carlossimon Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Interesting Clark snr refers to 'written and verbal abuse he [Clark jnr] had received from a number of councillors'. Maybe if these written documents are revealed we can assess the relevance of the £250K more easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acillat Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 hmm, I have always been wary of people who are always claiming to have been bullied then run to daddy to sort it out. The ex CE was not capable of the job and should have been sacked ages ago. However the council have made a complete mess of this and need to answer our questions and not just 'draw a line under it'. So anybody going to the cross tommorow at 12?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlossimon Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 So anybody going to the cross tommorow at 12?? I know bad things have been done but really crucifixion sounds a bit over zealous as a form of redress, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 hmm, I have always been wary of people who are always claiming to have been bullied then run to daddy to sort it out. In the interest of balance - do we know that he requested his father's assistance in this? I have seen nothing to suggest that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acillat Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Ok fair enough we don't know that. However, Big D is a grown man and I personnaly think he shouldn't need his old man to fight his battles for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlossimon Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Probably a result of a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Clark snr talks about rumours being spread in order to raise question to his own integrity. I'm afraid it's facts, not rumour, that brought DC's integrity into question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 So anybody going to the cross tommorow at 12??Me and my neighbours will be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 His mutterings are hardly relevant. He will have only really heard, and have had his ears open to one side of the story, Clark jr's. His opinion is anything but unbiased, therefor without objective. While there may be understandable evidence of his bias, the objective points he makes in the letter are indeed very relevant and the wider subjects he outlines are of ever-increasing gravity to Shetland at the current time. Fair points. Taken from a broad a general perspective he does bring up a number of valid points of concern, however had he chosen to restrict his comments to only those he might well have succeeded in maintaining credibility and bringing to those points the attention they deserve. Tagging them on around an issue which he is obviously highly biased about, has had the effect of largely burying them beneath it, and having them written off unnoticed among the dismissal of the rest of it on the grounds of bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 hmm, I have always been wary of people who are always claiming to have been bullied then run to daddy to sort it out. In the interest of balance - do we know that he requested his father's assistance in this? I have seen nothing to suggest that. One would hope that in the interests of mutual respect between father and son, Snr. would at least have advised Jnr. of is intention to write, and hopefully would only have done so if he received Jnr's full approval. Yup, just an assumption I know, and even if correct it falls well short of "running to daddy", but still in general folk's respect for both Snr. and Jnr. probably would have been better served by a dignified silence from both of them. Any comment from Snr. is going to be seen as trying to win the boy's battles for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerwick Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 hmm, I have always been wary of people who are always claiming to have been bullied then run to daddy to sort it out. The ex CE was not capable of the job and should have been sacked ages ago. However the council have made a complete mess of this and need to answer our questions and not just 'draw a line under it'. This weeks shetland times article by Alistair Carmichael the councilors are doing the best for their community. Where have all the honest people gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Clark snr talks about rumours being spread in order to raise question to his own integrity. I'm afraid it's facts, not rumour, that brought DC's integrity into question. Forgive me if I'm incorrect but ... "Daddy/Clark Senior is quoted:- "He says his son would have been dismissed had he dished out the kind of written and verbal abuse he had received from a number of councillors." Well, well, well. Is this the FIRST time we have heard ANYTHING of the alleged reasons put forward by DC in relation to the bullying and hence breach of contract (common law duty of care to provide a safe place and system of work?). Ooh er, prima facie evidence would suggest a breach of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1990 summat or year or some Act along those lines, can't remember off the top of me head the correct one! Ah, WELL in THAT case, if it is the first we've heard of it, then THAT means that DC has BREACHED the terms of the confidentiality agreement with SIC as to the actual terms of the settlement. RIGHT, gloves off. If DC can tell Daddy and Daddy blurts all to the press, I reckon the Confidential Agreement is now null and void and we should hear ALL! Then we can make our own minds up as to whether the dosh was justified! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 While there may be understandable evidence of his bias, the objective points he makes in the letter are indeed very relevant and the wider subjects he outlines are of ever-increasing gravity to Shetland at the current time. Couldn't agree more, bias definitely but that doesn't mean everything else he said should be ignored because of his relationship to DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 and deal with it. Preferably without threatening behaviour! Umm...yeah. I think I should have added "responsibly and professionally" to the end of that sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Sandy Cluness stated .. "that sacking Mr. Clark might have lead to an Expensive and Revealing Court Case"1 - (does Sandy not think that this 500,000 is expensive then?)2 - (What is being kept under lock and key that the public of Shetland has a right to know about)-------Ian Clark Senior (in the article posted on the ST Website) used the word CoterieLiteral meaning - A group of people who associate closely - a clique. Money and greed together, makes people into FINANCIAL DEGENERATES. EDIT: correcting a spelling mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.