Nearly 30 council top brass now earning £100k or more

Oxfordshire County Council chief executive, Joanna Simons

Oxfordshire County Council chief executive, Joanna Simons

First published in News
Last updated
Oxford Mail: Photograph of the Author by , Council Reporter, also covering Oxford city centre. Call me on 01865 425429

TWENTY-SEVEN council employees across the county earned £100,000 or more last year, six more than the previous year.

Oxfordshire County Council, which had to make £64m of savings over four years from its last budget, employs some of the highest earning officials in the county.

The authority’s chief executive, Joanna Simons, is the highest paid council official in Oxfordshire taking home £217,640 including salary, pension contributions and possible bonuses – unchanged from last year.

It has also increased the number of employees who earn £100,000 or more by two from 2011/12, meaning there were 12 such officials in 2012/13.

Oxford City Council has also increas-ed its number of these employees by two – giving it six – and Cherwell District Council has done so by one – giving it four.

One city council position is disputed – the employee in question earns between £95,000 and £140,000 and the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which collated the figures, has taken the midpoint of this range – which is £117,500 – but the person could conceivably earn less than £100,000.

City council spokesman Chris Lee said the structure of senior officer pay had not changed beyond a 1.5 per cent inflationary increase applied to all staff. He said only the chief executive and the three executive directors were paid above £100,000.

In addition to the four director posts, city council monitoring officer Jeremy Thomas earns a salary of £83,236, but his pension contributions take his total remuneration to £100,408.

West Oxfordshire District Council has increased the number of employees earning £100,000 or more by one – giving it three – while South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse had a combined number of four, but following the departure of one of its directors and the decision not to replace him it now has three.

A spokesman for these councils said because they share services they contribute only 50 per cent of the employees’ wages. County council spokesman Paul Smith said many other authorities in the region pay more people higher wages and pointed out the county council provides 80 per cent of council services in Oxfordshire.

He added the council has also reduced the number of managers by around 40 per cent since 2010.

Carys Davies, spokeswoman for West Oxfordshire District Council, said two of the positions at or above £100,000 – including chief executive David Neudegg – are paid 50/50 with Cotswold District Council.

Cherwell District Council spokeswoman Jemma Callow said the cost of their chief executive is shared with South Northamptonshire Council.

TOP EARNERS

  1. Oxfordshire County Council chief executive, Joanna Simons – £217,640
  2. Oxford City Council chief executive, Peter Sloman – £168,280
  3. Oxfordshire County Council director for children, education and families, Jim Leivers – £163,582
  4. Cherwell District Council chief executive, Sue Smith – £154,419
  5. Oxfordshire County Council deputy director for children’s social care, Lucy Butler – £154,024
  6. Oxfordshire County Council’s director for environment and economy, Sue Scane, and director for social and communities services John Jackson – £152,935
  7. Oxfordshire County Council chief fire officer, David Etheridge – £146,873
  8. West Oxfordshire and Costwold District Councils joint chief executive David Neudegg – £138,911
  9. Oxford City Council director for city regeneration David Edwards – £131,619
  10. Oxford City Council director for community services Tim Sadler – £131,114
  • All figures include salary and employer pension contributions plus any bonuses
  •  
  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone's contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.

Send your Letter to the Editor

11:20am Monday 28th July 2014

What do you think? We welcome letters from our readers on a wide variety of subjects and you can send us a letter through the blue headline above.


Our top stories

Have you seen missing 23-year-old Kerri Hutt from Witney?

Oxford Mail:

11:51am Sunday 23rd November 2014

A WOMAN from Witney has been missing since Friday.

Attack in Oxford city centre leaves two men needing hospital treatment

Oxford Mail: Thames Valley Police logo

6:24pm Saturday 22nd November 2014

TWO men were assaulted in Oxford city centre last weekend.

What have our brilliant columnists said this week - choose your favourite in our interactive collage

Oxford Mail:

4:00pm Saturday 22nd November 2014

Just what have our thought-provoking columnists been writing about this week? Catch up with our interactive collage giving you a choice from 9 of the best

Our interactive spread of the week's best photos: but what are the stories behind the pictures

Oxford Mail:

3:00pm Saturday 22nd November 2014

We've had some wonderful pictures this week - here's our interactive spread with links to the stories behind the photos

Oxfordshire callers to police's 101 number urged to stay on line amid problems

Oxford Mail: Thames Valley Police logo

11:19am Saturday 22nd November 2014

Callers to the police's non-emergency 101 number are being urged to stay on the line despite problems.

Brainpower is the key for Oxford United says head coach Michael Appleton

Oxford Mail:

9:30am Saturday 22nd November 2014

Michael Appleton says Oxford United will need to be intelligent if they are to keep heavyweight striker Adebayo Akinfenwa quiet for AFC Wimbledon today.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:04am Wed 6 Aug 14

dizzydarner says...

They earn this much money, this is so wrong. My daughter was taken to to a hearing to claim back £4500. because she had a student loan and this apparently is EARNINGS. Divorced mother of three training to be a midwife trying to better herself and no is even more in debt because of the council
They earn this much money, this is so wrong. My daughter was taken to to a hearing to claim back £4500. because she had a student loan and this apparently is EARNINGS. Divorced mother of three training to be a midwife trying to better herself and no is even more in debt because of the council dizzydarner
  • Score: 14

9:39am Wed 6 Aug 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

Over £3 million for nearly 30 people who let's face it do a **** poor job.Ridiculous.
Over £3 million for nearly 30 people who let's face it do a **** poor job.Ridiculous. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 20

9:46am Wed 6 Aug 14

AlbertTatlock says...

There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner!
I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country
http://awards.themj.
co.uk/finalist.aspx
Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.
There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner! I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country http://awards.themj. co.uk/finalist.aspx Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear. AlbertTatlock
  • Score: -3

9:56am Wed 6 Aug 14

dovepe says...

OBSCENE not worth half that.
OBSCENE not worth half that. dovepe
  • Score: 11

10:00am Wed 6 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

AlbertTatlock wrote:
There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner!
I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country
http://awards.themj.

co.uk/finalist.aspx
Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.
Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department.
[quote][p][bold]AlbertTatlock[/bold] wrote: There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner! I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country http://awards.themj. co.uk/finalist.aspx Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.[/p][/quote]Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 12

11:35am Wed 6 Aug 14

Marco00 says...

I think the headline should be changed from "EARNED" to "WERE PAID". That would be far more truthful ! Anyone else agree ?....
I think the headline should be changed from "EARNED" to "WERE PAID". That would be far more truthful ! Anyone else agree ?.... Marco00
  • Score: 21

11:55am Wed 6 Aug 14

mytaxes says...

Marco00 wrote:
I think the headline should be changed from "EARNED" to "WERE PAID". That would be far more truthful ! Anyone else agree ?....
Yes I agree. Oxford City Council bosses were handed rises of up to 34.6 per cent in April 2009, including an 11.6 per cent hike for chief executive Peter Sloman. Meanwhile our council tax gets increased year on year. If the Labour councillors got there way we would have had massive increases this year, only the threat of the referendum for increases over 2% prevented it.
[quote][p][bold]Marco00[/bold] wrote: I think the headline should be changed from "EARNED" to "WERE PAID". That would be far more truthful ! Anyone else agree ?....[/p][/quote]Yes I agree. Oxford City Council bosses were handed rises of up to 34.6 per cent in April 2009, including an 11.6 per cent hike for chief executive Peter Sloman. Meanwhile our council tax gets increased year on year. If the Labour councillors got there way we would have had massive increases this year, only the threat of the referendum for increases over 2% prevented it. mytaxes
  • Score: 15

3:10pm Wed 6 Aug 14

bicesterlady says...

mytaxes wrote:
Marco00 wrote:
I think the headline should be changed from "EARNED" to "WERE PAID". That would be far more truthful ! Anyone else agree ?....
Yes I agree. Oxford City Council bosses were handed rises of up to 34.6 per cent in April 2009, including an 11.6 per cent hike for chief executive Peter Sloman. Meanwhile our council tax gets increased year on year. If the Labour councillors got there way we would have had massive increases this year, only the threat of the referendum for increases over 2% prevented it.
Now that is obscene.. Whilst the lower ranks got exactly what? The ones in the frontline taking the flak whilst struggling to make ends meet.
[quote][p][bold]mytaxes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marco00[/bold] wrote: I think the headline should be changed from "EARNED" to "WERE PAID". That would be far more truthful ! Anyone else agree ?....[/p][/quote]Yes I agree. Oxford City Council bosses were handed rises of up to 34.6 per cent in April 2009, including an 11.6 per cent hike for chief executive Peter Sloman. Meanwhile our council tax gets increased year on year. If the Labour councillors got there way we would have had massive increases this year, only the threat of the referendum for increases over 2% prevented it.[/p][/quote]Now that is obscene.. Whilst the lower ranks got exactly what? The ones in the frontline taking the flak whilst struggling to make ends meet. bicesterlady
  • Score: 14

4:14pm Wed 6 Aug 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

I am sure they well deserve their salarys they get for a hard days work, unlike benefit claims that are fraduently made..
I am sure they well deserve their salarys they get for a hard days work, unlike benefit claims that are fraduently made.. yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -9

4:37pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
I am sure they well deserve their salarys they get for a hard days work, unlike benefit claims that are fraduently made..
But what about the other 99% of their days?
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: I am sure they well deserve their salarys they get for a hard days work, unlike benefit claims that are fraduently made..[/p][/quote]But what about the other 99% of their days? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -2

5:58pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Isawyoucoming says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
I am sure they well deserve their salarys they get for a hard days work, unlike benefit claims that are fraduently made..
Totally off subject are you one of these over paid council employees.
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: I am sure they well deserve their salarys they get for a hard days work, unlike benefit claims that are fraduently made..[/p][/quote]Totally off subject are you one of these over paid council employees. Isawyoucoming
  • Score: 6

6:19pm Wed 6 Aug 14

fantasticobella says...

I thought public sector pay increases were frozen at 1%.
I thought public sector pay increases were frozen at 1%. fantasticobella
  • Score: 7

10:32pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Man on the Green says...

As a hard pressed taxpayer, I'd rather see really competent individuals paid to do a good job, in areas where real skills are required.

What really dismays me is when I see blunder after blunder by the likes of Ms Simons (who is a figure of open ridicule amongst the genuinely hard working and committed staff of the authority) and even more by the OCC's bumbling head of legal services.

Never in the field of public service can such nincompoops have been maintained in post for so long with such overwhelming evidence of their utter incompetence being so regularly apparent (and so systematically overlooked by the self-serving councillors whose allowances they are paid to safeguard).
As a hard pressed taxpayer, I'd rather see really competent individuals paid to do a good job, in areas where real skills are required. What really dismays me is when I see blunder after blunder by the likes of Ms Simons (who is a figure of open ridicule amongst the genuinely hard working and committed staff of the authority) and even more by the OCC's bumbling head of legal services. Never in the field of public service can such nincompoops have been maintained in post for so long with such overwhelming evidence of their utter incompetence being so regularly apparent (and so systematically overlooked by the self-serving councillors whose allowances they are paid to safeguard). Man on the Green
  • Score: 13

2:22pm Fri 8 Aug 14

oafie says...

County council spokesman Paul Smith said many other authorities in the region pay more people higher wages and pointed out the county council provides 80 per cent of council services in Oxfordshire.

Well they could provide a lot better services if they reduced their salaries, it is obscene- much like their public sex environment's which council tax payers are funding, the latest great idea has involved funding door gates for the toilets, but Oxon County Council say 'resources' prevent them from being able to lock them! What about the cleaners that council tax payers are paying for at this site.
County council spokesman Paul Smith said many other authorities in the region pay more people higher wages and pointed out the county council provides 80 per cent of council services in Oxfordshire. Well they could provide a lot better services if they reduced their salaries, it is obscene- much like their public sex environment's which council tax payers are funding, the latest great idea has involved funding door gates for the toilets, but Oxon County Council say 'resources' prevent them from being able to lock them! What about the cleaners that council tax payers are paying for at this site. oafie
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Fri 8 Aug 14

the wizard says...

Fat Cats on Fat Cat salaries, pensions and perks, total disgrace when some of the front line people which the public see doing their best in difficult conditions barely earn enough to keep going. Cap the top earners and let the little people who do very essential work get a decent and deserved rise, and pension. You lead by example, if the guys and gals at the top get good benefits then so should the rest. Re distribution of wealth needed.
Fat Cats on Fat Cat salaries, pensions and perks, total disgrace when some of the front line people which the public see doing their best in difficult conditions barely earn enough to keep going. Cap the top earners and let the little people who do very essential work get a decent and deserved rise, and pension. You lead by example, if the guys and gals at the top get good benefits then so should the rest. Re distribution of wealth needed. the wizard
  • Score: 5

9:36am Sat 9 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

the wizard wrote:
Fat Cats on Fat Cat salaries, pensions and perks, total disgrace when some of the front line people which the public see doing their best in difficult conditions barely earn enough to keep going. Cap the top earners and let the little people who do very essential work get a decent and deserved rise, and pension. You lead by example, if the guys and gals at the top get good benefits then so should the rest. Re distribution of wealth needed.
In the public sector by all means but if you don't want this country turning into a parody of the Soviet Union then don't deprive people of the fruits of their labour and ingenuity. "Re-distribution" is an extremely dead and horrifically smelly dog.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Fat Cats on Fat Cat salaries, pensions and perks, total disgrace when some of the front line people which the public see doing their best in difficult conditions barely earn enough to keep going. Cap the top earners and let the little people who do very essential work get a decent and deserved rise, and pension. You lead by example, if the guys and gals at the top get good benefits then so should the rest. Re distribution of wealth needed.[/p][/quote]In the public sector by all means but if you don't want this country turning into a parody of the Soviet Union then don't deprive people of the fruits of their labour and ingenuity. "Re-distribution" is an extremely dead and horrifically smelly dog. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Sat 9 Aug 14

the wizard says...

"Re-distribution" is an extremely dead and horrifically smelly dog.


Only if you are over paid by per portion at the top, and if you are or like the top earners, and are afraid of being judged on your results, by the public.
"Re-distribution" is an extremely dead and horrifically smelly dog. Only if you are over paid by per portion at the top, and if you are or like the top earners, and are afraid of being judged on your results, by the public. the wizard
  • Score: 2

9:35am Sun 10 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

the wizard wrote:
"Re-distributio
n" is an extremely dead and horrifically smelly dog.


Only if you are over paid by per portion at the top, and if you are or like the top earners, and are afraid of being judged on your results, by the public.
I suppose the difference between private and public is that there is no yard stick for measuring performance in the public sector (and the figures have to be extracted, like drawing teeth, by the TPA) and there is one in the commercial sector, but we'd probably agree about our feelings on "rewards for failure"
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: "Re-distributio n" is an extremely dead and horrifically smelly dog. Only if you are over paid by per portion at the top, and if you are or like the top earners, and are afraid of being judged on your results, by the public.[/p][/quote]I suppose the difference between private and public is that there is no yard stick for measuring performance in the public sector (and the figures have to be extracted, like drawing teeth, by the TPA) and there is one in the commercial sector, but we'd probably agree about our feelings on "rewards for failure" Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -3

10:26am Mon 11 Aug 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
AlbertTatlock wrote:
There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner!
I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country
http://awards.themj.


co.uk/finalist.aspx
Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.
Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department.
Really Lord P - EVERYONE in the public sector paid more than you wasn't worth it?!?! An observation that possibly says more about you than them.....
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlbertTatlock[/bold] wrote: There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner! I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country http://awards.themj. co.uk/finalist.aspx Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.[/p][/quote]Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department.[/p][/quote]Really Lord P - EVERYONE in the public sector paid more than you wasn't worth it?!?! An observation that possibly says more about you than them..... locodogz
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

locodogz wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
AlbertTatlock wrote:
There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner!
I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country
http://awards.themj.



co.uk/finalist.aspx
Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.
Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department.
Really Lord P - EVERYONE in the public sector paid more than you wasn't worth it?!?! An observation that possibly says more about you than them.....
No. Read it again and if you read "me" a second time, and not "us" consult an optician. But please don't try to do a Specsavers ad.
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlbertTatlock[/bold] wrote: There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner! I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country http://awards.themj. co.uk/finalist.aspx Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.[/p][/quote]Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department.[/p][/quote]Really Lord P - EVERYONE in the public sector paid more than you wasn't worth it?!?! An observation that possibly says more about you than them.....[/p][/quote]No. Read it again and if you read "me" a second time, and not "us" consult an optician. But please don't try to do a Specsavers ad. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

10:35am Tue 12 Aug 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
locodogz wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
AlbertTatlock wrote:
There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner!
I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country
http://awards.themj.




co.uk/finalist.aspx
Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.
Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department.
Really Lord P - EVERYONE in the public sector paid more than you wasn't worth it?!?! An observation that possibly says more about you than them.....
No. Read it again and if you read "me" a second time, and not "us" consult an optician. But please don't try to do a Specsavers ad.
Given your rather sketchy grammar “I was… than us” I had to assume that you we using the old pluralis maiestatis?

It still doesn’t change the sweeping arrogance of your statement that “without fear of contradiction … those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us” – you and/or your little band of brothers.

In light of all the various offices that fall under the public sector umbrella you really must be rather wonderful for this to, indeed, be the case.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlbertTatlock[/bold] wrote: There is a bit of a difference between accepting a high salary and committing benefit fraud dizzydarner! I can't comment on the others but one on that list, Peter Sloman is worth every penny and it is a pity his salary wasn't published along side the substantial savings he has made the council, while still leading it to be the best performing council in the country http://awards.themj. co.uk/finalist.aspx Some jobs simply require an amount of expertise and come with so much responsibility that a large salary is appropriate. I am a public service employee who earns significantly less than the people mentioned here and I don't begrudge them a penny of it. The mantle of responsibility is something I couldn't wear.[/p][/quote]Very hard to see it's "benefit fraud". If her daughter had raised cash on a credit card it wouldn't have been "earnings". It's only "earnings" in La La Bureaucrat Land. I too was a public sector employee who earned enough to feel "very proud" (pace Osborne) to pay Higher Rate Tax and I can say without fear of contradiction that those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us (all had to have a professional qualification) They were in those places because they were the right sex/skin colour/Welsh speakers, good memo writers, and studiously avoided doing the professional work of that public sector department.[/p][/quote]Really Lord P - EVERYONE in the public sector paid more than you wasn't worth it?!?! An observation that possibly says more about you than them.....[/p][/quote]No. Read it again and if you read "me" a second time, and not "us" consult an optician. But please don't try to do a Specsavers ad.[/p][/quote]Given your rather sketchy grammar “I was… than us” I had to assume that you we using the old pluralis maiestatis? It still doesn’t change the sweeping arrogance of your statement that “without fear of contradiction … those paid higher were worth no more, and in many cases less, than us” – you and/or your little band of brothers. In light of all the various offices that fall under the public sector umbrella you really must be rather wonderful for this to, indeed, be the case. locodogz
  • Score: 1

11:51am Tue 12 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Indeed docologs as you so truly say "our leaders are the finest men and we elect them again and again"
What you learnt in school dear little boy of mine was indeed the truth.
And to think Pete Seeger believed he was being satirical.
Indeed docologs as you so truly say "our leaders are the finest men and we elect them again and again" What you learnt in school dear little boy of mine was indeed the truth. And to think Pete Seeger believed he was being satirical. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Tue 12 Aug 14

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Indeed docologs as you so truly say "our leaders are the finest men and we elect them again and again"
What you learnt in school dear little boy of mine was indeed the truth.
And to think Pete Seeger believed he was being satirical.
Wow medication for Lord P please!?!?

Fabricating quotes is rather desperate methinks? All because i highlighted your rather sad exhortation that every public servant earning more than you wasn't worth it? If it helps soothe your tortured ego then I'm sure that there are some that weren't?

Nice attempt to patronise BTW

Toodlepip old boy
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Indeed docologs as you so truly say "our leaders are the finest men and we elect them again and again" What you learnt in school dear little boy of mine was indeed the truth. And to think Pete Seeger believed he was being satirical.[/p][/quote]Wow medication for Lord P please!?!? Fabricating quotes is rather desperate methinks? All because i highlighted your rather sad exhortation that every public servant earning more than you wasn't worth it? If it helps soothe your tortured ego then I'm sure that there are some that weren't? Nice attempt to patronise BTW Toodlepip old boy locodogz
  • Score: 1

12:22pm Tue 12 Aug 14

locodogz says...

Prefer the Tom Paxton original myself - check it out sometime
Prefer the Tom Paxton original myself - check it out sometime locodogz
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

I actually didn't think that I was saying anything but a truism. The public sector is too large. Too many public sector employees are paid too much. It's a problem. It'll have to be solved (my generation) /addressed (the next generation) sooner rather than later. I'd not see that as remotely controversial and can't believe that you do, unless it's for the sake of getting the last word in. So far as I'm concerned you'll be able to do that now . And yes I've seen TP live , donkeys years ago. I enjoyed his show. Especially the punchline to "What is de porpoise of the bayoon-net?"
I actually didn't think that I was saying anything but a truism. The public sector is too large. Too many public sector employees are paid too much. It's a problem. It'll have to be solved (my generation) /addressed (the next generation) sooner rather than later. I'd not see that as remotely controversial and can't believe that you do, unless it's for the sake of getting the last word in. So far as I'm concerned you'll be able to do that now . And yes I've seen TP live , donkeys years ago. I enjoyed his show. Especially the punchline to "What is de porpoise of the bayoon-net?" Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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