Thursday 23 January 2014

Can't resign, Won't resign, Shouldn't resign - but who's who?

During the 1980s it was often said of the England cricket team that it was nigh on impossible to be dropped. Times have changed a little since those days but not by much. Considering they've just been thumped 5-0 by Australia in as pathetic a display as I can ever remember, precious few of the "star" players have been dropped.

But it isn't just cricket which stands accused of cronyism. In the latest development of the Andrew Mitchell "plebgate" story, the policeman who last week admitted to having lied to try and add substance to the "pleb" story, has had his offer to resign rejected. Instead, his superiors in the police have reserved the right to subject him to an internal  misconduct hearing. There is no guarantee that such a hearing will result in his dismissal. That is just a possibility.

In the same week as the police have admitted that they are too insular and lacking in accountability, their time served arrogance seems alive and kicking. I appreciate that some will see this as quibbling but the facts don't merit further investigation. The officer has admitted under oath that he lied in a public office. Exactly what is there to investigate at a new hearing. His offer to resign ought to have been preceded by his immediate dismissal anyway. I can't see any other legitimate argument. He either has integrity or he doesn't. I can't believe that the police are allowed to operate in such a Stalinist way.

Contrast this story though with the Lord Rennard story. It's quite clear that an element within his own party want him expelled and are prepared to go to great lengths to get their man. They have already had a QC led inquiry which concluded that Lord Rennard had no case to answer. Because he has understandably refused to apologise (because he has always protested his innocence), they are now seeking another inquiry. Presumably, they will continue new inquiries until such time as he goes. This is just old fashioned hounding. Whether or not Lord Rennard has been guilty of the offences levelled at him is frankly open to conjecture because only his accusers and himself actually know. If a QC led inquiry failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I fail to see how a new inquiry will come to any other conclusions.

In March, Sir David Nicholson will retire from his post as Chief Executive of the NHS. Prior to that appointment, he had been Chief Executive of the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority at the time of the North Staffs scandal at Stafford Hospital. At the latest count, there were five women accusing Lord Rennard of sexual harrassment. Accusations not proven as I write. Many accusations from many thousnads of people have been levelled at Sir David Nicholson. His reward for being in charge of the biggest health scandal of modern times? He was promoted to run the entire NHS. By 2011 he was claiming £50,000 in expenses on top of his salary of £200,000 with befits in kind of £37,600. At the same time, he was asking the NHS to trim it's budget by £20 billion by 2015.

On the way, Sir David (I must call him that I suppose) has remarried. A former intern on the NHS graduate scheme, his new wife has since become Chief Executive of the Birmingham Children's Hospital. She earns a paltry £155,000 which must seem like petty cash compared to his salary.

So who would you throw out of the balloon?
1. The policeman who admits lying in a public office under oath?
2. The peer who refuses to apolgise for something he strenuously denies and which has been unproven by a QC led inquiry?
3. The outgoing Chief Executive of the NHS who oversaw the scandal at Stafford Hospital before being promoted to the biggest job in his organisation?

It looks as though the England cricket team of the 1980s became the template for British society in the 2000s - scary..

No comments:

Post a Comment