Go to 2013B, 2013A, 2012B, 2012A 2011B, 2011A , 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004

unmade films


JenaDesigns for Building Plans on CAD for  Planning Permission

Mrs. Monk's Would-be Diary should have been written by Mrs. Monk, since she is the "Writer" in the family.
However, since she is a writer only in the conceptual sense, I have undertaken to fill these pages on her behalf
If not by her, these pages will certainly be about her, and other important matters of the day         Leslie Monk




  Complain, Applaud, or Comment  CONTACT Shoestringonline


The Witchfinder General and The Daily Mail

29 May 2011

Employment tribunals are bursting with the weight of claims against employers.

The notion that too many employees are trying it on and that employers are finding it too difficult to fire “bad” employees is a common fallacy. This present government and coalition has it on their agenda to make it easier for employers by obliging employees to settle for less than they would otherwise expect in employment tribunals.

In fact when employers want to fire an employee for whatever reason, they adopt the dark strategies of lawyers and HR (Human Resources) advisors on how to do this. These advisors will and do advise employers to fire the employees unfairly rather than adhere to a fair practice, because with a precipitate expedient firing of an unwanted employee they may then save money, even if they get an unfavourable judgement by a tribunal.

There is therefore no incentive for employers to treat employees fairly, whether they deseve to be fired, or not. And that is why the tribunals are full to bursting, at great cost to the public purse.

HR lawyers are never short of work and are making an absolute fortune advising employers how to reduce their losses, by avoiding telling the truth about the employees they wish to fire.

The remedy is clear. Increase the tariff of awards to employees. Force employers to treat employees fairly. Unblock the tribunal system. Save public money.

Employers employ other employees, which they call managers, to do this dirty work of hiring and firing, and in large public institutions, like hospitals and schools and social services, managers may defer down the chain of responsibility, (or blame). It could be said that  the responsible Government Minister, Ed Balls did precisely this to the Head of the Haringey council children's services, Sharon Shoesmith.

It has been determined that Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed by Haringuey Council and she will now be paid compensation. The statutory award would be around 30,000, or three months salary, and not the millions referred to by the Daily Mail, and repeated by the BBC.

Sharon Shoesmith has said that she is not in the “blame game”, but she will have been advised to keep a lid on blaming others, knowing that it is in her best interest to allow others to determine the blame. The amount of cash she actually receives is unlikely to be disclosed to the public, even though that compensation will be paid out of the public purse in this case.

The amount she receives will reflect the degree of vilification she received following her unfair dismissal.

The vile Daily Mail is in no mood to apologise to Sharon Shoesmith for their witch hunt against her. They described her successful appeal with the front page picture and headline, “1,000,000 Smirk” That headline is inaccurate but will nevertheless add to her claim for yet more compensation out of the Public Purse. The Daily Mail website continues to publish vilification of Sharon Shoesmith, and today they elevated her pay off to 2,500,000, and of course yet more  invention to boost their circulation.

This will provide a great deal of work for lawyers who will get as much gravy out of this case as Sharon Shoesmith.

They say the buck stops with Sharon Shoesmith but is that really so?

The Daily Mail made up their minds about Sharon Shoesmith, knowing that she had not been given an opportunity to defend herself. Ed Balls fired Sharon Shoesmith summarily on TV, and was clearly politically motivated to do so. Nevertheless he was not acting responsibly, or at all fairly.



the dark strategies of lawyers and HR advisors


Go to 2013B, 2013A, 2012B, 2012A 2011B, 2011A , 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004

  Complain, Applaud, or Comment  CONTACT Shoestringonline