 |
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Has anyone seen this story about Ian Lavery MP (Labour)? He was general secretary of a union with just 10 members apparently, and when he quit to become an MP, he was given a "termination" package of £90,000. He also got other payments relating to dodgy mortgage payments meaning he was £165k in profit.
Firstly it stinks to high heaven, and secondly, how the hell did a 10 member union give out £165k?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I am always wary when I see the word 'apparently' being used in attacks on people, because I have noticed that in the vast majority of cases I come across it is eventually relieved that the original story is either a complete fabrication or so riddled with half truths and deliberate misinterpretations of fact as to make the story untrue. Further I have noticed that the originators of such stories always have ulterior motives and hidden agendas.
Where did you hear this story CLCC? Do you know where it originated? Or are you aping 'Outraged of Surbiton' and repeating, commenting and expanding on a story without checking to see if it has any voracity first? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I am always wary when I see the word 'apparently' being used in attacks on people, because I have noticed that in the vast majority of cases I come across it is eventually relieved that the original story is either a complete fabrication or so riddled with half truths and deliberate misinterpretations of fact as to make the story untrue. Further I have noticed that the originators of such stories always have ulterior motives and hidden agendas.
Where did you hear this story CLCC? Do you know where it originated? Or are you aping 'Outraged of Surbiton' and repeating, commenting and expanding on a story without checking to see if it has any voracity first?"
Sorry Will, I forgot to add the link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280
Perhaps I was using the apparently as a bit of a coverall as I do find the story quite hard to believe. One of the things I find most hard to believe is that it happened in a union of 10 people. If it was a union with 50,000 members it might be more believable, but with just 10 (which may or may not include the man in question) it seems hard to phathom.
But have a read, and see what you think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Seems like another twisting of the truth by the BBC's political staff. Did you note that he has been cleared of all wrongdoing? Did you note he left the union in question in 2010? Did you pick up on which union it was? The NUM, and according to the earliest official document I can find the NUM had a membership of 1853 in 2012...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-union-of-mineworkers-annual-returns
Note what that link is!
Now here is my question: Why would the BBC political staff be starting a smear campaign on the night the ruling party were defeated in the commons 299 to 0 and answered that defeat with a simple statement that they were not defeated because they refused to turn up and that vote was non binding because they say.
I would further point out that this story relates to things that happened prior to this man becoming an MP and I find it strange how the BBC are not publishing the same sort of stories about tory ministers dodgy dealings or their tax haven shell companies that they still run while in high office.
Just my musings, no doubt this story will be picked up by the rest of the media and the Blairite entryists and used to attempt to force Lavery out of office. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was the Northumberland branch of the NUM, which has 10 members."
Really?
For starters a branch of a union is not a union. Secondly, as far as I can tell there is no way to verify how many members are in any branch of a union, and I have given a link to the known membership of the NUM. Maybe rather than jumping to defend the BBC you would do better to consider exactly how dubious the whole story is. But then that would require you to stop giving blind support to any anti Labour or pro tory story that comes along. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Seems like another twisting of the truth by the BBC's political staff. Did you note that he has been cleared of all wrongdoing? Did you note he left the union in question in 2010? Did you pick up on which union it was? The NUM, and according to the earliest official document I can find the NUM had a membership of 1853 in 2012...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-union-of-mineworkers-annual-returns
Note what that link is!
Now here is my question: Why would the BBC political staff be starting a smear campaign on the night the ruling party were defeated in the commons 299 to 0 and answered that defeat with a simple statement that they were not defeated because they refused to turn up and that vote was non binding because they say.
I would further point out that this story relates to things that happened prior to this man becoming an MP and I find it strange how the BBC are not publishing the same sort of stories about tory ministers dodgy dealings or their tax haven shell companies that they still run while in high office.
Just my musings, no doubt this story will be picked up by the rest of the media and the Blairite entryists and used to attempt to force Lavery out of office."
Will, the returns for the union in question can be found at the below link. They are down to 3 members now.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-union-of-mineworkers-northumberland-area-annual-returns
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This whole matter has been looked into and investigated by The Certification Office for Trade Unions & Employers’ Associations, It concluded there was no case to answer
"
Overall conclusions
I have decided not to use my statutory powers to investigate further the issues set out above. In so doing I was mindful that the matters complained about are mainly historical; that much of the financial information on which the allegations were based was publicly available through the annual returns (AR21s) provided to the Certification Officer or had been issued to Union members through the statutory annual statement to members; and that no former or current member of the Union has raised concerns about the financial affairs of the Union with the Certification Officer. I note that in providing this financial information the Union appears to have met the statutory requirement set in section 32 of the 1992 Act to do so.
It is clear that the National Union of Mineworkers Northumberland Area is a union in steep decline as a result of the end of the deep coal mining industry in Northumberland and the UK. Indeed the Certification Officer has been told that the Union is considering dissolution as a result of the decline.
Notwithstanding the above, my office has expended significant time in pursuing my enquiries of the Union in order to obtain information to provide me with sufficient detail and analysis to enable me to form a view of the issues and how my enquiries should proceed, as the facts became clear. The Union and others involved co-operated with the enquiries and I am satisfied that I have been able to obtain all the relevant information available. I therefore did not find it necessary or consider it would assist, to appoint an inspector under the provisions of the 1992 Act.
In this instance I have determined not to appoint an inspector. However, I have decided to put this explanation of my reasons and findings into the public domain for the wider public interest and because I consider it appropriate that current and former members of the National Union Mineworkers Northumberland Area should be aware of the information gathered and my decision and reasoning.
"
I think this is another case of lack of evidence of any wrong doing and, whilst lack of evidence of someone's guilt is not proof of innocence, the most likely and plausible reason for lack of evidence of someone's guilt is usually because they are in fact innocent.
If you want to know more follow this link.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652103/CO_215T-8-16.pdf
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"It was the Northumberland branch of the NUM, which has 10 members.
Really?
For starters a branch of a union is not a union. Secondly, as far as I can tell there is no way to verify how many members are in any branch of a union, and I have given a link to the known membership of the NUM. Maybe rather than jumping to defend the BBC you would do better to consider exactly how dubious the whole story is. But then that would require you to stop giving blind support to any anti Labour or pro tory story that comes along. "
I posted the facts. I await your apology (again)! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
