The woman who was in charge of Haringey Childrens services

[monkeytassle]

This. It's a disgrace though

She should also never, ever hold a position of responsibility.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

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.

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.

 

[monkeytassle]

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 sound like a settlement lawyer.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

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]

Possibly, but I've never seen it done that way.

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.

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.

And the BBC report^^ specified "awards" so perhaps they don't under the distinction between settlement and award either.

You sound like a settlement lawyer.

You just never know who is behind the keyboard

 

[Sutty]

She should also never, ever hold a position of responsibility.

Or with children although going by her statement last year, I fear she wants to:

Ms 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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723404

 

[Cockney Mackem]

She should also never, ever hold a position of responsibility.

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

 

[Occam's Razor]

You can easily work this out yourself if you know her age, years of service and weekly pay. It's a fairly straightforward calculation!

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.

 

[monkeytassle]

Or with children although going by her statement last year, I fear she wants to:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723404

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.

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

Let's not pick parties here mate. Just say Westminster.

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.

Nailed it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

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..

So which court "awarded" Shoesmith those sums then?

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

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.

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.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Let's not pick parties here mate. Just say Westminster.

Normally I'd agree but Margaret Hodge was part of a much publicised cover up of systemic child abuse in care homes under her control in Islington, resisting years of pressure and public campaigns. She also (it has recently emerged) declined to investigate some of Savile's activities in her council. Labour in their wisdom later made her minister for children.

 

[Occam's Razor]

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.

Or, more briefly, the exact opposite of what you said in post 39.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

Nailed it.

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".

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?

I don't know the original ET, the Appeal Judges can be found via the ref I posted.

 

[Sutty]

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.

Or even better try and get them to offer a Compromise Agreement. Saves a shit load of hassles.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

Or, more briefly, the exact opposite of what you said in post 39.

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.

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 even better try and get them to offer a Compromise Agreement. Saves a shit load of hassles.

Or a CoT3 though ACAS.

 

[monkeytassle]

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.

Stop being so precious. I'm disagreeing with what you say, not you.

 

[Sutty]

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.

Pics

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

Pics

PM sent.

Stop being so precious. I'm disagreeing with what you say, not you.

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.

 

[monkeytassle]

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.

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.

If you think due process has awarded Sharon shoesmith fairly for her running of Haringey council then great. The system works.

I think the award stinks.

I totally understand you sticking up for legal process, in fact it's refreshing to get an opinion from the fence. I just happen to think the result and the obfuscation is galling considering a child died in horrific circumstances on her watch. And as occam said, she loves the rewards without responsibility.

I've no issue with you at all.

 

[Occam's Razor]

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.

No, in post 39 you replied to my doubt that an ET would have awarded her that much by stating that it could be stated with certainty how much an ET would award someone simply by knowing their terms of employment.

In post 50 you gave lengthy reasons as to why what an ET might award someone can be very unpredictable and dependent on all sorts of subjective judgements.

carry on. I'm having a shower.

Typical distraction technique.

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.

We're only stuck on the side issue of how employment tribunals may or may not operate because of your apparent insistence that Shoesmith's payout (posts 42 and 44) was awarded to her by a court or a tribunal. It wasn't.