Well done Mr Cameron!!

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Gagging clauses are common. There are real issues around the extent they can be enforced, but legal challenges seem very rare. Anecdotally if someone in receipt of a settlement with a gagging clause announces that they will go public then they will usually be paid more.

In this whistleblower case it seems that problems were first taken by the whistleblower to the NHS, who did not act. Rather they started legal charges against him (presumably alleging his incompetence, which may or may not be the case) which ran up an enormous legal bill for him. Bear in mind he would be most unlikely to get legal aid, so it really is the case that it is the effectively unlimited legal budget of the NHS trust against an individual. In such a circumstance he had no realistic alternative but to settle and be gagged. Half a million quid sounds enormous, but it may be five or so year's salary. Given that he will never get an NHS job alone it is not an unreasonable sum.

I'm all in favour of stopping gagging clauses, but not just in NHS. They need to be stopped in universities, schools, police, civil service. We need a culture of transparency.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Gagging clauses are trumped by the right to reveal what is in the public interest. Interesting that the public sector thinks that it operates beyond the public interest.

Yes, Minister.
 
7

798686

Guest
Just what I said in relation to sexual abuse, where you disagreed. People must be allowed to state allegations publicly free from all sanctions.
Allegations are fine if they're backed up by substance - what we argued against, as you're fully aware, is rampant net-wide gossip without any evidence, often by unconnected people.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Just what I said in relation to sexual abuse, where you disagreed. People must be allowed to state allegations publicly free from all sanctions.

The transparency has to be backed by evidence. Whistleblowers such as this one in the NHS are very likely to have evidence - I think it is pretty much certain that someone awarded half a million quid in a compromise agreement had substantial evidence. By contrast the uncomfortable reality for many reporting rape is that they do not have evidence.

Yes we need a culture of transparency such that those WITH EVIDENCE can make their point. Anything else is anarchy.

Anyone making a public interest disclosure within an organisation (ie whistle blowing) should be interviewed by the legal representative of the organisation (the secretary) who should assure them that they are safe from prosecution if they make statements in good faith. However if they go public this protection no longer exists - they must have evidence.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Allegations are fine if they're backed up by substance - what we argued against, as you're fully aware, is rampant net-wide gossip without any evidence, often by unconnected people.
No, what you said was that someone who had been abused was not permitted to state what he knew on national television. Now, turned out he had his details wrong, but who is to say whether a whistle blower in the NHS would have all his details right either. The principle is the same. It is impossible to say beforehand whether an allegation is true or not. It will only be investigated if it gets publicity. Its exactly the same.

Anyone making a public interest disclosure within an organisation (ie whistle blowing) should be interviewed by the legal representative of the organisation (the secretary) who should assure them that they are safe from prosecution if they make statements in good faith. However if they go public this protection no longer exists - they must have evidence.
So thats no good at all. They may know something is wrong without having proof. They must be able to tell the media and report what they believe.

We need a culture of transparency.
So actually you did not mean this, it was just a nice sound bite? Think thats the governments idea too? We all know, no publicity.. nothing gets done.
 
7

798686

Guest
No, what you said was that someone who had been abused was not permitted to state what he knew on national television. Now, turned out he had his details wrong, but who is to say whether a whistle blower in the NHS would have all his details right either. The principle is the same. It is impossible to say beforehand whether an allegation is true or not. It will only be investigated if it gets publicity. Its exactly the same.
No I didn't - I said people wholly unconnected with it (eg:Schofield), were not permitted to peddle their ill-informed and dangerous assumptions or accusations on tv, especially with no evidence. Someone who's directly involved would of course be able to - as long as he/she is prepared to back it up with proof (altho official channels would be even better).

I'm not against victims coming forward, as I've said many times - or against the system being improved to make it more possible/tenable for them to do so. What I am against, is people going on a gossip-fest, dropping names into the mix here, there and everywhere, and wrecking people's reputations in the process.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No I didn't - I said people wholly unconnected with it (eg:Schofield), were not permitted to peddle their ill-informed and dangerous assumptions or accusations on tv,
Schofield is a TV host. His job is to report topical stories. He is just an example of media which are reporting the story, not inventing it. By attacking Schofield you are saying the story may not be reported. You are on the side of secrecy and all the bad things which inevitably result.

I'm not against victims coming forward,
Yes you are. victims or whistleblowers become victimised even more if they attempt to report what has happened. You are supporting the coverup, and their further victimisation. Openness is the only way to deal with this.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Its finally happened. The UK's AAA rating has been reduced. The current government came to power with a policy of spending cuts, arguing the only way to restore the british economy was to balance the government accounts. If they did not do this, then the country would lose its AAA rating and all hell would break looses.

So half a parliament later, we have had the cuts (or some of them), and matters are worse than before. In view of deteriorating conditions during this parliament, Moodys has reduced its UK credit rating to AA1. Moody's downgrades UK's government bond rating to Aa1 from Aaa; outlook is now stable

Moodys say one reason for the downgrade is the governments cuts! They suggest they are causing low growth (not wholly, but certainly contributing). They currently predict UK debt will peak at 96% of GDP. They seem to be suggesting that the UK government has missed its chance to restore the economy to normalcy, and now risks being overtaken by further adverse world events before the Uk even recovers from the last one. There is a risk of the situation snowballing out of control because current policy is driving up government debt.

The good news, ie why they are not currently anticipating any further downgrade, is the long term strength of the Uk position. Its debt is long term, so there is time to repair matters before it falls due. Using the pound allows the government flexibility, i assume they mean quantitative easing to buy up Uk debt as need arises and therfore stabilse the interest rate (which is being held very low). The fact that compared to many other countries the Uk is still doing quite well.

I guess that in a way, Moodys is being quite careful not to take sides in what is the correct action to create a recovery. What they have said is that under the current policy matters have become worse, but there is still time to recover before the country goes bust. They are not anticipating an improvement until after the next election, which may mean, contrary to tory claims, they really think a change of government and policy is what is needed.

Well done Mr Cameron!
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The downgrade is bad. It may well have been inevitable. It would certainly have happened much earlier had Labour remained in power and would have been a milti-point downgrade. Bad though this is it is so very much better than it might have been.

We need Labour to show a bit of humility and apologise for their ideologically motivated destruction of the UK economy. The blame for the economic mess belongs to Labour. Labour needs to go on their knees and beg forgiveness from the children of this country for the terrible things they did. Not only did we have a war criminal as PM but we had a party bent on some new Labour version of the life wrecking doctrine of socialism. Labour inherited from Major the UK economy in the best state it has ever been in and left it in the worst state.

Labour are beyond contempt. The downgrade is indeed humiliating, and it is a humiliation bought upon the UK by Labour. Labour utterly disgust me. The doctrine and party that has maximised poverty and maximised human misery and has managed to convince the electorate to vote for them through the lie that is socialism.

The fullest possible congratulations to Cameron for soing so well - and a prayer that the scumbags who sit on Labour's front bench, many of whom supported Blair in his warcrimes and should like him be in prison, never ever get into power again.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
you can tell the government think this bad news because once again they sent along the liberal Danny Alexander to be interviewed about it on R4. If its bad get a liberal to talk about it. Especially if it isnt liberal policy!

Jase, perhaps you can explain what labour did that constituted 'ideologically motivated destruction'. Do you mean they had adopted the conservative's free market approach and pretty much abandoned any traditional socialist doctrines?

I just heard a fleet street editor on the radio who after 2 years has been told he isnt being charged with reading peoples voice mail. He was quite annoyed that this has been hanging over him for so long, starting with a 6am raid to arrest him. He suggested that the police did not have a sense of proportion over this. I have to agree. I never did understand why intercepting voice mail, which is so easy you just have to ring up the person, should be regarded as so serious. leave a letter on a table and dont be surprised if someone reads it. Jase, thats a long ramble to wonder why you think ' Labour needs to go on their knees and beg forgiveness from the children of this country' when there is little difference between them and the conservatives on their economic approach.

No, I perhaps take that back. The policy operated by the conservatives when they came into office was to do exactly what labour had planned. No difference at all. But ideologically there does seem to be a difference. Not only were the conservatives held back from doing what they might have done by liberals, but some of their statements make it quite clear - bluntly- children are one of their target groups for cuts. With anyone else who is poor, of course, but you mention children. Poor being anyone in the bottom 85% of the wealth distribution.

The economic divide is between those who believe a government should cut in a recession and those who believe a government should borrow and spend in a recession. Moodys plainy believe the Uk had the ability to borrow much more if it chose. They believe government cuts have contributed to low growth. They know more cuts are in the pipeline, in fact most of the cuts are still in the pipeline. Presumably this is why they anticipate no improvement this side of the next election. Many international economic bodies have said the UK is cutting back too much, and this is counter productive. France has abandoned that policy. Japan has abandoned that policy. Did Germany ever have it?

The difference between the conservatives and labour is increasingly being demonstrated in pronouncements on things like benefits. The country may accept that cuts in benefits are necessary if there is no money. But some conservatives seem to regard anyone receiving benefits as the scum of the earth. People who should be punished. The source of all the UK's problems. This is completely wrong. There has always been a simple answer to the idle unemployed: offer them a decent job and if they refuse to take it, cut off their benefits. Just about all my lifetime the unemployed have continued to exist because this simple remedy cannot be applied...because these jobs do not exist. It is completely unacceptable for a political party to go round blaming the poor for something which is not their fault. It is unacceptable for a party to write them off and tell them to live in cardboard boxes as far away from the capital as possible.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There are a couple of important notes around the Moody's downgrade:

* The UK is NOT on negative watch. The markets will find this very reassuring.
* Moody's have criticised slow economic growth but also applauded austerity. They are emphatically NOT saying that the UK should spend more. They are saying that less should be spent in existing areas (ie the big state expenditure including benefits, NHS, Education, Defence) and more put into investment for growth (which could for example be a cut in CT).

What we are seeing from Moody's is a realisation that the Conservatives have not cut hard enough or fast enough. This has always been the worry.

I don't think the downgrade will have any immediate effect on the markets as it was factored in - this is the prime reason behind the pound's slide in the last few days.

There really is an issue of confidence to be addressed. Moody's make their announcements on a Friday eve so there is time for speeches and policy changes. What is needed from Balls is a statement that he accepts the market facts of life that austerity must be applied and that he recognises that Osborne has not been cutting hard enough and fast enough. This would indicate that Labour are on message with correct economic policy. The market fear is that in 2015 we could have Balls as Chancellor following the sort of policies we are seeing in Hollande's France. Hollande can get away with it because the markets (and Hollande) know that the reality is that Germany MUST support France - so France has a free ride on Germany. But the UK is not a euro nation and cannot simply bill Germany. The potential for Balls to wreck our economy is high. He should consider whether his priorities are people or the political ideology of socialism. He should also consider whether in 2013 anyone can justify supporting socialist economic policies given their record failure.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
* The UK is NOT on negative watch. The markets will find this very reassuring.
"The stable outlook on the UK's Aa1 sovereign rating reflects Moody's expectation that a combination of political will and medium-term fundamental underlying economic strengths will, in time, allow the government to implement its fiscal consolidation plan and reverse the UK's debt trajectory."

I assume Moody's have factored in the current expectation that labour will win the next election, so I assume the government they are referring to which will carry out fiscal consolidation is a labour one... .

" Moody's now expects that the UK's gross general government debt level will peak at just over 96% of GDP in 2016."

...since they dont expect any fiscal consolidation to be effective until a year after the next general election.

* Moody's have criticised slow economic growth but also applauded austerity.
"The main driver underpinning Moody's decision to downgrade the UK's government bond rating to Aa1 is the increasing clarity that, despite considerable structural economic strengths, the UK's economic growth will remain sluggish over the next few years due to the anticipated slow growth of the global economy and the drag on the UK economy from the ongoing domestic public- and private-sector deleveraging process. "

ie moody's say public deleveraging is causing slow growth (ie cuts). Ok, they say the private sector is doing the same, but that is exactly why classic economic theory calls for a government to deliberately do the opposite.

"The sluggish growth environment in turn poses an increasing challenge to the government's fiscal consolidation efforts, which represents the second driver informing Moody's one-notch downgrade of the UK's sovereign rating. "

ie this slow growth (which they just said was part caused by government spending cuts) will make it impossible for government to cut its borrowing. The plan as originally outlined by the tories cannot work, it is self-defeating.

"When Moody's changed the outlook on the UK's rating to negative in February 2012, the rating agency cited concerns over the increased uncertainty regarding the pace of fiscal consolidation due to materially weaker growth prospects, which contributed to higher than previously expected projections for the deficit, and consequently also an expected rise in the debt burden."

ie they already warned the government that it would not be able to cut borrowing if growth fell.

"The rating agency says that it would have expected it [debt] to peak at a higher level if the government had not reduced its debt stock by transferring funds from the Asset Purchase Facility -- which will equal to roughly 3.7% of GDP in total -- as announced in November 2012. "

ie things would be even worse if the government had not fiddled the books?

They warn "downward pressure on the rating could arise if government policies were unable to stabilise and begin to ease the UK's debt burden during the multi-year fiscal consolidation programme."

They are emphatically NOT saying that the UK should spend more.
Couldnt find where it says that?

They are saying that less should be spent in existing areas (ie the big state expenditure including benefits, NHS, Education, Defence) and more put into investment for growth (which could for example be a cut in CT).
Hmm...couldnt find any of those mentioned?

What we are seeing from Moody's is a realisation that the Conservatives have not cut hard enough or fast enough. This has always been the worry.
Nor could I find that...

What is needed from Balls is a statement that he accepts the market facts of life that austerity must be applied and that he recognises that Osborne has not been cutting hard enough and fast enough.
No, still dont see where Moodys say that at all?

" the underlying economic strength and fiscal policy commitment which Moody's expects will ultimately allow the UK government to reverse the debt trajectory"

"downward pressure on the rating could arise if government policies were unable to stabilise and begin to ease the UK's debt burden during the multi-year fiscal consolidation programme."

Hollande can get away with it because the markets (and Hollande) know that the reality is that Germany MUST support France - so France has a free ride on Germany.
Youre saying we would be better off inside the euro?

Thing is, its all a bit delphic. No one disagrees that reducing the deficit is a good thing. the difficulty is whether spending cuts will in the medium term increase or decrease the deficit.Moodys are saying that if things come right they will increase the rating. If not, they may reduce it again.