Mandy

[AuroraSaab]

Interesting that Mandelson facilitated Epstein meeting Tony Blair at Downing Street. Wonder what that was all about.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Interesting that Mandelson facilitated Epstein meeting Tony Blair at Downing Street. Wonder what that was all about.

Probably money and influence, what else?

 

[TailWindHome]

View: https://youtu.be/pX5twfYa1jA?si=SpZA4QcIBSDG-Ifc


JRM makes an interesting opening in this commentary on the release of the Mandelson documents. There's absolutely no doubt in his mind that parliamentary privilege trumps any other law and no court can challenge what was said there. He also reasserts that rules on sub judice don't extend to reporting on parliamentary papers. So here we are, the first tranche of papers tell us what we already knew, that Starmer is absolutely terrible at politics and as a result of ignoring due diligence on Mandelson now finds himself in some very deep doo doo. Who knew?

"Who lives in a house like this. David, it's over to you"

 

[BoldonLad]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvg150715jet

"In the Commons Darren Jones also said Mandelson initially requested "not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount”, and the documents suggest that Mandelson requested a severance payment of £547,201".

What is it with this guy and money? Between consulting, speaking engagements, and his EU pension, he can't be short of a few bob.

It would appear he got "only" £75,000.

I thought only Football Managers got pay-offs for being sacked, clearly, I was wrong.

 

[CXRAndy]

 

[Bromptonaut]

It would appear he got "only" £75,000.

I thought only Football Managers got pay-offs for being sacked, clearly, I was wrong.

Employee is dismissed. Employee claims proper process etc not followed and takes steps to start Tribunal proceedings. Negotiations follow and agreement is reached where employee gets cash and an agreed form of words for a reference.

Totally unremarkable. Contested ET proceedings that actually go to a hearing with lawyers are very expensive and are to be avoided wherever possible.

There are also settlement agreements where employees leave with a payment and the employer funds relevant legal advice. There's a proper framework for these.

 

[Pinno718]

Generally you need to be convicted of a crime before we send people to prison in the UK.

Article 6 of the ECHR

Let's fill in the missing bits that Secret Squirrel omitted simply because it didn't need saying for the benefit of the stupid. Plus, it was an opinion and SeSq is entitled to that opinion, especially if there is a foundation to support it.

"If the allegations that Peter Meddlesome passed over classified information to Jeffrey the paedo are true, Meddlesome should be tried and imprisoned".

For your benefit, I am going to pass on this phenomenon that I stumbled on. It's a term that I really like. It is the Dunning-Kruger effect. Although you are not a beginner, it still has relevance.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain greatly overestimate their own expertise. Identified by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, it occurs because beginners lack the "metacognitive" ability to recognize their own incompetence. Conversely, experts often underestimate their competence, assuming others possess similar knowledge.

If that's a bit difficult to understand, I took the time to simplify it for you. After all, there is no impact lost in simplicity.

The Dunning-Kruger thingy is where people who are a bit thick and are not very capable think they are cleverer than others. Thought up by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. It happens because people lack a bit of nous and can't see that they lack a bit of nous so they carry on talking bollox.

Spen666: you are 'Dave' from down the pub and I claim my five pounds.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Let's fill in the missing bits that Secret Squirrel omitted simply because it didn't need saying for the benefit of the stupid. Plus, it was an opinion and SeSq is entitled to that opinion, especially if there is a foundation to support it.

"If the allegations that Peter Meddlesome passed over classified information to Jeffrey the paedo are true, Meddlesome should be tried and imprisoned".

For your benefit, I am going to pass on this phenomenon that I stumbled on. It's a term that I really like. It is the Dunning-Kruger effect. Although you are not a beginner, it still has relevance.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain greatly overestimate their own expertise. Identified by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, it occurs because beginners lack the "metacognitive" ability to recognize their own incompetence. Conversely, experts often underestimate their competence, assuming others possess similar knowledge.

If that's a bit difficult to understand, I took the time to simplify it for you. After all, there is no impact lost in simplicity.

The Dunning-Kruger thingy is where people who are a bit thick and are not very capable think they are cleverer than others. Thought up by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. It happens because people lack a bit of nous and can't see that they lack a bit of nous so they carry on talking bollox.

Spen666: you are 'Dave' from down the pub and I claim my five pounds.

Thank you Pinno.

 

[spen666]

Let's fill in the missing bits that Secret Squirrel omitted simply because it didn't need saying for the benefit of the stupid. Plus, it was an opinion and SeSq is entitled to that opinion, especially if there is a foundation to support it.

"If the allegations that Peter Meddlesome passed over classified information to Jeffrey the paedo are true, Meddlesome should be tried and imprisoned".

For your benefit, I am going to pass on this phenomenon that I stumbled on. It's a term that I really like. It is the Dunning-Kruger effect. Although you are not a beginner, it still has relevance.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain greatly overestimate their own expertise. Identified by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, it occurs because beginners lack the "metacognitive" ability to recognize their own incompetence. Conversely, experts often underestimate their competence, assuming others possess similar knowledge.

If that's a bit difficult to understand, I took the time to simplify it for you. After all, there is no impact lost in simplicity.

The Dunning-Kruger thingy is where people who are a bit thick and are not very capable think they are cleverer than others. Thought up by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. It happens because people lack a bit of nous and can't see that they lack a bit of nous so they carry on talking bollox.

Spen666: you are 'Dave' from down the pub and I claim my five pounds.

Haven't got a clue what all that word salad means.

The call I responded to was not for him to be prosecuted and if convicted to be punished, it was just a call to punish him ( no mention of a truial or even if he was guilty, just punishment straight off)
Unless the ECHR no longer applies in England & Wales, then Article 6 still applies, and I was 100% correct in what I said.

Are you suggesting Article 6 does not apply to the law in England & Wales? If so, you are in a minority of 1.

 

[First Aspect]

Order, order. Art. 6 ECHR does not directly apply in any country. It is given effect by separate legislation, such as the UK Human Rights Act 1998. I do hope this assists in not moving the discussion forward one iota.

 

[Pinno718]

Haven't got a clue what all that word salad means.

The call I responded to was not for him to be prosecuted and if convicted to be punished, it was just a call to punish him
Unless the ECHR no longer applies in England & Wales, then Article 6 still applies, and I was 100% correct in what I said.

Are you suggesting Article 6 does not apply to the law in England & Wales? If so, you are in a minority of 1.

Wooosh!

'Haven't got a clue what that word salad means'. Obviously. Can I recommend 'Cat in the Hat' and once you have mastered that, 'Green eggs and ham'?
A very good read is 'My big shouty day' and 'The Tiger who came to tea'. If you get stuck, just send me a message.

'Are you suggesting Article 6 does not apply to the law in England & Wales? If so, you are in a minority of 1.'

I think that it applies to the whole of the EU and Great Britain. Unless you think that people who live north of Hadrian's wall and across the Irish sea are savages.

 

[Pinno718]

Order, order. Art. 6 ECHR does not directly apply in any country. It is given effect by separate legislation, such as the UK Human Rights Act 1998. I do hope this assists in not moving the discussion forward one iota.

I'll do my best.

 

[Psamathe]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvg150715jet

"In the Commons Darren Jones also said Mandelson initially requested "not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount”, and the documents suggest that Mandelson requested a severance payment of £547,201".

What is it with this guy and money? Between consulting, speaking engagements, and his EU pension, he can't be short of a few bob.

Employee is dismissed. Employee claims proper process etc not followed and takes steps to start Tribunal proceedings. Negotiations follow and agreement is reached where employee gets cash and an agreed form of words for a reference.

Totally unremarkable. Contested ET proceedings that actually go to a hearing with lawyers are very expensive and are to be avoided wherever possible.

There are also settlement agreements where employees leave with a payment and the employer funds relevant legal advice. There's a proper framework for these.

Ailbhe Rea(?) from New Statesman on BBC Newsnight last night and she was very involved in the initial revelations of Mandelson's latest[ scandal(s) and she was saying how Mandelson's employment (as Ambassador to US) is all available online and it's explicit that there is no "pay-off" so we (through Gov.) were under no liability to pay him anything. And in reality he'd have been very unlikely to go to any tribunal because of his contract and because of what he'd know would come out in that tribunal.

 

[First Aspect]

But it is better to pay £25k in legal fees to get someone to fark off for £75k, than to spend £200k to avoid a payoff.

 

[BoldonLad]

Employee is dismissed. Employee claims proper process etc not followed and takes steps to start Tribunal proceedings. Negotiations follow and agreement is reached where employee gets cash and an agreed form of words for a reference.

Totally unremarkable. Contested ET proceedings that actually go to a hearing with lawyers are very expensive and are to be avoided wherever possible.

There are also settlement agreements where employees leave with a payment and the employer funds relevant legal advice. There's a proper framework for these.

1. Was such a process in place?

2. If yes, to above, did Government (ie us tax payers) stand an evens chance of winning at tribunal?

3. If no to (2), personally, I would rather have dragged the unsavoury bastard through the courts