Two Yellow Cards But Not Sent Off
Football3 mins ago
Time for a Double Standards Committee ?
The Express reports “A Cake factory worker who was sacked after 17 years service for eating part of a hazelnut said last night: “I have been treated like a criminal. It’s a joke.” Grandmother Susan Longworth, 53, says she was branded a thief after she absentmindedly popped a piece of nut less than half an inch in size into her mouth as she waited for a conveyor belt to deliver a batch of toffee cakes for her to decorate. After being suspended, she was fired and frogmarched from the premises. She said yesterday: “I’ve never stolen anything in my life and I didn’t see any harm in eating a tiny little bit of hazelnut. It’s just nuts.” Susan, who joined the Park Cake company in Bolton in 1993, added: “I am going to appeal to clear my name but if they offered me my job back tomorrow I wouldn’t take it. I’m not being classed as a thief ”
Compare this to
David Laws who has resigned (and not been sacked) from the Coalition Cabinet (but not resigned as an MP) after revelations that he claimed £40,000 of Taxpayers Money to pay rent to his boyfriend. After this David Cameron writes to David Laws “ You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else. Your decision to resign from the government demonstrates the importance you attach to your integrity. I hope that, in time, you will be able to SERVE AGAIN as I think it is absolutely clear that you have a huge amount to offer our country”
Should the Government, despite our hard times, now set up yet another Quango - a Double Standards Committee to bring in the same laws for rich and poor alike and ensure they are applied fairly ?
Compare this to
David Laws who has resigned (and not been sacked) from the Coalition Cabinet (but not resigned as an MP) after revelations that he claimed £40,000 of Taxpayers Money to pay rent to his boyfriend. After this David Cameron writes to David Laws “ You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else. Your decision to resign from the government demonstrates the importance you attach to your integrity. I hope that, in time, you will be able to SERVE AGAIN as I think it is absolutely clear that you have a huge amount to offer our country”
Should the Government, despite our hard times, now set up yet another Quango - a Double Standards Committee to bring in the same laws for rich and poor alike and ensure they are applied fairly ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by olddutch. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Her employers saw her actions as sufficient to dismiss her under their definition of 'gross misconduct'. I don't think it's up to me to have an opinion one way or the other on the matter.
David Laws has stepped down from a job he has held for 17 days (to which he has probably aspired for many years) and had to reveal his private-life to the world.
I see his transgression as coming from the end of the last administration rather than the start of the new. His immediate apology, repayment and stepping-down do his credit no harm..........and he was the instigator of this investigation, in the first place.
David Laws has stepped down from a job he has held for 17 days (to which he has probably aspired for many years) and had to reveal his private-life to the world.
I see his transgression as coming from the end of the last administration rather than the start of the new. His immediate apology, repayment and stepping-down do his credit no harm..........and he was the instigator of this investigation, in the first place.
I have a relative who works for a company that makes biscuits etc.
They have a huge production line, and if anything gets into it and they have to shut it down to clear it out it can cost thousands.
For that reason they are VERY strict where he works.
Chewing gum - sackable offence.
Wearing jewellry - sackable offence.
Going to the toilet without removing your outer protective clothing - sackable offence.
Not wearing hair or beard covering - sackable offence.
I assume this company had similar rules about people eating food from the production line.
It says she had worked there 17 years so she knew the rules.
No sympathy for her.
They have a huge production line, and if anything gets into it and they have to shut it down to clear it out it can cost thousands.
For that reason they are VERY strict where he works.
Chewing gum - sackable offence.
Wearing jewellry - sackable offence.
Going to the toilet without removing your outer protective clothing - sackable offence.
Not wearing hair or beard covering - sackable offence.
I assume this company had similar rules about people eating food from the production line.
It says she had worked there 17 years so she knew the rules.
No sympathy for her.
I certainly have sympathy for her. It can't be pleasant to lose a job of 17 years standing; but she knew the rules and broke them and paid the penalty.
David Laws set the investigation into his 'conduct' in motion himself..........He has stepped-down from the new position he was given but by all accounts is a well-respected constituency MP and I see no reason why he should have to step down from that job, too.
David Laws set the investigation into his 'conduct' in motion himself..........He has stepped-down from the new position he was given but by all accounts is a well-respected constituency MP and I see no reason why he should have to step down from that job, too.
Canary
I too got sympathy for her on the basis of what I have seen reported - she was out of order but I feel that if it was her first offence in 17 years it should have been dealt with a reading of the riot act rather than a sacking and left there - but in David Laws case of misappropriating £40000, after all thats gone on with MPs expenses abuses, a sacking would have been appropriate - esp to set marker for new higher standards for MPs - instead key goverment ministers praise Laws and talk of bringing him back as soon as possible !
I too got sympathy for her on the basis of what I have seen reported - she was out of order but I feel that if it was her first offence in 17 years it should have been dealt with a reading of the riot act rather than a sacking and left there - but in David Laws case of misappropriating £40000, after all thats gone on with MPs expenses abuses, a sacking would have been appropriate - esp to set marker for new higher standards for MPs - instead key goverment ministers praise Laws and talk of bringing him back as soon as possible !
This MP has been claiming this expense since 2001 (it's irrelevant that he has become a minister because it's an expense that all MPs can claim).
The rules about paying rent to partners came in in 2006; he could have chosen to not continue claiming the expense (he didn't need the money because of all the money he made in the city) but continued to do so.
Last year there were all the Telegraph revelations about expenses, so did he do anything different? No he continued claiming them. The general election campaign comes along with all the talk of new politics and how parliament was going to be clear of these scandals and he could have taken the opportunity to be honest. Again no change of behaviour.
It's only when there's a threat of a newspaper story that suddenly he decides that it should be referred to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and resigns from the front bench.
There are openly gay MPs so the only problem he had was with his own timidity in being honest about himself; it's not necessary to make a big deal about it just don't lie about it if the subject happens to arise.
That lack of character has cost the public £40,000 and there has been nothing to suggest that it would come to light if the media hadn't become involved. In the last four years he could have looked for advice for whether his expense claims were valid and that could have been done in the background, no-one else need know. Did he do that?
Why any sympathy for him whatsoever? He only has himself to blame.
The rules about paying rent to partners came in in 2006; he could have chosen to not continue claiming the expense (he didn't need the money because of all the money he made in the city) but continued to do so.
Last year there were all the Telegraph revelations about expenses, so did he do anything different? No he continued claiming them. The general election campaign comes along with all the talk of new politics and how parliament was going to be clear of these scandals and he could have taken the opportunity to be honest. Again no change of behaviour.
It's only when there's a threat of a newspaper story that suddenly he decides that it should be referred to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and resigns from the front bench.
There are openly gay MPs so the only problem he had was with his own timidity in being honest about himself; it's not necessary to make a big deal about it just don't lie about it if the subject happens to arise.
That lack of character has cost the public £40,000 and there has been nothing to suggest that it would come to light if the media hadn't become involved. In the last four years he could have looked for advice for whether his expense claims were valid and that could have been done in the background, no-one else need know. Did he do that?
Why any sympathy for him whatsoever? He only has himself to blame.
Jack
"and I see no reason why he should have to step down from that job, too."
With respect, I see 40000 very good reasons !
If you or I had wrongly taken £40000 from our employers we would have been sacked and prosecuted !
And Laws is a multi millionaire - surely he could have paid for his boyfriend out of his own money ?
"and I see no reason why he should have to step down from that job, too."
With respect, I see 40000 very good reasons !
If you or I had wrongly taken £40000 from our employers we would have been sacked and prosecuted !
And Laws is a multi millionaire - surely he could have paid for his boyfriend out of his own money ?
bibblebub
If he had been open about his relationship, and instead claimed mortgage relief, apparently it would've cost the taxpayer substantially more.
This story isn't really about dishonesty or even greed - it's about fear. Perhaps we should temper our condemnation of the man unless we personally know what it's like to come out to your family and friends (and the world).
If he had been open about his relationship, and instead claimed mortgage relief, apparently it would've cost the taxpayer substantially more.
This story isn't really about dishonesty or even greed - it's about fear. Perhaps we should temper our condemnation of the man unless we personally know what it's like to come out to your family and friends (and the world).
sp1814- so if he'd been honest it would have cost more. That is an irrelevancy; if that is the way the expenses work out then that is the way the system works.
You're right that it's about fear; my objection is to the sympathy for him when all those MPs who were last year revealed to have been misclaiming expenses were (rightly) reviled. He is no different; a lot of them also claimed innocence or naivete.
You're right that it's about fear; my objection is to the sympathy for him when all those MPs who were last year revealed to have been misclaiming expenses were (rightly) reviled. He is no different; a lot of them also claimed innocence or naivete.
They work for different employers who have different standards. I'm rather pleased that food manufacturers have strict rules on this and baffled about why someone who'd been there 17 years should have casually broken them. All the same, if she'd been my employee, I might have given her a final warning rather than the sack.
As for Laws, he'd basically had a warning: all last year's hooha. If he hadn't deduced from that that it was important to obey the rules, maybe he's not as bright as people say. Again, I sympathise, because homophobia is still widespread (if I read one more rant on AB about rectums I may throw up); but the rules were made to be kept.
As for Laws, he'd basically had a warning: all last year's hooha. If he hadn't deduced from that that it was important to obey the rules, maybe he's not as bright as people say. Again, I sympathise, because homophobia is still widespread (if I read one more rant on AB about rectums I may throw up); but the rules were made to be kept.
Hazel Blears was re-elected despite her self-serving waving of her repayment cheque on national TV. Why was she re-elected ? Because the majority of her constituents are satisifed that she represents 'them' to a standard they expect.
THAT is why David Laws was re-elected. As a rising star he was awarded a cabinet position, (surely the icing on the cake for any mere MP) and he has now resigned from this 'honorary' position as part atonement for his sins.
Your comparison of the two news stories doesn't really stand upto scrutiny.....
THAT is why David Laws was re-elected. As a rising star he was awarded a cabinet position, (surely the icing on the cake for any mere MP) and he has now resigned from this 'honorary' position as part atonement for his sins.
Your comparison of the two news stories doesn't really stand upto scrutiny.....
Laws (rather apt name don't you think?) fraudulently claimed these expenses for 8 years.....he had ample opportunity to come clean about them but didn't in order to protect the fact that he is gay
When it all blows over he will get a reprieve and serve again, after all this kind of thing happened with Mandleson and his Brazilian 'friend' and he ended up back in another high-flying government position
When it all blows over he will get a reprieve and serve again, after all this kind of thing happened with Mandleson and his Brazilian 'friend' and he ended up back in another high-flying government position
Laws obviously only 'instigated the investigation himself' because he was probably going to be outed as gay and this question of expenses would have then been brought to light
So he did it to lessen the effect of the scandal
Theres far too many gay MPs imo, they should be made to reveal their sexuality when standing for election......the reason some don't is because they would lose too many hetro man votes
So he did it to lessen the effect of the scandal
Theres far too many gay MPs imo, they should be made to reveal their sexuality when standing for election......the reason some don't is because they would lose too many hetro man votes
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.