This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
What's the PC, gender neutral equivalent 'self serving b*tch'?
3
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
She added that accepting the job had been "an incredibly difficult step to take, as it meant relinquishing my career in New Zealand and leaving behind my beloved family" (from the BBC website).
I'll bet it was difficult, and hardly outweighed by the £360K + £110K subsistence + £12K other expenses provided her by the likes of you and I.
I think it illustrates that her integrity is suspect & therefore not the right person for such an important job. No, stop beating about the bush: the woman has been exposed as a mercenary.
She added that accepting the job had been "an incredibly difficult step to take, as it meant relinquishing my career in New Zealand and leaving behind my beloved family" (from the BBC website).
I'll bet it was difficult, and hardly outweighed by the £360K + £110K subsistence + £12K other expenses provided her by the likes of you and I.
I think it illustrates that her integrity is suspect & therefore not the right person for such an important job. No, stop beating about the bush: the woman has been exposed as a mercenary.
5
4
3
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
She did, then she glanced at the 8 first class tickets each year, then the salary, then the allowances and finally glanced at the inquiry on a way back to NZ on holiday.
> Yes, maybe she should have glanced at an atlas before accepting.
She did, then she glanced at the 8 first class tickets each year, then the salary, then the allowances and finally glanced at the inquiry on a way back to NZ on holiday.
4
1
In reply to m0unt41n:
All true, but I don't blame her for accepting what must have been a high profile and career defining challenge. It's the muppets who appointed her without considering that the practicalities would overcome the benefits of having someone without long-standing connections to the establishment. Instead of worrying about being fired for selecting another crony, they should have been concerned to pick someone who'd complete the task. How about judge from Dublin or the Hague for goodness sakes?
> She did, then she glanced at the 8 first class tickets each year, then the salary, then the allowances and finally glanced at the inquiry on a way back to NZ on holiday.
All true, but I don't blame her for accepting what must have been a high profile and career defining challenge. It's the muppets who appointed her without considering that the practicalities would overcome the benefits of having someone without long-standing connections to the establishment. Instead of worrying about being fired for selecting another crony, they should have been concerned to pick someone who'd complete the task. How about judge from Dublin or the Hague for goodness sakes?
3
In reply to m0unt41n:
It's all a big bloody mess by the sounds of it!
I'm not sure this will ever get to a conclusion....establishing the terms of reference will be a job in itself...
It's all a big bloody mess by the sounds of it!
I'm not sure this will ever get to a conclusion....establishing the terms of reference will be a job in itself...
1
In reply to BnB:
But isn't the applicant for a job equally responsible for making sure they understand the job and that they are capable of doing it?
But isn't the applicant for a job equally responsible for making sure they understand the job and that they are capable of doing it?
4
1
In reply to Greenbanks:
When did money adequately make up for anything personally challenging?
> She added that accepting the job had been "an incredibly difficult step to take, as it meant relinquishing my career in New Zealand and leaving behind my beloved family" (from the BBC website).
> I'll bet it was difficult, and hardly outweighed by the £360K + £110K subsistence + £12K other expenses provided her by the likes of you and I.
> I'll bet it was difficult, and hardly outweighed by the £360K + £110K subsistence + £12K other expenses provided her by the likes of you and I.
When did money adequately make up for anything personally challenging?
Post edited at 18:29
1
2
In reply to m0unt41n:
Isn't also true that one often doesn't know what a situation is like until one is fully immersed in it?
There's a lot of harsh judgement on this thread.
> But isn't the applicant for a job equally responsible for making sure they understand the job and that they are capable of doing it?
Isn't also true that one often doesn't know what a situation is like until one is fully immersed in it?
There's a lot of harsh judgement on this thread.
Post edited at 18:29
4
4
In reply to Timmd:
To be fair we aren't talking about a naive 18 year old living away from home for the first time in their lives.
> Isn't also true that one often doesn't know what a situation is like until one is fully immersed in it?
> There's a lot of harsh judgement on this thread.
To be fair we aren't talking about a naive 18 year old living away from home for the first time in their lives.
8
In reply to timjones:
Obviously, but then nobody ever makes mistakes on here, which leaves them at liberty to judge from afar.
I could probably phrase a post which is critical while sounding well thought through too, but I'd still not be any place to reasonably judge - I don't think.
I don't suppose it's getting anybody on this thread anywhere, if one takes a step back.
Obviously, but then nobody ever makes mistakes on here, which leaves them at liberty to judge from afar.
I could probably phrase a post which is critical while sounding well thought through too, but I'd still not be any place to reasonably judge - I don't think.
I don't suppose it's getting anybody on this thread anywhere, if one takes a step back.
Post edited at 18:49
6
5
In reply to Timmd:
True - but a damn sight less 'harsh' and invasive than those who are the real losers in all of this; the victims of abuse.
This woman purported to have the experience, judgement and empathy necessary to accomplish a very challenging, long-term job. She knew the parameters; I really don't buy into the argument that 'one often doesn't know what a situation is like until one is fully immersed in it'.
Also, I find it surprising that someone with her snout in the trough can avoid all criticism just because she professes some kind of engagement with righting the wrongs of the abuse meted out vulnerable and often defenceless individuals. For that she's beneath contempt and is guilty of exacerbating the suffering that many continue to undergo.
Offski back to Kiwi-land and good riddance.
> There's a lot of harsh judgement on this thread<
True - but a damn sight less 'harsh' and invasive than those who are the real losers in all of this; the victims of abuse.
This woman purported to have the experience, judgement and empathy necessary to accomplish a very challenging, long-term job. She knew the parameters; I really don't buy into the argument that 'one often doesn't know what a situation is like until one is fully immersed in it'.
Also, I find it surprising that someone with her snout in the trough can avoid all criticism just because she professes some kind of engagement with righting the wrongs of the abuse meted out vulnerable and often defenceless individuals. For that she's beneath contempt and is guilty of exacerbating the suffering that many continue to undergo.
Offski back to Kiwi-land and good riddance.
2
1
In reply to Greenbanks:
Let's not forget that the uk judiciary were so mired in mutual backscratching, cliques and conflicts of interest that we had to go all the way to "kiwi land" to find someone untainted by this sorry affair.
Let's not forget that the uk judiciary were so mired in mutual backscratching, cliques and conflicts of interest that we had to go all the way to "kiwi land" to find someone untainted by this sorry affair.
Post edited at 19:08
1
In reply to Greenbanks:
Quite. Also the manner of leaving. If she didn't feel up to it, how about a graceful handover to a successor rather walking out abruptly with no explanation?
Quite. Also the manner of leaving. If she didn't feel up to it, how about a graceful handover to a successor rather walking out abruptly with no explanation?
3
In reply to Timmd:
Yes but she knew it was going to be unbelievably tough given that the 2 last chairpersons left. She promoted herself and her CV as ideal and almost unique for the job on the basis she had done the same in NZ.
And having 3 months in Australia and NZ in the last year when the Australians she was meant to be consulting said that they only had 2 meetings in total in last 12 months.
She should have held her hands up and admitted she was not up to it for whatever her reasons are and offered to look after things whilst her replacement was found. A two line resignation doesn't seem reasonable given the circumstances.
Yes but she knew it was going to be unbelievably tough given that the 2 last chairpersons left. She promoted herself and her CV as ideal and almost unique for the job on the basis she had done the same in NZ.
And having 3 months in Australia and NZ in the last year when the Australians she was meant to be consulting said that they only had 2 meetings in total in last 12 months.
She should have held her hands up and admitted she was not up to it for whatever her reasons are and offered to look after things whilst her replacement was found. A two line resignation doesn't seem reasonable given the circumstances.
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
There are moves afoot to summon her before a Commons Select Committee to explain her resignation. I hope she does.
There are moves afoot to summon her before a Commons Select Committee to explain her resignation. I hope she does.
3
2
In reply to Trangia:
Do they pay travel expenses?
> There are moves afoot to summon her before a Commons Select Committee to explain her resignation. I hope she does.
Do they pay travel expenses?
5
In reply to Trangia:
The idea ( apparently) is to understand what the issues were that made her resign , so that when they interview the replacement , they can understand whether they have the right ' qualifications' to see this through to the end .
( whenever that will be!)
So are we looking for a 20 year old highly qualified and experienced lawyer, living next door to the enquiry building, ideally single, with no inclination to marry , unusually healthy ( to minimise sickness) , with no family ties, and a high work ethic that would minimise their wish holidays/ travel, and with a minimum appetite for food to cut down lunch breaks
> There are moves afoot to summon her before a Commons Select Committee to explain her resignation. I hope she does.
The idea ( apparently) is to understand what the issues were that made her resign , so that when they interview the replacement , they can understand whether they have the right ' qualifications' to see this through to the end .
( whenever that will be!)
So are we looking for a 20 year old highly qualified and experienced lawyer, living next door to the enquiry building, ideally single, with no inclination to marry , unusually healthy ( to minimise sickness) , with no family ties, and a high work ethic that would minimise their wish holidays/ travel, and with a minimum appetite for food to cut down lunch breaks
Post edited at 20:00
7
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Isn't the job and the enquiry simply too big and will take much too long? Wouldn't it be better to have ten enquiries, each independent and led by a different person, each tasked with one of the relevant institutions? They could then be told to report within two years max.
Isn't the job and the enquiry simply too big and will take much too long? Wouldn't it be better to have ten enquiries, each independent and led by a different person, each tasked with one of the relevant institutions? They could then be told to report within two years max.
7
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Probably the way forward, but there would appear to be so much inter connectedness that some sort of overall oversight is also required
Probably the way forward, but there would appear to be so much inter connectedness that some sort of overall oversight is also required
In reply to Coel Hellier:
A bit difficult to see what we will learn that we don't already know too. Similarly, the Iraq inquiry has hardly been enlightening.
A bit difficult to see what we will learn that we don't already know too. Similarly, the Iraq inquiry has hardly been enlightening.
In reply to MG:
At least a level-headed, interests-free enquiry with an informed and energetic Chair would give victims a sense of closure - I think that is massively important, and largely glossed over. Maybe we ought to afford some sense of focus to the victims, rather than playing out a board game where only the lawyers are the winners.
At least a level-headed, interests-free enquiry with an informed and energetic Chair would give victims a sense of closure - I think that is massively important, and largely glossed over. Maybe we ought to afford some sense of focus to the victims, rather than playing out a board game where only the lawyers are the winners.
In reply to toad:
True, but then you'd just need to read all the reports at the end. The media and others would synthesize them for everyone.
> ... but there would appear to be so much inter connectedness that some sort of overall oversight is also required
True, but then you'd just need to read all the reports at the end. The media and others would synthesize them for everyone.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
If you listened to the president of the campaign group for victims, the enquiry is an umbrella covering all of those different areas, and that each area of enquiry will report separately as soon as is possible and unconnected to other parts of the set-up in terms of time constraints. This has been done to avoid another Chilcott-type wait.Each unit of the enquiry will publish independently as well as the idea being to interrelate different conclusions with each other.
> Wouldn't it be better to have ten enquiries, each independent and led by a different person, each tasked with one of the relevant institutions? They could then be told to report within two years max.
If you listened to the president of the campaign group for victims, the enquiry is an umbrella covering all of those different areas, and that each area of enquiry will report separately as soon as is possible and unconnected to other parts of the set-up in terms of time constraints. This has been done to avoid another Chilcott-type wait.Each unit of the enquiry will publish independently as well as the idea being to interrelate different conclusions with each other.
In reply to MG:
It wasnt intended to be as such. Although various things did come out during the course of the inquiry which might not have done so otherwise. Its just since the inquiry took so long those things became part of general knowledge way before publication date.
It was there to identify what could be changed to prevent something similar happening again. Whether it achieves that or not I dont know since a)I havent read it all and b)havent the knowledge to determine how useful it would be anyway.
> Similarly, the Iraq inquiry has hardly been enlightening.
It wasnt intended to be as such. Although various things did come out during the course of the inquiry which might not have done so otherwise. Its just since the inquiry took so long those things became part of general knowledge way before publication date.
It was there to identify what could be changed to prevent something similar happening again. Whether it achieves that or not I dont know since a)I havent read it all and b)havent the knowledge to determine how useful it would be anyway.
1
In reply to m0unt41n:
On both of those counts Goddard could answer yes. It wasn't her responsibility to offer the position however. And the blame lies in that corner no matter how irritating it might be that the job holder has done what anyone with an ounce of common sense could anticipate.
Goddard is the third incumbent to depart in as many years and there must come a point when you have to stop blaming the worker and ask if the problem is the boss (especially when the chief objective of the role is to attack the establishment).
> But isn't the applicant for a job equally responsible for making sure they understand the job and that they are capable of doing it?
On both of those counts Goddard could answer yes. It wasn't her responsibility to offer the position however. And the blame lies in that corner no matter how irritating it might be that the job holder has done what anyone with an ounce of common sense could anticipate.
Goddard is the third incumbent to depart in as many years and there must come a point when you have to stop blaming the worker and ask if the problem is the boss (especially when the chief objective of the role is to attack the establishment).
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I'm surprised no-one has raised the likelihood of her being threatened by people with a vested interest.
I'm surprised no-one has raised the likelihood of her being threatened by people with a vested interest.
1
In reply to BnB:
I still think that there is shared responsibility and particularly if the job concerned has such a history as this so that anyone applying for it would have been adequately warned.
If it's just the employers responsibility then do we give Fred Goodwin back his knighthood?
I still think that there is shared responsibility and particularly if the job concerned has such a history as this so that anyone applying for it would have been adequately warned.
If it's just the employers responsibility then do we give Fred Goodwin back his knighthood?
In reply to m0unt41n:
Not really the same thing is it, however? Fred was a swindler, Goddard is only guilty of not enjoying her job.
Not really the same thing is it, however? Fred was a swindler, Goddard is only guilty of not enjoying her job.
2
In reply to BnB:
I didn't think Fred Goodwin was a swindler, just that like Goddard he was not up to the job.
I didn't think Fred Goodwin was a swindler, just that like Goddard he was not up to the job.
In reply to BnB:
> Goddard is only guilty of not enjoying her job<
Probably the biggest sick laugh I've encountered on here I years. Tell that to the countless victims. But you've said it out of absolute noirish humour yes??
2
In reply to Greenbanks:
I'm sorry if that phrase was too glib. I was simply trying to compare the faults of the man, whose nickname became "Fred the Shred" and who did most to precipitate the loss of £trillions of the public's money, with a woman who clearly wasn't happy from day one in a "glittering prize" of a job she shouldn't have been offered.
I wasn't trying to and you shouldn't equate the judge's resignation with the evils of abuse. The issue, as will surely come out in due course, is that there are horrendous obstructions to the inquiry based on vested interests. You can inveigh against her for failing to break down those barriers, but she is not "guilty" in any comparable manner.
I'm sorry if that phrase was too glib. I was simply trying to compare the faults of the man, whose nickname became "Fred the Shred" and who did most to precipitate the loss of £trillions of the public's money, with a woman who clearly wasn't happy from day one in a "glittering prize" of a job she shouldn't have been offered.
I wasn't trying to and you shouldn't equate the judge's resignation with the evils of abuse. The issue, as will surely come out in due course, is that there are horrendous obstructions to the inquiry based on vested interests. You can inveigh against her for failing to break down those barriers, but she is not "guilty" in any comparable manner.
Post edited at 07:35
2
In reply to Timmd:
That's not true. I recall a thread circa 2007 concerning the relative hues of black and white. After about 350 posts someone was eventually persuaded that his initial assertion that they were in fact the same, might not actually be true. Doubt it's happened since though.
> Obviously, but then nobody ever makes mistakes on here, which leaves them at liberty to judge from afar.
That's not true. I recall a thread circa 2007 concerning the relative hues of black and white. After about 350 posts someone was eventually persuaded that his initial assertion that they were in fact the same, might not actually be true. Doubt it's happened since though.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
According to media, it's being leaked now that she was sacked.
Whenever I've been headhunted for jobs overseas for well paid posts, there is a stringent stipulation regarding integration and settlement into the country for the duration (typically 5 years in the first instance). Bottom line is no matter how senior and well paid, you have to commit to your employer.
As far as I can see, the Judge's family is grown up, and this was a vanity acceptance of a stellar job, which paid enough to bring as many of her family over until her responsibilities had been discharged. It's a desperate kick in the face for the families who really need closure.
According to media, it's being leaked now that she was sacked.
Whenever I've been headhunted for jobs overseas for well paid posts, there is a stringent stipulation regarding integration and settlement into the country for the duration (typically 5 years in the first instance). Bottom line is no matter how senior and well paid, you have to commit to your employer.
As far as I can see, the Judge's family is grown up, and this was a vanity acceptance of a stellar job, which paid enough to bring as many of her family over until her responsibilities had been discharged. It's a desperate kick in the face for the families who really need closure.
1
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Why are you claiming to know the motivation of somebody whom I presume you have never even met? The more likely supposition is that she accepted the position because she believed she could do a good job.
There is a terribly sanctimonious tone to many of the comments in this thread - starting with the stupid original post.
As others have mentioned, there are potentially wheels within wheels here; certainly there could be external vested interests. We *might* find out the truth of the matter, one day ...
> ... this was a vanity acceptance ...
Why are you claiming to know the motivation of somebody whom I presume you have never even met? The more likely supposition is that she accepted the position because she believed she could do a good job.
There is a terribly sanctimonious tone to many of the comments in this thread - starting with the stupid original post.
As others have mentioned, there are potentially wheels within wheels here; certainly there could be external vested interests. We *might* find out the truth of the matter, one day ...
Post edited at 10:30
3
1
In reply to Paul_in_Sheffield: - I have never seen such a stipulation and I have seen many contracts for overseas roles.
Sacked? Leaked, spun? I hope that if she is to appear in front of MP's it's to learn something about what went wrong. If it's just for a butt kicking I can't think of a better way to put off potential replacements.
Sacked? Leaked, spun? I hope that if she is to appear in front of MP's it's to learn something about what went wrong. If it's just for a butt kicking I can't think of a better way to put off potential replacements.
In reply to wbo:
hi there, no never in the contracts, but always(my experience) in the offer conversation with both HR and the exec.
Even in my current contract in the uk, it's required (not usually strictly enforced though) that I live less than 30 miles from work
> - I have never seen such a stipulation and I have seen many contracts for overseas roles.
hi there, no never in the contracts, but always(my experience) in the offer conversation with both HR and the exec.
Even in my current contract in the uk, it's required (not usually strictly enforced though) that I live less than 30 miles from work
In reply to Paul; Well I've never seen that either. I usually recruit on technical ability, not for being the bloke down the road.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
If/when I accept a job I take it in full knowledge of all aspects of the situation. Even if/when it doesn't go exactly according to plan I don't just quit and leave people in the lurch.
If/when I accept a job I take it in full knowledge of all aspects of the situation. Even if/when it doesn't go exactly according to plan I don't just quit and leave people in the lurch.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
A dog at a buffet.
> What's the PC, gender neutral equivalent 'self serving b*tch'?
A dog at a buffet.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Congratulations.
> If/when I accept a job I take it in full knowledge of all aspects of the situation ... etc. ...
Congratulations.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
No one can! All sorts of unknowns with a new job. Leaving is another matter...
No one can! All sorts of unknowns with a new job. Leaving is another matter...
1
In reply to Greenbanks:
>>I think it illustrates that her integrity
There is hard evidence of Lowell Goddard lacking integrity as a judge. In 2014, she was a part of a cover-up to whitewash serious misconduct by another judge. Subsequent complaints about the matter were buried by New Zealand authorities: http://www.fairhearing.info/judges/lowell-goddard/
It's interesting that the matter was apparently put before the Home Affairs Committee prior to Goddard's appointment, but was ignored.
Her narcissism is unbelievable. The second paragraph of a 3-page feature article in an Australian law journal goes: "Her career has been rocket-like: first woman QC with friend Lowell Goddard at 39; High Court judge – again with Goddard – at 46; sworn in as Chief Justice (on 17 May [1999]) at the unheard-of age of 50, making her the second most powerful person in the country to the Governor-General." The article is on the appointment of Chief Justice of New Zealand Sian Elias, not on some unknown (at the time; let alone in Australia) Lowell Goddard. Why the heck Goddard was mentioned there 4 times - twice at the beginning, in the middle, and in the last paragraph? It is obvious that she forced the author of the article to feature herself there, too. The article is here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LawIJV/1999/284.pdf
What kind of performance could possibly be expected from such a person?
>>I think it illustrates that her integrity
There is hard evidence of Lowell Goddard lacking integrity as a judge. In 2014, she was a part of a cover-up to whitewash serious misconduct by another judge. Subsequent complaints about the matter were buried by New Zealand authorities: http://www.fairhearing.info/judges/lowell-goddard/
It's interesting that the matter was apparently put before the Home Affairs Committee prior to Goddard's appointment, but was ignored.
Her narcissism is unbelievable. The second paragraph of a 3-page feature article in an Australian law journal goes: "Her career has been rocket-like: first woman QC with friend Lowell Goddard at 39; High Court judge – again with Goddard – at 46; sworn in as Chief Justice (on 17 May [1999]) at the unheard-of age of 50, making her the second most powerful person in the country to the Governor-General." The article is on the appointment of Chief Justice of New Zealand Sian Elias, not on some unknown (at the time; let alone in Australia) Lowell Goddard. Why the heck Goddard was mentioned there 4 times - twice at the beginning, in the middle, and in the last paragraph? It is obvious that she forced the author of the article to feature herself there, too. The article is here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LawIJV/1999/284.pdf
What kind of performance could possibly be expected from such a person?
2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I thought that he given up with football when he retired in 2012
> I hear Roy Hodgson's available.
I thought that he given up with football when he retired in 2012
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
News BMC Publishes New GB Climbing Performance Department Proposals
The British Mountaineering Council has published a series of papers outlining new proposals for the oversight of GB Climbing, following management issues related to the internal business unit last year and a member-led proposal to...
29 Apr
Loading Notifications...