Keir Starmer lied to Parliament about how much he had known of Peter Mandelson's continued to ties to Jeffrey Epstein, David Lammy lied to the media about having opposed Mandelson's appointment, and we all paid Mandelson £75,000 even though he had had no contractual entitlement to a penny, and even though he had demanded more than half a million. Starmer now claims to take full responsibility for having appointed Mandelson. When Morgan McSweeney was said to have been responsible, then he had to resign. At A4.13.15, the Ministerial Code specifies that, "Departments shall not treat special severance as a soft option, for example to avoid management action, disciplinary processes, unwelcome publicity or reputational damage."
Mandelson could not have gone to an Employment Tribunal, since he had not been discriminated against on grounds of sex or race, nor had he been victimised for trade union activity, and he had not been employed for a minimum of two years. Anyway, he had been dismissed for having lied during the interview process, and his contract had specified that he could always have been sacked at will, so a Tribunal would have laughed him out even if he could have found a solicitor to have taken his case, as, unlike barristers, solicitors are not obliged to do. There is a huge story behind this payment. Huge.
Today, the King has finally removed Mandelson from the Privy Council. I had repeatedly told you that he was still on it. And today, Labour has dropped its manifesto commitment to empower workers to go to law over race and disability pay gaps. Think on.
No comments:
Post a Comment