Gransnet forums

News & politics

Mandelson's pay out

(35 Posts)
Astitchintime Fri 13-Mar-26 15:12:26

The manner of his departure had permanently damaged his employability……………..No! He damaged his own employability by his disgusting, despicable, vile behaviour!
When are these sick individuals going to step up and take accountability?!

Maremia Fri 13-Mar-26 15:12:13

Think it was the lying about it that did for him, also the possibility of sharing state secrets.

winterwhite Fri 13-Mar-26 15:01:51

Unless I’m mistaken all this happened before the matter of Mandelson sending sensitive information to JE came to light, and he has plausibly argued that being gay he had no part in/interest in the trafficking of young women.
Should people really lose their jobs because they have dubious friends? In this case yes, but there is a case for the £75k

Maremia Fri 13-Mar-26 14:01:08

Wonder what the contractual amount actually was?

Cossy Fri 13-Mar-26 13:50:01

What a nightmare, I’m so sorry Starmer effectively gave him a second chance, too serious to bring him in again, a very serious error of judgement.

As for his “payout”, I have mixed feelings, whilst I personal think he should just have been given his contractual rights, I’m also sure a slimy creature such as he would have happily taken this to a court and if framed properly could have got a larger payout than £75,000.

Luckygirl3 Fri 13-Mar-26 13:44:55

I do agree that if he was dishonest about his history in the appointment process then she should be sacked and get nothing at all.

Maremia Fri 13-Mar-26 11:27:56

If they can legally argue that it is his telling lies about his connection to Epstein that will make him unemployable, that could reduce any pay out.
On the other hand, it hasn't held Trump back.

MT62 Fri 13-Mar-26 08:51:04

I don’t think he should be getting a penny. Full stop.
He’s been sacked.

MartavTaurus Fri 13-Mar-26 08:12:33

And who's paying for it?
I think we know the answer to that. Not Keir Starmer.
I agree, even a penny over what he was worth is disgraceful.

Sarnia Fri 13-Mar-26 08:02:30

Mandelson' lawyers were demanding £547,000 as the manner of his departure had permanently damaged his employability. The amount he was contractually due was in the region of £40.000 so why has Starmer given him almost double and handed him £75.000?
Am I alone in feeling that he should only have received what the terms of his contract stipulated and not a penny more? Mandelson says that had his lawyers been successful in their bid for over half a million then he would have refused it. Yeah, right!