"Reached an out of tribunal settlement for alleged bullying.
This on top of previously braking ministerial code.
Why is she still in a job?"
Same reason Hancock is still in a job I suspect.
But I can’t fathom that reason. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
I dont know. Do you know?
I can hazard a guess but that's why I posed it as a question.
So what's your hazardous guess then?"
As a stab in the dark I'd suggest its probally been paid for by the taxpayer.
But I'm happy to be corrected
Either way seems money well spent wouldnt you say? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
I dont know. Do you know?
I can hazard a guess but that's why I posed it as a question.
So what's your hazardous guess then?
As a stab in the dark I'd suggest its probally been paid for by the taxpayer.
But I'm happy to be corrected
Either way seems money well spent wouldnt you say?"
She's still bang tidy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
I dont know. Do you know?
I can hazard a guess but that's why I posed it as a question.
So what's your hazardous guess then?
As a stab in the dark I'd suggest its probally been paid for by the taxpayer.
But I'm happy to be corrected
Either way seems money well spent wouldnt you say?
She's still bang tidy "
She will probally eat you afterwards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?"
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side. "
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?"
Why did he accept the settlement? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side. "
I have done this before. Despite my employer being in the wrong I felt it better to accept early as there was always the small possibility it could have backfired on me. Quicker than a protracted lawsuit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?"
You would have to ask him.
I'm assuming I was correct on who paid out?
Funny the anti eu clique are normally shit hot on money being wasted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?"
it won’t be the tax payer Lionel it will be her |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?it won’t be the tax payer Lionel it will be her "
I doubt that very much. She won’t be personally liable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?"
at a guess he didn't want the tory press making his life miserable
given that if a manager created this sort of situation elsewhere, they would be promoted to
head of paperclips, why is she still in a job? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?it won’t be the tax payer Lionel it will be her "
What are you basing that on? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
I have done this before. Despite my employer being in the wrong I felt it better to accept early as there was always the small possibility it could have backfired on me. Quicker than a protracted lawsuit. "
Without going to deep, if you don't want to, and with utmost respect, what could have backfired that would have been worse than the fault your employer had already inflicted on you
If you, and presumably your representation, knew the employer was in the wrong why not see it through to the end?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
I have done this before. Despite my employer being in the wrong I felt it better to accept early as there was always the small possibility it could have backfired on me. Quicker than a protracted lawsuit.
Without going to deep, if you don't want to, and with utmost respect, what could have backfired that would have been worse than the fault your employer had already inflicted on you
If you, and presumably your representation, knew the employer was in the wrong why not see it through to the end?
"
Nah it’s cool happy to answer.
They offered a settlement that was commensurate with what I was after. I saw no real reason to pursue as other than an apology I got what I needed.
I was always wary in the back of my mind that no matter how strong my case was it could fall down on something and as I got what I wanted I was happy. I was also using my brothers firms time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?
You would have to ask him.
I'm assuming I was correct on who paid out?
Funny the anti eu clique are normally shit hot on money being wasted."
Yes we shouldn't waste money, it's terrible, but can't help the fact she's easy on the eye.
Nature of settlements is we don't get to know what happened. Bit like the 7 billion a year of EU fraud when their accounts don't get signed off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
I have done this before. Despite my employer being in the wrong I felt it better to accept early as there was always the small possibility it could have backfired on me. Quicker than a protracted lawsuit.
Without going to deep, if you don't want to, and with utmost respect, what could have backfired that would have been worse than the fault your employer had already inflicted on you
If you, and presumably your representation, knew the employer was in the wrong why not see it through to the end?
Nah it’s cool happy to answer.
They offered a settlement that was commensurate with what I was after. I saw no real reason to pursue as other than an apology I got what I needed.
I was always wary in the back of my mind that no matter how strong my case was it could fall down on something and as I got what I wanted I was happy. I was also using my brothers firms time. "
Cheers for that .
It didn't bother you the time, or in time eat away at you that there was no apology, and presumably, no admittance of wrong doing on their part?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?it won’t be the tax payer Lionel it will be her
I doubt that very much. She won’t be personally liable."
Government oicks up the bill as it was the givernment that was defendibg the case ""The government does not accept liability in this matter and it was right that the government defended the case," a spokesperson said. " |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
I have done this before. Despite my employer being in the wrong I felt it better to accept early as there was always the small possibility it could have backfired on me. Quicker than a protracted lawsuit.
Without going to deep, if you don't want to, and with utmost respect, what could have backfired that would have been worse than the fault your employer had already inflicted on you
If you, and presumably your representation, knew the employer was in the wrong why not see it through to the end?
Nah it’s cool happy to answer.
They offered a settlement that was commensurate with what I was after. I saw no real reason to pursue as other than an apology I got what I needed.
I was always wary in the back of my mind that no matter how strong my case was it could fall down on something and as I got what I wanted I was happy. I was also using my brothers firms time.
Cheers for that .
It didn't bother you the time, or in time eat away at you that there was no apology, and presumably, no admittance of wrong doing on their part?
"
No don’t have time for that negativity mate. Life’s too short for that. Resentment eats away at you and moulds you.
I’m back working for them as well and now in a position of the person who made the decision that done me  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Reached an out of tribunal settlement for alleged bullying.
This on top of previously braking ministerial code.
Why is she still in a job?"
Normally the cabinet of any government does get changed anyway but I assume because of the pandemic Boris is reluctant to make changes,I asm sure in time she will go.
Boris is not known for being loyal to staff |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
I have done this before. Despite my employer being in the wrong I felt it better to accept early as there was always the small possibility it could have backfired on me. Quicker than a protracted lawsuit.
Without going to deep, if you don't want to, and with utmost respect, what could have backfired that would have been worse than the fault your employer had already inflicted on you
If you, and presumably your representation, knew the employer was in the wrong why not see it through to the end?
Nah it’s cool happy to answer.
They offered a settlement that was commensurate with what I was after. I saw no real reason to pursue as other than an apology I got what I needed.
I was always wary in the back of my mind that no matter how strong my case was it could fall down on something and as I got what I wanted I was happy. I was also using my brothers firms time.
Cheers for that .
It didn't bother you the time, or in time eat away at you that there was no apology, and presumably, no admittance of wrong doing on their part?
No don’t have time for that negativity mate. Life’s too short for that. Resentment eats away at you and moulds you.
I’m back working for them as well and now in a position of the person who made the decision that done me "
proper result lol
I've been in that position a couple of times, I absolutely wanted to go to court, at a certain stage though they offer you enough money to make you go away, everyone's got a price.
I dried my tears with the numerous 20 quid notes  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
I have done this before. Despite my employer being in the wrong I felt it better to accept early as there was always the small possibility it could have backfired on me. Quicker than a protracted lawsuit.
Without going to deep, if you don't want to, and with utmost respect, what could have backfired that would have been worse than the fault your employer had already inflicted on you
If you, and presumably your representation, knew the employer was in the wrong why not see it through to the end?
Nah it’s cool happy to answer.
They offered a settlement that was commensurate with what I was after. I saw no real reason to pursue as other than an apology I got what I needed.
I was always wary in the back of my mind that no matter how strong my case was it could fall down on something and as I got what I wanted I was happy. I was also using my brothers firms time.
Cheers for that .
It didn't bother you the time, or in time eat away at you that there was no apology, and presumably, no admittance of wrong doing on their part?
No don’t have time for that negativity mate. Life’s too short for that. Resentment eats away at you and moulds you.
I’m back working for them as well and now in a position of the person who made the decision that done me "
agree
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Every effort would have been made to resolve this informally.
The fact that it got to this stage is quite staggering."
It's not staggering, happens all the time. Depending who you believe, either Priti was demanding but fair and the complainers were snowflakes, or she is the Wicked Witch of the West.
(I think she was probably the witch but thats just IMHO) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Every effort would have been made to resolve this informally.
The fact that it got to this stage is quite staggering.
It's not staggering, happens all the time. Depending who you believe, either Priti was demanding but fair and the complainers were snowflakes, or she is the Wicked Witch of the West.
(I think she was probably the witch but thats just IMHO) "
sit down, deep breaths, in and out, in and out...
i agree with you  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Every effort would have been made to resolve this informally.
The fact that it got to this stage is quite staggering.
It's not staggering, happens all the time. Depending who you believe, either Priti was demanding but fair and the complainers were snowflakes, or she is the Wicked Witch of the West.
(I think she was probably the witch but thats just IMHO)
sit down, deep breaths, in and out, in and out...
i agree with you "
Quick change subject can't have that  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
She's still in a job because she was a supporter of brexit. She should have been sacked a long time ago. The government blatantly lies because they know they can get away with it. Remember the bus with 350 million a week for the NHS on it? Where's all that money at them to give nhs staff more than a one percent rise? Just another Boris lie. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?"
Because he’s in effect been paid what he would have been awarded without taking a risk and the government avoid public airing of how they run their departments.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?it won’t be the tax payer Lionel it will be her "
Her employer is liable ie government.
So taxpayer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?
Because he’s in effect been paid what he would have been awarded without taking a risk and the government avoid public airing of how they run their departments.
"
This might lead you to think they have paid out as they were going to lose the case. I'm not sure this is always the case.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?
Because he’s in effect been paid what he would have been awarded without taking a risk and the government avoid public airing of how they run their departments.
This might lead you to think they have paid out as they were going to lose the case. I'm not sure this is always the case.
"
Just as you could say he's settled because he was worried he may lose.
Settlement doesn't always mean what people think it does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?
Because he’s in effect been paid what he would have been awarded without taking a risk and the government avoid public airing of how they run their departments.
This might lead you to think they have paid out as they were going to lose the case. I'm not sure this is always the case.
Just as you could say he's settled because he was worried he may lose.
Settlement doesn't always mean what people think it does."
I think if it was close the figure paid would have been less . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?
Because he’s in effect been paid what he would have been awarded without taking a risk and the government avoid public airing of how they run their departments.
This might lead you to think they have paid out as they were going to lose the case. I'm not sure this is always the case.
Just as you could say he's settled because he was worried he may lose.
Settlement doesn't always mean what people think it does.
I think if it was close the figure paid would have been less . "
Maybe, but the argument could be made the exact same way by both sides. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reached an out of tribunal settlement for alleged bullying.
This on top of previously braking ministerial code.
Why is she still in a job?Normally the cabinet of any government does get changed anyway but I assume because of the pandemic Boris is reluctant to make changes,I asm sure in time she will go.
Boris is not known for being loyal to staff"
Boris isnt known for being loyal to anyone . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?
Because he’s in effect been paid what he would have been awarded without taking a risk and the government avoid public airing of how they run their departments.
This might lead you to think they have paid out as they were going to lose the case. I'm not sure this is always the case.
Just as you could say he's settled because he was worried he may lose.
Settlement doesn't always mean what people think it does.
I think if it was close the figure paid would have been less .
Maybe, but the argument could be made the exact same way by both sides."
Not really as I think the maximum is capped £88k for constructive dismissal so he’s got that and notice along with legal fees probably which means they’ve paid in full without discount.
They wanted it to go away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who paid for the court case and the settlement?
There was no court case. It was due to be heard at an Employment Tribunial in September.
Both parties agreed that a payout (approx 2 years salary) was the best way forward, with no liabilities on either side.
Im assuming there were still legal fees?
Who paid for the settlement?
Why did he accept the settlement?
Because he’s in effect been paid what he would have been awarded without taking a risk and the government avoid public airing of how they run their departments.
This might lead you to think they have paid out as they were going to lose the case. I'm not sure this is always the case.
Just as you could say he's settled because he was worried he may lose.
Settlement doesn't always mean what people think it does.
I think if it was close the figure paid would have been less .
Maybe, but the argument could be made the exact same way by both sides.
Not really as I think the maximum is capped £88k for constructive dismissal so he’s got that and notice along with legal fees probably which means they’ve paid in full without discount.
They wanted it to go away. "
I wonder if the settlement amount now is the same as he was offered back in Feb last year - maybe he felt the chances of losing were in fact much greater and so decided now to accept.
Sedwell was given 250k, so he has done a little better than that...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Reached an out of tribunal settlement for alleged bullying.
This on top of previously braking ministerial code.
Why is she still in a job?"
Because her boss said she wasn’t wrong. Corruption, can’t do anything unless you vote the corrupt out. Am I right?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
