Skip to main content

Blair heads for Rover

He is not taking the chance of visiting Longbridge as far as I know. The announcement has been made of 5,000 redundancies. There is clearly a ripple effect that occurs for other organisations as well.

The big question for the weekend is whether it is possible to produce a stable smaller business making cars. If that can be done then there are more positive options for the future.

What is important is that the auctioneers are not just being brought into the plant.

Comments

Unity said…
So can I assume that you'll be paying a personal visit to Longbridge to explain to the workforce how they can sue the DTI while they pick up their redundancy cheques?

No, thought not...
Anoneumouse said…
Thus, while the DTI spokesperson correctly asserts that it is "not in the Government's gift to waive them", he should have noted that neither is it is "up to Parliament to consider changes to the legislation." As EU law, it is beyond the scope of our Parliament – yet another example of "hidden Europe".

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/04/more-hidden-europe.html
john said…
I have talked to a number of workers tonight about legal issues. They do have a fighting fund.
Unity said…
Yeah, but who are they thinking of taking to court, the DTI or Phoenix?
john said…
Both are an option. Only the DTI could pay sufficient compensation, however.
PoliticalHack said…
That's nice - don't go after the main culprits, but pursue the government. I don't think that they'd find much public support for that cause - most of the workers blame the Phoenix management.

By the way, who should the workers sue on May 6 when the Liberal Democrat government abolishes the DTI?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…