EXCLUSIVE: Echo investigates council gagging orders

CONTROVERSY: Former employees of West Dorset District Council, in Charles Street, Dorchester, were paid £665,000 to keep quiet

CONTROVERSY: Former employees of West Dorset District Council, in Charles Street, Dorchester, were paid £665,000 to keep quiet

First published in News Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

COUNCIL staff have been asked to sign gagging orders as part of their redundancy pay-outs.

West Dorset District and Weymouth and Portland Borough councils have paid out more than £665,000 in the last five years on packages which include compromise agreements.

Once signed, these stop former employees from taking further legal action or going to the press.

In some cases, a sum in excess of £40,000 was paid, with one person receiving £54, 545.

This has prompted the question ‘what do these people know that the authorities don’t want made public?’ Concerns have been raised that the agreements are a way to stop ‘serious failings’ coming to light.

Both authorities, which operate under a shared services partnership, have denied that keeping information quiet forms any part of why they use compromise agreements.

But district councillor Alistair Chisholm said the number of agreements and the level of pay outs ‘call in to question’ the transparency of the councils. He added: “You wouldn’t be paying out that money if you were not concerned.

“What do they know that the councils don’t want us to know? That would be anybody’s question.

“This is public money and there’s no reason why the public shouldn’t know what’s going on.

“You have to wonder at the information people have about the way things are done, or have been done in the past, that really makes it worth paying out large amounts of public money and making sure in that contract there is a clause which stops them speaking about it.

“It is very difficult not to think there is something those people could be saying that the authorities don’t want to be made public.”

A total of 28 people have signed the contracts with the two authorities since 2009, the Echo can reveal. This is a legally binding contract on the termination of employment, mainly initiated by employers and waives an employee’s right to legal action – such as a tribunal – which, in most cases, can be reported.

The agreements also contain a confidentiality clause – so once the recipient signs, they can’t go public over what happened.

In a joint statement, Cllr Robert Gould, leader of West Dorset District Council and Cllr Mike Goodman, Weymouth & Portland Borough Council’s briefholder for Corporate Affairs and Continuous Improvement, said: “The use of compromise agreements is standard HR practice, particularly during periods of staff restructuring which have been necessary while the councils have formed a shared services partnership saving more than £3 million to date.

“These are formal legal agreements when employment contracts are brought to an end.

“They protect the councils – and the employee – from any future claim, liability or dispute and are not being used as a way to try and keep public interest information out of the public domain.

“The amount of severance or redundancy payment made in each case is calculated on the basis of salary, age and length of service. The councils have clear laws to operate within, are subject to external audit, and respond appropriately to freedom of information requests.

“We have procedures to protect whistleblowers and take very seriously any complaint of wrongdoing made by staff or the public.”

Cllr Chisholm added: “If compromise agreements are just standard practice, why is it necessary to put in a gagging clause?

“The council should be fully and completely accountable.”

A recent report by the Public Accounts Committee has warned that there needs to be better regulation of these agreements in case important information is being hidden from the public.

A spokesman for West Dorset District Council said: “All compromise agreements (now called settlement agreements) comply with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) code of practice.

“The employee must obtain independent legal advice from a qualified solicitor and the agreement has to be signed off to that effect.

“Without this, such an agreement is not legally binding and cannot be enforced.

“All payments made under such agreements can only be made in accordance within council policies and statutory regulations.”

Money matters

Because the councils now operate as a joint authority, it is only possible to tell that the 2009 and 2010 payments, as well as one in 2012, were made by the district council.

2013 – 4 pay outs £41,808 £8,492 £3,990 £10,000

2012 – 14 pay outs £8,544 £33,947 £26,546 £44,234 £28,766 £20,540 £2,168 £8,916 £10,000 £17,364 £15,007 £54,545 £49,578 £12,500

2011 – 7 pay outs £42,446 £36,213 £23,381 £49,775 £43,665 £5,400 £28,793

2010 – 1 pay out £5,662

2009 – 2 pay outs £18,134 £15,210 TOTAL £665, 624

Trade unions can help workers get best deal

THE Echo has spoken to local trade unions about compromise agreements.

They say that there is an allowance for employees to have a solicitor of their choice look over the contract and give advice.

A spokesman who works at county level said they couldn’t comment on the district or borough council individually but said the agreements “can keep things out of the public domain that the council wouldn’t like to be there”.

They added: “By the time people sign them they are so worn down that they just want out and as a trade union, we try to get them the best deal we can.”

Pay-off agreement

Weymouth and Portland and West Dorset District Council’s compromise agreements contain the following phrase: ’The Employee will not at any time disclose or make any announcement regarding the settlement reached or the terms of this Agreement to any person (excepting his spouse or immediate family, his professional legal and financial advisers, HM Revenue and Customs or otherwise as may be required by law) without the consent of the Council.

‘The Council will not at any time disclose or make any announcement regarding the settlement reached or the terms of this Agreement to any person (excepting its professional legal and financial advisers, HM Revenue and Customs or otherwise as may be required by law or as necessary to implement the terms of the Agreement) without the consent of the Employee’.

‘People clearly feel they were gagged’

MP Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has said that although the agreements aren’t meant to stop ‘legitimate whistleblowing’, people who have been offered or accepted them ‘have clearly felt gagged’.

She said it is ‘vital’ that people are able to speak up but there is ‘no way of knowing’ whether these agreements have been used to gag them.

She added: “We are deeply concerned about the use of compromise agreements and special severance payments to terminate employment in the public sector.

“It is clear that confidentiality clauses may have been used in compromise agreements to cover up failure, and this is simply outrageous.

“We heard evidence of shocking examples of using taxpayers’ money to ‘pay-off’ individuals who have flagged up concerns about patient or child safety.

She added: “The end result here is the risk that public bodies reward failure just to avoid attracting unwelcome publicity.

“No one has taken responsibility for identifying early warnings of service failure, such as organisations with unusually high numbers of agreements, or individuals transferring between departments receiving large severance payments.”

Payments of £28.4m were approved by the Treasury between 2010 and 2013 the PAC said.

But the ‘true number’ of severance payments is not known because the Treasury does not approve payments by local governments, the police and private sector providers of public services. The Cabinet Office is now preparing official guidance on the appropriate use of compromise agreements which will:

  • Require public sector organisations to secure approval from the Cabinet Office for all special severance payments and associated compromise agreements where they relate to cases of whistleblowing.
  • Set out standard terms and conditions to be used in compromise agreements, including a provision in all compromise agreements stating that nothing within the agreement shall prejudice employees’ rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
  • Require public sector organisations to secure approval from the Cabinet Office before departing from these standard terms.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:04am Wed 19 Feb 14

mr commonsense says...

So could there be something being hidden over Charles Street, why don't we know which departments these people worked in?
So will Councillors be gagged as well when they lose an election?
I believe this news only adds to the almighty smell of dirty deeds done over Charles Street.
So could there be something being hidden over Charles Street, why don't we know which departments these people worked in? So will Councillors be gagged as well when they lose an election? I believe this news only adds to the almighty smell of dirty deeds done over Charles Street. mr commonsense
  • Score: 16

8:10am Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

Another non story from the Echo. Firstly compromise agreements are now legally known as settlement agreements followings changes to the Employment Rights Act by this Tory government in 2014. Secondly settlement agreements or for that matter their predecessor compromise agreements, have always contained confidentiality clauses and these are standard. Settlement agreements are commonplace in the private sector and a standard legal document and is one of the few limited ways that an employer and employee can legally end the contract of employment. Only a solicitor or a fully trained Trade union official with indemnity insurance can explain the legalities of the settlement offer and must sign it to confirm it complies with the current legislation. All that said the usual anti public sector posters will not be interested in the fact that they are legal and commonplace in the private sector. My guess is it will be another opportunity to knock the public sector again.
Another non story from the Echo. Firstly compromise agreements are now legally known as settlement agreements followings changes to the Employment Rights Act by this Tory government in 2014. Secondly settlement agreements or for that matter their predecessor compromise agreements, have always contained confidentiality clauses and these are standard. Settlement agreements are commonplace in the private sector and a standard legal document and is one of the few limited ways that an employer and employee can legally end the contract of employment. Only a solicitor or a fully trained Trade union official with indemnity insurance can explain the legalities of the settlement offer and must sign it to confirm it complies with the current legislation. All that said the usual anti public sector posters will not be interested in the fact that they are legal and commonplace in the private sector. My guess is it will be another opportunity to knock the public sector again. woodsedge
  • Score: 5

8:52am Wed 19 Feb 14

MaidofDorset says...

These gagging agreements are widely used to stop staff going to the press or publishing a book about goings on which would embarrass the employer. The amount concerned is a reflection of how much damage the disclosure could do to the employer and the employees loss financially.

Compromise agreements are cost effective for the employer, being dragged through the courts is extremely expensive, a good barrister charging £3K a day I'm told, and the employee can use the money to move off and get another job. Win win, for employee, employer and in this case tax payer.
These gagging agreements are widely used to stop staff going to the press or publishing a book about goings on which would embarrass the employer. The amount concerned is a reflection of how much damage the disclosure could do to the employer and the employees loss financially. Compromise agreements are cost effective for the employer, being dragged through the courts is extremely expensive, a good barrister charging £3K a day I'm told, and the employee can use the money to move off and get another job. Win win, for employee, employer and in this case tax payer. MaidofDorset
  • Score: 17

9:36am Wed 19 Feb 14

dorset & proud says...

Another opportunity for Mr Chisholm to flap his gums. Do the Echo have him on speed dial or something?

And of course another opportunity for all the armchair experts to turn this into yet another Charles Street debate.

Move on please.
Another opportunity for Mr Chisholm to flap his gums. Do the Echo have him on speed dial or something? And of course another opportunity for all the armchair experts to turn this into yet another Charles Street debate. Move on please. dorset & proud
  • Score: 4

9:37am Wed 19 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

MaidofDorset wrote:
These gagging agreements are widely used to stop staff going to the press or publishing a book about goings on which would embarrass the employer. The amount concerned is a reflection of how much damage the disclosure could do to the employer and the employees loss financially.

Compromise agreements are cost effective for the employer, being dragged through the courts is extremely expensive, a good barrister charging £3K a day I'm told, and the employee can use the money to move off and get another job. Win win, for employee, employer and in this case tax payer.
I doubt that they are used to stop staff writing books! As Woodsedge says, they are commonplace in the private sector and allow an employer to get rid of staff without the risk of court action. I work for a well known media company in London and these compromise agreements are widely used and offer approximately double the statutory minimum redundancy pay. I see their increasing use as very positive for the employee and the public sector. The employee gets more time to find work (by virtue of having more money in the bank) and the council gets to avoid expensive litigation.
[quote][p][bold]MaidofDorset[/bold] wrote: These gagging agreements are widely used to stop staff going to the press or publishing a book about goings on which would embarrass the employer. The amount concerned is a reflection of how much damage the disclosure could do to the employer and the employees loss financially. Compromise agreements are cost effective for the employer, being dragged through the courts is extremely expensive, a good barrister charging £3K a day I'm told, and the employee can use the money to move off and get another job. Win win, for employee, employer and in this case tax payer.[/p][/quote]I doubt that they are used to stop staff writing books! As Woodsedge says, they are commonplace in the private sector and allow an employer to get rid of staff without the risk of court action. I work for a well known media company in London and these compromise agreements are widely used and offer approximately double the statutory minimum redundancy pay. I see their increasing use as very positive for the employee and the public sector. The employee gets more time to find work (by virtue of having more money in the bank) and the council gets to avoid expensive litigation. JamesYoung
  • Score: 10

10:02am Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers.
I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers. woodsedge
  • Score: 9

10:36am Wed 19 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

woodsedge wrote:
I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers.
I agree entirely. If you look at the amounts being paid out, they are obviously mostly for more senior staff and probably represent around 6-9 months of wages. The question that the Echo should have asked is "if the council hadn't taken this route, what would the cost have been". The answer is probably "more". I know from personal experience that trying to get rid of a non performer* takes months and even then, you run the real risk of litigation at the end of it. It's not often i disagree with what Alistair Chisholm has to say, but in this case, i think an incorrect assumption has been made - that the reason is gagging, rather than protecting the public purse from the costs of litigation. If this truly were an "investigation" the Echo should have concluded that there was no story here.
*not inferring that these people were non performers.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers.[/p][/quote]I agree entirely. If you look at the amounts being paid out, they are obviously mostly for more senior staff and probably represent around 6-9 months of wages. The question that the Echo should have asked is "if the council hadn't taken this route, what would the cost have been". The answer is probably "more". I know from personal experience that trying to get rid of a non performer* takes months and even then, you run the real risk of litigation at the end of it. It's not often i disagree with what Alistair Chisholm has to say, but in this case, i think an incorrect assumption has been made - that the reason is gagging, rather than protecting the public purse from the costs of litigation. If this truly were an "investigation" the Echo should have concluded that there was no story here. *not inferring that these people were non performers. JamesYoung
  • Score: 13

10:59am Wed 19 Feb 14

ksmain says...

woodsedge wrote:
Another non story from the Echo. Firstly compromise agreements are now legally known as settlement agreements followings changes to the Employment Rights Act by this Tory government in 2014. Secondly settlement agreements or for that matter their predecessor compromise agreements, have always contained confidentiality clauses and these are standard. Settlement agreements are commonplace in the private sector and a standard legal document and is one of the few limited ways that an employer and employee can legally end the contract of employment. Only a solicitor or a fully trained Trade union official with indemnity insurance can explain the legalities of the settlement offer and must sign it to confirm it complies with the current legislation. All that said the usual anti public sector posters will not be interested in the fact that they are legal and commonplace in the private sector. My guess is it will be another opportunity to knock the public sector again.
I totally agree with you. And why does the Echo need to know why these people were made redundant or even what their payment was. Remember these people are now out of work and have to look for work - maybe the reason they have been made redundant is that they may just be surplus to requirements. Question - would you want a payment that may last only weeks or a matter of months and be out of work or be continuing in full employment? I suspect most of us work prefer o be working - especially in the current poor job market. And as usual the moaners IMO are likely to be those that have little understanding of how the system works.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Another non story from the Echo. Firstly compromise agreements are now legally known as settlement agreements followings changes to the Employment Rights Act by this Tory government in 2014. Secondly settlement agreements or for that matter their predecessor compromise agreements, have always contained confidentiality clauses and these are standard. Settlement agreements are commonplace in the private sector and a standard legal document and is one of the few limited ways that an employer and employee can legally end the contract of employment. Only a solicitor or a fully trained Trade union official with indemnity insurance can explain the legalities of the settlement offer and must sign it to confirm it complies with the current legislation. All that said the usual anti public sector posters will not be interested in the fact that they are legal and commonplace in the private sector. My guess is it will be another opportunity to knock the public sector again.[/p][/quote]I totally agree with you. And why does the Echo need to know why these people were made redundant or even what their payment was. Remember these people are now out of work and have to look for work - maybe the reason they have been made redundant is that they may just be surplus to requirements. Question - would you want a payment that may last only weeks or a matter of months and be out of work or be continuing in full employment? I suspect most of us work prefer o be working - especially in the current poor job market. And as usual the moaners IMO are likely to be those that have little understanding of how the system works. ksmain
  • Score: 13

11:09am Wed 19 Feb 14

banknote says...

Is there no-one else but Alistair Chisholm to supply a "quote"?

The man is a boring person seeking self publicity on any and every local issue.

Please Echo get some reactions from other hard working local councillors and not from a bore.
Is there no-one else but Alistair Chisholm to supply a "quote"? The man is a boring person seeking self publicity on any and every local issue. Please Echo get some reactions from other hard working local councillors and not from a bore. banknote
  • Score: 4

12:08pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Keep digging Echo there is a whole load of rot and corruption being hidden in that council. You have not even scratched the surface of it yet.
Keep digging Echo there is a whole load of rot and corruption being hidden in that council. You have not even scratched the surface of it yet. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -3

12:09pm Wed 19 Feb 14

mr commonsense says...

In response to Banknote Mr Chisholm is Independent of any political party, trade union and owes no allegiance to anybody but his constituents. His is a more refreshing view of the local political scene and as he takes no orders from any of the parties in WDDC we like to hear his views.
I am not he, nor a constituent of his and if only local government had more Independents running our Councils a lot more would be done for the people.
In response to Banknote Mr Chisholm is Independent of any political party, trade union and owes no allegiance to anybody but his constituents. His is a more refreshing view of the local political scene and as he takes no orders from any of the parties in WDDC we like to hear his views. I am not he, nor a constituent of his and if only local government had more Independents running our Councils a lot more would be done for the people. mr commonsense
  • Score: 9

12:35pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Tinker2 says...

mr commonsense wrote:
In response to Banknote Mr Chisholm is Independent of any political party, trade union and owes no allegiance to anybody but his constituents. His is a more refreshing view of the local political scene and as he takes no orders from any of the parties in WDDC we like to hear his views. I am not he, nor a constituent of his and if only local government had more Independents running our Councils a lot more would be done for the people.
Couldn't agree more! and I doubt there is anyone who has done more for Dorchester than Mr Chisholm. He has for many years been dedicated to the town and it's prosperity. He is a 'man of the people' and not a just 'tow the party line' also ran.
[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: In response to Banknote Mr Chisholm is Independent of any political party, trade union and owes no allegiance to anybody but his constituents. His is a more refreshing view of the local political scene and as he takes no orders from any of the parties in WDDC we like to hear his views. I am not he, nor a constituent of his and if only local government had more Independents running our Councils a lot more would be done for the people.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more! and I doubt there is anyone who has done more for Dorchester than Mr Chisholm. He has for many years been dedicated to the town and it's prosperity. He is a 'man of the people' and not a just 'tow the party line' also ran. Tinker2
  • Score: 15

12:56pm Wed 19 Feb 14

dontbuyit says...

Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against? dontbuyit
  • Score: 8

1:35pm Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
I will leave your business rates to you. The confidentiality clause in settlement agreements in both the private and public sector, have nothing to do with protecting companies from competitors. Restrictive covenants are separate to confidentiality clauses and confidentiality clauses are more to do with the employer protecting itself legally from any future challenge from an ex employee. Most employers will seek legal advice on whether a settlement agreement is warranted or not and what the sum offered should be. And don't think for one moment that private companies do not use public money to pay for settlements. Lots of private companies spending tax payers money use settlement agreements, its just that you don't know about it!
[quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]I will leave your business rates to you. The confidentiality clause in settlement agreements in both the private and public sector, have nothing to do with protecting companies from competitors. Restrictive covenants are separate to confidentiality clauses and confidentiality clauses are more to do with the employer protecting itself legally from any future challenge from an ex employee. Most employers will seek legal advice on whether a settlement agreement is warranted or not and what the sum offered should be. And don't think for one moment that private companies do not use public money to pay for settlements. Lots of private companies spending tax payers money use settlement agreements, its just that you don't know about it! woodsedge
  • Score: 10

2:04pm Wed 19 Feb 14

chesilboy says...

JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers.
I agree entirely. If you look at the amounts being paid out, they are obviously mostly for more senior staff and probably represent around 6-9 months of wages. The question that the Echo should have asked is "if the council hadn't taken this route, what would the cost have been". The answer is probably "more". I know from personal experience that trying to get rid of a non performer* takes months and even then, you run the real risk of litigation at the end of it. It's not often i disagree with what Alistair Chisholm has to say, but in this case, i think an incorrect assumption has been made - that the reason is gagging, rather than protecting the public purse from the costs of litigation. If this truly were an "investigation" the Echo should have concluded that there was no story here.
*not inferring that these people were non performers.
I also agree. These types of settlement agreements are commonplace across many employment establishments in both the public and private sector. This is the Echo in wannabe tabloid mode again, trying to to imply dirt by quoting standard practice.

What is disturbing is (as I type this) there are more negative votes for Woodedge's intial post, which is clearly based on informed fact, than there are positive votes for the posts claiming rot and corruption, which are based on no fact whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers.[/p][/quote]I agree entirely. If you look at the amounts being paid out, they are obviously mostly for more senior staff and probably represent around 6-9 months of wages. The question that the Echo should have asked is "if the council hadn't taken this route, what would the cost have been". The answer is probably "more". I know from personal experience that trying to get rid of a non performer* takes months and even then, you run the real risk of litigation at the end of it. It's not often i disagree with what Alistair Chisholm has to say, but in this case, i think an incorrect assumption has been made - that the reason is gagging, rather than protecting the public purse from the costs of litigation. If this truly were an "investigation" the Echo should have concluded that there was no story here. *not inferring that these people were non performers.[/p][/quote]I also agree. These types of settlement agreements are commonplace across many employment establishments in both the public and private sector. This is the Echo in wannabe tabloid mode again, trying to to imply dirt by quoting standard practice. What is disturbing is (as I type this) there are more negative votes for Woodedge's intial post, which is clearly based on informed fact, than there are positive votes for the posts claiming rot and corruption, which are based on no fact whatsoever. chesilboy
  • Score: 17

2:25pm Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

chesilboy wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers.
I agree entirely. If you look at the amounts being paid out, they are obviously mostly for more senior staff and probably represent around 6-9 months of wages. The question that the Echo should have asked is "if the council hadn't taken this route, what would the cost have been". The answer is probably "more". I know from personal experience that trying to get rid of a non performer* takes months and even then, you run the real risk of litigation at the end of it. It's not often i disagree with what Alistair Chisholm has to say, but in this case, i think an incorrect assumption has been made - that the reason is gagging, rather than protecting the public purse from the costs of litigation. If this truly were an "investigation" the Echo should have concluded that there was no story here.
*not inferring that these people were non performers.
I also agree. These types of settlement agreements are commonplace across many employment establishments in both the public and private sector. This is the Echo in wannabe tabloid mode again, trying to to imply dirt by quoting standard practice.

What is disturbing is (as I type this) there are more negative votes for Woodedge's intial post, which is clearly based on informed fact, than there are positive votes for the posts claiming rot and corruption, which are based on no fact whatsoever.
Thanks for your comment chesilboy re negative votes. It's strange that when one particular individual posts on a thread that they do not agree with, there always appear to be negative votes doesn't there David_divenghy2 ;-)
[quote][p][bold]chesilboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: I am accredited to advise and sign off settlement agreements and I can say from experience, that they normally bring closure to difficult employee/employer relationships. It is also a statement of fact that most settlement agreements are not life defining amounts of money. That said the Echo has again misinformed readers and gone for the eye catching negative portrayal of public sector workers.[/p][/quote]I agree entirely. If you look at the amounts being paid out, they are obviously mostly for more senior staff and probably represent around 6-9 months of wages. The question that the Echo should have asked is "if the council hadn't taken this route, what would the cost have been". The answer is probably "more". I know from personal experience that trying to get rid of a non performer* takes months and even then, you run the real risk of litigation at the end of it. It's not often i disagree with what Alistair Chisholm has to say, but in this case, i think an incorrect assumption has been made - that the reason is gagging, rather than protecting the public purse from the costs of litigation. If this truly were an "investigation" the Echo should have concluded that there was no story here. *not inferring that these people were non performers.[/p][/quote]I also agree. These types of settlement agreements are commonplace across many employment establishments in both the public and private sector. This is the Echo in wannabe tabloid mode again, trying to to imply dirt by quoting standard practice. What is disturbing is (as I type this) there are more negative votes for Woodedge's intial post, which is clearly based on informed fact, than there are positive votes for the posts claiming rot and corruption, which are based on no fact whatsoever.[/p][/quote]Thanks for your comment chesilboy re negative votes. It's strange that when one particular individual posts on a thread that they do not agree with, there always appear to be negative votes doesn't there David_divenghy2 ;-) woodsedge
  • Score: 6

2:26pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
[quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -3

2:30pm Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements! woodsedge
  • Score: 10

2:33pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -4

3:20pm Wed 19 Feb 14

MaidofDorset says...

Just out of interest, has Newsquest/ The Echo used gagging orders, if so how many/much etc?
Just out of interest, has Newsquest/ The Echo used gagging orders, if so how many/much etc? MaidofDorset
  • Score: 23

4:57pm Wed 19 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order.
What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order. What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements. JamesYoung
  • Score: 9

5:04pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order.
What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.
Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order. What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.[/p][/quote]Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -4

5:08pm Wed 19 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

MaidofDorset wrote:
Just out of interest, has Newsquest/ The Echo used gagging orders, if so how many/much etc?
An excellent question. Here is one answer:
http://www.nujscotla
nd.org.uk/News%20010
9.html
In fact, it also turns out that White v Newsquest (EAT 2001, EAT/565/00, EAT/1325/99) was a contributor to current law on unfair dismissal!
[quote][p][bold]MaidofDorset[/bold] wrote: Just out of interest, has Newsquest/ The Echo used gagging orders, if so how many/much etc?[/p][/quote]An excellent question. Here is one answer: http://www.nujscotla nd.org.uk/News%20010 9.html In fact, it also turns out that White v Newsquest (EAT 2001, EAT/565/00, EAT/1325/99) was a contributor to current law on unfair dismissal! JamesYoung
  • Score: 7

5:43pm Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order.
What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.
Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.
The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story !
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order. What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.[/p][/quote]Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.[/p][/quote]The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story ! woodsedge
  • Score: 9

5:56pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order.
What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.
Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.
The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story !
I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector.

If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order. What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.[/p][/quote]Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.[/p][/quote]The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story ![/p][/quote]I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector. If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -7

6:10pm Wed 19 Feb 14

PaulCa says...

The full low down is here on 345 English Councils. FOI requests were done for all 345. This survey includes West Dorset, Weymouth, and Portland councils and goes back to 2005:

http://wirralinittog
ether.wordpress.com/
2013/02/19/2519/

Despite the drivel trotted out by councillors, unions and solicitors, these things are used primarily to GAG and to protect the reputation of the issuing organisation. They also serve to conceal malpractice, abuse, or in the case of Wirral Council, connections to organised crime.

Nasty...
The full low down is here on 345 English Councils. FOI requests were done for all 345. This survey includes West Dorset, Weymouth, and Portland councils and goes back to 2005: http://wirralinittog ether.wordpress.com/ 2013/02/19/2519/ Despite the drivel trotted out by councillors, unions and solicitors, these things are used primarily to GAG and to protect the reputation of the issuing organisation. They also serve to conceal malpractice, abuse, or in the case of Wirral Council, connections to organised crime. Nasty... PaulCa
  • Score: 2

6:13pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Rod Stewart's mate says...

The figures quoted aren't always the full amount anyway: in a few senior officers case a tax avoidance loophole is used and another payment goes into an enhanced pension fund e.g. ex chief exec of W&PBC. He got paid £54k (the first £30k of redundancy being tax exempt) and another £54k went gross into his pension fund. This is more the story because a local authority should not exist to exploit tax loopholes. That's what we've got Jimmy Carr for....

The compromise agreements are more up for discussion. Clearly private companies have commercial confidences. Local authorities shouldn't have such secrets, although a settlement does avoid the expense of an employment tribunal (which you might lose anyway). The danger is that confidentiality agreements prevent legitimate questioning of c&%k-ups: such as the financial management of W&PBC since (like) forever, just so nobody 'rocks the boat' in a way that might reflect badly on ambitious senior officers/key Councillors etc.
The figures quoted aren't always the full amount anyway: in a few senior officers case a tax avoidance loophole is used and another payment goes into an enhanced pension fund e.g. ex chief exec of W&PBC. He got paid £54k (the first £30k of redundancy being tax exempt) and another £54k went gross into his pension fund. This is more the story because a local authority should not exist to exploit tax loopholes. That's what we've got Jimmy Carr for.... The compromise agreements are more up for discussion. Clearly private companies have commercial confidences. Local authorities shouldn't have such secrets, although a settlement does avoid the expense of an employment tribunal (which you might lose anyway). The danger is that confidentiality agreements prevent legitimate questioning of c&%k-ups: such as the financial management of W&PBC since (like) forever, just so nobody 'rocks the boat' in a way that might reflect badly on ambitious senior officers/key Councillors etc. Rod Stewart's mate
  • Score: 1

6:14pm Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order.
What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.
Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.
The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story !
I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector.

If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple.
'Playground talk' and 'legalese' is that how you argue against facts and employment legislation? What a strange world you must live in where everything is acceptable as long as it complies with your twisted perception of reality. It was only last week you were slaughtered on a thread about some yob who quite rightly got sent to prison for stealing money from his family. But because he was a man you argued that it was the family that were in the wrong!
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order. What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.[/p][/quote]Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.[/p][/quote]The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story ![/p][/quote]I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector. If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple.[/p][/quote]'Playground talk' and 'legalese' is that how you argue against facts and employment legislation? What a strange world you must live in where everything is acceptable as long as it complies with your twisted perception of reality. It was only last week you were slaughtered on a thread about some yob who quite rightly got sent to prison for stealing money from his family. But because he was a man you argued that it was the family that were in the wrong! woodsedge
  • Score: 2

6:31pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order.
What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.
Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.
The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story !
I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector.

If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple.
'Playground talk' and 'legalese' is that how you argue against facts and employment legislation? What a strange world you must live in where everything is acceptable as long as it complies with your twisted perception of reality. It was only last week you were slaughtered on a thread about some yob who quite rightly got sent to prison for stealing money from his family. But because he was a man you argued that it was the family that were in the wrong!
You sure love practicing what you criticise others for Woodsedge.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order. What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.[/p][/quote]Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.[/p][/quote]The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story ![/p][/quote]I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector. If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple.[/p][/quote]'Playground talk' and 'legalese' is that how you argue against facts and employment legislation? What a strange world you must live in where everything is acceptable as long as it complies with your twisted perception of reality. It was only last week you were slaughtered on a thread about some yob who quite rightly got sent to prison for stealing money from his family. But because he was a man you argued that it was the family that were in the wrong![/p][/quote]You sure love practicing what you criticise others for Woodsedge. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

PaulCa wrote:
The full low down is here on 345 English Councils. FOI requests were done for all 345. This survey includes West Dorset, Weymouth, and Portland councils and goes back to 2005:

http://wirralinittog

ether.wordpress.com/

2013/02/19/2519/

Despite the drivel trotted out by councillors, unions and solicitors, these things are used primarily to GAG and to protect the reputation of the issuing organisation. They also serve to conceal malpractice, abuse, or in the case of Wirral Council, connections to organised crime.

Nasty...
https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/t
otal_annual_figures_
for_comprom_85

Interesting and a lot more believable than someone with vested interests trying to fluff over things.
[quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: The full low down is here on 345 English Councils. FOI requests were done for all 345. This survey includes West Dorset, Weymouth, and Portland councils and goes back to 2005: http://wirralinittog ether.wordpress.com/ 2013/02/19/2519/ Despite the drivel trotted out by councillors, unions and solicitors, these things are used primarily to GAG and to protect the reputation of the issuing organisation. They also serve to conceal malpractice, abuse, or in the case of Wirral Council, connections to organised crime. Nasty...[/p][/quote]https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/t otal_annual_figures_ for_comprom_85 Interesting and a lot more believable than someone with vested interests trying to fluff over things. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -2

6:52pm Wed 19 Feb 14

ksmain says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order.
What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.
Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.
The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story !
I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector.

If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple.
'Playground talk' and 'legalese' is that how you argue against facts and employment legislation? What a strange world you must live in where everything is acceptable as long as it complies with your twisted perception of reality. It was only last week you were slaughtered on a thread about some yob who quite rightly got sent to prison for stealing money from his family. But because he was a man you argued that it was the family that were in the wrong!
You sure love practicing what you criticise others for Woodsedge.
Gagging orders are standard practice in public and private sectors - and quite frankly any organisation really would be utterly STUPID not to put them in. So you really think any organisation worth its salt will kiss someone goodbye with a good payoff and allow them free reign to talk about the organisation's business after giving this payoff? I suspect these people are just surplus to requirements - and I'll wager the gagging clause is basically stating that they aren't to divulge business they were privy to as employees. A perfectly reasonable request from any employer - and a complete news NON-EVENT!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]Yes, a gagging order is a gagging order. What we are talking about here are not gagging orders, they are settlement agreements.[/p][/quote]Any "clause" of any "agreement" that in any way stops an employee from discussing any facet of their employment in the public sector is still a gagging order regardless of how it is dressed up.[/p][/quote]The legal opinion of the right honourable judge divenghy! The legislation in question namely Section 111A of the ERA 1996, provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. So in ending contracts of employment and probably on the advice of the county solicitor, the council and the employee have entered into a binding legal agreement. Why not turn your anger on the Echo for the non story ![/p][/quote]I don't care what legalese and playground talk you dress it in woodsedge If a former employee has information that can expose corruption, incompetence, waste, neglect, crimes or any such happenings that are in the public interest to know and they are then legally prevented from discussing it, then it is a gagging order and should be illegal, especially in the public sector. If it does not contain any such clauses, then I agree, it is not one. Simple.[/p][/quote]'Playground talk' and 'legalese' is that how you argue against facts and employment legislation? What a strange world you must live in where everything is acceptable as long as it complies with your twisted perception of reality. It was only last week you were slaughtered on a thread about some yob who quite rightly got sent to prison for stealing money from his family. But because he was a man you argued that it was the family that were in the wrong![/p][/quote]You sure love practicing what you criticise others for Woodsedge.[/p][/quote]Gagging orders are standard practice in public and private sectors - and quite frankly any organisation really would be utterly STUPID not to put them in. So you really think any organisation worth its salt will kiss someone goodbye with a good payoff and allow them free reign to talk about the organisation's business after giving this payoff? I suspect these people are just surplus to requirements - and I'll wager the gagging clause is basically stating that they aren't to divulge business they were privy to as employees. A perfectly reasonable request from any employer - and a complete news NON-EVENT!!!!! ksmain
  • Score: 13

6:58pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

http://www.easyvirtu
alassistance.co.uk/p
age4.html

http://www.wirralglo
be.co.uk/news/486041
6.Wirral_Council_whi
stleblower_Martin_Mo
rton___I_d_do_it_all
_again__because_it_s
_the_RIGHT_thing_to_
do_/

These ones are quite interesting too and show exactly what often sits behind these "agreements" in the public sector.

Always interesting to see the names which are adding obfuscation, diversion and dismissal to an article ;-)
http://www.easyvirtu alassistance.co.uk/p age4.html http://www.wirralglo be.co.uk/news/486041 6.Wirral_Council_whi stleblower_Martin_Mo rton___I_d_do_it_all _again__because_it_s _the_RIGHT_thing_to_ do_/ These ones are quite interesting too and show exactly what often sits behind these "agreements" in the public sector. Always interesting to see the names which are adding obfuscation, diversion and dismissal to an article ;-) David_divenghy2
  • Score: -4

7:24pm Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
http://www.easyvirtu

alassistance.co.uk/p

age4.html

http://www.wirralglo

be.co.uk/news/486041

6.Wirral_Council_whi

stleblower_Martin_Mo

rton___I_d_do_it_all

_again__because_it_s

_the_RIGHT_thing_to_

do_/

These ones are quite interesting too and show exactly what often sits behind these "agreements" in the public sector.

Always interesting to see the names which are adding obfuscation, diversion and dismissal to an article ;-)
Again you have your facts wrong as an employee can make a protected disclosure after the signing of their settlement agreement. Instead of trawling the internet for a story that fits your argument and then getting it completely wrong, try reading section 43j of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: http://www.easyvirtu alassistance.co.uk/p age4.html http://www.wirralglo be.co.uk/news/486041 6.Wirral_Council_whi stleblower_Martin_Mo rton___I_d_do_it_all _again__because_it_s _the_RIGHT_thing_to_ do_/ These ones are quite interesting too and show exactly what often sits behind these "agreements" in the public sector. Always interesting to see the names which are adding obfuscation, diversion and dismissal to an article ;-)[/p][/quote]Again you have your facts wrong as an employee can make a protected disclosure after the signing of their settlement agreement. Instead of trawling the internet for a story that fits your argument and then getting it completely wrong, try reading section 43j of the Employment Rights Act 1996. woodsedge
  • Score: 7

7:29pm Wed 19 Feb 14

chesilboy says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
dontbuyit wrote:
Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?
Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony !

I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more.

As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.
Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements!
You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.
But everything has a context.

The context of this article is SPECIFICALLY settlement agreements. Any 'gagging orders' referred to here have been put in place in the context of a settlement agreement in the interests of both the employer AND the employee. Again - standard and diligent employment practice

To use the term 'gagging order' in the GENERAL sense as you are trying to do to argue any claim you can dig up on the internet is something different entirely.

You are welcome to publish actual evidence here, in the same way that the Echo could have done in their article, if they had any. (I suspect you will stick to general unfounded arguments.)

And no, I have nothing to do with the council, I just appreciate true stories reinforced by fact and not propaganda.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontbuyit[/bold] wrote: Just because it's legal and common practice doesn't mean it's right when our money is spent and there is no transparency or accountability. There are many unanswered questions regarding the conduct of this council. As a prime example I received a business rates bill 2 weeks ago of £742 p/mth. When I questioned their numbers it was immediately reduced to £42 a month. When asked why the original figure no one could give me an answer. But business rates should be cut and dried and I as a layman shouldn't have to tell them how to crunch the numbers. It just breeds the perception that the council don't know how to run the most basic operations and is bound to cause suspicion when confidentiality clauses are mentioned. Besides there is a huge difference when used in the private sector to protect company secrets from competitors. But in the public sector just who are they competing against?[/p][/quote]Quite right, some here quote about Facts? Do they mean the facts about wrong-doings that are silenced when people who can give them are being gagged? Oh the Irony ! I think the recent NHS gagging scandal told us all we need to know about gagging orders. People are not falling for the public sector propaganda or it's agents any more. As you say, the public sector is supposed to work for the people, is paid for by the people and allegedly accountable to the people (laughs) , the very presence of gagging orders in the public sector tells us this is not the case.[/p][/quote]Well said, but absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of Settlement Agreements![/p][/quote]You can rename something or cal lit what you want, a gagging order is a gagging order no matter what you cal lit or try to wrap it up in.[/p][/quote]But everything has a context. The context of this article is SPECIFICALLY settlement agreements. Any 'gagging orders' referred to here have been put in place in the context of a settlement agreement in the interests of both the employer AND the employee. Again - standard and diligent employment practice To use the term 'gagging order' in the GENERAL sense as you are trying to do to argue any claim you can dig up on the internet is something different entirely. You are welcome to publish actual evidence here, in the same way that the Echo could have done in their article, if they had any. (I suspect you will stick to general unfounded arguments.) And no, I have nothing to do with the council, I just appreciate true stories reinforced by fact and not propaganda. chesilboy
  • Score: 11

7:30pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Rod Stewart's mate says...

Ha, ha-you lot are so funny with your arguing! I don't think I want to be drawn in, so I'm quitting the Echo 'Comments' forum for ever. I thought it would be more genteel!

You need to refine what the argument is about: 'settlements' clearly can be used legitimately to end employment without the expense and time of an employment tribunal. In a private sector company there is commercial confidentiality as well.

However, there seems to be evidence in the national press that (particularly in the NHS) they have been used to stop legitimate questioning of serious 'whistle blowing' issues. Have they been used at WDDC or W&PBC for that purpose? That would be the danger. Is there any evidence of that being the case?

Alternatively, have they been used to stifle public discussion by knowledgeable ex-employees about legitimate local issues? Is there evidence of this?

I think it's rather mean spirited to describe those ex-employees who left via this route as 'just surplus to requirements' given the cuts in funding for the Councils. They were valued employees, but the Councils couldn't afford to keep them.

I refer you back to my previous point.

My take on it all is that during the 'boom' of the Blair years it all got a bit too easy for public bodies. Practices crept in that were imported in from the private sector that were fundamentally not public sector ethos. Eric Pickles and Margaret Hodge(?) seem to be exposing these. (This is not a political point).

Have WDDC and W&PBC got major skeletons in their cupboards that are not in the public domain? Probably not (it seems to me), but they have partly created their own problems by 'spinning' press releases. After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance. It doesn't seem like it was a 'model of transparency' answer......

Anyway, goodbye!
Ha, ha-you lot are so funny with your arguing! I don't think I want to be drawn in, so I'm quitting the Echo 'Comments' forum for ever. I thought it would be more genteel! You need to refine what the argument is about: 'settlements' clearly can be used legitimately to end employment without the expense and time of an employment tribunal. In a private sector company there is commercial confidentiality as well. However, there seems to be evidence in the national press that (particularly in the NHS) they have been used to stop legitimate questioning of serious 'whistle blowing' issues. Have they been used at WDDC or W&PBC for that purpose? That would be the danger. Is there any evidence of that being the case? Alternatively, have they been used to stifle public discussion by knowledgeable ex-employees about legitimate local issues? Is there evidence of this? I think it's rather mean spirited to describe those ex-employees who left via this route as 'just surplus to requirements' given the cuts in funding for the Councils. They were valued employees, but the Councils couldn't afford to keep them. I refer you back to my previous point. My take on it all is that during the 'boom' of the Blair years it all got a bit too easy for public bodies. Practices crept in that were imported in from the private sector that were fundamentally not public sector ethos. Eric Pickles and Margaret Hodge(?) seem to be exposing these. (This is not a political point). Have WDDC and W&PBC got major skeletons in their cupboards that are not in the public domain? Probably not (it seems to me), but they have partly created their own problems by 'spinning' press releases. After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance. It doesn't seem like it was a 'model of transparency' answer...... Anyway, goodbye! Rod Stewart's mate
  • Score: 4

7:30pm Wed 19 Feb 14

ksmain says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
http://www.easyvirtu

alassistance.co.uk/p

age4.html

http://www.wirralglo

be.co.uk/news/486041

6.Wirral_Council_whi

stleblower_Martin_Mo

rton___I_d_do_it_all

_again__because_it_s

_the_RIGHT_thing_to_

do_/

These ones are quite interesting too and show exactly what often sits behind these "agreements" in the public sector.

Always interesting to see the names which are adding obfuscation, diversion and dismissal to an article ;-)
Do you actually work in the Public Sector? Because you don't appear to me to know what you're talking about?
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: http://www.easyvirtu alassistance.co.uk/p age4.html http://www.wirralglo be.co.uk/news/486041 6.Wirral_Council_whi stleblower_Martin_Mo rton___I_d_do_it_all _again__because_it_s _the_RIGHT_thing_to_ do_/ These ones are quite interesting too and show exactly what often sits behind these "agreements" in the public sector. Always interesting to see the names which are adding obfuscation, diversion and dismissal to an article ;-)[/p][/quote]Do you actually work in the Public Sector? Because you don't appear to me to know what you're talking about? ksmain
  • Score: 3

7:46pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Noidear says...

The council has a duty to make sure that certain info is not banded about, for many reasons, but it makes me wonder why this has to demand a payoff . Just right it into the contracts.
The council has a duty to make sure that certain info is not banded about, for many reasons, but it makes me wonder why this has to demand a payoff . Just right it into the contracts. Noidear
  • Score: 1

7:48pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Rod Stewart's mate wrote:
Ha, ha-you lot are so funny with your arguing! I don't think I want to be drawn in, so I'm quitting the Echo 'Comments' forum for ever. I thought it would be more genteel!

You need to refine what the argument is about: 'settlements' clearly can be used legitimately to end employment without the expense and time of an employment tribunal. In a private sector company there is commercial confidentiality as well.

However, there seems to be evidence in the national press that (particularly in the NHS) they have been used to stop legitimate questioning of serious 'whistle blowing' issues. Have they been used at WDDC or W&PBC for that purpose? That would be the danger. Is there any evidence of that being the case?

Alternatively, have they been used to stifle public discussion by knowledgeable ex-employees about legitimate local issues? Is there evidence of this?

I think it's rather mean spirited to describe those ex-employees who left via this route as 'just surplus to requirements' given the cuts in funding for the Councils. They were valued employees, but the Councils couldn't afford to keep them.

I refer you back to my previous point.

My take on it all is that during the 'boom' of the Blair years it all got a bit too easy for public bodies. Practices crept in that were imported in from the private sector that were fundamentally not public sector ethos. Eric Pickles and Margaret Hodge(?) seem to be exposing these. (This is not a political point).

Have WDDC and W&PBC got major skeletons in their cupboards that are not in the public domain? Probably not (it seems to me), but they have partly created their own problems by 'spinning' press releases. After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance. It doesn't seem like it was a 'model of transparency' answer......

Anyway, goodbye!
"After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance"

It is always more about what is not said than what is said. Some are not so easily sidelined into believing our public isn't loaded with lying, corrupt cronies. It is.
[quote][p][bold]Rod Stewart's mate[/bold] wrote: Ha, ha-you lot are so funny with your arguing! I don't think I want to be drawn in, so I'm quitting the Echo 'Comments' forum for ever. I thought it would be more genteel! You need to refine what the argument is about: 'settlements' clearly can be used legitimately to end employment without the expense and time of an employment tribunal. In a private sector company there is commercial confidentiality as well. However, there seems to be evidence in the national press that (particularly in the NHS) they have been used to stop legitimate questioning of serious 'whistle blowing' issues. Have they been used at WDDC or W&PBC for that purpose? That would be the danger. Is there any evidence of that being the case? Alternatively, have they been used to stifle public discussion by knowledgeable ex-employees about legitimate local issues? Is there evidence of this? I think it's rather mean spirited to describe those ex-employees who left via this route as 'just surplus to requirements' given the cuts in funding for the Councils. They were valued employees, but the Councils couldn't afford to keep them. I refer you back to my previous point. My take on it all is that during the 'boom' of the Blair years it all got a bit too easy for public bodies. Practices crept in that were imported in from the private sector that were fundamentally not public sector ethos. Eric Pickles and Margaret Hodge(?) seem to be exposing these. (This is not a political point). Have WDDC and W&PBC got major skeletons in their cupboards that are not in the public domain? Probably not (it seems to me), but they have partly created their own problems by 'spinning' press releases. After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance. It doesn't seem like it was a 'model of transparency' answer...... Anyway, goodbye![/p][/quote]"After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance" It is always more about what is not said than what is said. Some are not so easily sidelined into believing our public isn't loaded with lying, corrupt cronies. It is. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -5

7:52pm Wed 19 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

* Public sector I mean
* Public sector I mean David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Wed 19 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rod Stewart's mate wrote:
Ha, ha-you lot are so funny with your arguing! I don't think I want to be drawn in, so I'm quitting the Echo 'Comments' forum for ever. I thought it would be more genteel!

You need to refine what the argument is about: 'settlements' clearly can be used legitimately to end employment without the expense and time of an employment tribunal. In a private sector company there is commercial confidentiality as well.

However, there seems to be evidence in the national press that (particularly in the NHS) they have been used to stop legitimate questioning of serious 'whistle blowing' issues. Have they been used at WDDC or W&PBC for that purpose? That would be the danger. Is there any evidence of that being the case?

Alternatively, have they been used to stifle public discussion by knowledgeable ex-employees about legitimate local issues? Is there evidence of this?

I think it's rather mean spirited to describe those ex-employees who left via this route as 'just surplus to requirements' given the cuts in funding for the Councils. They were valued employees, but the Councils couldn't afford to keep them.

I refer you back to my previous point.

My take on it all is that during the 'boom' of the Blair years it all got a bit too easy for public bodies. Practices crept in that were imported in from the private sector that were fundamentally not public sector ethos. Eric Pickles and Margaret Hodge(?) seem to be exposing these. (This is not a political point).

Have WDDC and W&PBC got major skeletons in their cupboards that are not in the public domain? Probably not (it seems to me), but they have partly created their own problems by 'spinning' press releases. After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance. It doesn't seem like it was a 'model of transparency' answer......

Anyway, goodbye!
"After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance"

It is always more about what is not said than what is said. Some are not so easily sidelined into believing our public isn't loaded with lying, corrupt cronies. It is.
"Sidelined into believing our public isn't loaded" what are you on about? This will be my last post on the subject because as much as I like debating with you David, I have some paint that is in urgent need of me watching it dry.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rod Stewart's mate[/bold] wrote: Ha, ha-you lot are so funny with your arguing! I don't think I want to be drawn in, so I'm quitting the Echo 'Comments' forum for ever. I thought it would be more genteel! You need to refine what the argument is about: 'settlements' clearly can be used legitimately to end employment without the expense and time of an employment tribunal. In a private sector company there is commercial confidentiality as well. However, there seems to be evidence in the national press that (particularly in the NHS) they have been used to stop legitimate questioning of serious 'whistle blowing' issues. Have they been used at WDDC or W&PBC for that purpose? That would be the danger. Is there any evidence of that being the case? Alternatively, have they been used to stifle public discussion by knowledgeable ex-employees about legitimate local issues? Is there evidence of this? I think it's rather mean spirited to describe those ex-employees who left via this route as 'just surplus to requirements' given the cuts in funding for the Councils. They were valued employees, but the Councils couldn't afford to keep them. I refer you back to my previous point. My take on it all is that during the 'boom' of the Blair years it all got a bit too easy for public bodies. Practices crept in that were imported in from the private sector that were fundamentally not public sector ethos. Eric Pickles and Margaret Hodge(?) seem to be exposing these. (This is not a political point). Have WDDC and W&PBC got major skeletons in their cupboards that are not in the public domain? Probably not (it seems to me), but they have partly created their own problems by 'spinning' press releases. After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance. It doesn't seem like it was a 'model of transparency' answer...... Anyway, goodbye![/p][/quote]"After all, their answer to the Echo's FOI which lead to today's story seems to only list half of the £108k that the last Chief Exec of W&PBC got as severance" It is always more about what is not said than what is said. Some are not so easily sidelined into believing our public isn't loaded with lying, corrupt cronies. It is.[/p][/quote]"Sidelined into believing our public isn't loaded" what are you on about? This will be my last post on the subject because as much as I like debating with you David, I have some paint that is in urgent need of me watching it dry. woodsedge
  • Score: 9

9:04pm Wed 19 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
* Public sector I mean
I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-)
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * Public sector I mean[/p][/quote]I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-) JamesYoung
  • Score: 7

7:53am Thu 20 Feb 14

MaidofDorset says...

JamesYoung wrote:
MaidofDorset wrote:
Just out of interest, has Newsquest/ The Echo used gagging orders, if so how many/much etc?
An excellent question. Here is one answer:
http://www.nujscotla

nd.org.uk/News%20010

9.html
In fact, it also turns out that White v Newsquest (EAT 2001, EAT/565/00, EAT/1325/99) was a contributor to current law on unfair dismissal!
Interesting. Perhaps Newsquest could give itself an interview on the cost effectiveness of pay-off's as opposed to going to court.

Settlement agreements are the employment equivalent of a quickie no fault divorce, both parties walk away with more money in their pockets and less work for the legal eagles.

It does however mean that bodies can be buried so to speak.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MaidofDorset[/bold] wrote: Just out of interest, has Newsquest/ The Echo used gagging orders, if so how many/much etc?[/p][/quote]An excellent question. Here is one answer: http://www.nujscotla nd.org.uk/News%20010 9.html In fact, it also turns out that White v Newsquest (EAT 2001, EAT/565/00, EAT/1325/99) was a contributor to current law on unfair dismissal![/p][/quote]Interesting. Perhaps Newsquest could give itself an interview on the cost effectiveness of pay-off's as opposed to going to court. Settlement agreements are the employment equivalent of a quickie no fault divorce, both parties walk away with more money in their pockets and less work for the legal eagles. It does however mean that bodies can be buried so to speak. MaidofDorset
  • Score: 2

8:07am Thu 20 Feb 14

AlwaysQuestion says...

Tinker2 wrote:
mr commonsense wrote:
In response to Banknote Mr Chisholm is Independent of any political party, trade union and owes no allegiance to anybody but his constituents. His is a more refreshing view of the local political scene and as he takes no orders from any of the parties in WDDC we like to hear his views. I am not he, nor a constituent of his and if only local government had more Independents running our Councils a lot more would be done for the people.
Couldn't agree more! and I doubt there is anyone who has done more for Dorchester than Mr Chisholm. He has for many years been dedicated to the town and it's prosperity. He is a 'man of the people' and not a just 'tow the party line' also ran.
Mr Chisholm's achievements for Dorchester? Let me think now. He has peddled a string of unproven conspiracy theories, attempted to prevent progress at every stage, provided the Echo with continuous streams of headline grabbing narcistic nonsense stories and managed to fool a growing band of gullible followers along the way. His positive achievements? Uhhh, nothing.
I too would like to see more independent councillors. There is an election due in just over a year and any dissatisfied person can stand as a candidate.
[quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: In response to Banknote Mr Chisholm is Independent of any political party, trade union and owes no allegiance to anybody but his constituents. His is a more refreshing view of the local political scene and as he takes no orders from any of the parties in WDDC we like to hear his views. I am not he, nor a constituent of his and if only local government had more Independents running our Councils a lot more would be done for the people.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more! and I doubt there is anyone who has done more for Dorchester than Mr Chisholm. He has for many years been dedicated to the town and it's prosperity. He is a 'man of the people' and not a just 'tow the party line' also ran.[/p][/quote]Mr Chisholm's achievements for Dorchester? Let me think now. He has peddled a string of unproven conspiracy theories, attempted to prevent progress at every stage, provided the Echo with continuous streams of headline grabbing narcistic nonsense stories and managed to fool a growing band of gullible followers along the way. His positive achievements? Uhhh, nothing. I too would like to see more independent councillors. There is an election due in just over a year and any dissatisfied person can stand as a candidate. AlwaysQuestion
  • Score: 4

9:52am Thu 20 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
* Public sector I mean
I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-)
Yes, but they are not supposed to be paid by the people, working for the people and answerable to the people James. This is not an issue about the private sector. I doubt anyone honestly believes certain things are kept quiet in these agreements the public have a right to kn ow.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * Public sector I mean[/p][/quote]I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-)[/p][/quote]Yes, but they are not supposed to be paid by the people, working for the people and answerable to the people James. This is not an issue about the private sector. I doubt anyone honestly believes certain things are kept quiet in these agreements the public have a right to kn ow. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -1

11:42am Thu 20 Feb 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
* Public sector I mean
I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-)
Yes, but they are not supposed to be paid by the people, working for the people and answerable to the people James. This is not an issue about the private sector. I doubt anyone honestly believes certain things are kept quiet in these agreements the public have a right to kn ow.
"Paid by the people, working for the people, answerable to the people" What a load of left wing hyperbole old chap
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * Public sector I mean[/p][/quote]I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-)[/p][/quote]Yes, but they are not supposed to be paid by the people, working for the people and answerable to the people James. This is not an issue about the private sector. I doubt anyone honestly believes certain things are kept quiet in these agreements the public have a right to kn ow.[/p][/quote]"Paid by the people, working for the people, answerable to the people" What a load of left wing hyperbole old chap woodsedge
  • Score: 4

10:41am Sat 22 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
* Public sector I mean
I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-)
Yes, but they are not supposed to be paid by the people, working for the people and answerable to the people James. This is not an issue about the private sector. I doubt anyone honestly believes certain things are kept quiet in these agreements the public have a right to kn ow.
"Paid by the people, working for the people, answerable to the people" What a load of left wing hyperbole old chap
I just gave you a like there, to make the 5 that will miraculously appear on Cyril's :-).
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * Public sector I mean[/p][/quote]I think you'll find the private sector is just as corrupt, if not more so. I know: i work in it :-)[/p][/quote]Yes, but they are not supposed to be paid by the people, working for the people and answerable to the people James. This is not an issue about the private sector. I doubt anyone honestly believes certain things are kept quiet in these agreements the public have a right to kn ow.[/p][/quote]"Paid by the people, working for the people, answerable to the people" What a load of left wing hyperbole old chap[/p][/quote]I just gave you a like there, to make the 5 that will miraculously appear on Cyril's :-). JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree