Solomon Hughes

1.1K posts

Solomon Hughes

@SolHughesWriter

Journalist, Private Eye magazine. Also available @solomonhughes.bsky.social

Katılım Haziran 2012

1.5K Takip Edilen13.8K Takipçiler

Solomon Hughes retweetledi

Morning Star@M_Star_Online·8h

SOLOMON HUGHES recommends Sunjeev Sahota’s recent novel set in a trade union election campaign for its fresh approach to what unites and divides workers, but wishes the union backdrop was truer to life morningstaronline.co.uk/article/spoile…

English

554

Solomon Hughes retweetledi

The Justin Horton Show@ejhchess·1d

Nick Timothy MP@NJ_Timothy

I will not be silenced. Labour are only demonstrating that they cannot see right from wrong. They will not stand up for our way of life. But we will.

ZXX

1.7K

Solomon Hughes retweetledi

Michael Chessum@michael_chessum·3d

Hi, I'm a Labour MP during a period of collapsing living standards, the rise of fascism, climate catastrophe and genocide - and what keeps me awake at night is a burning desire for cultural censorship at a music festival hundreds of miles away.

David Taylor MP@DavidTaylor85

Hi @glastonbury, not only has Bob Vylan repeated the chant, he's now done it at a explicitly pro-Iranian regime rally - the one that massacres it's own people. Can you please have some courage and ban him from your future festivals?

English

656

3.7K

87.1K

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@gamecounsel If you look at the paperwork, the £34,760 was decided on for no other reason than the eventual figure would be a nice round £75k , so I think they were just trying to come up with a figure that would sound "nice" and persuasive to Mandelson

English

The Log Lady@gamecounsel·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter It would be interesting to see how they arrived at that figure. It possibly includes some pension element. And, of course, they had to pay for his legal advice on top. I'm not surprised they think they got 'good value'.

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

Here is the letter where govt say they must pay Mandelson £75k in case of an "Employment Tribunal " - which is nonsense because he had no Employment Tribunal claim (needing 2yrs service) . Last line is real reason, to stop "Peter goes public on some of his claims"

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter

(1)A weird thing about Mandelson getting £75k for threatening an Employment Tribunal is he had no "unfair dismissal" rights - you cant claim unfair sacking until 2 years service. Even after Labour reforms this April we will still need 6 months service to claim unfair dismissal..

English

727

1.1K

29.9K

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@1classico @PollyOartist Well the Prime Minister says he repeatedly lied to Starmer's team, which would be 100% sackable - but they weren't actually doing disciplinary action, they actually announced his withdrawal as ambassador then negotiated his exit

English

Thekublakhan😏@1classico·13 Mar

@PollyOartist @SolHughesWriter What was he sacked for ?

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@gamecounsel They paid the £40,330 as notice , and fair point that was his due, but the £34,760 was entirely discretionary - as long as they paid the £40k notice he had no case (they automatically agreed to pay him that, it was the £34k they offered as go-away £)

English

The Log Lady@gamecounsel·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter The £75k comprised 3 months' pay in lieu of notice and a severance payment. Had that not been paid, it would have been a breach of his employment contract & a likely ET claim.

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@1classico Also , can I ask where the KC gives advice that Mandelson can make a claim on some clause in the Civil Service Code ? I cant see it, unless I am reading it wrong or missed it

English

Thekublakhan😏@1classico·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter No, as his KC pointed out, it is part of the CS code, I doubt his KC makes the CS code to suit.

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@1classico Its a lawyer trying it on for his client tbh all in the case knows he's trying it on, hence the huge drop from asking for £500k to getting an extra £35k. The FCDO are clear their main reason for the payout is to stop Mandelson "going public with his claims", not winning a case

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@OfSymbols I don't think so , various forms of "gagging clauses" in "settlement agreements" are very common. Usually its the boss who imposes them on the employee rather than the employee that threatens and demands them in my (Union Rep) experience

English

242

Chłoddy@OfSymbols·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter Surely it’s a crime itself to pay preemptive hush money, even if it cannot be demonstrated they are actually paying to prevent genuine information coming out?

English

333

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

The released "Mandelson Files" show govt paid off Mandelson to stop "Peter go[ing] public on some of his claims" , a matter of "urgency "- but they have kept secret what these "claims" are (eg the actual "note of a call" referred to here has been held back)

English

110

162

8.4K

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@gamecounsel It can only be "breach of employment contract " if the employment contract is breached - like just ignoring notice periods (Mandelson was paid his 3 month notice period, so there is no case here)

English

The Log Lady@gamecounsel·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter No. It can be breach of employment contract. From ACAS:

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@1classico This is called "trying it on" - its an attempt to get past the 2-yr qualifying case that wouldn't work.

English

200

Thekublakhan😏@1classico·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter His KC advised breach of contract as no reasonable cause to dismiss, circumvents 2 year period.

English

224

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@M0kujin @joecguinan That would have been an entertainingly mad claim

English

222

Ant@M0kujin·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter @joecguinan I think he could have argued on the basis of political affiliation and that would have exempted the 2 year rule

English

261

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@worstall Theres definitely an element of 'cheaper to pay out than lawyers costs ' the files say that, but govt are pretty explicit about paying to keep 'Peter going public on some of his claims' ( they've kept secret whatever these 'claims' are)

English

Tim Worstall@worstall·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter Oh, sure, the £500k was a try on. We'd expect nothing less from him. Way I heard it the £35k was cheaper than hiring lawyers to defend even a hopeless ET case. Which is a fun point about employment law of course.

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·12 Mar

English

260

34.7K

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@gamecounsel Yes you do unless it is sex/race/union activities

English

214

The Log Lady@gamecounsel·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter Again, you don't need 2 years' service to claim wrongful dismissal at an ET.

English

231

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@worstall Its a normal employment contract with a 3 month notice period (worth about £45k). He was really 'trying it on' with £500k - essentially he only got like £35k extra . But the "employment tribunal " (ET)threat was empty - he had no ET rights. It was more about him going public

English

Tim Worstall@worstall·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter Well, there was a term to it, for a start. 4 years, which is why he asked for £500k - full contract payout? I'd also expect something about moving expenses etc. He did have to move country. All else will depend on what else there is in said contract.

English

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

@derek_alcorn They do overtly say it was "go away" money in the documents, mostly to get Mandelson to drop threats to "go public"

English

223

derek alcorn@derek_alcorn·13 Mar

@SolHughesWriter “ Go away” money ? A large sum for ordinary people, but loose change to the Civil Service which deals in billions.

English

268

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

(2) "performance management " would be an internal decision and process for FCDO , they could (and do) set terms of what is a breach of discipline. There would be v. limited chance for Mandelson to legally question decisions as he wasnt covered by unfair dismissal law

English

327

Solomon Hughes@SolHughesWriter·13 Mar

(1)One odd note from Mandelson files : Starmer said Mandelson "lied repeatedly to my team" about Epstein. But Mandelson was "not subject to ...performance management " ie was not disciplined. So lying to the boss wasn't considered a disciplinary breach ? Or Mandelson didn't lie?

English

930

Keşfet

@gamecounsel @1classico @PollyOartist @OfSymbols @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano