Advice Wife being kicked out of uni

Xordium said:
A nice appeal to emotion. Fortunately during such investigations - well bar the politicians - people tend to look at chains of events rather than scapegoating individuals for things that may well have been out of their control at that specific time.

As with Baby P it is very easy to actually lay the blame on the individuals easily identifiable as being at the frontline of access. However, the burden of accountability measures far further than that. For example, with the failure of services at Whittington and the subsequent takeover of paediatric services by Gt Ormond St. The concerns raised towards the CEO Dr (well she was at the time) Jane Collins and her overall governance of the services. Through to the head of social services for the region. Questions were asked about medical supervision in paediatrics and the actual practice of the individuals involved. Questions were rightly asked about the protocols and procedures and whether these were actually achievable.

These were not specific individual errors this was a total system failure directly caused by a lack of resource allocation, a dearth of talent and a culture of having to accept second best and make do.

Alternatively you could go with the Daily Mail appeal to emotion line ...

But people did lose their jobs. Plenty of people had their careers ended because of that incident. The people who did though were frontline staff who had little recourse but to muddle through the best they could. The actual people who had overall responsibility for the mess seem to have not come out too bad at the end of the day. So rather than have a rant about social workers why don't you email Marie Curie and ask why they are paying such a big wage to someone with such a **** record?
Click to expand...

Cry me a river for the sacked social workers. They are the true victims here :rolleyes: The usual pass the buck excuses or whataboutery. They didn't get the sack or lose their appeal for doing a great job did they? They werent struck off either and Sharon Shoesmith got about £600k. Hardly sent to the gulags were they?
 
Xordium said:
If you read the actual law behind these things and the case histories they quite clearly always find that the professional bodies statutes stand as they were legally formed and the practitioners wilfully became beholden to them.
Click to expand...

depends really - what they are doing might not be legal - you can't assume the university knows what they are doing.
i work in uni for a number of years and they are mostly idiots.
i also know a number of people who took them to court for various things and won (although a legal threat was often enough for them to back down and rethink).

its worth getting legal advice just to see if what the uni are doing is legal.
 
Above&Beyond said:
Cry me a river for the sacked social workers. They are the true victims here :rolleyes: The usual pass the buck excuses or whataboutery. They didn't get the sack or lose their appeal for doing a great job did they? They werent struck off either and Sharon Shoesmith got about £600k. Hardly sent to the gulags were they?
Click to expand...

She got money due to Ed Balls not following the law in regarding sacking someone. He or his advisors messed up due process, legal process, the kind of things they claim to hold dear. He thought he was above the law, didn't follow process, cost the taxpayer money, lots of money. If he had sacked her proerly nothing of the sort would have happened.
You can't critise her for asking that the law be followed. You can critise her if her dept wasnt up to scratch and she was responsible.
He has on several occasions refused to apologise for his blunder when he had some power, instead asking we give him more power. Balls.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
She got money due to Ed Balls not following the law in regarding sacking someone. He or his advisors messed up due process, legal process, the kind of things they claim to hold dear. He thought he was above the law, didn't follow process, cost the taxpayer money, lots of money. If he had sacked her proerly nothing of the sort would have happened.
You can't critise her for asking that the law be followed. You can critise her if her dept wasnt up to scratch and she was responsible.
He has on several occasions refused to apologise for his blunder when he had some power, instead asking we give him more power. Balls.
Click to expand...

Very much so.

IIRC he announced he was sacking her using "special powers"* at the same news conference when he announced there was going to be an enquiry into the social services at that council.

Not only did he not follow basic employment law, he did it in such a way that even before the enquiry had been done he'd basically said "it's all her fault".

IIRC she got the money because the law in regards to sacking someone wasn't followed (even remotely - I'm not sure it's even strictly legal for a government minister to order someone employed by a council fired, let alone without going through basic sacking proceedures), and she got so much because even before the results of the enquiry were in he'd made it impossible for her to ever work in the sector again by assigning the blame on her (from memory whilst she was the head of the department the department was massively underfunded by the council and government).


*Like a lot of Politicians Mr Balls (I'm sure there should be a suffix to that surname in his case), thought he was "special" and above the law.
 
Kmodo said:
Your wife got herself into this by not being able to keep her mouth shut in the first place :/

Seriously, who goes round blabbing what colleagues tell you to superiors?
Click to expand...

Anyone with an illegal drug habit that will be working with kids deserves to be reported and sacked, I would have no hesitation in reporting a coke head or any other drug user that is working with kids. OP's wife did the right thing in opening her mouth!
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
She got money due to Ed Balls not following the law in regarding sacking someone. He or his advisors messed up due process, legal process, the kind of things they claim to hold dear. He thought he was above the law, didn't follow process, cost the taxpayer money, lots of money. If he had sacked her proerly nothing of the sort would have happened.
You can't critise her for asking that the law be followed. You can critise her if her dept wasnt up to scratch and she was responsible.
He has on several occasions refused to apologise for his blunder when he had some power, instead asking we give him more power. Balls.
Click to expand...

She should have resigned in absolute disgrace, but doing the decent thing and admitting your failures isn't going to happen with these type of people. They'll hang on for a pay off or waiting to be sacked so they can launch an unfair dismissal tribunal and then claim to be a victim too.
 
Above&Beyond said:
She should have resigned in absolute disgrace, but doing the decent thing and admitting your failures isn't going to happen with these type of people. They'll hang on for a pay off or waiting to be sacked so they can launch an unfair dismissal tribunal and then claim to be a victim too.
Click to expand...

Yes, so precisely the thing that anyone with a shred of intelligence will do in such a case is follow the letter of the law in getting rid of the person they want to eliminate, to leave absolutely nothing open fro any comeback. Commander Balls is incapable of such intelligence, nor process following. The idiotic ^%$£ wit cost us lots of money for scoring apolitical point, and remains indignant.
 
Rofflay said:
No offence coke is bad but what your wife did shows she is not a very nice person, Nor can she be trusted. Heck i would think twice about even having her as a wife if this is how she acts.
Click to expand...

It shows she CAN be trusted. It shows she can be trusted to uphold the values set by the profession.

I think its the drug taker that cant be trusted.
 
mattyg said:
It shows she CAN be trusted. It shows she can be trusted to uphold the values set by the profession.

I think its the drug taker that cant be trusted.
Click to expand...

+1 to this, it's nice to see that there are still people out there that try and uphold values and standards, I can't abide drug dealers and takers and feel compulsory drug testing should be implemented in all professions!
 
aardvark said:
depends really - what they are doing might not be legal - you can't assume the university knows what they are doing.
i work in uni for a number of years and they are mostly idiots.
i also know a number of people who took them to court for various things and won (although a legal threat was often enough for them to back down and rethink).

its worth getting legal advice just to see if what the uni are doing is legal.
Click to expand...

Except we were on about challenges to the statue provisions of professional bodies and the case history related to that.
 
Above&Beyond said:
Cry me a river for the sacked social workers. They are the true victims here :rolleyes: The usual pass the buck excuses or whataboutery. They didn't get the sack or lose their appeal for doing a great job did they? They werent struck off either and Sharon Shoesmith got about £600k. Hardly sent to the gulags were they?
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the post I made because you seem to be moaning about the very thing I highlighted as a problem rather than what you actually posted about ...

Maybe if you was consistent in your argument it would have more merit - but you aren't you seem unable to distinguish between front line workers and managers.

If you want to have a little rant then knock yourself out. But don't quote other people when you aren't directly replying to them especially when you are then saying the same thing as them. It just makes you look a bit well you know ...
 
Last edited:
Mrs Dimple made a point when I showed her this.
She said there must have been a conversation with the Mentor that went something like this:
"I know somebody on the course who is taking Coke"
"Who is it?"
"Can't tell you"
"But I need to know"
"I'm not saying"
and so on.

Uni then confronted her and she still didn't want to give a name until they told her what could happen so she gave in.
Meanwhile X amount of time has passed putting children in possible danger.

Lesson:
If you're going to snitch don't do half measures.
 
Xordium said:
Did you actually read the post I made because you seem to be moaning about the very thing I highlighted as a problem rather than what you actually posted about ...

Maybe if you was consistent in your argument it would have more merit - but you aren't you seem unable to distinguish between front line workers and managers.

If you want to have a little rant then knock yourself out. But don't quote other people when you aren't directly replying to them especially when you are then saying the same thing as them. It just makes you look a bit well you know ...
Click to expand...

Let me guess. It was a collective failure, no individual serious errors were made, not enough hours in the day, underfunded, inexperienced case workers, they were manipulated, lessons will be learned, agencies will coordinate or a million other excuses that are concocted to save their hides.

It's become white noise listening to these weasel words and crocodile tears. Trust in these services must be so low you'd have to dig for it.
 
Dimple said:
Mrs Dimple made a point when I showed her this.
She said there must have been a conversation with the Mentor that went something like this:
"I know somebody on the course who is taking Coke"
"Who is it?"
"Can't tell you"
"But I need to know"
"I'm not saying"
and so on.

Uni then confronted her and she still didn't want to give a name until they told her what could happen so she gave in.
Meanwhile X amount of time has passed putting children in possible danger.

Lesson:
If you're going to snitch don't do half measures.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Haggisman said:
It could be as simple and innocent as the OP's wife going to her mentor and saying something like "One of the other girls/guys told me they're taking coke, and I don't really know what to do?" The mentor then goes to the tutor/Uni to find out the correct procedure, and the Uni goes to the wife, all guns blazing, and says "tell us who or we'll kick you out!"
Click to expand...
 
Above&Beyond said:
Let me guess. It was a collective failure, no individual serious errors were made, not enough hours in the day, underfunded, inexperienced case workers, they were manipulated, lessons will be learned, agencies will coordinate or a million other excuses that are concocted to save their hides.

It's become white noise listening to these weasel words and crocodile tears. Trust in these services must be so low you'd have to dig for it.
Click to expand...

Can you actually read? Because no-one is said that. So either you are stupid (which judging by the content of your posts and their construction - you are not), you are being wilfully obtuse - quite likely, or you are deliberately trolling - on something like this then that is kind of pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom