Misanthrope Girl has blogged on the sacking of three nurses after the three nurses who, dismissed from their jobs because the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) deemed them to be unsuitable after they failed its checks. Go read it - she argues the point well, based on a Telegraph report of the precedent set when the High Court overturned their sackings.
Apparently, their heinous crimes included:
One of the nurses broke the law by leaving her 11-year-old son at home alone while she went shopping. Another was cautioned because while he was at work, his wife left the couple’s children alone for a short period. The third kissed a colleague without permission.Master Patently is 11. He is regularly left alone, perfectly safely. The nurse apparently "broke the law" by leaving his son alone. Exactly which law would that be, then?
Also, while I am at work, Mrs Patently sometimes leaves him on his own. She may do many other things while I am not there - who knows? Am I liable to be cautioned for whatever she does? Is she my chattel, suddenly? Is anyone brave enough to tell her that?
And as regards the third offence, I'm not specifically aware that I have done this, but I don't make a habit of seeking explicit permission before kissing people.
I seem therefore to be a multiple offender on several counts, so I shall await the 6am alarm call. But no, wait - none of these "offences" were deemed worthy of prosecution. None were deemed serious enough to justify taking the offenders to a Court, judging them in line with the principles of justice, and exacting a punishment as prescribed by law. Yet that decision can be reversed by the ISA in its infinite wisdom, who can decide that these people are unworthy and must be sacked, their livelihoods removed. This is, of course, a far, far worse punishment than any fine that could have been imposed by the Court for their "offences".
Remember; we are paying for this quango to prevent perfectly good nurses, whose training we have paid for, from working in our hospitals where their skills may be of some use. We are then paying (no doubt) for lawyers to represent the nurses in the High Court, while a Judge (who we are paying for) listens to the arguments of the Government lawyers (who we are paying for) while they unsuccessfully try to argue that we should not pay compensation for ruining these people's lives. We then pay for the compensation claims, of course. Remember that next time Mr Balls tells us there is no scope for cuts.