bluemonday Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 MPs' expenses: Civil servant sacked for calling Hazel Blears a 'disgrace' in anonymous internet post Clicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm guessing there was something significant about the unspecified "internet forum" it was posted on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 MPs' expenses: Civil servant sacked for calling Hazel Blears a 'disgrace' in anonymous internet post Clicky What I don't get about this is who started doing the investigation to find out who said this about Hazel Blears. Why was it picked up upon and looked into? I thought it was on some generic political forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 It strikes me as vindictive. Still Hitler had his critics shot, this woman just lost her job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I gather she was sacked for sending the e-mail using her work e-mail account, rather than for criticising Hazel Blears. It still seems an overreaction but I don't view MF on a work computor precisely to protect me from this sort of thing. The question though is how did this come to light? If it was the government's IT dept flagged it up, well, that's fair enough. But if Hazel Blears had spotted the e-mail address and complained that reflects badly on her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm guessing there was something significant about the unspecified "internet forum" it was posted on. It was an e-mail to Hazel Blears's personal site... link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I gather she was sacked for sending the e-mail using her work e-mail account, rather than for criticising Hazel Blears. It still seems an overreaction but I don't view MF on a work computor precisely to protect me from this sort of thing. Erm...what? I thought at work the only thing you needed to watch out for is the content of your e-mail from your work computer and the sites you view. Not what you do in those site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 It was posted on Blears web site, the sender left her work address on it, a civil service departmental address. Not very good at her job was she, best off out of the civil service if she can't even send an anonymous e-mail properly. I don't see a problem, she breached her contract and terms of employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 LDV - Could you re-write that in English please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I gather she was sacked for sending the e-mail using her work e-mail account, rather than for criticising Hazel Blears. This suggests it was for political impartiality: A DCFS spokesman said Miss Greenwood had been found guilty of gross misconduct and had brought the Government department into disrepute. "The civil service has a clear code of conduct for its employees, which states that civil servants should be politically impartial and not act in a way that could damage the reputation of their department." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 I don't see a problem, she breached her contract and terms of employment. Yet Blears kept her job after wrongfully claiming thousands. Not much point inviting comment on your personal site if you don't want to hear what people think about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 LDV - Could you re-write that in English please? Erm...what? I thought that (at work) the only thing you needed to be careful about are the content of e-mails and the sites that are viewed. But not what you type on the websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I don't see a problem, she breached her contract and terms of employment. Yet Blears kept her job after wrongfully claiming thousands. Not much point inviting comment on your personal site if you don't want to hear what people think about you. Blears didn't breach her contract and no-one is saying it was Blears that complained. The claims were allowable, just not wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 If she was 'entitled' to them, I'm surprised she didn't have the neck to face it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 LDV - Could you re-write that in English please? Erm...what? I thought that (at work) the only thing you needed to be careful about are the content of e-mails and the sites that are viewed. But not what you type on the websites. It depends who you are. If you are a civil servant, you are expected to be politically impartial. An admonishment of some sort seems more appropriate than a sacking. But it's hard to complain about public servants being sacked. It should happen much more often, and they should start at the top. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.