You brought up labour and more borrowing, I responded but you are yet to answer a simple question posed as a result of your post. It looks like you're avoiding it and coming up with excuses to do so. You went off topic, I responded. Given the threads trying to discuss this, one more post from you won't be a problem will it?
Do you think he'll increase the national debt on the same scale Osborne has?
No, by more - Balls has been clear that he thought Osbourne was cutting more - the implication being that he would cut less. Spending would have been higher, not lower. That is before you factored in the reaction of the Bond markets had the government been less concerned with reducing the structural deficit - as in sterling dropping, subsequent rises in inflation and interest rates
As my posts will show, l've never been an Ed Balls fan and l regard him as a liability. However, in this case particular case, he called things right and the court got it wrong.
A young child was tortured to death despite being known to local social services and inquiries did indicate failings within the department. Nevertheless, the then head of social services effectively said none of this was her responsibility despite being the head of the department. Her response was wholly unacceptable, she ought to have resigned and Balls was right to remove her when she didn't.
No he wasn't. Everyone is entitled to due process regardless of how heinous their actions might be.
I doubt anyone has much sympathy for this woman but the court of appeal ruled Balls had unfairly dismissed her but it was Haringey Council that made a private settlement with Shoesmith. To be fair it is the council that should answer why it seems it has paid out £680k when the court suggested £33k and you can blame lots of things on Balls but it seems not this one.
I doubt anyone has much sympathy for this woman but the court of appeal ruled Balls had unfairly dismissed her but it was Haringey Council that made a private settlement with Shoesmith. To be fair it is the council that should answer why it seems it has paid out £680k when the court suggested £33k and you can blame lots of things on Balls but it seems not this one.
It highlights the divide between London and the rest of the country.
A London borough thinks nothing of awarding a £680k payoff.
Where I live, and no doubt its the same in many other parts of Britain, £680k is a hell of a lot of money. That is the sort of figure we are looking for to help fund a sports stadium.
I thought it was pretty stupid at the time, people forget the crime was actually committed by the parents not social services and no matter how good the social workers, these things are going to happen.
The problem now is that social services are so paranoid, they are taking children away from parents for the most stupid of reasons and causing real anguish for families who have done nothing wrong.
In the Baby P case, Social Services should have taken him away from his mother and her vicious boyfriend.
I like Ed Balls but this was a knee jerk political reaction. What should have happened was a proper investigation into this woman's failings, if any, in terms of the leadership of the service that failed Peter. Then and only then should disciplinary action have been taken. We are all entitled to due process and it didn't happen here. I know it will be an unpopular view but I think it is right that she is compensated for the loss of her career and reputation resulting from this very public and flawed process.
I know it will be an unpopular view but I think it is right that she is compensated for the loss of her career and reputation resulting from this very public and flawed process.
The ruling was that she had been unfairly dismissed not that she was not responsibile for what happened. As such she should have been compensated for the unfair dismissal not for the subsequent loss of her career and reputation.
The ruling was that she had been unfairly dismissed not that she was not responsibile for what happened. As such she should have been compensated for the unfair dismissal not for the subsequent loss of her career and reputation.
The ruling was also not that she was responsible for what happened. Without the unfair dismissal she may not have suffered the reputational and financial loss she experienced.
The end did not justify the means and the employer has rightly been punished for that in my opinion.
The ruling was also not that she was responsible for what happened. Without the unfair dismissal she may not have suffered the reputational and financial loss she experienced.
The end did not justify the means and the employer has rightly been punished for that in my opinion.
I think it is fair to say the child abuse case meant she suffered the reputational loss not the fact she was unfairly dismissed. In the ruling for unfair dismissal the judge suggested she should receive a minimum of 3 months salary plus pension contributions which is reported as being around £33k, quite how she ended up with over £600k 3 years after that ruling requires an explanation.
I think it is fair to say the child abuse case meant she suffered the reputational loss not the fact she was unfairly dismissed. In the ruling for unfair dismissal the judge suggested she should receive a minimum of 3 months salary plus pension contributions which is reported as being around £33k, quite how she ended up with over £600k requires an explanation.
I don't think that's fair to say at all. The fact that a minister intervened to have her ousted from her job gave much higher prominence and drew much more media attention than if a measured approach had been taken.
I agree that we should understand how that figure has been arrived at. I assume it includes an assumption that as a result of having been unlawfully dismissed it would be impossible for her ever to be employed in her previous capacity.
I don't know what her personal contribution was to the failings that led to Peter not being kept safe but I do know that she should have been treated properly. Being a Director of Children's Services is no easy job and we can't always have a head on a plate just because the mob demands it. Of course if she hadn't done her job properly she should have been dismissed (legally and following due process)
As you have some problems understanding the system of money and banking, here's an article you might want to read to help you.
Has Fractional-Reserve Banking Really Passed the Market Test?
J.G. Hülsmann explains why “in a free market with proper product differentiation, fractional-reserve banking would play virtually no monetary role” (p.403). The incisive reason given is that genuine money titles are valued at par with money proper, while fractional-reserve IOUs + RP (Redemption Promise) would be valued below par, due to default risk.
Here is the deductive argument being made:
1. Debt (IOUs + RP) is promised money.
2. A promise has the risk of not being kept (default risk).
3. Therefore, promised money, debt (IOUs + RP), is less valuable than genuine money titles (/money proper).
J.G. Hülsmann goes on to explain why the mispricing of fractional-reserve debt (IOUs + RP) persists. The reasons given include the outlawing of genuine money titles and deceptive language (“deposits”). This author would like to add one more reason, namely the myth that the government could actually “guarantee” deposits in the event of a systemic run. Systemic runs mean, by definition, most if not all money proper exiting the fractional reserve banking system, meaning the money proper with which the “guarantees” could be fulfilled doesn’t exist, short of unprecedented levels of new money printing and financial repression. This point is acknowledged on p.22 of the otherwise unexceptional “The Chicago Plan Revisited” by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof.
The history of fractional reserve banking is, then, defined by informational inefficiency. Market participants have failed to reflect the price differential between fractional reserve debt (IOUs + RP) and genuine money titles.
On this matter, the reasons given for the persistence of the mispricing of fractional-reserve debt (IOUs + RP) are unsustainable in the long run. The lack of legal protection for genuine money titles is no more than a technicality, for there is nothing in practice that can sustainably prevent the existence of full reserve banks. Awareness that “deposits” are not actually money being held for safekeeping is a matter of educating the public, as is awareness that government’s deposit “guarantees” are not actually credible in the event of a systemic run.
If we assume, then, that fractional-reserve banking will come to its logical ending, there is good reason to believe that the shock will herald the endgame for fiat money. It is in fact the case that all fiat money is the liability of the central bank, which also carries the risk of non-repayment (default risk). This, again, means an arbitrage opportunity for market participants to withdraw the fiat money from the fiat money banking system. This confirms that the original basis for fiat money is destroyed, for its repayment to the central bank is not credible.
It's quite a long article and has links within in but it should help you try to understand money and banking. It even mentions the Chicago Plan, something else you failed to understand, or even read I would think.
I don't think that's fair to say at all. The fact that a minister intervened to have her ousted from her job gave much higher prominence and drew much more media attention than if a measured approach had been taken.
IIRC the media had already identified her and was baying for her blood days before Balls took a decision. With their own inimitable sense of justice they decided this was a story that demanded a scapegoat. The fact that Balls seemed to be prevaricating ultimately meant that he was also becoming the focus of their attention. I strongly suspect that the reason Balls took the decision was because the story was being amplified day by day and it was getting out of control. He was wrong, but he certainly has my sympathies - which is far more than I can say for the media who insisted Shoesmith should go and all but ordered Balls to comply. It was a very public lynching, no wonder she's been determined to turn to actual justice.
This woman will never work again - and she has almost been made out to be more evil in the public's eye than Baby P's murderers. Not excusing her failings of course - just bringing some perspective.
This is the woman who at the press conference said they had done nothing wrong because the paperwork was correct ! they had a dead baby on their on their of course they did something wrong I don't care about what boxes are ticked on bits of paper , this woman should never be allowed near any position involving children let alone one of authority , thats the perspective you should be looking at
More insults. Are you on a mission to get banned ?
The fact that I disagree with you should not be misinterpreted as lacking understanding, it should be called what it is ie disagreeing with you.
Since when has trying to help someone understand something been a banning offence? I think baiting and goading from you qualifies for that, rather than me yet again giving you information. But hey, que sera sera eh... ;-)
I'm in no way a fan of Balls but he was right to sack shoesmith ....I'd go further and imprison some of the social workers -maybe then when a child is tortured they will take action to save child instead of turning a blind eye and preserving their job .
Comments
Thank you for your censure
I have not received the memo saying you have been promoted to moderator so until I do I will decide which questions I do and do not answer.
the debt would have increased vy that amount no matter who was in power, don't know why you are continuously pushing this.
So you are finally agreeing that Osborne is totally ineffective:)
no, i think its far to late to do anything about the debt/deficit.
No, by more - Balls has been clear that he thought Osbourne was cutting more - the implication being that he would cut less. Spending would have been higher, not lower. That is before you factored in the reaction of the Bond markets had the government been less concerned with reducing the structural deficit - as in sterling dropping, subsequent rises in inflation and interest rates
It highlights the divide between London and the rest of the country.
A London borough thinks nothing of awarding a £680k payoff.
Where I live, and no doubt its the same in many other parts of Britain, £680k is a hell of a lot of money. That is the sort of figure we are looking for to help fund a sports stadium.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1912375&highlight=
Maybe you should have a look at the thread about Osborne borrowing more in 3 years than Labour in 13. How much has he borrowed now?
and this would be any different if brown won the election... no it would not be.
In the Baby P case, Social Services should have taken him away from his mother and her vicious boyfriend.
Certainly not - Ed has already said that he would have (and intends to) borrow more.
The ruling was that she had been unfairly dismissed not that she was not responsibile for what happened. As such she should have been compensated for the unfair dismissal not for the subsequent loss of her career and reputation.
The ruling was also not that she was responsible for what happened. Without the unfair dismissal she may not have suffered the reputational and financial loss she experienced.
The end did not justify the means and the employer has rightly been punished for that in my opinion.
I think it is fair to say the child abuse case meant she suffered the reputational loss not the fact she was unfairly dismissed. In the ruling for unfair dismissal the judge suggested she should receive a minimum of 3 months salary plus pension contributions which is reported as being around £33k, quite how she ended up with over £600k 3 years after that ruling requires an explanation.
I agree that we should understand how that figure has been arrived at. I assume it includes an assumption that as a result of having been unlawfully dismissed it would be impossible for her ever to be employed in her previous capacity.
I don't know what her personal contribution was to the failings that led to Peter not being kept safe but I do know that she should have been treated properly. Being a Director of Children's Services is no easy job and we can't always have a head on a plate just because the mob demands it. Of course if she hadn't done her job properly she should have been dismissed (legally and following due process)
As you have some problems understanding the system of money and banking, here's an article you might want to read to help you.
Has Fractional-Reserve Banking Really Passed the Market Test?
J.G. Hülsmann explains why “in a free market with proper product differentiation, fractional-reserve banking would play virtually no monetary role” (p.403). The incisive reason given is that genuine money titles are valued at par with money proper, while fractional-reserve IOUs + RP (Redemption Promise) would be valued below par, due to default risk.
Here is the deductive argument being made:
1. Debt (IOUs + RP) is promised money.
2. A promise has the risk of not being kept (default risk).
3. Therefore, promised money, debt (IOUs + RP), is less valuable than genuine money titles (/money proper).
J.G. Hülsmann goes on to explain why the mispricing of fractional-reserve debt (IOUs + RP) persists. The reasons given include the outlawing of genuine money titles and deceptive language (“deposits”). This author would like to add one more reason, namely the myth that the government could actually “guarantee” deposits in the event of a systemic run. Systemic runs mean, by definition, most if not all money proper exiting the fractional reserve banking system, meaning the money proper with which the “guarantees” could be fulfilled doesn’t exist, short of unprecedented levels of new money printing and financial repression. This point is acknowledged on p.22 of the otherwise unexceptional “The Chicago Plan Revisited” by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof.
The history of fractional reserve banking is, then, defined by informational inefficiency. Market participants have failed to reflect the price differential between fractional reserve debt (IOUs + RP) and genuine money titles.
On this matter, the reasons given for the persistence of the mispricing of fractional-reserve debt (IOUs + RP) are unsustainable in the long run. The lack of legal protection for genuine money titles is no more than a technicality, for there is nothing in practice that can sustainably prevent the existence of full reserve banks. Awareness that “deposits” are not actually money being held for safekeeping is a matter of educating the public, as is awareness that government’s deposit “guarantees” are not actually credible in the event of a systemic run.
If we assume, then, that fractional-reserve banking will come to its logical ending, there is good reason to believe that the shock will herald the endgame for fiat money. It is in fact the case that all fiat money is the liability of the central bank, which also carries the risk of non-repayment (default risk). This, again, means an arbitrage opportunity for market participants to withdraw the fiat money from the fiat money banking system. This confirms that the original basis for fiat money is destroyed, for its repayment to the central bank is not credible.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-26/has-fractional-reserve-banking-really-passed-market-test
It's quite a long article and has links within in but it should help you try to understand money and banking. It even mentions the Chicago Plan, something else you failed to understand, or even read I would think.
IIRC the media had already identified her and was baying for her blood days before Balls took a decision. With their own inimitable sense of justice they decided this was a story that demanded a scapegoat. The fact that Balls seemed to be prevaricating ultimately meant that he was also becoming the focus of their attention. I strongly suspect that the reason Balls took the decision was because the story was being amplified day by day and it was getting out of control. He was wrong, but he certainly has my sympathies - which is far more than I can say for the media who insisted Shoesmith should go and all but ordered Balls to comply. It was a very public lynching, no wonder she's been determined to turn to actual justice.
Agree with the rest of your post btw..
This is the woman who at the press conference said they had done nothing wrong because the paperwork was correct ! they had a dead baby on their on their of course they did something wrong I don't care about what boxes are ticked on bits of paper , this woman should never be allowed near any position involving children let alone one of authority , thats the perspective you should be looking at
More insults. Are you on a mission to get banned ?
The fact that I disagree with you should not be misinterpreted as lacking understanding, it should be called what it is ie disagreeing with you.
Since when has trying to help someone understand something been a banning offence? I think baiting and goading from you qualifies for that, rather than me yet again giving you information. But hey, que sera sera eh... ;-)