If

Here we see just what happens when you don't ask 'the right questions.
The elected clowns on Cheltenham Council blew £1.75M of council taxpayers money on a court case and compensation just because they FAILED to ask the right questions.

The incompetence is incredible. If it were only our County Council that proved itself incompetent by underpaying it's female workers long after it was told it was underpaying it's female workers that would be bad enough.

To then read this story of an Town Council WASTING £1,750,000 pursuing their own chief executive through the courts it shows that the state of local government is far far worse than any of us realised.

Getting back to Doug's employment just four short months ago.

This line is very, very relevant;
"The case could have had huge implications for anyone who lies, or fails to tell the whole truth on their CV, job application, or employment medical form."

The question remains however does Mr Blackledge's private life, conducted in public within Trinity Academy, actually fall within the remit of 'failing to tell the whole truth on their CV'?

I have asked everyone from a Bishop to a sponsor to John Hutton MP and even the mighty DCSF and apart from the Bishop nobody sees anything wrong with adultery committed by a person employed in a Christian school with another married person employed in the same Christian school.

So clearly the Bishop and I are in a minority thinking that it is morally wrong for a vice principal to conduct a private life in public in a school full of hormonal teenagers who are being taught adultery is not acceptable.

Question is are we in a minority?
Please let me know what you think in the comments box below after you have read the story of course.

Link

Taxpayers face a £1.75m bill after a council failed in a bid to sue its former managing director for damages because she kept secret her history of depression.

After being hired as a new hotshot, Christine Laird, 53, fell out with councillors in spectacular fashion  - claiming they even poisoned her cat in a campaign of intimidation - and took months off with stress.

It was then discovered that she had been on anti-depressants for five years before securing the £80,000 a year job, but had not revealed this on the medical form she completed as a condition of being hired.

Mrs Laird left with a pension after retiring on ill-health grounds due to stress - but Cheltenham Borough Council then took the unique step of suing her for £1m because she had failed to reveal her history of depression, saying she would never have been hired if she had.

A judge today rejected the council's claim of 'fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation', largely because the initial medical form involved asked the wrong questions, and ordered it to pay the bulk of Mrs Laird's huge legal fees.

As a result of the case, the council will have to fork out £750,000 in solicitors and barristers costs, on top of the £1m paid out to Mrs Laird which it failed to recoup in the cost.

Mrs Laird, however, who said she was the victim of a 'politically orchestrated hate campaign' is less than happy - as the judge rejected her counter claim for damages, and she still has to fund the remaining £190,000 of her own legal fees.

The judge noted that she had 'thrown the kitchen sink' at the council, by making numerous allegations against individuals which were largely rejected.

As the judgement was given in London's high court yesterday, she began rocking wildly backwards and forwards, and eventually had to be given oxygen by a paramedic outside.

Mrs Laird, looking shell-shocked and vacant, said after the case: 'I thought I was going to pass out.

'How can you have a justice system where you can be completely exonerated - and end up bankrupt?'

The extraordinary saga began in 2002 when Mrs Laird, who had a long career in local government behind her, was offered the top job at Cheltenham Borough Council.

She was told the offer was subject to the formality of completing a medical form.

Asked if she had any ongoing medical problem which would affect her employment, she replied: 'NO. I get the occasional migraine but this does not affect my ability to work or usually require time off from work.'

What she did not say was that she had been taking anti-depressants since 1997.

However, she began work, initially happily working for the Conservative council leader who hired her. Yet within a couple of months the Liberal Democrats won control of the council - and she soon fell out with the Liberal Democrat leader Andrew McKinlay.

They were effectively at war, issuing allegations and counter-allegations against each other, and refusing to meet unless a third party was present.

At one point Mrs Laird demanded £1m to leave her job without a fight, and at another, Mr McKinlay accidentally left his mobile phone on in his pocket during a private meeting about the dispute - meaning the journalist on the other end heard him criticising her and saying 'this is going to get nasty, and very very dirty'.

Mrs Laird, of Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire, told the High Court things indeed got dirty, saying she was subjected to anonymous letters and smear campaigns, and that after leaving her cat playing in the garden one morning, she returned to find him dead.

Mrs Laird said: ' He appeared to have died by poisoning. My gorgeous, affectionate, defenceless pet did not deserve to suffer in this way.

'I know of no other people who bear me a grudge. I consider it highly probable that the death of my cat and my employment are related because of all the other spiteful and vindictive acts to which I was subjected by members of the council.'

After being suspended on full pay in June 2004, Mrs Laird eventually left completely in 2005, and secured her pension on grounds of ill health. But council leaders were so angry they were determined to recoup money spent on her - and launched their legal case.

The case could have had huge implications for anyone who lies, or fails to tell the whole truth on their CV, job application, or employment medical form.

Yet the decision remains inconclusive, partly because of the inadequate wording on Cheltenham Council's medical form - which failed to specifically ask if she had suffered depression in the past. The form has since been changed.

Judge Mr Justice Hamblen said: 'I very much hope that a line can now finally be drawn, allowing Mrs Laird to get on with her life and the council to get on with the business of governing Cheltenham.'

Former leader of the council Mr McKinlay said he was disappointed with the judgement, and added: 'Cheltenham Borough Council does not go around poisoning cats - not as a matter of course.'