OK, time for the bleeding heart lefty to step in...

From what I can tell from the article, the case was not addressing the murders or rapes this man has committed. The issue was - has the council followed the correct procedure for terminating a contract.

Yes, I know this seems heartless, but it is not the job of the tribunal to take into account of the criminal activities, as they were not listed as the reason for the dismissal. And the criminal activities have clearly been addressed where they should be, in a court of law.

From what the article says, this guy was dismissed without any discussion or attempt to follow a standard grievance procedure, for threatening another member of staff. Now, look at that in isolation. Imagine you had a work colleague with whom there was a lot of animosity. I know I can think of one or two. Now imagine being out for a drink and getting into an argument with this person and saying something stupid, like how you'd love to knock that smirk of their face. Now imagine waking up to find you've been sacked.

If that is wrong, then so is the action of Preston City Council, based on what I have read. The stupid thing is that if the council had followed the correct procedures I am sure there would not be an issue. Clearly this person’s position had become untenable. The council is not being made to pay the price for a wrong decision, but for the unprofessional way in which they handled it. I don't have a problem with that.

As for this sicko profiting from this stupidity, I understand that there is no way he can have access to this money while in prison. I'm sure the lawyers and legal experts on this site will know better than me on this. And by the sounds of things he'll be lucky to ever see the outside of a prison again. He's 50, has just been sentenced to a second life sentence and an additional 5 years (though the article doesn't say if these are to be served sequentially or concurrently). Profiting from the council's stupidity seems unlikely, though I suppose the money could save the state the cost of his burial at the end of his sentence.

Personally, I'm more worried that the prison service thought he was someone who could be allowed in public...

My astonishment doesn't come from any of the other things he is in prison for - it is about the incident itself.

He tried to attack someone with something that could easily kill him - regradless of weather that attack was sucessful then I would say that gross misconduct is a fairly reasonable view to take on that. The article uses 'threatened' but in our local news it was said that an attack was actually attempted.

And even taking that incident aside the fact that he didn't declare his conviction when he applied for the job is also a case for instant dismissal (as it states on the councils application forms before you get the job - and yes i do know because i've applied for a job at Preston Council before now)

Although the reporting has made a big thing about the previous convictions they have no bearing on my shock and disgust that someone can try to greviously harm a colleague and get compensated when they are sacked for that action.


(Edited by Sydney 03/04/2003 09:27)