monkeytassle
Striker
She should also never, ever hold a position of responsibility.This. It's a disgrace though
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She should also never, ever hold a position of responsibility.This. It's a disgrace though
You may technically be right, I'm not aware of any such distinction if there is one. But the Guardian ("A financial settlement between Haringey and Shoesmith was agreed last October"), BBC quoting Haringey Council ("The terms of the settlement are confidential...") and every other source I can find are all going with "settlement" so that'll do for me.
You sound like a settlement lawyer.It's incredibly simple - you either have a "settlement" (out of court) or you are "awarded" damages/compensation (in court).
You can't have both, of course, because if you accept a settlement there is no case for the Respondent to answer in court.
You may technically be right, I'm not aware of any such distinction if there is one. But the Guardian ("A financial settlement between Haringey and Shoesmith was agreed last October"), BBC quoting Haringey Council ("The terms of the settlement are confidential...") and every other source I can find are all going with "settlement" so that'll do for me.
They've been broken down only according to where they appeared in Haringey's financial accounts, I'm guessing.[/QUOTE]
You may technically be right, I'm not aware of any such distinction if there is one. But the Guardian ("A financial settlement between Haringey and Shoesmith was agreed last October"), BBC quoting Haringey Council ("The terms of the settlement are confidential...") and every other source I can find are all going with "settlement" so that'll do for me.
You sound like a settlement lawyer.
She should also never, ever hold a position of responsibility.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723404Ms Shoesmith said: "A final farewell to Haringey as my case concludes. I wish those of you in children's services, especially in Haringey, success, strength and courage in all that you do.
"Children have been my life's work and I hope to continue in some capacity soon now that my PhD is almost complete."
She should also never, ever hold a position of responsibility.
You can easily work this out yourself if you know her age, years of service and weekly pay. It's a fairly straightforward calculation!
See this is why we need a department which is accountable for errors in purchasing or recruitment. So we can (by the book ) fire the kernt who hires her. I hope she sleeps well.Or with children although going by her statement last year, I fear she wants to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723404
Let's not pick parties here mate. Just say Westminster.If she'd had any sense she'd have joined the labour party first then her turning a blind eye to child abuse would have qualified her for a cabinet post
Nailed it.If this was the case then nobody would ever settle a case prior to a tribunal once unfair dismissal had been established as everyone would already know exactly what the payout would be. It also leaves us with the question as to why almost everyone who passed any comment on the case seemed to have been confidently predicting that a tribunal would award a figure far lower than she was actually paid.
It seems that, in a nutshell, Shoesmith went in with her legal team demanding £a for loss of pay, £b for compensation and £c for pension losses and the council, instead of telling her to fuck off because she was an incompetent shitehawk and hoping a tribunal would do the right thing (see Polkey reductions above), pissed their pants and offered her £x, £y and £z. A figure was then agreed somewhere in the middle.
It's incredibly simple - you either have a "settlement" (out of court) or you are "awarded" damages/compensation (in court).
You can't have both, of course, because if you accept a settlement there is no case for the Respondent to answer in court.
Ms Shoesmith was awarded £377,266 for salary, fees and allowance, £217,266 in compensation for loss of office, and £84,819 for employer pension contributions..
If this was the case then nobody would ever settle a case prior to a tribunal once unfair dismissal had been established as everyone would already know exactly what the payout would be. It also leaves us with the question as to why almost everyone who passed any comment on the case seemed to have been confidently predicting that a tribunal would award a figure far lower than she was actually paid.
Let's not pick parties here mate. Just say Westminster.
Because the Claimant can only argue their case and they do not know if the ET will agree with their version of the facts, it's the balance of probability. Therefore, given the months/years of stress/cost/work involved in bringing a claim for both sides, coupled with the uncertainty and in fact full appreciation that you might come way without a penny and egg on your face or worse, liability for the Respondent's costs, it is often less painful to accept a figure somewhere in between what you might get if you won all your heads of claim and £0.00. And in fact the ET can decide to reduce your eventual ET award if you did not accept a decent settlement offer but instead chose to put the Respondent to the full expense of defending the case.
Swings and Roundabouts.
Nailed it.
Wholly agree. In fact it's a slap in the face for those who do the job for maybe 3-4% of that figure. At best.
Interesting question. The arbitration panel at a tribunal, who would be on that?
Because the Claimant can only argue their case and they do not know if the ET will agree with their version of the facts, it's the balance of probability. Therefore, given the months/years of stress/cost/work involved in bringing a claim for both sides, coupled with the uncertainty and in fact full appreciation that you might come way without a penny and egg on your face or worse, liability for the Respondent's costs, it is often less painful to accept a figure somewhere in between what you might get if you won all your heads of claim and £0.00. And in fact the ET can decide to reduce your eventual ET award if you did not accept a decent settlement offer but instead chose to put the Respondent to the full expense of defending the case.
Swings and Roundabouts.
No, in 39 I was talking about the calculation that exists for calculating "awards" not settlement. I don't know how many times I have to keep typing this.Or, more briefly, the exact opposite of what you said in post 39.
Or even better try and get them to offer a Compromise Agreement. Saves a shit load of hassles.
Stop being so precious. I'm disagreeing with what you say, not you.The first half of his post was not nailed at all. See post 50.
But oh yes I forgot, you like to disagree with anything I say as a matter of course so yes, he must have "nailed it".
I don't know the original ET, the Appeal Judges can be found via the ref I posted.
No, in 39 I was talking about the calculation that exists for calculating "awards" not settlement. I don't know how many times I have to keep tying this.
But I know you've always got to have the last word on everything just like MT so carry on. I'm having a shower.
Or a CoT3 though ACAS.
PM sent.Pics
Stop being so precious. I'm disagreeing with what you say, not you.
I trade interest rates for a living. I have no idea about et's other than my tax has paid out for incompetence f***ing everywhere.PM sent.
The fact that neither you nor ORazor understand how Employment Tribunals work does not make me wrong. It only means you don't know how ET's work.
No, in 39 I was talking about the calculation that exists for calculating "awards" not settlement. I don't know how many times I have to keep typing this.
carry on. I'm having a shower.
The fact that neither you nor ORazor understand how Employment Tribunals work does not make me wrong. It only means you don't know how ET's work.