Lambeth council CEO

[Tenacious]

You would expect better.

Leaving the scene of an accident, drink driving and possession of class A drugs.

Not bad for 185k a year.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lambeth-c...

[s1962a]

Most of us would be sacked on the spot for similar, wouldn't we? Looks like the council is taking a wait and see approach. Not sure why.

[ScotHill]

He should walk.

[okgo]

At least he’s in touch with most of his residents. fking sthole.

[BikeBikeBIke]

I wouldn't expect to be sacked over a criminal offence unless it meant prison, and I couldn't turn up.

Dangerous dheads need jobs, too. (Him, not me.)

I wouldn't hire him, but I can't say I'd legally be able to sack him either.

[Jockman]

Doesn’t say how much his house is worth?

[s1962a]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I wouldn't expect to be sacked over a criminal offence unless it meant prison, and I couldn't turn up.

Dangerous dheads need jobs, too. (Him, not me.)

I wouldn't hire him, but I can't say I'd legally be able to sack him either.

In my industry you'd get sacked straight away. There was a story a while back of someone getting sacked because they got caught fare dodging on the trains.

[PurplePenguin]

Labour?

[SunsetZed]

Sacking someone when charged only is dodgy ground for an employer

[BikeBikeBIke]

PurplePenguin said:

Labour?

He's a local governement officer so party is irrelevant. (Except they chose him, but I doubt he told them his taste for drunk driving with class A drugs at his interview.)

EDIT: Correction as suggested.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 26th June 15:54

[BoRED S2upid]

BikeBikeBIke said:

He's a civil servant so party is irrelevant. (Except they chose him, but I doubt he told them his taste for drunk driving with class A drugs at his interview.)

He’s not a civil servant.

[valiant]

SunsetZed said:

Sacking someone when charged only is dodgy ground for an employer

Yep, suspend pending investigation and then go through the disciplinary process once that's known.

[BikeBikeBIke]

BoRED S2upid said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

He's a civil servant so party is irrelevant. (Except they chose him, but I doubt he told them his taste for drunk driving with class A drugs at his interview.)

He’s not a civil servant.

I'm pretty sure he's not political/elected. Care to correct me with an actual explanation?

[BoRED S2upid]

BikeBikeBIke said:

BoRED S2upid said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

He's a civil servant so party is irrelevant. (Except they chose him, but I doubt he told them his taste for drunk driving with class A drugs at his interview.)

He’s not a civil servant.

I'm pretty sure he's not political/elected. Care to correct me with an actual explanation?

Local Authority and Civil servants are different. One answers to ministers the other runs a council. Same pension but not civil servants.

[ClaphamGT3]

BikeBikeBIke said:

BoRED S2upid said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

He's a civil servant so party is irrelevant. (Except they chose him, but I doubt he told them his taste for drunk driving with class A drugs at his interview.)

He’s not a civil servant.

I'm pretty sure he's not political/elected. Care to correct me with an actual explanation?

He is neither a civil servant nor an elected member of the council. He is a local government officer. This means that he is an employee of London Borough of Lambeth. He would have been appointed via an application process run by LB Lambeth's HR department and his appointment would have been ratified by the Council's cabinet. His legal job title is 'Head of Paid Service' and it is a statutory requirement under the Local Government Act that a local authority has a Head of Paid Service in place at all times - hence the reference in the press release to alternative arrangements

[BikeBikeBIke]

ClaphamGT3 said:

He is neither a civil servant nor an elected member of the council. He is a local government officer. This means that he is an employee of London Borough of Lambeth. He would have been appointed via an application process run by LB Lambeth's HR department and his appointment would have been ratified by the Council's cabinet. His legal job title is 'Head of Paid Service' and it is a statutory requirement under the Local Government Act that a local authority has a Head of Paid Service in place at all times - hence the reference in the press release to alternative arrangements

OK, I think local government officers are close enough to civil servants to make no odds.

I've already acknowledged that a Labour Council hired him but he's far from a political appointment, if (say) the Lib dems took over they wouldn't just dissmiss him any more than they'd sack all the bin men.

I'll modify my post to correct it.

[pavarotti1980]

s1962a said:

Most of us would be sacked on the spot for similar, wouldn't we? Looks like the council is taking a wait and see approach. Not sure why.

You would be sacked despite not appearing in court or being convicted of a criminal offence yet?

[Collectingbrass]

pavarotti1980 said:

s1962a said:

Most of us would be sacked on the spot for similar, wouldn't we? Looks like the council is taking a wait and see approach. Not sure why.

You would be sacked despite not appearing in court or being convicted of a criminal offence yet?

In a council you'd be suspended pending investigation for bringing the employer into disrepute, which is usually grounds for dismissal. In an ad agency your PA would be asked why she hadn't booked Addison Lee for you as usual.

[pavarotti1980]

Collectingbrass said:

In a council you'd be suspended pending investigation for bringing the employer into disrepute, which is usually grounds for dismissal. In an ad agency your PA would be asked why she hadn't booked Addison Lee for you as usual.

The key words being 'pending investigation'. Someone suggesting they would be sacked at this stage seeks pretty daft

[crankedup5]

Acknowledgement of ‘error of judgement’ coupled with a fulsome apology will likely see him OK to remain in post.