New Labour, same old tricks.........
 

Anyone else remember a few years ago, a certain blind Education secretary stating that if a target he'd set, wasn't met, he'd resign? Did he, when it wasn't?

Did he fek!:mad: Reason: well, he wasn't in that job anymore so it wasn't appropriate........:rolleyes:

Now we have Rooth Kelly. Her department has caused a cock up. Does she go? Does she fek:mad: And the cockup? Well, well, well...apparently it was all down to Kim Howells...........who's now moved jobs, so it's not appropraite for HIM to resign either:rolleyes:

Let's try this defence for the man in the street, shall we?

Man in the street gets done for speeding. In court, his defence is: "I haven't got the car I was caught in any more, I changed it last week, so it's inappropriate for me to pay the fine".

Can you Imagine Lying Labour allowing THAT defence? No, me neither:(

Alcazar

Remember that these teachers on the List 99 can appeal ..... and following due process 'may' be re-instated.

I am not saying I agree with it as all perversions with children involved makes me sick to the bottom of my stomach .... all I am saying is that due process was carried out.

With speeding you can also ask for due process to be carried out, you can go to court and put your case.

To put them in the same arguement is not right IMO.

Pete

Well, I see where you are coming from, but did you read my post?

What I'M complaining about is the way the Labour ministers etc seem to think it's OK to get away withou resigning just because they aren't in that particular job any more.

Alcazar

Actually that defence HAS worked in the past. Especially if the owner has sold his/her Ferrari/Porsche for a smaller more practical car.