£2.3 million to Keogh

[ramAnag]

Forgive me for I agree with Tricky and I'm not sure how irrespective of whether you understand employment law or not, why you seem to think its fair that two employees who were convicted of a criminal offence should receive a lesser sanction than the one who was injured by their actions?

All the other stuff about being captain, moral responsibility or whatever is fine and I understand your view (although surely you would also think that irrespective of whether they can play for the club again or not, the other two should have received the same sanction?), but its peripheral to the fact that the club chose to dismiss Keogh and not the other two. As I said at the time, thats inconsistent and they will lose a tribunal unless there is a specific clause in Keogh's employment contract about his duties as captain, which is unlikely because being captain is fairy meaningless and any player can be named as such.

My point about 3 teachers was to try and boil it down to the basic principles, but it seems if you had been one of 3 teachers, and you had been injured and unable to work due to the criminal actions of the other two you would have been happy to lose your job and they keep theirs?

Keogh made an error of judgement which resulted in him being injured, the other two committed a criminal offence and your suggesting its Ok for the club to apply a lesser sanction to them, because they are still able to play? Really?

Okay Swale, if you insist on going down the teacher parallel I’ll run with it one last time into the ‘moral maze’.

In my former incarnation I was part of the decision making process regarding two incidents of drink driving. The first was a PE teacher who, unsurprisingly, was done for drinking and driving. He lived near the school and could still make it into work although he could no longer drive the school minibus which meant we had to rearrange teaching assistants etc so that, when taking pupils to use other facilities, he always had a driver for the two years of his ban. The result...he kept his job, fortunately imo.

The second related to a guy who had done nothing wrong but had had a ‘skinful’ at home one Friday night. The following morning he unthinkingly drove into Derby and was badly rear ended at Markeaton Island. Because of the busy location the police arrived and he was routinely breathalysed. He failed and lost his licence. Unfortunately, because he lived very remotely and needed to drive to make the twenty five mile journey into work, he could no longer work...the result? He lost his job.

The moral of the story...sh1t happens...life isn’t fair...and actions have consequences but they aren’t the same for everyone.

Now, sticking with your teacher scenario, imagine this hypothetical one.

There’s a staff Christmas party...a situation I’ve been in many times. Many get hammered including two young teachers and their Head/Head of Dept...whatever. With the irresponsibility of youth the two young teachers think they’ll be alright to drive home and are well over the limit. They stick around drinking long after everyone has gone and persuade their senior colleague to join them, promising to get him home safely.
The inevitable happens...maybe the two youngsters decide to show off and have a bit of a race which ends in a crash. The two drivers somehow escape unhurt but their passenger is seriously injured, requires hospital treatment and is unable to work for the next two terms.
Of course the two drivers are dealt with by the law...they’re fined, banned from driving etc...but, like the aforementioned PE teacher, they are able to make it to work and continue to do so.
The Head/Head of Department is, as I’ve said, sadly unable to work for the remaining two thirds of the school year.

So...a) Should the two drivers keep their jobs? My answer is I’m not sure...they’re teachers...a job which includes some sort of social responsibility...but their actions had nothing to do with their job which they were still perfectly able to do.

b) Should the Head/Head of Department keep his job? I suspect not...with power comes responsibility and all that. He knew the risks, made an error of judgement which involved being complicit in law breaking resulting in him being unfit for work.

Where do you, or anyone, stand on that...both legally and morally and is that very different from the RK scenario?

The fact that I differ from Tricky as far as morality is concerned comes as no surprise and is actually quite reassuring. The fact that you share his stance is a little more surprising.

[Trickytreesreds]

Sack them all. Code of conduct and criminal records in a privaleged position of trust.
QED

[ramAnag]

Sack them all. Code of conduct and criminal records in a privaleged position of trust.
QED

‘Privaleged’? Are you ‘H’ in disguise. Sorry... ‘Line of Duty’ joke.

‘Sack them all...code of conduct, privileged position of trust’, blah...

You seem to have just introduced morality into the debate, TTR. I fear you might just be guilty of over simplification on this one.

[Trickytreesreds]

‘Privaleged’? Are you ‘H’ in disguise. Sorry... ‘Line of Duty’ joke.

‘Sack them all...code of conduct, privileged position of trust’, blah...

You seem to have just introduced morality into the debate, TTR. I fear you might just be guilty of over simplification on this one.

Sorry, it's not morality.
You mentioned teaching. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a position of ectreme trust?
Parents, put their children in the hands of a group of whiter than white based on trust.
Perhaps you can enlighten me to a teachers contract and codes of ethics written in it.
Is the same as the police/prison service/ medical etc?

I assume there must be some wriggle room, as there are coppers with records in service. I don't agree with that on "moral" grounds, but how far does it stretch?

Back to the topic in hand. DCFC did themselves no favours, with their stance. They should have either punished all, or dished the same level of punishment Lawrence received. That's why Keogh won.

Here's an extreme for you, involving my shower.
Van Hooidjonk, goes on strikke.
Now the club should have done one of two things
1. Sacked him
2. Refused to play him again and held on to his registration.

2 Was my favourite, but was never going to happen, because he was worth millions.
So NFFC bowed down to someone bringing shame on the club, for money. The same as Lawrence.

[ramAnag]

Sorry, it's not morality.
You mentioned teaching. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a position of ectreme trust?
Parents, put their children in the hands of a group of whiter than white based on trust.
Perhaps you can enlighten me to a teachers contract and codes of ethics written in it.
Is the same as the police/prison service/ medical etc?

I assume there must be some wriggle room, as there are coppers with records in service. I don't agree with that on "moral" grounds, but how far does it stretch?

Back to the topic in hand. DCFC did themselves no favours, with their stance. They should have either punished all, or dished the same level of punishment Lawrence received. That's why Keogh won.

Here's an extreme for you, involving my shower.
Van Hooidjonk, goes on strikke.
Now the club should have done one of two things
1. Sacked him
2. Refused to play him again and held on to his registration.

2 Was my favourite, but was never going to happen, because he was worth millions.
So NFFC bowed down to someone bringing shame on the club, for money. The same as Lawrence.

Actually I didn’t introduce teaching into the debate at all...Swale and your good self did.

It’s obviously a position of extreme trust while those concerned are working or in loco parentis. Beyond that...I don’t know. I certainly know a number of teachers, including myself, who’d fail your ‘whiter than white’ test.
Wasn’t Keogh in a position of trust as captain of Derby County? He was a club ‘ambassador’...lots of young people had their photograph taken with him and he always seemed to be an excellent role model.

No idea about the ‘police/prison service/medical’ contracts/code of ethics...and of course money came into things with Lawrence and Bennett...as it did with the two Liverpool players who got done for drink driving. If it was your money would you spend a fortune on signing someone and paying their wages only to ‘give them away’ because of a legal transgression? There’d be plenty who’d unhesitatingly have taken him off our hands for nowt, just as Preston seem to have with Ched Evans.

Keogh too was worth something - more than Bennett I’d imagine - but, for hopefully the final time, his actions made him unavailable for work. Lawrence and Bennett’s didn’t. That, along with the fact that they were actual law breakers, is the reason they were treated separately and punished differently.

Note you haven’t answered the hypothetical teacher conundrum. It’s a lot more relevant than your Van Hooijdonk example.

[Trickytreesreds]

Actually I didn’t introduce teaching into the debate at all...Swale and your good self did.

It’s obviously a position of extreme trust while those concerned are working or in loco parentis. Beyond that...I don’t know. I certainly know a number of teachers, including myself, who’d fail your ‘whiter than white’ test.
Wasn’t Keogh in a position of trust as captain of Derby County? He was a club ‘ambassador’...lots of young people had their photograph taken with him and he always seemed to be an excellent role model.

No idea about the ‘police/prison service/medical’ contracts/code of ethics...and of course money came into things with Lawrence and Bennett...as it did with the two Liverpool players who got done for drink driving. If it was your money would you spend a fortune on signing someone and paying their wages only to ‘give them away’ because of a legal transgression? There’d be plenty who’d unhesitatingly have taken him off our hands for nowt, just as Preston seem to have with Ched Evans.

Keogh too was worth something - more than Bennett I’d imagine - but, for hopefully the final time, his actions made him unavailable for work. Lawrence and Bennett’s didn’t. That, along with the fact that they were actual law breakers, is the reason they were treated separately and punished differently.

Note you haven’t answered the hypothetical teacher conundrum. It’s a lot more relevant than your Van Hooijdonk example.

But I did RA. I'd have sacked all 3.
If my child had gone to that school, I'd have no doubt been among lots of parents demanding dismissal.
You can get the push for talking about cartoons remember.
Having 3 teachers involved in drink driving, from the same school goes against everything the job stands for.

[ramAnag]

But I did RA. I'd have sacked all 3.
If my child had gone to that school, I'd have no doubt been among lots of parents demanding dismissal.
You can get the push for talking about cartoons remember.
Having 3 teachers involved in drink driving, from the same school goes against everything the job stands for.

But you wouldn’t, Tricky...because you couldn’t.

What makes you think parents would have known...and even if they had been ‘demanding dismissal’ it may not have happened. Your demand for all three (fictional) teachers or all those involved in ‘Joinersgate’ to be sacked is just your emotional reaction...your opinion...same as you were so damning of me having over RK.

‘Get the push for talking about cartoons’...I doubt it. You might get attacked by certain extremists, but the media is full of nonsense about teachers not being allowed to do one thing or the other. Back in the ‘80’s we were told not to ever discuss homos exuality because certain Thatcherite extremists couldn’t differentiate between discussing and advocating. In reality none of us took much notice and just got on with it...s ex education includes a knowledge of terminology and an understanding of what things mean...end of.

Either way...my point was...the headteacher/head of department would, imo, have been very lucky - and very unlikely - to keep his job.
I can’t see the difference between my fictional scenario and RK.

[swaledale]

Actually I didn’t introduce teaching into the debate at all...Swale and your good self did.

It’s obviously a position of extreme trust while those concerned are working or in loco parentis. Beyond that...I don’t know. I certainly know a number of teachers, including myself, who’d fail your ‘whiter than white’ test.
Wasn’t Keogh in a position of trust as captain of Derby County? He was a club ‘ambassador’...lots of young people had their photograph taken with him and he always seemed to be an excellent role model.

No idea about the ‘police/prison service/medical’ contracts/code of ethics...and of course money came into things with Lawrence and Bennett...as it did with the two Liverpool players who got done for drink driving. If it was your money would you spend a fortune on signing someone and paying their wages only to ‘give them away’ because of a legal transgression? There’d be plenty who’d unhesitatingly have taken him off our hands for nowt, just as Preston seem to have with Ched Evans.

Keogh too was worth something - more than Bennett I’d imagine - but, for hopefully the final time, his actions made him unavailable for work. Lawrence and Bennett’s didn’t. That, along with the fact that they were actual law breakers, is the reason they were treated separately and punished differently.

Note you haven’t answered the hypothetical teacher conundrum. It’s a lot more relevant than your Van Hooijdonk example.

So you really do think that the punishment metered out should reflect whether or not the employee concerned is of "worth" to the organisation then? And you were talking about morality???

Not sure of your logic which suggests that the actual law breakers and perpetrators should receive a lesser sanction from the employer than the person who didn't stop it happening (assuming he could) but who was injured as a result of their actions.

In terms of the teacher analogy, surely its simple, the two convicted of criminal acts would have been sacked, the one injured as a result of those acts most likely wouldn't have been, or all would have been.

Anyway you clearly cannot see the issue about dealing with employees who misbehave in a consistent manner which is seen to be fair, appropriate and reflects their contract with the employer. An employer cannot simply decide something based on whether they think the employee still has a value to the company after the incident, though they can of course take that and previous behaviour into account when determining any sanction.

As the fact that Keogh won his case shows, so not sure why your arguing against this?