Jump to content

Abbotswood Covid19


starcat
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I don't know anything about employment stuff, but could all of the staff bring a claim to DHSC for wrongly closing the home down?

I understand they were all given 'better than law requires' redundancy when the home had to close, by the home.

The DHSC wasn't their employer, so I guess that rules out a claim against them under employment law.  

If they were paid more than the statutory level of redundancy, it is hard to see how a claim could be made against their employer.  Particularly as the investigations seem to have found no failings, the home came up to scratch for H&S so would there be a claim for failing to provide a safe place and manner of working?  

There may be other bases for claims by employees and the owners, but that would depend on the exact circumstances of the discharge of patients from the hospital and the actions taken by DHSC in closing the home.  We just don't have that information.  

A sad story all round, people have lost their lives, livelihoods and homes. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I don't know anything about employment stuff, but could all of the staff bring a claim to DHSC for wrongly closing the home down?

I understand they were all given 'better than law requires' redundancy when the home had to close, by the home.

They’d have to prove negligence or breach of duty, and that the damage was foreseeable and not too remote and that it isn’t pure economic loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't like the way the government went in, soviet era style and took over and started skipping all furniture carpets etc with no good reason other than what seems like a desire to be seen to be doing something.

It was not a hospital, all care homes I have been in have carpets and other surfaces that are not sterile.

What finally did it for me was the police standing menacingly at the gates when the residents left, that really does the police no favours, political puppets spring to mind.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Timely reminder. The case is sub judice.

Why? If the police investigation is over and no criminal charges were brought? Are H&S prosecutions subject to the same kid of rules? You can't influence a jury with social media comment there can you? I'm genuinely interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Why? If the police investigation is over and no criminal charges were brought? Are H&S prosecutions subject to the same kid of rules? You can't influence a jury with social media comment there can you? I'm genuinely interested.

H&S prosecutions are criminal charges. Just brought by a different prosecuting authority. The summonses will be heard in the same courts by the same magistrates, high bailiffs, Deemsters, as if the charges were as a result of a police enquiry prosecuted by the AG’s.

And if they’re serious charges and a not guilty plea, yes, there’s a jury.

So, yes. Sub judice still applies. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

H&S prosecutions are criminal charges. Just brought by a different prosecuting authority. The summonses will be heard in the same courts by the same magistrates, high bailiffs, Deemsters, as if the charges were as a result of a police enquiry prosecuted by the AG’s.

And if they’re serious charges and a not guilty plea, yes, there’s a jury.

So, yes. Sub judice still applies. 

yes, the old keep it rumbling along long enough till the world has forgotten all about it and stop social media chatter all in one little measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

yes, the old keep it rumbling along long enough till the world has forgotten all about it and stop social media chatter all in one little measure.

You don’t half post tripe.

If the case comes to court the hearings will be public, you can attend, the media can attend, the media can publish fair reports.

After conviction you can post anything, within the laws of libel.

Remember. Presumption of innocence. Innocent until proved guilty. Speculative social media posting could, and can, mean that prosecution has to be stopped.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Has this happened here ever?

 

14 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Or ever happened here even

There have been cases where it’s been raised by the defence.

And MF have been subject to attacks by the judiciary and the police for allegedly breaching the rule.

They had got it wrong. in at leat one case MF had carried  a post with public info quoted from the Courts own websites, which the Deemster hadn’t realised had been placed in the public domain. It shouldn’t have been, but that was courts in the wrong, not MF.

We don’t often close things down for reasons of SJ, but we have a better working knowledge of the law than most.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...