FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Is it time for proper equality?
Is it time for proper equality?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Mid Staffs NHS Trust is facing a large fime over the death of one of its patients. A fine to be paid for out of the trusts own funds, thereby further reducing patient care.
Under current legislation, a director of a Company can be prosecuted for manslaugter should one of it's workers die?
So, isn't it about time that should the executives running Mid Staffs Trust also be similarly liable for manslaughter charges? After all, they are very well rewarded for "managing" their operations.
Views please?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
This is a really difficult one. I am a company director and trustee (unpaid) and know I carry the legal burden. I do what I can to manage the devolved authority given to executives. I have also been on the executive side. I think the reality is that the senior executives often sit in the board meetings, prepare the papers and lead the information given. On that basis they should be considered de facto directors and face the same consequences.
I think that they should at least face being charged at the same time.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"This is a really difficult one. I am a company director and trustee (unpaid) and know I carry the legal burden. I do what I can to manage the devolved authority given to executives. I have also been on the executive side. I think the reality is that the senior executives often sit in the board meetings, prepare the papers and lead the information given. On that basis they should be considered de facto directors and face the same consequences.
I think that they should at least face being charged at the same time.
"
How can you be liable for a rogue employee? Nobody has been prosecuted for Jimmy Savile's vile crimes at the BBC have they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I never understand why people at the top walk/get pushed for things they weren't directly responsible for - especially in massive organisations."
I tend to agree in most cases, i was aghast at the legislation and why NuLabour pushed the legislation as hard as they did. Still, if it exists, surely it should apply to all sectors.
Didn't the news also recently mention that the Chief of Mid Staffs then went up Cumbria way with similar outcomes? Fit for purpose or what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"This is a really difficult one. I am a company director and trustee (unpaid) and know I carry the legal burden. I do what I can to manage the devolved authority given to executives. I have also been on the executive side. I think the reality is that the senior executives often sit in the board meetings, prepare the papers and lead the information given. On that basis they should be considered de facto directors and face the same consequences.
I think that they should at least face being charged at the same time.
How can you be liable for a rogue employee? Nobody has been prosecuted for Jimmy Savile's vile crimes at the BBC have they?"
That's the case you have to answer though: were there enough controls in place to reduce the risks, even with the rogue employees? Did you abdicate your responsibility as a director? Were you negligent in managing the risks? Risk Management is full of this stuff.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I never understand why people at the top walk/get pushed for things they weren't directly responsible for - especially in massive organisations.
I tend to agree in most cases, i was aghast at the legislation and why NuLabour pushed the legislation as hard as they did. Still, if it exists, surely it should apply to all sectors.
Didn't the news also recently mention that the Chief of Mid Staffs then went up Cumbria way with similar outcomes? Fit for purpose or what?"
Company Law and Charity Law are clear that it's the directors/trustees. The NHS Trusts, quangos and non departmental bodies had exemptions (I believe some still do). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"This is a really difficult one. I am a company director and trustee (unpaid) and know I carry the legal burden. I do what I can to manage the devolved authority given to executives. I have also been on the executive side. I think the reality is that the senior executives often sit in the board meetings, prepare the papers and lead the information given. On that basis they should be considered de facto directors and face the same consequences.
I think that they should at least face being charged at the same time.
How can you be liable for a rogue employee? Nobody has been prosecuted for Jimmy Savile's vile crimes at the BBC have they?
That's the case you have to answer though: were there enough controls in place to reduce the risks, even with the rogue employees? Did you abdicate your responsibility as a director? Were you negligent in managing the risks? Risk Management is full of this stuff.
"
No argument with that at all. If you have done all you can then I don't think you can be held responsible.although it would be interesting to see how many people have been prosecuted for allowing murderers to be released who have been deemed fit to live back in society and then went on to murder others.Not sure any people have have been taken to book for that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I never understand why people at the top walk/get pushed for things they weren't directly responsible for - especially in massive organisations.
I tend to agree in most cases, i was aghast at the legislation and why NuLabour pushed the legislation as hard as they did. Still, if it exists, surely it should apply to all sectors.
Didn't the news also recently mention that the Chief of Mid Staffs then went up Cumbria way with similar outcomes? Fit for purpose or what?
Company Law and Charity Law are clear that it's the directors/trustees. The NHS Trusts, quangos and non departmental bodies had exemptions (I believe some still do)."
Oh yeah, the legislation itself is aimed at Companies and will be precise (ish)full of exemptions.
My point really is should the legislation have included everyone, should it apply to everyone?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"This is a really difficult one. I am a company director and trustee (unpaid) and know I carry the legal burden. I do what I can to manage the devolved authority given to executives. I have also been on the executive side. I think the reality is that the senior executives often sit in the board meetings, prepare the papers and lead the information given. On that basis they should be considered de facto directors and face the same consequences.
I think that they should at least face being charged at the same time.
How can you be liable for a rogue employee? Nobody has been prosecuted for Jimmy Savile's vile crimes at the BBC have they?
That's the case you have to answer though: were there enough controls in place to reduce the risks, even with the rogue employees? Did you abdicate your responsibility as a director? Were you negligent in managing the risks? Risk Management is full of this stuff.
No argument with that at all. If you have done all you can then I don't think you can be held responsible.although it would be interesting to see how many people have been prosecuted for allowing murderers to be released who have been deemed fit to live back in society and then went on to murder others.Not sure any people have have been taken to book for that."
No, I don't think anyone has. I know a man I can ask. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We can't have proper equality. Powerful and wealthy people dont want us toWhat's that supposed to mean?"
What it said, otherwise I'd have felt the need to write an essay |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"We can't have proper equality. Powerful and wealthy people dont want us toWhat's that supposed to mean?
What it said, otherwise I'd have felt the need to write an essay "
Thanks for that. Most enlightening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We can't have proper equality. Powerful and wealthy people dont want us toWhat's that supposed to mean?
What it said, otherwise I'd have felt the need to write an essay Thanks for that. Most enlightening."
See, I knew you could think for yourself  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"We can't have proper equality. Powerful and wealthy people dont want us toWhat's that supposed to mean?
What it said, otherwise I'd have felt the need to write an essay Thanks for that. Most enlightening.
See, I knew you could think for yourself "
I have my moments. Not many I must admit.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
How can you be liable for a rogue employee? Nobody has been prosecuted for Jimmy Savile's vile crimes at the BBC have they?"
Tort Law, they hired him to be a DJ/presenter, a job he did more than adequately. Therefore, anything else he did is unrelated to his work , so they can't be sued for negligence!!
And he can't be sued for anything because he's dead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"Do we need a new Godwin's Law to cover Jimmy fucking Saville being bought up in any thread that has a point of law involved ?"
I think you will find that on 21st of this month the BBC will pay compensation to victims of this pervert rapist of children.To be settled in court. Have the BBc denied the awful abuse? Do you really think sex crimes should be swept under the carpet? I don't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Do we need a new Godwin's Law to cover Jimmy fucking Saville being bought up in any thread that has a point of law involved ?"
Jimmy Savile was NOT Hitler, you must know that. Surely.
How about say, a Savile's Law?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we need a new Godwin's Law to cover Jimmy fucking Saville being bought up in any thread that has a point of law involved ?I think you will find that on 21st of this month the BBC will pay compensation to victims of this pervert rapist of children.To be settled in court. Have the BBc denied the awful abuse? Do you really think sex crimes should be swept under the carpet? I don't."
Have I suggested I believe that anything should be swept under the carpet?
Were the BBC sued or are they ex-gratia payments? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a really difficult one. I am a company director and trustee (unpaid) and know I carry the legal burden. I do what I can to manage the devolved authority given to executives. I have also been on the executive side. I think the reality is that the senior executives often sit in the board meetings, prepare the papers and lead the information given. On that basis they should be considered de facto directors and face the same consequences.
I think that they should at least face being charged at the same time.
How can you be liable for a rogue employee? Nobody has been prosecuted for Jimmy Savile's vile crimes at the BBC have they?"
What has the Jimmy Saville case got to with this? It has no bearing whatsoever. He was hirf to do a job, dj/presenter. He did that job. The executives that hire staff at the trust should hire people that are able to do the job adequitely. If not, they should also bear the brunt of the law! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"Do we need a new Godwin's Law to cover Jimmy fucking Saville being bought up in any thread that has a point of law involved ?I think you will find that on 21st of this month the BBC will pay compensation to victims of this pervert rapist of children.To be settled in court. Have the BBc denied the awful abuse? Do you really think sex crimes should be swept under the carpet? I don't.
Have I suggested I believe that anything should be swept under the carpet?
Were the BBC sued or are they ex-gratia payments?"
I don't know if they are exgratia payments but all I know is that children were raped by an employee of theirs.It will probably be cheaper to pay those abused in one fell swoop than each individual claim being heard in court. That will also keep them (the BBc) out of the media for a long time. A quick solution really and then divert the public with something "dramatic" to take the attention away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I never understand why people at the top walk/get pushed for things they weren't directly responsible for - especially in massive organisations."
Harry Truman allegedly had a sign on his Oval Office desk which said, the buck stops here.
It used to be the case in UK government that the Minister in charge of a department was responsible for anything any employee of that dept did in their work (Ministerial Responsibility).
That sense of doing 'the right thing' has long gone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do we need a new Godwin's Law to cover Jimmy fucking Saville being bought up in any thread that has a point of law involved ?I think you will find that on 21st of this month the BBC will pay compensation to victims of this pervert rapist of children.To be settled in court. Have the BBc denied the awful abuse? Do you really think sex crimes should be swept under the carpet? I don't.
Have I suggested I believe that anything should be swept under the carpet?
Were the BBC sued or are they ex-gratia payments?I don't know if they are exgratia payments but all I know is that children were raped by an employee of theirs.It will probably be cheaper to pay those abused in one fell swoop than each individual claim being heard in court. That will also keep them (the BBc) out of the media for a long time. A quick solution really and then divert the public with something "dramatic" to take the attention away. "
You're allowing emotions to cloud any real points oflaw though. Find out IF the BBC could be sued for negligence before accusing them of sweeping matters under the carpet, or going for a quick fix. Ex-gratia, isn't the same as an out of court settlement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
