Taxpayers fork out £3,000 for fire chief's private back operation

Droitwich Advertiser: Chief fire officer Mark Yates Chief fire officer Mark Yates

A ROW has broken out over £3,000 of taxpayers money being used to fund a private operation for the fire chief.

The Fire Authority claim it was money well spent because without it Chief Fire Office Mark Yates could have been off work for 12 weeks.

But one councillor who tried to stop it happening, the Taxpayers Alliance and the Fire Brigades Union have all hit out, saying it’s not acceptable at a time when the fire service is facing financial cuts.

The operation took place last October but had not been made public until now, after the Worcester News lodged a Freedom of Information request.

We can reveal that a group of four councillors approved the ‘discretionary’ payment in a private meeting in November.

There is even a dispute about who was actually at the meeting, with one councillor denying he was there, even though he was named by two who were present.

Mr Yates had has a back problem for some time – not related to his current fire duties – and had been told he needed an operation which had a 12-week NHS waiting time.

Instead Mr Yates, whose salary is £122,000, paid £5,090 to have a private operation more quickly. He then asked the Fire Authority to cover the cost.

The four councillors eventually agreed to cover £3,000 after heated disagreements.

Mr Yates has also had £240 of physiotherapy paid for by the Authority.

The panel of four councillors who took the decision included authority chairman Derek Prodger and Labour group leader Richard Udall.

The vote was 3-1 in favour of paying the money, with Councillor Udall the dissenting voice.

Councillor Prodger has defended the decision: "Before the operation he did get into work but he was struggling at his desk, he was very brave.

"If he went into an NHS hospital it would have taken much longer, we wanted the chief back quickly and it was money well spent in my view.”

"He had no real length of time off (before the surgery) but we looked at the figures and felt it was more expedient to get it done quickly."

However Councillor Udall said: “I believe it's wrong for the public sector to subsidise private sector health care - especially as the person involved already has a very good salary. I made my position very clear."

The situation has been branded "ludicrous" by the Taxpayers Alliance, which has called upon Mr Yates to pay it all back.

Spokesman John O'Connell said: "Residents will be angry that they've had to cough up to pay for private treatment when very few of them are able to afford it for themselves.

"It says something when the public sector top brass don't use the NHS for their treatment, especially as everyone else is expected to be happy with it.

These perks must be scrapped, as taxpayers already foot hefty salaries and pensions."

Steve Gould, secretary of the county's Fire Brigades Union, said: "This is very disappointing. We are facing losing jobs and engines.

"If the fire authority can get rail-roaded into something like this, what chance of saving appliances?

"Yet again the fire service is being dragged to the forefront and it's nothing to do with firefighters, it's senior management."

Mr Yates was unavailable for comment.

The fire service is currently facing significant cuts to services, with stations at risk of closure and engines due to be removed to help save £4 million by 2016.

There is a dispute about which four councillors were at the panel meeting. Councillors Prodger and Udall have both named two others who they say were present, but one of them denies being there.

The fourth could not be contacted.

WHAT THE FIRE SERVICE SAY

IN responding to the Freedom of Information Request, the fire service said each claim for medical help is looked at on a "case-by-case" basis.

It also said Mr Yates could potentially have been off work for up to 12 weeks while waiting for the NHS surgery, which would have cost more in giving other staff extra cash to take on more duties.

The statement read: "He was likely to be off work for up to 12 weeks whilst waiting for an NHS operation.

"Where NHS waiting lists are lengthy, the service has previously paid for staff members to be referred privately for consultant appointments. "In addition, we also fund other services for counselling and physiotherapy through occupational health.

"Each instance is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and all options are considered where it is deemed to be cost effective in progressing a diagnosis or treatment to enable an earlier return to work, and shown to be in the best interests of the service.

"Elected members considered it was in the fire authority's best interests that he was able to return to work as soon as possible and therefore agreed to contribute £3,000 towards the total £5,090 cost of having the operation privately.

"This contribution was less than the estimated £8,500 cost of additional payments to other officers if he had been absent for a prolonged period."

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:22am Mon 24 Mar 14

brooksider says...

So it is OK to Blackmail the taxpayer it seems.
Making the spending decision at a private meeting, the Fire Authority have proved themselves to be not fit for purpose yet again.
So it is OK to Blackmail the taxpayer it seems. Making the spending decision at a private meeting, the Fire Authority have proved themselves to be not fit for purpose yet again. brooksider
  • Score: 37

10:27am Mon 24 Mar 14

denon says...

This a difficult one...twelve weeks off with someone acting up could have cost at least £3,000

Is this the same Richard Udall who has held senior offices in the Co-operative Movement.I wonder if he is a friend of the Rev Flowers?
This a difficult one...twelve weeks off with someone acting up could have cost at least £3,000 Is this the same Richard Udall who has held senior offices in the Co-operative Movement.I wonder if he is a friend of the Rev Flowers? denon
  • Score: -7

11:15am Mon 24 Mar 14

sitting on the fence gives you piles says...

If I had a salary of £122,000 per year, I wouldn't have the nerve to ask for a hand-out.
If I had a salary of £122,000 per year, I wouldn't have the nerve to ask for a hand-out. sitting on the fence gives you piles
  • Score: 83

11:31am Mon 24 Mar 14

althom says...

Well done Worcester News for breaking this story. This is what local newspaper journalism is all about, seeking out the leeches on massive salaries who expect the public to pay for their private life style. The rest of us have to pay out of our own pocket!
Well done Worcester News for breaking this story. This is what local newspaper journalism is all about, seeking out the leeches on massive salaries who expect the public to pay for their private life style. The rest of us have to pay out of our own pocket! althom
  • Score: 66

11:35am Mon 24 Mar 14

skychip says...

We are only told about it after the money has been paid out, surely out of his salary he could have funded it all. There have been a couple of instances where the Fire Brigade personnel seem to do well out of the taxpayers.
We are only told about it after the money has been paid out, surely out of his salary he could have funded it all. There have been a couple of instances where the Fire Brigade personnel seem to do well out of the taxpayers. skychip
  • Score: 31

11:46am Mon 24 Mar 14

CJH says...

Can't blame him for asking. Blame those who authorised it. Did I see Clr Prodgers name? Why am I not surprised.
Can't blame him for asking. Blame those who authorised it. Did I see Clr Prodgers name? Why am I not surprised. CJH
  • Score: 29

11:53am Mon 24 Mar 14

sexymamma says...

What is the Fire Service coming to. So this what the tax payers money goes on. Mark Yates on a salary of £122,000 and he has the cheek to ask the Fire Authority to fund his operation. What a disgrace!!! Who cares that he would have been off for 12 weeks if he'd had the op on the NHS - Headquarters would be a better place without the bloke.
The Fire Service is currently proposing to close fire stations, make front line staff redundant - don't know how he sleeps at night.
Such a shame that its becoming such a dishonest organisation - I blame those at the top.
What is the Fire Service coming to. So this what the tax payers money goes on. Mark Yates on a salary of £122,000 and he has the cheek to ask the Fire Authority to fund his operation. What a disgrace!!! Who cares that he would have been off for 12 weeks if he'd had the op on the NHS - Headquarters would be a better place without the bloke. The Fire Service is currently proposing to close fire stations, make front line staff redundant - don't know how he sleeps at night. Such a shame that its becoming such a dishonest organisation - I blame those at the top. sexymamma
  • Score: 46

12:47pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Hwicce says...

I find it interesting that this type of expense can be made without any proper record of approval. If the councillors can't even agree who was at the meeting how do they know if the payment was authorised?

Maybe they authorised a payment to me of £5000 as well. If so please send the cheque to......
I find it interesting that this type of expense can be made without any proper record of approval. If the councillors can't even agree who was at the meeting how do they know if the payment was authorised? Maybe they authorised a payment to me of £5000 as well. If so please send the cheque to...... Hwicce
  • Score: 26

1:06pm Mon 24 Mar 14

jb says...

Being such a highly paid, high ranking position why did he not have private health insurance, surely he could afford it? Apparently he 'struggled' to do a desk job with his injury so it was decided to pay part of the private cost of treatment, so what about front line firefighters getting the same treatment if they are injured in duty? It was not an injury sustained at work therefore I don't see any valid reason for taxpayers to pay towards the cost. Whatever spin the council or the fire service try to out on this I find it very difficult at a time when everyone is making cutbacks to see how they can justify this payment. If he's in a desk job then why couldn't he have done some work from home and delegated the rest?
Being such a highly paid, high ranking position why did he not have private health insurance, surely he could afford it? Apparently he 'struggled' to do a desk job with his injury so it was decided to pay part of the private cost of treatment, so what about front line firefighters getting the same treatment if they are injured in duty? It was not an injury sustained at work therefore I don't see any valid reason for taxpayers to pay towards the cost. Whatever spin the council or the fire service try to out on this I find it very difficult at a time when everyone is making cutbacks to see how they can justify this payment. If he's in a desk job then why couldn't he have done some work from home and delegated the rest? jb
  • Score: 39

1:24pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Hammyman says...

The £3,000 was a bargain.

He earns £122,000 a year or roughly £10,000 a month. The NHS waiting list would have meant he was off work on pay for 3 months which would cost the fire service £30,000 to pay him whilst he was unable to work. Paying £3,000 to massively reduce this time was the correct call.
The £3,000 was a bargain. He earns £122,000 a year or roughly £10,000 a month. The NHS waiting list would have meant he was off work on pay for 3 months which would cost the fire service £30,000 to pay him whilst he was unable to work. Paying £3,000 to massively reduce this time was the correct call. Hammyman
  • Score: -41

1:32pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Maggie Would says...

'The operation took place last October but had not been made public until now, after the Worcester News lodged a Freedom of Information request.'

The sight of that sentence gladdens my heart. Investigative journalism. Nothing spectacular, but a huge improvement on cutting and pasting press releases from the police force and ambulance service.
'The operation took place last October but had not been made public until now, after the Worcester News lodged a Freedom of Information request.' The sight of that sentence gladdens my heart. Investigative journalism. Nothing spectacular, but a huge improvement on cutting and pasting press releases from the police force and ambulance service. Maggie Would
  • Score: 30

2:01pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Moltaire says...

This is the public sector, so this should not really come as a surprise. The public sector gravy train continues unabated as they remain out of touch with reality. Again.
This is the public sector, so this should not really come as a surprise. The public sector gravy train continues unabated as they remain out of touch with reality. Again. Moltaire
  • Score: 24

2:18pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Miss Capitol says...

When will it be that these people on larger than life salaries understand that the days of fleecing the taxpayer to subsidise their already exorbitant life styles is over... Yes the large pay packs the service provided car expenses are not now acceptable in the court of public opinion both the chair of the Fire authority and the CFO should resign over these matters.....But it’s a typical Tory Led Authority Prodger, Hardiman, and the Tory led sheep will see this type of expenditure signed off, but we will pay for it with the loss of a Fire Engine and crew at Worcester and Hereford come June.
When will it be that these people on larger than life salaries understand that the days of fleecing the taxpayer to subsidise their already exorbitant life styles is over... Yes the large pay packs the service provided car expenses are not now acceptable in the court of public opinion both the chair of the Fire authority and the CFO should resign over these matters.....But it’s a typical Tory Led Authority Prodger, Hardiman, and the Tory led sheep will see this type of expenditure signed off, but we will pay for it with the loss of a Fire Engine and crew at Worcester and Hereford come June. Miss Capitol
  • Score: 22

2:19pm Mon 24 Mar 14

skychip says...

As usual no-one will have to answer for this and so it will just keep going on in the public sector until someone stands up to them.
As usual no-one will have to answer for this and so it will just keep going on in the public sector until someone stands up to them. skychip
  • Score: 19

2:24pm Mon 24 Mar 14

iamthebinman says...

We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines!
We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines! iamthebinman
  • Score: -29

2:31pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Miss Capitol says...

iamthebinman
You have a lack of understanding if he wants a back operation he pays not the tax payer and if he is off work for a prolonged period then sack him on capability as is best practice.
iamthebinman You have a lack of understanding if he wants a back operation he pays not the tax payer and if he is off work for a prolonged period then sack him on capability as is best practice. Miss Capitol
  • Score: 16

2:34pm Mon 24 Mar 14

brisbrom says...

This Yates bloke rates himself a bit highly doesn't he. Someone else could have done his job while he was off work and why is he better than the local plumber or carpenter waiting for an operation.
This is an absolute disgrace and anybody defending him and his begging should just look at what has happened and be ashamed.
Of course the councillors would be willing to give him the money, they didn't earn it and have to pay it from their taxes, they just get their share from their expenses claims.
This Yates bloke rates himself a bit highly doesn't he. Someone else could have done his job while he was off work and why is he better than the local plumber or carpenter waiting for an operation. This is an absolute disgrace and anybody defending him and his begging should just look at what has happened and be ashamed. Of course the councillors would be willing to give him the money, they didn't earn it and have to pay it from their taxes, they just get their share from their expenses claims. brisbrom
  • Score: 23

3:01pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Grumbleweed Connection says...

Yates, demonstrate that you have a conscience. Pay it back. If private treatment is your style, buy a full health insurance policy. You can clearly afford it!
Yates, demonstrate that you have a conscience. Pay it back. If private treatment is your style, buy a full health insurance policy. You can clearly afford it! Grumbleweed Connection
  • Score: 37

3:11pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Captain Flack says...

If you wish to have private medical treatment, that's your choice and rightly so. But to go cap in hand to your employers and ask them to cover the costs is wrong, especially if it comes out of the public purse. I'm sure the Royal Family don't get their private medical expenses reimbursed by the taxpayer. Why should he? If he wanted his expenses reimbursed he should have taken out medical insurance. I think it's scandalous. So he would have been off work for 12 weeks if he'd gone through the NHS, can't the rest of the Senior Management Team cope in his absence? Or does that say something about them and their leadership skills?
If you wish to have private medical treatment, that's your choice and rightly so. But to go cap in hand to your employers and ask them to cover the costs is wrong, especially if it comes out of the public purse. I'm sure the Royal Family don't get their private medical expenses reimbursed by the taxpayer. Why should he? If he wanted his expenses reimbursed he should have taken out medical insurance. I think it's scandalous. So he would have been off work for 12 weeks if he'd gone through the NHS, can't the rest of the Senior Management Team cope in his absence? Or does that say something about them and their leadership skills? Captain Flack
  • Score: 22

3:24pm Mon 24 Mar 14

CJH says...

Miss Capitol wrote:
iamthebinman
You have a lack of understanding if he wants a back operation he pays not the tax payer and if he is off work for a prolonged period then sack him on capability as is best practice.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this you cannot sack someone for having a medical condition. How would you like it? Retired on medical grounds possibly. But SACKING?
[quote][p][bold]Miss Capitol[/bold] wrote: iamthebinman You have a lack of understanding if he wants a back operation he pays not the tax payer and if he is off work for a prolonged period then sack him on capability as is best practice.[/p][/quote]Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this you cannot sack someone for having a medical condition. How would you like it? Retired on medical grounds possibly. But SACKING? CJH
  • Score: -10

3:47pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Gruszeczka says...

Simple pay this money back and repentance
Simple pay this money back and repentance Gruszeczka
  • Score: 12

3:48pm Mon 24 Mar 14

sitting on the fence gives you piles says...

iamthebinman wrote:
We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines!
Your basic maths have let you down. I have looked beyond the headlines and read your post.

Someone on £15,000 per annum would cost considerably more to keep on the sick for 12 weeks than the £3000 handout, so does this mean that all personnel working for a government body should get their private operation paid for? Or only the ones that can already afford it because their pay is almost 4 times the national average?
[quote][p][bold]iamthebinman[/bold] wrote: We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines![/p][/quote]Your basic maths have let you down. I have looked beyond the headlines and read your post. Someone on £15,000 per annum would cost considerably more to keep on the sick for 12 weeks than the £3000 handout, so does this mean that all personnel working for a government body should get their private operation paid for? Or only the ones that can already afford it because their pay is almost 4 times the national average? sitting on the fence gives you piles
  • Score: 21

4:03pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Miss Capitol says...

CJH says...
Errr looks like you too don't know what your on about too...Being sacked by your employer is exactly what they do to fire-fighters for medical conditions that prevent them from working, and this is supported by Government and Chief Fire Officers. Medical retirements were removed form the Fire-fighters Pension Scheme along time ago my friend. however this CFO is able to retire currently and when he does and he will he leave with £480K lump sum and a pension circa £64K per annum. But the biggest shame of all is to come and that is when a month after leaving he's re-employed back on half salary and the Tory Prodger and Co will tell everyone of the great savings they have made at the top. The Guy should resign and the Chairman Prodger.
CJH says... Errr looks like you too don't know what your on about too...Being sacked by your employer is exactly what they do to fire-fighters for medical conditions that prevent them from working, and this is supported by Government and Chief Fire Officers. Medical retirements were removed form the Fire-fighters Pension Scheme along time ago my friend. however this CFO is able to retire currently and when he does and he will he leave with £480K lump sum and a pension circa £64K per annum. But the biggest shame of all is to come and that is when a month after leaving he's re-employed back on half salary and the Tory Prodger and Co will tell everyone of the great savings they have made at the top. The Guy should resign and the Chairman Prodger. Miss Capitol
  • Score: 21

4:08pm Mon 24 Mar 14

iamthebinman says...

sitting on the fence gives you piles wrote:
iamthebinman wrote:
We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines!
Your basic maths have let you down. I have looked beyond the headlines and read your post.

Someone on £15,000 per annum would cost considerably more to keep on the sick for 12 weeks than the £3000 handout, so does this mean that all personnel working for a government body should get their private operation paid for? Or only the ones that can already afford it because their pay is almost 4 times the national average?
But we are not talking about someone on 15k. As a taxpayer I would rather spend £3000 than £30,000 to sort any problem. Try the headline 'Smart Thinking Council Save Taxpayer £27000'
[quote][p][bold]sitting on the fence gives you piles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iamthebinman[/bold] wrote: We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines![/p][/quote]Your basic maths have let you down. I have looked beyond the headlines and read your post. Someone on £15,000 per annum would cost considerably more to keep on the sick for 12 weeks than the £3000 handout, so does this mean that all personnel working for a government body should get their private operation paid for? Or only the ones that can already afford it because their pay is almost 4 times the national average?[/p][/quote]But we are not talking about someone on 15k. As a taxpayer I would rather spend £3000 than £30,000 to sort any problem. Try the headline 'Smart Thinking Council Save Taxpayer £27000' iamthebinman
  • Score: -10

4:40pm Mon 24 Mar 14

sitting on the fence gives you piles says...

He received a financial handout that was not part of his contract. The £15,000 is very relevant. Where would you stop?
He received a financial handout that was not part of his contract. The £15,000 is very relevant. Where would you stop? sitting on the fence gives you piles
  • Score: 9

4:43pm Mon 24 Mar 14

brooksider says...

iamthebinman wrote:
sitting on the fence gives you piles wrote:
iamthebinman wrote:
We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines!
Your basic maths have let you down. I have looked beyond the headlines and read your post.

Someone on £15,000 per annum would cost considerably more to keep on the sick for 12 weeks than the £3000 handout, so does this mean that all personnel working for a government body should get their private operation paid for? Or only the ones that can already afford it because their pay is almost 4 times the national average?
But we are not talking about someone on 15k. As a taxpayer I would rather spend £3000 than £30,000 to sort any problem. Try the headline 'Smart Thinking Council Save Taxpayer £27000'
If the story is correct, Yates has already paid for the operation before asking for the operation to be paid in full.
For some reason this Fire Authority cabal decided to comprimise on £3,000.
Therefore no saving for the taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]iamthebinman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sitting on the fence gives you piles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iamthebinman[/bold] wrote: We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines![/p][/quote]Your basic maths have let you down. I have looked beyond the headlines and read your post. Someone on £15,000 per annum would cost considerably more to keep on the sick for 12 weeks than the £3000 handout, so does this mean that all personnel working for a government body should get their private operation paid for? Or only the ones that can already afford it because their pay is almost 4 times the national average?[/p][/quote]But we are not talking about someone on 15k. As a taxpayer I would rather spend £3000 than £30,000 to sort any problem. Try the headline 'Smart Thinking Council Save Taxpayer £27000'[/p][/quote]If the story is correct, Yates has already paid for the operation before asking for the operation to be paid in full. For some reason this Fire Authority cabal decided to comprimise on £3,000. Therefore no saving for the taxpayer. brooksider
  • Score: 10

4:43pm Mon 24 Mar 14

reflector says...

The CFO has a deputy, part of whose job it is to cover in the absence of his boss so no additional cost should have been involved whilst he was off work. That's why he has a deputy for goodness sake.

To have the cheek to even claim for the cost of private treatment is scandalous for someone on his salary, especially during the present financial climate when he was actually propoosing cuts to the service.

Equally scandalous are the actions of the councillors who agreed a payment and I hope they will be sent packing at the next election.
The CFO has a deputy, part of whose job it is to cover in the absence of his boss so no additional cost should have been involved whilst he was off work. That's why he has a deputy for goodness sake. To have the cheek to even claim for the cost of private treatment is scandalous for someone on his salary, especially during the present financial climate when he was actually propoosing cuts to the service. Equally scandalous are the actions of the councillors who agreed a payment and I hope they will be sent packing at the next election. reflector
  • Score: 22

5:07pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Sam128 says...

I like many others have just received my council tax bill and I see that the amount that the fire service receive has gone up by 1.9% to £91.74 for a band E property. Until now I believed this to good value however myself and the rest of the properties in my road, approx 30, have just financed this guys back operation even though his salary is in excess of £120,00.00 pa. As I stated I have always held the fire service in high regard, the men and women that turn up to our emergencies do a tremendous job however Chief officer Yates has done his self no favours, it wasn't that long ago that he said he was removing a full time engine from Worcester Station because of a lack of funds so for my £91.74 per year I could get an inferior service in the knowledge that Mr Yates had his operation through private health care payed for by me.
I like many others have just received my council tax bill and I see that the amount that the fire service receive has gone up by 1.9% to £91.74 for a band E property. Until now I believed this to good value however myself and the rest of the properties in my road, approx 30, have just financed this guys back operation even though his salary is in excess of £120,00.00 pa. As I stated I have always held the fire service in high regard, the men and women that turn up to our emergencies do a tremendous job however Chief officer Yates has done his self no favours, it wasn't that long ago that he said he was removing a full time engine from Worcester Station because of a lack of funds so for my £91.74 per year I could get an inferior service in the knowledge that Mr Yates had his operation through private health care payed for by me. Sam128
  • Score: 18

5:42pm Mon 24 Mar 14

CJH says...

Miss Capitol wrote:
CJH says...
Errr looks like you too don't know what your on about too...Being sacked by your employer is exactly what they do to fire-fighters for medical conditions that prevent them from working, and this is supported by Government and Chief Fire Officers. Medical retirements were removed form the Fire-fighters Pension Scheme along time ago my friend. however this CFO is able to retire currently and when he does and he will he leave with £480K lump sum and a pension circa £64K per annum. But the biggest shame of all is to come and that is when a month after leaving he's re-employed back on half salary and the Tory Prodger and Co will tell everyone of the great savings they have made at the top. The Guy should resign and the Chairman Prodger.
No, not 'sacked'. That indicates misdemeanors. Being ill is not that. I understand fully the implications of a fire fighter on the front line being unable to do his/her job because they are not physically fit. That is a completely different issue. And I am not your friend, please do not assume that I am. But yes, Prodger should resign. I wouldn't put him in charge of anything after his years at highways. We are still suffering from his bizarre, illogical and unsound decisions. Let's hope that he gets voted out next election. Then he won't be able to mess with anything again. Are you listening Bedwardine voters?
[quote][p][bold]Miss Capitol[/bold] wrote: CJH says... Errr looks like you too don't know what your on about too...Being sacked by your employer is exactly what they do to fire-fighters for medical conditions that prevent them from working, and this is supported by Government and Chief Fire Officers. Medical retirements were removed form the Fire-fighters Pension Scheme along time ago my friend. however this CFO is able to retire currently and when he does and he will he leave with £480K lump sum and a pension circa £64K per annum. But the biggest shame of all is to come and that is when a month after leaving he's re-employed back on half salary and the Tory Prodger and Co will tell everyone of the great savings they have made at the top. The Guy should resign and the Chairman Prodger.[/p][/quote]No, not 'sacked'. That indicates misdemeanors. Being ill is not that. I understand fully the implications of a fire fighter on the front line being unable to do his/her job because they are not physically fit. That is a completely different issue. And I am not your friend, please do not assume that I am. But yes, Prodger should resign. I wouldn't put him in charge of anything after his years at highways. We are still suffering from his bizarre, illogical and unsound decisions. Let's hope that he gets voted out next election. Then he won't be able to mess with anything again. Are you listening Bedwardine voters? CJH
  • Score: 11

6:49pm Mon 24 Mar 14

liketoknow says...

iamthebinman wrote:
We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines!
his bad back. he pays
[quote][p][bold]iamthebinman[/bold] wrote: We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines![/p][/quote]his bad back. he pays liketoknow
  • Score: 3

6:53pm Mon 24 Mar 14

old misery says...

Whoops disclosure of this story means he will have to declare this "as benefit in kind" on his tax return so we should get some of our money back.
Whoops disclosure of this story means he will have to declare this "as benefit in kind" on his tax return so we should get some of our money back. old misery
  • Score: 10

8:06pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Real Facts says...

Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue and the councils have a history of being blameless.

http://www.worcester
news.co.uk/news/9981
853.__250k_pay_off_f
or_sex_claim_fire_bo
ss/?ref=rc

http://www.worcester
news.co.uk/news/9331
992.Fire_boss_s___32
0k_pension_farce/

http://www.worcester
news.co.uk/news/7990
012.Fire_chief_retir
ement_row/?ref=rl


Public services?
Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue and the councils have a history of being blameless. http://www.worcester news.co.uk/news/9981 853.__250k_pay_off_f or_sex_claim_fire_bo ss/?ref=rc http://www.worcester news.co.uk/news/9331 992.Fire_boss_s___32 0k_pension_farce/ http://www.worcester news.co.uk/news/7990 012.Fire_chief_retir ement_row/?ref=rl Public services? Real Facts
  • Score: 5

8:18pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Doesitmakesense?? says...

I'm disapointed but not surprised to read this. If he paid the money in the first place then he didn't need the £3k payment. Why is it people who are paid so much are so greedy wanting more and more money from their employers. He was chancing his luck and holding them to ransom - who said he needed to have 12 weeks off work? A person on that salary should have health insurance and it sets a dangerous precedence - anyone dismissed by the Fire Service for capability that needed an operation can site this in their defence. I hope HMRC pick this up and make him pay tax on it.
I'm disapointed but not surprised to read this. If he paid the money in the first place then he didn't need the £3k payment. Why is it people who are paid so much are so greedy wanting more and more money from their employers. He was chancing his luck and holding them to ransom - who said he needed to have 12 weeks off work? A person on that salary should have health insurance and it sets a dangerous precedence - anyone dismissed by the Fire Service for capability that needed an operation can site this in their defence. I hope HMRC pick this up and make him pay tax on it. Doesitmakesense??
  • Score: 12

8:30pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Real Facts says...

He'll get away with it.
The senior officers always do.

How many senior officer posts threatened by the cuts? None.
How many Firefighter posts threatened?

He'll get away with it.
The senior officers always do.
He'll get away with it. The senior officers always do. How many senior officer posts threatened by the cuts? None. How many Firefighter posts threatened? He'll get away with it. The senior officers always do. Real Facts
  • Score: 15

8:49pm Mon 24 Mar 14

markskoda says...

If an ordinary fireman or firewoman doesn't turn up for work that's a problem. If this guy doesn't turn up, not such big a problem. What the hell does he do for his £122.000.00 per annum?
If an ordinary fireman or firewoman doesn't turn up for work that's a problem. If this guy doesn't turn up, not such big a problem. What the hell does he do for his £122.000.00 per annum? markskoda
  • Score: 10

8:50pm Mon 24 Mar 14

markskoda says...

No wonder he's smiling in the photograph. He's signing his expenses claim.
No wonder he's smiling in the photograph. He's signing his expenses claim. markskoda
  • Score: 12

9:12pm Mon 24 Mar 14

voledog says...

It's sad that no one is even slightly surprised these days that someone in authority ends up getting perks that those at the bottom of the pile would never get given. As the Tories like to say, when it comes to austerity "we're all in this together". Although George Orwell was a bit closer to the mark in Animal Farm with the phrase "we're all equal, but some are more equal than others".
It's sad that no one is even slightly surprised these days that someone in authority ends up getting perks that those at the bottom of the pile would never get given. As the Tories like to say, when it comes to austerity "we're all in this together". Although George Orwell was a bit closer to the mark in Animal Farm with the phrase "we're all equal, but some are more equal than others". voledog
  • Score: 11

10:28pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Old Uncle says...

Is it legal to hold a closed meeting which approves the disbursement of public funds? Should there not be notice to the public? It appears to me that malfeasance occurred at said meeting. If so, are the participants not criminally liable?
Is it legal to hold a closed meeting which approves the disbursement of public funds? Should there not be notice to the public? It appears to me that malfeasance occurred at said meeting. If so, are the participants not criminally liable? Old Uncle
  • Score: 7

10:49pm Mon 24 Mar 14

saucerer says...

Although Mr Yates hasn't technically done anything wrong, what he has done morally is abhorrent. This clearly is a person with no conscience or sense of "doing the right thing". But then, this is the public sector, where reality and empathy has no meaning in their world. Mr Yates should do the honourable thing and resign and if he refuses to, it's up to the residents of Herefordshire and Worcestershire to make a stand and make sure he is no longer employed by the fire brigade. There is no room in the public sector for people like him, but sadly there are too many people like him in the public sector. What's the bet the same thing happens in the NHS, police and councils. It's time all our public authorities were investigated to see how widespread such practices are, with those people fleecing the hard working tax payer and private sector booted out. The public sector are an absolute disgrace and are bordering on scum.
Although Mr Yates hasn't technically done anything wrong, what he has done morally is abhorrent. This clearly is a person with no conscience or sense of "doing the right thing". But then, this is the public sector, where reality and empathy has no meaning in their world. Mr Yates should do the honourable thing and resign and if he refuses to, it's up to the residents of Herefordshire and Worcestershire to make a stand and make sure he is no longer employed by the fire brigade. There is no room in the public sector for people like him, but sadly there are too many people like him in the public sector. What's the bet the same thing happens in the NHS, police and councils. It's time all our public authorities were investigated to see how widespread such practices are, with those people fleecing the hard working tax payer and private sector booted out. The public sector are an absolute disgrace and are bordering on scum. saucerer
  • Score: 8

7:00am Tue 25 Mar 14

green49 says...

markskoda says...

If an ordinary fireman or firewoman doesn't turn up for work that's a problem. If this guy doesn't turn up, not such big a problem. What the hell does he do for his £122.000.00 per annum?

This the problem in our country the people at in the higher paid jobs will take the **** , NO reguard for taxpayers money yet again and a complete lack of respect for others who couldnt afford this, he should have his own insurance and thats something that should be looked into by PRODGER as he is the Fire Aorthority Chairman? but then his Track record isnt good either as reguards waste of taxpayers money.
markskoda says... If an ordinary fireman or firewoman doesn't turn up for work that's a problem. If this guy doesn't turn up, not such big a problem. What the hell does he do for his £122.000.00 per annum? This the problem in our country the people at in the higher paid jobs will take the **** , NO reguard for taxpayers money yet again and a complete lack of respect for others who couldnt afford this, he should have his own insurance and thats something that should be looked into by PRODGER as he is the Fire Aorthority Chairman? but then his Track record isnt good either as reguards waste of taxpayers money. green49
  • Score: 8

7:11am Tue 25 Mar 14

Real Facts says...

It's quite simple.
If it's not in his contract (and I'm pretty certain it's not!) then it doesn't happen. It is CERTAINLY NOT in the contracts of the Firefighters he commands.
It is mis use of public funds. At the very least he and the councillers should be disciplined.

One rule for them and one rule for us; and in the next twelve months Firefighters will lose their jobs.
The waste at high level and the lack of oversight is shocking.
But he'll get away with it.
It'll be forgotten within a week and the gravy train will move on.

How exactly did this come to light in any case?
It's quite simple. If it's not in his contract (and I'm pretty certain it's not!) then it doesn't happen. It is CERTAINLY NOT in the contracts of the Firefighters he commands. It is mis use of public funds. At the very least he and the councillers should be disciplined. One rule for them and one rule for us; and in the next twelve months Firefighters will lose their jobs. The waste at high level and the lack of oversight is shocking. But he'll get away with it. It'll be forgotten within a week and the gravy train will move on. How exactly did this come to light in any case? Real Facts
  • Score: 7

8:54am Tue 25 Mar 14

lovelyjubbly says...

iamthebinman wrote:
We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines!
Point being he should have paid for it himself!!!
[quote][p][bold]iamthebinman[/bold] wrote: We appear to have a lack of basic maths. It would cost the taxpayer over £30,000 to pay Mr Yates to be off work for three months so they decide to pay £3000 to have the operation done immediately so he can return to work with as little disruption as possible. Try looking beyond headlines![/p][/quote]Point being he should have paid for it himself!!! lovelyjubbly
  • Score: 8

10:57am Tue 25 Mar 14

spider666 says...

Miss Capitol wrote:
iamthebinman
You have a lack of understanding if he wants a back operation he pays not the tax payer and if he is off work for a prolonged period then sack him on capability as is best practice.
So glad you're not my boss with that attitude,so someone is ill and it's ok to sack them---It's 2014 not 1914.Many people now are transferred through the NHS to private hospitals for treatment that the tax payer picks up the bill for --If he had gone on the sick and waited for it through the NHS who do you think would of paid his wages while he was sat at home ---yes us,the tax payer.
[quote][p][bold]Miss Capitol[/bold] wrote: iamthebinman You have a lack of understanding if he wants a back operation he pays not the tax payer and if he is off work for a prolonged period then sack him on capability as is best practice.[/p][/quote]So glad you're not my boss with that attitude,so someone is ill and it's ok to sack them---It's 2014 not 1914.Many people now are transferred through the NHS to private hospitals for treatment that the tax payer picks up the bill for --If he had gone on the sick and waited for it through the NHS who do you think would of paid his wages while he was sat at home ---yes us,the tax payer. spider666
  • Score: -3

4:44pm Tue 25 Mar 14

BlogIT says...

Quote - "Councillor Prodger has defended the decision: "Before the operation he did get into work but he was struggling at his desk, he was very brave" and then counter argues his point with "He had no real length of time off (before the surgery) but we looked at the figures and felt it was more expedient to get it done quickly."
If the Chief was "brave" enough to attend his duties beforehand, why did he not just sit and wait for a normal appointment. Also, surely his Deputy could have stepped in. Somebody would have to have stood in if he had gone sick before. Who covered for for him when he came out of hospital?
Quote - "Councillor Prodger has defended the decision: "Before the operation he did get into work but he was struggling at his desk, he was very brave" and then counter argues his point with "He had no real length of time off (before the surgery) but we looked at the figures and felt it was more expedient to get it done quickly." If the Chief was "brave" enough to attend his duties beforehand, why did he not just sit and wait for a normal appointment. Also, surely his Deputy could have stepped in. Somebody would have to have stood in if he had gone sick before. Who covered for for him when he came out of hospital? BlogIT
  • Score: 7

4:51pm Tue 25 Mar 14

agedbutwithit says...

It really tees me off to read about this greedy man demanding to be paid by the taxpayer for his private operation. Seeing also that Mr Derek Prodger (he of the Newtown road bus lane fiasco) was one of the Counsillors that approved (in secret) the paying of £3000 to a man that already earns in excess of £120,000 per year .. Im still waiting ,after 24 weeks for an operation and being in constant and excruciating pain would like the said counselors plus maybe the chief Fire Officer to donate any spare money so that I can jump the queue and get my operation done as quickly as him ..
An absolute and utter DISGRACE
It really tees me off to read about this greedy man demanding to be paid by the taxpayer for his private operation. Seeing also that Mr Derek Prodger (he of the Newtown road bus lane fiasco) was one of the Counsillors that approved (in secret) the paying of £3000 to a man that already earns in excess of £120,000 per year .. Im still waiting ,after 24 weeks for an operation and being in constant and excruciating pain would like the said counselors plus maybe the chief Fire Officer to donate any spare money so that I can jump the queue and get my operation done as quickly as him .. An absolute and utter DISGRACE agedbutwithit
  • Score: 7

6:51pm Tue 25 Mar 14

worcester man67 says...

Reading about this story on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-her
eford-worcester-2672
7628 I noticed that Labour councillor Peter McDonald stuck his oar in and said "He ought to reflect and consider resigning the post," It begs the question why the Labour councillor does not take his own advice after yelling at a rival politician to “resign or commit suicide” as reported by the Worcester Evening News on the 23/05/13
Reading about this story on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-her eford-worcester-2672 7628 I noticed that Labour councillor Peter McDonald stuck his oar in and said "He ought to reflect and consider resigning the post," It begs the question why the Labour councillor does not take his own advice after yelling at a rival politician to “resign or commit suicide” as reported by the Worcester Evening News on the 23/05/13 worcester man67
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Tue 25 Mar 14

DAVID1875 says...

For Cllr Prodger to describe Mark Yates as very brave is ridiculous. How much bravery do you need to "struggle" at your desk! What legal authority does Cllr Prodger have to authorise public money to be paid for a private matter! Was the meeting where the authorisation was agreed minuted? If not why not? This is misappropriation of public funds. Tweet your opinion to Mark Yates himself on his twitter account at @HWFRSFireChief.
For Cllr Prodger to describe Mark Yates as very brave is ridiculous. How much bravery do you need to "struggle" at your desk! What legal authority does Cllr Prodger have to authorise public money to be paid for a private matter! Was the meeting where the authorisation was agreed minuted? If not why not? This is misappropriation of public funds. Tweet your opinion to Mark Yates himself on his twitter account at @HWFRSFireChief. DAVID1875
  • Score: 10

7:02pm Tue 25 Mar 14

DarrenM says...

We thought we were safe from Prodgering after the bus lane fiasco but he's yet again managed to give us a good Prodgering in the fire service as well.

"Before the operation he did get into work but he was struggling at his desk, he was very brave"

What a hero, why stop there surely Derek should nominate him for the George Medal next!
We thought we were safe from Prodgering after the bus lane fiasco but he's yet again managed to give us a good Prodgering in the fire service as well. "Before the operation he did get into work but he was struggling at his desk, he was very brave" What a hero, why stop there surely Derek should nominate him for the George Medal next! DarrenM
  • Score: 10

12:47pm Wed 26 Mar 14

themooman says...

the biggest disgrace here is that we the taxpayer didnt pay the full amount!
the biggest disgrace here is that we the taxpayer didnt pay the full amount! themooman
  • Score: -1

2:10pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Vox populi says...

Gosh there are some silly comments here.

Ok this guy earns £122k - a pretty good salary which nobody seems to be able to justify but you know all those lives saved by the fire brigade in Worcester? Well the buck stops with him, when it goes right or wrong. That’s quite a big responsibility not sure many commenting on here would want that?

12 weeks for an op on his salary might be around 30k yes however add to that the salary of the person recruited to cover him etc etc you are probably looking at £60k.

The whole basis of these complaints is how expensive it is when in fact you were getting value for money EVEN IF you don’t agree with the principle!!
Gosh there are some silly comments here. Ok this guy earns £122k - a pretty good salary which nobody seems to be able to justify but you know all those lives saved by the fire brigade in Worcester? Well the buck stops with him, when it goes right or wrong. That’s quite a big responsibility not sure many commenting on here would want that? 12 weeks for an op on his salary might be around 30k yes however add to that the salary of the person recruited to cover him etc etc you are probably looking at £60k. The whole basis of these complaints is how expensive it is when in fact you were getting value for money EVEN IF you don’t agree with the principle!! Vox populi
  • Score: -9

2:50pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Redhillman says...

The public sector fleecing the tax payer. Again. What a surprise, not. Time Mark Yates and Derek Prodger done the honorable thing and resigned and if they don't, how do we force them out?
The public sector fleecing the tax payer. Again. What a surprise, not. Time Mark Yates and Derek Prodger done the honorable thing and resigned and if they don't, how do we force them out? Redhillman
  • Score: 5

4:14pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Nortynorse says...

You have more chance of the pope visiting the city than getting rid of "Prodger The Dodger". Wherever theres controversy the "Dodger" will be there.

One George Lord will lewad you to this man.
You have more chance of the pope visiting the city than getting rid of "Prodger The Dodger". Wherever theres controversy the "Dodger" will be there. One George Lord will lewad you to this man. Nortynorse
  • Score: 3

4:50pm Wed 26 Mar 14

reflector says...

Vox populi wrote:
Gosh there are some silly comments here.

Ok this guy earns £122k - a pretty good salary which nobody seems to be able to justify but you know all those lives saved by the fire brigade in Worcester? Well the buck stops with him, when it goes right or wrong. That’s quite a big responsibility not sure many commenting on here would want that?

12 weeks for an op on his salary might be around 30k yes however add to that the salary of the person recruited to cover him etc etc you are probably looking at £60k.

The whole basis of these complaints is how expensive it is when in fact you were getting value for money EVEN IF you don’t agree with the principle!!
But the whole point is that they would not have needed to recruit someone in his absence. He has a deputy who is paid 80% of the Chief's salary, precisely because he would be expected to act up in his absence. Under that there is a whole management structure which some would argue is too top heavy anyway. If, between them they couldn't have coped for only 12 weeks, it would suggest that they are not up to the job and certainly not promotion material in the future.

It's about time someone tackled the waste that's inherent in the Fire Authority. Remember this is the bungling authority that employed two Chief Officers at the same time for several months before giving the previous incumbent a handsome payoff apparently because of the misleading advice he was given about his pension, has had to rebuild the purpose built fire station in Mavern after less than 30 years as it was "no longer fit for purpose" and is now disposing of an expensive combined water tender and aerial appliance which never actually attended a fire because "of various problems" with it.

And now this. Oh well, easy come; easy go.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Gosh there are some silly comments here. Ok this guy earns £122k - a pretty good salary which nobody seems to be able to justify but you know all those lives saved by the fire brigade in Worcester? Well the buck stops with him, when it goes right or wrong. That’s quite a big responsibility not sure many commenting on here would want that? 12 weeks for an op on his salary might be around 30k yes however add to that the salary of the person recruited to cover him etc etc you are probably looking at £60k. The whole basis of these complaints is how expensive it is when in fact you were getting value for money EVEN IF you don’t agree with the principle!![/p][/quote]But the whole point is that they would not have needed to recruit someone in his absence. He has a deputy who is paid 80% of the Chief's salary, precisely because he would be expected to act up in his absence. Under that there is a whole management structure which some would argue is too top heavy anyway. If, between them they couldn't have coped for only 12 weeks, it would suggest that they are not up to the job and certainly not promotion material in the future. It's about time someone tackled the waste that's inherent in the Fire Authority. Remember this is the bungling authority that employed two Chief Officers at the same time for several months before giving the previous incumbent a handsome payoff apparently because of the misleading advice he was given about his pension, has had to rebuild the purpose built fire station in Mavern after less than 30 years as it was "no longer fit for purpose" and is now disposing of an expensive combined water tender and aerial appliance which never actually attended a fire because "of various problems" with it. And now this. Oh well, easy come; easy go. reflector
  • Score: 12

8:13pm Wed 26 Mar 14

markskoda says...

Referring back to the photograph he's just finished writing the mission statement about the excellence of his core values, his robust policies and best practice blah blah bla.................
.............
Meanwhile the guys and gals under him attend the fires.
Referring back to the photograph he's just finished writing the mission statement about the excellence of his core values, his robust policies and best practice blah blah bla................. ............. Meanwhile the guys and gals under him attend the fires. markskoda
  • Score: 2

8:21pm Wed 26 Mar 14

DarrenM says...

markskoda wrote:
Referring back to the photograph he's just finished writing the mission statement about the excellence of his core values, his robust policies and best practice blah blah bla.................

.............
Meanwhile the guys and gals under him attend the fires.
attend but then aren't allowed to actually go in and rescue anyone or do anything else because of health and safety!

(If course if you back into bollard at 2mph and get the neck ache they'll be straight out to cut the roof of your car, regardless of if you can get out or not)
[quote][p][bold]markskoda[/bold] wrote: Referring back to the photograph he's just finished writing the mission statement about the excellence of his core values, his robust policies and best practice blah blah bla................. ............. Meanwhile the guys and gals under him attend the fires.[/p][/quote]attend but then aren't allowed to actually go in and rescue anyone or do anything else because of health and safety! (If course if you back into bollard at 2mph and get the neck ache they'll be straight out to cut the roof of your car, regardless of if you can get out or not) DarrenM
  • Score: 5

9:03pm Wed 26 Mar 14

SgtAl says...

If service provided medical care is part of his terms and conditions of service (TACOS) then there can be no possible issue. He got what he is entitled to as part of the job, in fact he probably got 'seen off' by the public only covering £3000 of the total cost.

if it isn't part of his TACOS, there has been a massive misappropriation of public funds that needs investigating and dealing with.

As our councillors always place our best interests above all else, I would naturally assume it's the former.
If service provided medical care is part of his terms and conditions of service (TACOS) then there can be no possible issue. He got what he is entitled to as part of the job, in fact he probably got 'seen off' by the public only covering £3000 of the total cost. if it isn't part of his TACOS, there has been a massive misappropriation of public funds that needs investigating and dealing with. As our councillors always place our best interests above all else, I would naturally assume it's the former. SgtAl
  • Score: 2

9:16pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Real Facts says...

SgtAl wrote:
If service provided medical care is part of his terms and conditions of service (TACOS) then there can be no possible issue. He got what he is entitled to as part of the job, in fact he probably got 'seen off' by the public only covering £3000 of the total cost.

if it isn't part of his TACOS, there has been a massive misappropriation of public funds that needs investigating and dealing with.

As our councillors always place our best interests above all else, I would naturally assume it's the former.
It's not in his terms and conditions of service.
[quote][p][bold]SgtAl[/bold] wrote: If service provided medical care is part of his terms and conditions of service (TACOS) then there can be no possible issue. He got what he is entitled to as part of the job, in fact he probably got 'seen off' by the public only covering £3000 of the total cost. if it isn't part of his TACOS, there has been a massive misappropriation of public funds that needs investigating and dealing with. As our councillors always place our best interests above all else, I would naturally assume it's the former.[/p][/quote]It's not in his terms and conditions of service. Real Facts
  • Score: 2

1:57pm Thu 27 Mar 14

GerardL says...

I think something's being missed here. The 12 weeks was the wait time for the procedure so the decision was made to bring this forward by going private. Nothing has been said about the recovery time from this procedure - how long was he off for after the operation? There's no way he would have been back "next day". Who deputised for him during that time? Service organisation are structured in such a way that if a "man is down" the next in command takes his place (acting up) and shouldn't be additionally compensated since they are originally paid as a deputy and a situation like this proves their ability for the top job, when the time comes. How many Deputy or Assistant's does Chief Fire Officer Yates have as direct reports? What are their individual and, indeed, cumulative salaries? Why couldn't they cover for him?
I think something's being missed here. The 12 weeks was the wait time for the procedure so the decision was made to bring this forward by going private. Nothing has been said about the recovery time from this procedure - how long was he off for after the operation? There's no way he would have been back "next day". Who deputised for him during that time? Service organisation are structured in such a way that if a "man is down" the next in command takes his place (acting up) and shouldn't be additionally compensated since they are originally paid as a deputy and a situation like this proves their ability for the top job, when the time comes. How many Deputy or Assistant's does Chief Fire Officer Yates have as direct reports? What are their individual and, indeed, cumulative salaries? Why couldn't they cover for him? GerardL
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree