Teresa May resigns

[administrator]

I think you mean Theresa May.

(Teresa May is NSFW!)

[TimberWolf]

She's got pressure piles now: Pressure piles on Theresa May over border controls | Politics

[shaunbhoy]

Constructive dismissal requires you to resign by definition. It's not a case of jumping before being pushed but of being left with no other option.

Don't buy that. Are you seriously suggesting that the Media would not have beaten a path to his door to get his side of the story?
Sounds like he screwed up, got rightly condemned for doing so, and has thrown a hissy fit. Fook him. Does he believe he is immune from criticism?

Given that he's been suspended and publicly vilified in parliament without actually being given an opportunity to answer his critics I think he has a point.

Suspended on full pay no doubt.
No, if he has been harshly dealt with then there are a number of ways he could put his case forward that fall short of a temper-tantrum-induced resignation.
Eyeing a fat-cat sized failure bonus methinks.

[tractor]

....

Don't buy that. Are you seriously suggesting that the Media would not have beaten a path to his door to get his side of the story?
Sounds like he screwed up, got rightly condemned for doing so, and has thrown a hissy fit. Fook him. Does he believe he is immune from criticism?



Suspended on full pay no doubt.
No, if he has been harshly dealt with then there are a number of ways he could put his case forward that fall short of a temper-tantrum-induced resignation.
Eyeing a fat-cat sized failure bonus methinks.

IIRC he already got that last year and this.....

[Sysman]

I might be able to some testing in the evenings for the right money.

How much are you willing to pay?

[doodab]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Media would not have beaten a path to his door to get his side of the story?
Sounds like he screwed up, got rightly condemned for doing so, and has thrown a hissy fit. Fook him. Does he believe he is immune from criticism?

No, I'm seriously suggesting that Mrs May has pointed the finger straight at him in parliament before a formal evaluation of the facts has taken place, thus rendering his position impossible. The papers have beaten a path to his door, he's now subject to trial by media and required to defend himself in the papers, it seems he barely stops short of calling the home secretary a liar, so it's hard to see how you can seriously expect him to remain in his job and work with her after that.

He's not immune from criticism but that criticism ought to be based on fact and he ought to have the right to state his case in private before blame is apportioned in the public eye. He hasn't been rightly condemned, he's been hung out to dry without a trial.

I think you need to take your anti public servant blinkers off for a bit.

[doomage]

Full backing

Apparently she has the full backing of David Cameron.

So she's toast then.

[shaunbhoy]

No, I'm seriously suggesting that Mrs May has pointed the finger straight at him in parliament before a formal evaluation of the facts has taken place, thus rendering his position impossible.

And how do you KNOW that no formal evaluation has taken place?
She would be taking a huge risk if it had not been, with little to gain if her facts are wrong.

The papers have beaten a path to his door, he's now subject to trial by media and required to defend himself in the papers, it seems he barely stops short of calling the home secretary a liar, so it's hard to see how you can seriously expect him to remain in his job and work with her after that.

If he has cast-iron proof that he is innocent of all wrongdoing, and that she IS lying, then unveiling this would ensure her instant removal.
He could then quite happily get on with working with her replacement, safe in the knowledge that they will be aware he does not take prisoners.
Why has he chosen not to do so?

He's not immune from criticism but that criticism ought to be based on fact and he ought to have the right to state his case in private before blame is apportioned in the public eye. He hasn't been rightly condemned, he's been hung out to dry without a trial.

All in your opinion of course. But you have no idea just what investigation has already taken place. If I were in his position, and were certain that I had done nothing wrong, I would be fiercely defending my position, and riding the storm out, well aware that Politicians come and go.
He has chosen to meekly walk away without doing so. All smells a bit fishy to me.

I think you need to take your anti public servant blinkers off for a bit.

I shall do so the moment I believe that Public Officials deserve such consideration. Until then it is open season as far as I am concerned.
Nail 'em up I say!!!

[doodab]

And how do you KNOW that no formal evaluation has taken place?
She would be taking a huge risk if it had not been, with little to gain if her facts are wrong.

In his statement released on Tuesday, former UK Border Force chief Mr Clark said: "Those statements are wrong and were made without the benefit of hearing my response to formal allegations," he said.

"The home secretary suggests that I added additional measures, improperly, to the trial of our risk-based controls. I did not. Those measures have been in place since 2008/09.

"The home secretary also implies that I relaxed the controls in favour of queue management. I did not.

"Despite pressure to reduce queues, including from ministers, I can never be accused of compromising security for convenience.

"This summer saw queues of over three hours (non EU) on a regular basis at Heathrow and I never once contemplated cutting our essential controls to ease the flow."

He said he was saddened his career should end in this way after 40 years of "dedicated service", and regretted Mrs May had "disregarded my right to reply" in favour of political convenience.

Although Mr Clark has left the Civil Service, technically he has not resigned, said Jonathan Baume from the First Division Association, the trade union which represents senior civil servants

He said Mr Clark had been willing to answer the issues raised internally.

"But instead he was suspended and the home secretary has spent two days basically traducing him and damning him without ever giving the civil servant the opportunity to present their case."

If he has cast-iron proof that he is innocent of all wrongdoing, and that she IS lying, then unveiling this would ensure her instant removal.
He could then quite happily get on with working with her replacement, safe in the knowledge that they will be aware he does not take prisoners.
Why has he chosen not to do so?

I suspect that releasing an official paper trail to the papers rather than via the proper channels would count as gross misconduct. Unfortunately he's not had the chance to respond via the proper channels but he is in parliament next week so we should see what happens then.

All in your opinion of course. But you have no idea just what investigation has already taken place. If I were in his position, and were certain that I had done nothing wrong, I would be fiercely defending my position, and riding the storm out, well aware that Politicians come and go.
He has chosen to meekly walk away without doing so. All smells a bit fishy to me.

He can't "fiercely defend" his position because it's been taken away from him without him being given the opportunity to do so. Clearly this point is whizzing over your head like a pigeon with a firework up it's arse.

[Doggy Styles]

Compact Law - Constructive Dismissal

Occurs where the employee leaves their job due to the employer's behaviour. For example, the employer has made the employee's life very difficult and the employee feels that they cannot remain in their job. When this happens the employee's resignation is treated as an actual dismissal by the employer, so the employee can claim Unfair Dismissal.

Examples of Constructive Dismissal can include:

1. Not supporting managers in difficult work situations.

2. Harassing or humiliating staff, particularly in front of other less senior staff.

3. Victimising or targeting particular members of staff.

4. Changing the employee's job content or terms without consultation.

5. Making a significant change in the employee's job location at short notice.

6. Falsely accusing an employee of misconduct such as theft or of being incapable of carrying out their job.

7. Excessive demotion or disciplining of employees.

HTH