Take the money and run.

cyfrifia Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:00 pm

The council, parliament, politicians, the public are all in reasonable agreement that Roger Ellis should pay back the huge amount of money he recieved from the taxpayer, "as reward for failure."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/council-hoping-claim-back-ex-chiefs-4314604

Not much chance, now the cash has been 'trousered'. Still, worth a try. Cool

Atlas Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:25 am

The word should have been 'received' not 'took' and most certainly not what you seem to think might have been the case before the amendment. Be careful and be sure you understand the meanings of the words before you add them to your posts - as they may just come back and 'bite' you on the posterior - quite viciously. Rolling Eyes

cyfrifia Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:06 am

It's not acceptable for anyone in public office, with great responsibility for peoples' lives and safety, to be totally unaware of what is going on, blinkered and catastrophically limited in their understanding of the world and of reality, or to put that forward as an acceptable excuse for failure.

Atlas Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:10 am

Did you edit your own post cyfrifia or were you 'told' to? The reply messaging isn't working at my end - however I think a reply isn't required as you (or someone else) obviously saw the error of your ways. If I found your post offensive (and it wasn't directed at me personally) then it was obviously bordering on 'naughty' and certainly not what many would find acceptable. Freedom of speech has limitations - like everything else in life. Wink

cyfrifia Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:39 am

Following your suggestion, Atlas, I edited from "he took from the taxpayer" to "he received from the taxpayer". Mainly because you seemed to think the choice of word matters, and I am only commenting on events.

Atlas Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:22 am

I may be old but I'm not as old as you are trying to make me appear. I know what you wrote - and so do you - so stop tiptoeing around the daffs and behave yourself. Just be careful out there. It's a minefield. Wink

Hinch Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:24 am

Too much risk here of trial by mob and pensions, which are contributory, being taken away on the basis of public and political clamour when the pension-holder has done no criminal wrong and has committed no disciplinary offence.

There could of course still be remedy for any victims to seek recourse and damages under civil law.

Being crap at your job or making some questionable decisions is insufficient grounds to remove someone's pension. Few politicians would survive this test.

Personally I'd like to see somebody pursue an action for damages on behalf of the grooming victims.

cyfrifia Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:41 am

I guess you, Atlas, are referring to the word ~~robbed~~, which was crossed out, before it was ever posted, and only included in it's crossed out form for dramatic effect. Does a word which was always crossed out count in 'what was said'? You may not be old, but you seem ~~more concerned with~~, interested in the detail of wording rather than the issue.

Will people in public office who preside over damaging failure continue to be rewarded just the same as those who have done an excellent job? Or, might some accountability and responsibility start to creep into the management of public institutions?

As Hinch says, the way to go about improving such accountability is not clear. The law hasn't dealt with the problem in any straightforward way to date. Bankers, NHS management, council management, police and politics, broadcasting, etc., some failures in these areas have terrible consequences. People responsible have strategically retired, moved sideways, hid behind dubious data protection.

Hinch Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:00 am

And of course, there's the danger of the removal of someone's pension as a result of public, political or media clamour lulls us into thinking they have solved the problem when all they've really done is throw a few titbits to the baying crowd and offer up a sacrificial lamb.

Ellis might be deemed to have been ineffectual but he did not cause grooming nor was he an active participant. There are others far more culpable and perhaps still in post.

Taking his pension will do zilch to address the grooming issue or prevent it happening again but it might just convince some idiots that by doing so, something has actually been achieved.

cyfrifia Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:49 am

Media clamour may have an effect on events, but we don't need to worry much about public clamour. The public "baying crowd" can clamour as much as they like, howl from the rooftops, things usually go on much the same.

In the evidence Mr. Ellis gave to Parliament, he painted a picture of himself as someone unsuitable to be chief executive of a council.

Facts and events back him up on that. Somehow, we need to make sure unsuitable people are not placed in positions of such responsibility in future.

Atlas Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:44 am

Dramatic effect! Well you failed miserably on that score and succeeded in offending one of your readers.
You cannot 'write something' cross it out and then claim it was done for 'effect' especially when the use of the word and its connotation (crossed out or not) was untrue. Your progressive arguments posted above would have been quite adequate and less libelous. Why you would risk taking a 'pop' in this instance when it is quite apparent you can push your argument reasonably and intelligently without resorting to 'dramatic effect' surprises me. I repeat - be careful out there. Not everyone will ignore your careless forays.

Now - how to stop the practice of incompetence and fat-cat salaries! There's an old age conundrum. Mad