“The court case makes interesting reading. Spectacular fail by the legal team which added a big chunk onto the costs.

Also, you have to wonder how much extra extra it cost to get that statement exonerating all elected members. Seems tailor made purely to get out of anyone resigning.”

“So you accept that you can get bad advice. Ok, this is working now.

So let's just say that you were in a situation where you were asked to spend £2.7m on someone's behalf in a particular field. Naturally you would take advice re. the legal and financial processes yes?

Now at the time, everything's double and triple checked, and all the professional advice you receive from professionally qualified people says, "MOF, it's perfectly safe to spend that £2.7m."

You spend that £2.7m, but it goes wrong. Now, who is to blame? You, acting in good faith based on qualified professional opinion, or those parties who gave you that advice which ultimately turned out to be flawed?”

“john dope "f you received bad advice off a professional such as a solicitor, or a doctor, or whatever, and that advice turned out to be wrong, and caused something bad to happen, would you be happy to accept the blame for it," nope and i wouldnt have written a 2.7 million cheque out neither,”

“Mof - do you mean the Hatfield disaster where the executives were cleared of manslaughter charges? Vicarious liability such as that does not apply to civil matters like this because there's no precedent.

The fact is that Mr Pulk would not have sat down and personally drafted legal documents. He wouldn't have been the one making individual phone calls to discuss the finer legal points. The Fire Authority employs people to do that - it's kind of like how these organisations work you know?

If you received bad advice off a professional such as a solicitor, or a doctor, or whatever, and that advice turned out to be wrong, and caused something bad to happen, would you be happy to accept the blame for it, even though you were acting on and signing things off based on professional opinion? Somehow I don't think so!”

“i dont agree john dope, if you are in charge then you should know whats going on (bearing in mind this is a tiny company compared with some conglomerates), i read a while ago where bosses of a train company were hauled up for manslaughter over a train crash,BP boss made to walk the plank even tho the gaff was made by a subsidiary company, at the end of the day he should have known and understood what was happening , thats what he gets paid for,”

“In fairness to Mr Pulk, I think more ire ought to be directed at whoever messed up the negotiations.

I don't like this culture of Chairmen being targeted because somewhere down the line an employee/employees made an error; it's not as if they can go in and inspect every office every day to micromanage every single little procedure that's occurring. If they sign something off, they're doing it in good faith based on the advice that they've received.

I think the FBU have jumped the gun by calling for Mr Pulk to stand down, but if the articles re. the Fire Authority AGM are true where the Tories and Lib Dems failed to unseat Mr Pulk, one has to wonder whether more politically aggrieved parties are pulling the strings on this one and throwing sweets to their non-affiliated friends for indirect support.”

“the whole thing still stinks, gladman went to court over a "fraudulent" claim (made off the record) that 600 bedrooms could be built on the fire station land, surely it was up to gladman to work out exactly how many bedrooms they could achieve, if it was me i would have gone back to said fire service and council saying " ere,you told me i could get 600 but even allowing for short students at an average of 5 foot i can still only squeeze in 450, i think we need to re-negotiate the deal"
but what is stopping them building higher ? you could get more than 600 bedrooms if you built as high as the twin towers ,maybe the council had set a height limit on the site ? we dont know,
all that we do know is the council didnt think it mattered not to call their own key witness due to the fact he no longer worked for them,even the judge stated "It cannot be overlooked that if Mr Jones had been proffered as a witness before the trial the trial might not have taken place at all.",

there are still loads of unanswered questions, why did our council pay up out of court ?, why wasnt mr jones procurred at the first instance ? why didnt they reach a settlement in the design stages ?
i once bought a 3 bed house, the third bedroom was so small i had to cut down a single bed in order to get it in there, did i sue for fraud ?”

“"Mr Pulk said he didn't think it was a resigning issue",it happened on your watch, your in charge,your responsible,the buck stops at you mr pulk, bye bye.”