| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law 13:30 - Feb 15 with 2604 views | Ryorry |
... in appointing Harding & Coupe -
[Post edited 15 Feb 2022 13:34]
|  |
| |  |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 13:57 - Feb 15 with 1793 views | IpswichKnight |
Not quite how The judge actually saw it.
“The collective effect of the conclusions set out during this judgment is that the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety. The claim by the Runnymede Trust fails on Grounds 1 and 3; it succeeds on Ground 2 only to the extent that the decisions on the process to be used when appointing to the positions of Interim Chair of NIHP in August 2020, and Director of Testing at NHSTT in September 2020 were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty.”
No mention from the fox murderer about the judge dismissing his other claims. |  | | |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:06 - Feb 15 with 1730 views | Ryorry |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 13:57 - Feb 15 by IpswichKnight |
Not quite how The judge actually saw it.
“The collective effect of the conclusions set out during this judgment is that the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety. The claim by the Runnymede Trust fails on Grounds 1 and 3; it succeeds on Ground 2 only to the extent that the decisions on the process to be used when appointing to the positions of Interim Chair of NIHP in August 2020, and Director of Testing at NHSTT in September 2020 were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty.”
No mention from the fox murderer about the judge dismissing his other claims. |
Nevertheless,
"While the formal declaration reflects only the appointments made by Matt Hancock, the High Court is clear that the process adopted by the Prime Minister was also unlawful (paragraph 116 of the judgment). All three appointments breached the public sector equality duty."
That's significant. Whether they'll ever meet with any punishment for those & their other breaches of the law is another matter though. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:07 - Feb 15 with 1720 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 13:57 - Feb 15 by IpswichKnight |
Not quite how The judge actually saw it.
“The collective effect of the conclusions set out during this judgment is that the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety. The claim by the Runnymede Trust fails on Grounds 1 and 3; it succeeds on Ground 2 only to the extent that the decisions on the process to be used when appointing to the positions of Interim Chair of NIHP in August 2020, and Director of Testing at NHSTT in September 2020 were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty.”
No mention from the fox murderer about the judge dismissing his other claims. |
Indeed
|  |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:10 - Feb 15 with 1706 views | itfcjoe |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:06 - Feb 15 by Ryorry |
Nevertheless,
"While the formal declaration reflects only the appointments made by Matt Hancock, the High Court is clear that the process adopted by the Prime Minister was also unlawful (paragraph 116 of the judgment). All three appointments breached the public sector equality duty."
That's significant. Whether they'll ever meet with any punishment for those & their other breaches of the law is another matter though. |
It's hardly a massive deal is it? |  |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:12 - Feb 15 with 1685 views | homer_123 |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:06 - Feb 15 by Ryorry |
Nevertheless,
"While the formal declaration reflects only the appointments made by Matt Hancock, the High Court is clear that the process adopted by the Prime Minister was also unlawful (paragraph 116 of the judgment). All three appointments breached the public sector equality duty."
That's significant. Whether they'll ever meet with any punishment for those & their other breaches of the law is another matter though. |
I can't see his teflon overcoat being affected much. |  |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:14 - Feb 15 with 1660 views | Ryorry |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:10 - Feb 15 by itfcjoe |
It's hardly a massive deal is it? |
Large numbers of disabled people disagree with you. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:16 - Feb 15 with 1640 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:14 - Feb 15 by Ryorry |
Large numbers of disabled people disagree with you. |
In normal times I’d agree. But in the early days of the pandemic I don’t.
We’d still be holding interviews two years later. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:16]
| |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:19 - Feb 15 with 1616 views | Dubtractor |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:16 - Feb 15 by GlasgowBlue |
In normal times I’d agree. But in the early days of the pandemic I don’t.
We’d still be holding interviews two years later. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:16]
|
Indeed. You'll not find me defending this shower of b@stards too often, but this one smacks of trying to find a technicality to nail them on.
These recruitment laws are very important on a day to day basis, but I'm not sure this is the best example of corruption from this government. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:29]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:24 - Feb 15 with 1596 views | Ryorry |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:19 - Feb 15 by Dubtractor |
Indeed. You'll not find me defending this shower of b@stards too often, but this one smacks of trying to find a technicality to nail them on.
These recruitment laws are very important on a day to day basis, but I'm not sure this is the best example of corruption from this government. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:29]
|
| |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:27 - Feb 15 with 1580 views | itfcjoe |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:14 - Feb 15 by Ryorry |
Large numbers of disabled people disagree with you. |
It's hardly a normal job at the time, they needed to get their appointments in place quickly and not follow a 6 month recruiting period - and I'd imagine those who got the jobs were earmarked for it. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:28 - Feb 15 with 1567 views | Dubtractor |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:24 - Feb 15 by Ryorry |
|
Oh, it smacked of cronyism, but that's nothing to do with this court case is it? | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:28 - Feb 15 with 1567 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:19 - Feb 15 by Dubtractor |
Indeed. You'll not find me defending this shower of b@stards too often, but this one smacks of trying to find a technicality to nail them on.
These recruitment laws are very important on a day to day basis, but I'm not sure this is the best example of corruption from this government. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:29]
|
There is a massive danger of overreach. I see they are starting to close labour’s lead in the polls.
As you say, hammer them hard for the important stuff. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:38 - Feb 15 with 1533 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:27 - Feb 15 by itfcjoe |
It's hardly a normal job at the time, they needed to get their appointments in place quickly and not follow a 6 month recruiting period - and I'd imagine those who got the jobs were earmarked for it. |
I can recruit, whilst complying with all employment legislation, in about 6 weeks from start to offer of appointment. I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of the government to do so as well, if they wanted to. And that's the key thing here - they didn't want to. This is how they role. They want to operate outside any norms with respect to rights, protections, etc. |  |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:46 - Feb 15 with 1499 views | eireblue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:16 - Feb 15 by GlasgowBlue |
In normal times I’d agree. But in the early days of the pandemic I don’t.
We’d still be holding interviews two years later. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:16]
|
Hmmmm,
I am not sure this defence of,…but, pandemic
really should be such a get out of jail free card.
Governments are supposed to plan for these things, and sort of be prepared, just in case.
For instance, nobody has actually tried to attempt an invasion by the sea, of the U.K.
If one was attempted, we wouldn’t be running around looking for people to make some big guns, boats and appoint a few Admirals.
It will be interesting to find out, when a public enquiry is held, whether the Government followed such plans, or, how much damage was done, when things like PPE stockpiles may not have been maintained.
As Sir Ian Boyd, a chief scientific adviser once said
“Governments over the years have buried their heads, and it is harder to have those conversations with people who have a small-government view of the world,”
What did that new chap that Johnson appointed recently talk about, oh yes, small Government, now the pandemic is comming to an end. |  | | |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:48 - Feb 15 with 1494 views | Ryorry |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:38 - Feb 15 by Swansea_Blue |
I can recruit, whilst complying with all employment legislation, in about 6 weeks from start to offer of appointment. I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of the government to do so as well, if they wanted to. And that's the key thing here - they didn't want to. This is how they role. They want to operate outside any norms with respect to rights, protections, etc. |
Quite, hence JRM & ERG -> Brexit -> proposals for lower food standards regulation etc. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:53 - Feb 15 with 1468 views | usm |
Wow Indeed!!!!! |  |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:57 - Feb 15 with 1446 views | usm |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:38 - Feb 15 by Swansea_Blue |
I can recruit, whilst complying with all employment legislation, in about 6 weeks from start to offer of appointment. I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of the government to do so as well, if they wanted to. And that's the key thing here - they didn't want to. This is how they role. They want to operate outside any norms with respect to rights, protections, etc. |
Good for you. And with a global pandemic gong on as well. Not like the Govt faced any criticism for being slow or anything is it? [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 15:00]
| |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 15:06 - Feb 15 with 1378 views | Ryorry |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:16 - Feb 15 by GlasgowBlue |
In normal times I’d agree. But in the early days of the pandemic I don’t.
We’d still be holding interviews two years later. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:16]
|
Then they'd have been incompetent.
Modern technology, Zoom, teleconferencing etc. were already widely available before the pandemic broke out. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 15:19 - Feb 15 with 1332 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:57 - Feb 15 by usm |
Good for you. And with a global pandemic gong on as well. Not like the Govt faced any criticism for being slow or anything is it? [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 15:00]
|
I suppose in fairness they may well (previously) had more stringent requirements and it would take them longer than that to go through the proper channels. But we all know that even if their excuse is speed, their real reason for acting the way they do is nothing to do with speed.
It was the same with the PPE procurement wasn't it? Sure, not following the process meant in theory they could act more quickly, but they often ignored companies with relevant experience and fast tracked the cash into the pockets of friends, donors, etc. It's all about them avoiding scrutiny and nepotism and cronyism. Or corruption as we should all call it. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 17:54 - Feb 15 with 1182 views | lowhouseblue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:16 - Feb 15 by GlasgowBlue |
In normal times I’d agree. But in the early days of the pandemic I don’t.
We’d still be holding interviews two years later. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 14:16]
|
though since harding's role was unpaid there may not have been a long list of applicants. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 18:02 - Feb 15 with 1154 views | Plums |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:38 - Feb 15 by Swansea_Blue |
I can recruit, whilst complying with all employment legislation, in about 6 weeks from start to offer of appointment. I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of the government to do so as well, if they wanted to. And that's the key thing here - they didn't want to. This is how they role. They want to operate outside any norms with respect to rights, protections, etc. |
You’re correct. The lag in recruitment is usually down to the notice period of the candidate so it’s a lame excuse that there wasn’t time. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 18:03]
|  |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 19:31 - Feb 15 with 1041 views | Ryorry |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 17:54 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
though since harding's role was unpaid there may not have been a long list of applicants. |
"unpaid" 😂 | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 19:53 - Feb 15 with 978 views | BlueBadger |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:57 - Feb 15 by usm |
Good for you. And with a global pandemic gong on as well. Not like the Govt faced any criticism for being slow or anything is it? [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 15:00]
|
You like open corruption, bigotry and incompetence, we get it. |  |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 20:03 - Feb 15 with 941 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 18:02 - Feb 15 by Plums |
You’re correct. The lag in recruitment is usually down to the notice period of the candidate so it’s a lame excuse that there wasn’t time. [Post edited 15 Feb 2022 18:03]
|
Quite. These people were obviously available. I think we have a 4 (maybe 5 week) mandatory advertisement period for senior roles. Throw in a week to shortlist and a week to interview, and that’s 6-7 weeks to point of offer. Normally yes, we’d then have 3-6 months notice for top roles. Obviously that doesn’t apply here as they were available already.
It’s shameful that people try to defend this, as we know why these people were appointed. If people genuinely care about equal ops and transparency, they should be concerned about how the govt operated. I’m sure they could have fast tracked and still had a transparent process. The excuse of speed doesn’t wash with me at all. | |
| |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 08:24 - Feb 16 with 791 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Wow - breaking: High Court ruling that Johnson & Hancock broke law on 14:46 - Feb 15 by eireblue |
Hmmmm,
I am not sure this defence of,…but, pandemic
really should be such a get out of jail free card.
Governments are supposed to plan for these things, and sort of be prepared, just in case.
For instance, nobody has actually tried to attempt an invasion by the sea, of the U.K.
If one was attempted, we wouldn’t be running around looking for people to make some big guns, boats and appoint a few Admirals.
It will be interesting to find out, when a public enquiry is held, whether the Government followed such plans, or, how much damage was done, when things like PPE stockpiles may not have been maintained.
As Sir Ian Boyd, a chief scientific adviser once said
“Governments over the years have buried their heads, and it is harder to have those conversations with people who have a small-government view of the world,”
What did that new chap that Johnson appointed recently talk about, oh yes, small Government, now the pandemic is comming to an end. |
Of course they didn’t plan for it. It was a totally fcuk up. We know this. Would you then prefer them to follow the rules and take months (or even six weeks as Swansea has suggested) when we’ve been caught with our pants down or make a quick and urgent appointment.
Paul Cook picks a team with no goal scorers. We are 3-0 down after 10 minutes. Do we throw a couple of strikers on after ten minutes or dies he spend the next 79 minutes discussing the decision with the kit man on how to get back in the game. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
