23-08-2013, 07:14 PM
Alan Jelfs Wrote:The "sentence" that the SC handed down was of course limited by the fact that one of the sanctions available to them had been removed by the voluntary resignation of the official from their post.
Perhaps, going forward, the SC should issue guidelines on how such an action (I think the legal term is "prejudicial") should be handled.
The basic meaning of "without prejudice" is "without loss of any rights". I think that's what Alan had in mind- I've always used when offering a settlement out of court for settling disputed debts. I think we get the jist of what Alan means -ie the resignation could have influenced the ruling when it perhaps should not have - ( by lessening the impact of the sanctions)
Fair play to Donald, aka YODA, constructive input he has made.
Its difficult to even comment without getting dragged into the thick of it - to me it's time to learn lessons and move on. Going back is counter productive and what is it going to achieve? Almost all the issues are leading to some sort of policy change, such as a policy dealing with supervision and alcohol ( haven't seen it but one is already drafted on that I believe)
I believe there is already a consensus that we need these policy changes so providing we don't try and enforce them retrospectively (which is were the arguments will come) it will be much easier to debate and implement the changes needed.
Hopefully the AGM will be well attended - we might need some extra chairs!