...and found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion.
Nominet has sacked its chief commercial officer Jill Finney after just a few months in the post as an alleged cover-up about mother and baby deaths in the National Health Service began to unravel. Finney, who had been deputy chief at health watchdog the Care Quality Commission (CQC), joined the the UK's domain name registry in …
Would that be before, or after, seeing the evidence?
I know from personal experience (as a relative) of the care sector that the CQC was an organisation in dire trouble.
But I'm not a fan of kangaroo courts.
Mind you, there does seem to be plenty of evidence readily available that things had gone badly wrong (self-audit box-ticking, people inspecting outside their areas of competence, and so on).
Who was inspecting the CQC?
to see what comes of this, if it turns out not to be correct then the witchhunt has cost someone career and reputation.
On the flipside, if it is true they should all be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and be stripped of any pensions and other taxpayer funded benefits.
the timing's good - this has come out in the same week that Tyrie & friends want to be able to have criminal prosecutions and custodial sentences for bankers who put public funds at risk. Just extend that to anyone who puts public funds at risk, including the funds required to recover from the damage caused by idiocy like CQC's previous management team. Or, more on-topic for here, the morons who were in charge of some of the NHS IT projects.
"Reported that...", "Alledged that...", "Accused", "...said to be involved".
Not much by the way of factuals.
Presumably then she's been let go with a months pay to be able to have the time to defend herself properly on the assumption that she wouldn't be able to fulfil her duties with Nominet with all of that going on in the background?
Rather than the other which is of being declared guilty until proven innocent?
Just newspaper speak for "we didn't say you did do it (even tho you did) so don't sue us"
other examples are :
"Michael Olumide Adebolajo, alleged to have murdered Lee Rigby"
in front of a bunch of people and on camera covered in the poor guys blood.
"Dale Creegan, alleged to have murdered a bunch of people"
obviously guilty, but until the case is over still only alleged - he's now banged up for good.
"Jeremy Forrest alleged to have kidnapped that girl"
Seen on CCTV on a ferry together, caught red handed in France.
AC11:563: "Jeremy Forrest alleged to have kidnapped that girl" Seen on CCTV on a ferry together, caught red handed in France.
Now found guilty of kidnapping and just pleaded guilty to 5 counts of sex with a child. No need to use alledged anymore on this one.
Nice to see them applying the same rules on execs as on the trogs; you bring problems for your company inside the probationary period (for most of us, that's a year these days), and you're gone, no ifs or buts, and no three strikes requirement for the employer to jump through. Doesn't matter if the problems you bring relate to another employment, if it detracts from your ability to do the job you've been hired to perform with your new employer. They had to give her a months pay, it's a normal thing in salaried staff employment contracts.
On the face of it, this smacks of personnel department paranoia. This person has not as yet been through any form of due process, has not been found guilty of anything, has had no chance to put forward her side of the story. Some form of suspension while investigations continue would seem a more reasonable course of action.
Not jumping the gun at all. She's been there 3 or 4 months and so has very few employment rights. Provided the dismissal was not due to one of the 'Discriminations' she can be sacked with no legal comeback for Nominet whatsoever.
All they have to weigh up is the risk of reputational damage for letting her go now (if it turns out she was stitched up by the CQC or whatever) vs the risk of waiting for all the facts to emerge, things turning out to be true and then having to sack her anyway. By that time she might have been there long enough to have some employment rights and Nominet would then have to deal with the inevitable employment tribunal claim (or more likely paying for a compromise agreement to avoid it).
I think any sane Board or CEO looking at the current media shitstorm would have made the same choice in those circumstances.
'I think any sane Board or CEO looking at the current media shitstorm would have made the same choice in those circumstances.'
Well of course, it is absolutely the job of any sane Board or CEO to be utterly craven in the face of whatever the media happens to be in a flap about.
Nominet does this best. Selecting managers, execs and board members while wearing blinkers, then letting them go in a way that gets them sued or taken to tribunal. Select badly *and* pay out when caught out? It takes a special company to do it as often as they have.
This isn't even taking into account the churn through department manager positions you don't see from the outside. The history of the marketing manager and HR manager positions is, in itself, an amusing comedy farce.
But the Information Commissioner has said that "data protection" is a BS excuse.
I think he might be in a position to knowledgeably comment on the issue.
So someone knows who said "This report can never see the light of day."
And it looks like (if the CQC wants to salvage any reputation for doing its job properly they'd better fill in the blanks now.).
I suspect HR at nominet might already know the answer to that question..
However until it's made public I'm not happy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019