he is ineligible to stand for re-selection.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jan 28, 2014 15:23:47 GMT
It is strange how Hancock appears to have a grip on the councillors like that but reading other reports it is getting dirty there as well. Hancock will never go quietly but the LD's should have suspended the whip ages ago. From the publicly available reports of the meeting the council group were split almost 50-50. Edit: he withdrew from the Lib Dem parliamentary party in June.
|
|