McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[DracoM]

So they took it upon themselves to ... no I don't think so. In large organisations the first rule is cover your back

Yeah, but if you refer up [a] it takes an age to get a response, and [b] it might get vetoed or 'modified', and [c] if you don't trust the judgement of those above, than you go it alone and take the consequences. If GE was as asleep at the wheel as the Humphrys interview seemed more or less to make him reveal, then would YOU trust his / his advisors' judgements?

[eighthobstruction]

If you want to listen to another Chief Executive (My God there have been so many over the last few years, who fail and get favourable terms) who did not know what was happening in their organisation (in this case Rochdale Council)....try this, his testimony starts after 40 minutes....AND if you want to listen to a wonderful woman (funding to her Child Support Network being cut in half RIGHT NOW) Sara Rowbottom speaking about how the authorities failed to get to grip in Rochdale....listen to the first 40 minutes (what a fact full, andecdote FULL, compelling testimony....http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/...00/9766569.stm

[Resurrection Man]

If you want to listen to another Chief Executive (My God there have been so many over the last few years, who fail and get favourable terms) who did not know what was happening in their organisation (in this case Rochdale Council)........

I felt sick listening to this odious little man. That he knew nothing about the establishment of the "Sunrise" team leaves me speechless. One question... he said that he wouldn't hand back any of his redundancy package. How can you make a Chief Executive 'redundant' when the post is still filled now? It is certainly high time for employment contracts to be designed so that they do not reward failure.

On a separate note, I do so hope that Lord McAlpine will sue Monbigot for libel.

[ahinton]

I felt sick listening to this odious little man. That he knew nothing about the establishment of the "Sunrise" team leaves me speechless. One question... he said that he wouldn't hand back any of his redundancy package. How can you make a Chief Executive 'redundant' when the post is still filled now? It is certainly high time for employment contracts to be designed so that they do not reward failure.

Well, effectively, you can't; my understanding of the meaning of the term "redundancy" in terms of employment law is that the post has to be made redundant in order for the employee to be made redundant as a consequence; that said, it's hard to see how designing employment contracts so as to ensure that they do not result in rewarding failure is ever likely to do other than fall foul of Human Rights legislation, because when an employer employs someone it is up to that employer to be satisfied about the appropriateness of providing that employment contract and that, provided that its terms are not then breached by the employee, that employee is entitled to his/her rights thereunder irrespective of his/her performance and, if the employee fails in some way to meet the terms of his/her contract by underperforming, then his/her dismissal or other treatment by the employer may take its course, again in accordance with the terms of the contract.

On a separate note, I do so hope that Lord McAlpine will sue Monbigot for libel.

Why him in particular as distinct from BBC, the police or whoever else he might decide to sue? (especially given that he has already indicated his intention to contemplate the instigation of legal action)...

[amateur51]

On a separate note, I do so hope that Lord McAlpine will sue Monbigot for libel.

I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination. However apparently the origin of the issue of Lord McAlpine's identity is all about a genuine misunderstanding that occurred many years agao when an unnamed police officer in North Wales advised one of the Bryn Estyn victims that his abuser was Lord McAlpine. This had led to Lord McAlpine's named being linked with the Bryn Estyn scandal for many years on the internet. Not legal action was taken in this time to remedy this misunderstanding.

The victim has now named Lord McAlpine but in the Newsnight broadcast the BBC did not. The victim has very fully and sincerely explained the misunderstanding and has apologised to Lord McAlpine who has graciously accepted his apology. Lord McAlpine has said that he may sue the BBC over the TV programme because the preseence of his name in this connection on the inernet means that it has been easy to make the link to his name.

It seems to me that this is no fault of the BBC. Tom Watson MP has mentioned in Parliament that a Senior Tory of the Thatcher era is one of the Bryn Estyn abusers but this too may be explained by the original misunderstanding and I guess that Watson is covered by Parliamentary privilege.

Am I right that in forgiving the genuine mistake of the Bryn Estyn victim, Lord McAlpine may alao have forgiven all those who have on the same basis subsequently jumped to the same conclusion?

As I say, I'm not a lawyer ....

[Resurrection Man]

Well, effectively, you can't; my understanding of the meaning of the term "redundancy" in terms of employment law is that the post has to be made redundant in order for the employee to be made redundant as a consequence; that said, it's hard to see how designing employment contracts so as to ensure that they do not result in rewarding failure is ever likely to do other than fall foul of Human Rights legislation, because when an employer employs someone it is up to that employer to be satisfied about the appropriateness of providing that employment contract and that, provided that its terms are not then breached by the employee, that employee is entitled to his/her rights thereunder irrespective of his/her performance and, if the employee fails in some way to meet the terms of his/her contract by underperforming, then his/her dismissal or other treatment by the employer may take its course, again in accordance with the terms of the contract.

I still don't understand how he could be made redundant. A quick google reveals little by way of explanation.

Re employment contract...it depends on the exact terms of the employment contract. I wouldn't have thought it was beyond the whit of man to draw up something to cater for this eventuality.

Why him in particular as distinct from BBC, the police or whoever else he might decide to sue? (especially given that he has already indicated his intention to contemplate the instigation of legal action)...

Why not ! His was one name I happened across while reading the papers this morning. Having opened his mouth he (Monbigot) is now back-pedalling as fast as he can. Could it be because Lord McAlpine is a tougher nut than the ones Monbigot normally bad-mouths and who aren't in as strong a position as Lord McAlpine is to defend themselves ?

[kernelbogey]

[....] Am I right that in forgiving the genuine mistake of the Bryn Estyn victim, Lord McAlpine may alao have forgiven all those who have on the same basis subsequently jumped to the same conclusion?

As I say, I'm not a lawyer ....

I hope that if he did choose to sue he would seek only exemplary damages.

[Nick Armstrong]

I hope that if he did choose to sue he would seek only exemplary damages.

A tiny point of order, kernel... 'only exemplary damages' is actually an oxymoron - 'exemplary' denotes 'punitive' - such damages are added to the usual compensatory damages to 'make an example of' a particularly heinous wrong, especially where the defendant has published the libel maliciously i.e. deliberately and knowing it to be false.
The phrase for what you mean is 'nominal damages', I think

(I'll waive my fee, seeing as it's you )

[scottycelt]

I hope that if he did choose to sue he would seek only exemplary damages.

I would hope he would sue the cruel, harmful, mud-slinging gossiping ******* for all he could get and then donate the sum received to something like an abused kiddies' charity.

[amateur51]

I would hope he would sue the cruel, harmful, mud-slinging gossiping ******* for all he could get and then donate the sum received to something like an abused kiddies' charity.

Which ******* did you have in mind, scotty?

As I have tried to point out, this was originally a case of mistaken identity, which Lord McAlpine has acknowledged

[ahinton]

I still don't understand how he could be made redundant. A quick google reveals little by way of explanation.

No, nor do I, at least on the basis of what I understand about redundancy - as indeed I indicated.

Re employment contract...it depends on the exact terms of the employment contract. I wouldn't have thought it was beyond the whit of man to draw up something to cater for this eventuality.

Well, yes, of course, it does, but trying to devise a contract that built in sacking for poor performance would be far less easy than you appear to assume.

Why not ! His was one name I happened across while reading the papers this morning. Having opened his mouth he (Monbigot) is now back-pedalling as fast as he can. Could it be because Lord McAlpine is a tougher nut than the ones Monbigot normally bad-mouths and who aren't in as strong a position as Lord McAlpine is to defend themselves ?

Ah, just one name; I see. How many are there altogether? - and would you support and endorse Lord McAlpine's right to sue each and every one of them?

[kernelbogey]

A tiny point of order, kernel... 'only exemplary damages' is actually an oxymoron - 'exemplary' denotes 'punitive' - such damages are added to the usual compensatory damages to 'make an example of' a particularly heinous wrong, especially where the defendant has published the libel maliciously i.e. deliberately and knowing it to be false.
The phrase for what you mean is 'nominal damages', I think

(I'll waive my fee, seeing as it's you )

I'm infinitely obliged to you, sir, on both counts.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

it's hard to see how designing employment contracts so as to ensure that they do not result in rewarding failure is ever likely to do other than fall foul of Human Rights legislation, because when an employer employs someone it is up to that employer to be satisfied about the appropriateness of providing that employment contract and that, provided that its terms are not then breached by the employee, that employee is entitled to his/her rights thereunder irrespective of his/her performance and, if the employee fails in some way to meet the terms of his/her contract by underperforming, then his/her dismissal or other treatment by the employer may take its course, again in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Well in Entwistle's case he could be sacked on grounds of incompetence. And if he's been either sacked, or resigned, I see no reason for the bonus salary-for-a-year. Makes you wonder if he's had his pension nicely buffed up to 40 years.

[scottycelt]

Which ******* did you have in mind, scotty?

As I have tried to point out, this was originally a case of mistaken identity, which Lord McAlpine has acknowledged

I think you and the rest of us may well find out in due legal course who the actual ******* are, amsey ...

[Resurrection Man]

.....

.... and would you support and endorse Lord McAlpine's right to sue each and every one of them?

Yes.