Ed Balls learning to clap
Sharon Shoesmith "paid" to protect vulnerable children, but failing only to protect.
The Roller Coast ride between legitimacy and idiocy is
exemplified by the decision of the Courts to award a six figure compensation
fee to a woman who was incompetent and incapable of fulfilling her contract
with her employers, the tax payer.
By using powers his office did not have, according to the Law
Courts, Ed Balls illustrated every dictatorial attribute of the semi-literate
know-all that most politicians appear to manifest.
Let us not forget that Mssrs Balls and a great percentage of the leaders
of all parties have never held a job of note.
They have no experience to provide the judgment that politicians
want the country’s employers to show, a concept they cannot grasp themselves.
Sharon Shoesmith, by taking the right course and relying on
the Courts, has put the dilemma under the national conscience microscope. Yes, she was correct in that she was dismissed
unfairly according to her contract. But
what few commentators have raised is who produced that iniquitous contract in
the first place?
Every council in the land has been seduced into overpaying
second class employees, the general jobsworths who are the scourge of ordinary
decent citizens whenever a need for public services arises. From the evidence we must gleam that they have only half read their duty rules and standing orders, apparently without
the slightest comprehension of what the rules mean. Let us take their employment contract for
instance. To draw a salary, or to get paid for fulfilling a contract, one has to fulfill the major
tenant of all contract law. Both parties
must undertake and complete that contract in full. That is to say, in simple English, Sharon
Shoesmith as head of a dysfunctional and failing organisation could never, in all decency, stand
before a Judge and say that she had completed her part of the bargain unless
she was contracted to fail. But we have
to be very careful as every soldier could be held liable for the death of a comrade
at the height of an action irrespective of how brave their fellow heroes are. Let us not fall into the trap of the Civil
Servants mouthpieces and equate the rotten performances of overpaid public
servants with that of those who put themselves in harms way for all our
benefits.
The problem is written into the offer. An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms,
made with the intention that it is to be binding once accepted by the person to
whom it is addressed.
A OFFER
1
There must be an objective manifestation of intent by the offeror to be
bound by the offer if accepted by the other party. Therefore, the offeror will
be bound if his words or conduct are such as to induce a reasonable third party
observer to believe that he intends to be bound, even if in fact he has no such
intention.
2
An offer may be made expressly (by words) or by conduct.
B. ACCEPTANCE
3. An acceptance is a final and unqualified
expression of assent to the terms of an offer. Again, there must be an
objective manifestation, by the recipient of the offer, of an intention to be
bound by its terms
4. An offer must be accepted in
accordance with its precise terms if it is to form an agreement. It must exactly
match the offer and ALL terms must be accepted.
In every Council in the
land there has to be scrutiny of contracts offered to employees. That role should be undertaken by elected Councillors whom must be able to say to the executive that certain contracts
are unacceptable. I.E. Executives on salaries
greater than that of the Prime Minister’s should have their contracts rescinded and made
proportionate to the Office held.
As sad as this case is,
the pathetic response of the Caring Services to yet another murder of another
child, namely Peter Connelly, Sharon Shoesmith’s attitudes reflects more on the
Jobsworths in Councils than the ordinary person might suspect. Like many Degree Nurses in our NHS, they appear to be beyond criticism and that is wrong.
It also tells us how abysmal Ed Balls has
been as a Minister and how dangerous he will be as an undirectable Exocet in a
future Labour Administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment