Doctor wins £4.5m quid for discrimination

[paddyhasneeds]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-1622406...

I have no problem with the notion of compensation and punitive damages being awarded if someone is hounded out of their job for no justifiable reason, but something seems a little wrong when the figure is, what, 40 years earnings?

The figure seems simply staggering.

[paddyhasneeds]

As the OP, like I said, I don't have a huge issue with the payout, I certainly don't have "compo envy", it just seems an extraordinary amount.

I don't doubt that you can be bullied to the point of having PTSD and all sorts, the only thing I would say is I find it a little odd how you can be so ill you can't ever work again, but can pose for photographs and give interviews with the national newspapers.

[paddyhasneeds]

If it's a lump sum they'll probably live off the interest. I assume that's how pay outs are made and it's not like the Daily Soov's "Win a Million" where you get £50k a year for 20 years?

[paddyhasneeds]

968 said:

Perhaps they should have thought of that before sacking her unlawfully and bullying her out of her mind. Trusts like these need to learn a painful lesson about how to behave as a corporation.

How is it painful? It's public money. If there's less of it the only people who will suffer are the public, or put another way, their patients.

[paddyhasneeds]

968 said:

Not really. The money is from this particular hospital trust. All hospital trusts compete for business with neighbouring trusts. This one will now be at a competitive disadvantage to their neighbours and private providers. In addition the massive negative publicity, particularly amongst local doctors will mean that they will refer elsewhere. The patients will not suffer, they will simply be sent to different hospitals. By the sounds of things, the culture and service of that hospital were pretty appalling, much like Stafford in which case the patients would probably benefit from being sent to a different hospital.

But presumably it still costs the taxpayer money? Whether this trust is disadvantaged but continues to exist, or if it goes to the wall, I assume we the taxpayer lose out?

Genuine question as I don't claim to understand the funding model, it's not something I've had cause to look at.