Right at the end of most articles on this case, e.g. from Sky News, you'll find a couple of sentences along the lines of this:
Dizaei, an Iranian, has been suspended from Scotland Yard on full pay since September 2008. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) will eventually be responsible for deciding what happens to him. The MPA has the power to sack Dizaei, as well as forcing him to give up all or part of his pension.
WTF? If this isn't cause for instant dismissal and cancellation of his pension rights, then what is?
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
4 hours ago
6 comments:
Of course, in addition, since he hasn't yet been sacked, he's probably still on full pay while staying in his accommodation at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Isn't he?
A friend heard this was the case, but I've so far been unable to find any citations for it.
PJH, nothing surprises me any more. I guess he'll "do a Goodwin" and generously rescind half.
Hardly, the form book says that he will litigate to retain all such, despite the 'musunderstanding' / 'little unpleasantness'.
This may prove costly to the Met.
And to us, of course, since we ultimately pay. Perhaps 'accidentally' letting him out into the exercise yard at the same time as Big Vern and a few of his mates ight prove cheaper in the long run?
I've always been distinctly unkeen on 'taking back' someone's pension for subsequent errors; is it not just enough to sack the guy. However, it does seem to be something that governments (and their agencies) are rather keen on. Even EU Commissioners seem to be subject to this, to the extent that worries have been expressed as to their subsequent independence from foreign political influence, as members of our parliament (House of Lords), and even as government ministers.
I remember too the case of Dr David Kelly, where he was publicly humiliated by a series of things, including very public threats and encouragement of speculation, concerning his civil service pension.
The big question to me is: who owns the pension?
The big-hearted answer is surely the beneficiaries; it is, after all, part of one's reward for work already completed.
So what, very bad guy though he is, has Dizaei done to deserve an extra-judicial punishment (perhaps even one that is cruel and unusual) in addition to the sentence already passed down by our criminal justice system and the obviously necessary discontinuance for life of any job in public service?
I'm looking for answers that can be generalised, and re-applied to future cases where others are guilty; even perhaps applied in 'similar' past cases too, providing one avoids drawing the political into 'similar'.
Maybe that's it: if your crime embarrasses the government, as well as being criminal, extra punishment is required. Why not just bring back the crime of sedition?
Best regards
Cause for dismissal falls into the following categories in general:
1) You have no power to do anything about it
2) Whoever remains in power has nothing to gain from you staying there
3) Someone big hates your guts
4) It would embarrass the govt'
5) There is no one left to bribe
6) There is no one left to blackmail
7) You want to start being nice to other people... finally
I can accept #7 hapilly.
Cheers!
Post a Comment