The
case for Lyons
The document in black below was circulated by
MSF to the NEC, to MSF Branch secretaries and to Conference delegates and
although unsigned and un-attributed is believed to be the work of the MSF
Public Relations dept. It is a prepared defence to the recent allegations of
financial misconduct made against the General Secretary Roger Lyons. In our
view it contains within it serious inaccuracies, distortions and libels against
Marcia Solomon and the Guardian Newspaper.
www.rogerlyons.com is aware that Lyons will be asking for MSF MPs support on
the basis of this document. This will be an important meeting with wide
ramifications for the health of trade unionism in Britain, as well of course
for Lyons’ skin. As lay and active members of MSF we believe you should hear
the other side of this defence. Please find below the original document with
our comments in blue italics.
COMMENTS ON MEDIA REPORTS OF ALLEGATIONS
BY MARCIA SOLOMON & BRYAN KEEGAN
1 INTRODUCTION
All the "allegations" made by
Marcia Solomon against the General Secretary, in her witness statement, her evidence, and in Guardian reports were tabled in February 1999 and comprehensively investigated.
The allegations referred to here were actually
tabled by the then Assistant General Secretary John Chowcat in February 1999 in
a report to the MSF President. The allegations were based on information
provided to him by Solomon. Chowcat was an experienced and senior trade
unionist. It is noteworthy that the present document makes no mention of
Chowcat's involvement in this matter. He subsequently left the union with an
undisclosed pay-off, believed to be around £250,000, as a consequence of making
the allegations. He entered into a confidentiality agreement not to disclose
his findings.
There were five sets of allegations against
Lyons: one on unauthorised loans from MSF funds, three on abuses of expenses claims
and credit cards and one on a fraud involving branch funds.
It is established that Lyons had received loans
to which he was not entitled. The 'comprehensive' investigation referred to was
the 'Fisher report'. This states ' Two interest free loans of £4,000 and £2,000
had been made to the General Secretary. It would have been more appropriate for
the General Secretary to have sought prior approval for these advances' It
subsequently emerged that a number of other officials had also received such
loans. This is not mentioned in the present document.
It is also established that all the expenditure
referred to in the allegation of credit card and expenses abuse had taken
place. The union's representatives had the opportunity to contest these
allegations in the Solomon Employment Tribunal case but declined to do so.
It is true that no documentary evidence has been
found to substantiate the allegation of the fraud involving branch funds,
although there was independent witness evidence on this subject.
Apart from this allegation of fraud, Solomon did
not make specific allegations in her witness
statement and evidence. The material
covered in this document, apart from that concerning Keegan, derives from
Chowcat.
Also all the General Secretary's expense
claims, going beyond those covered by the "allegations" have been
comprehensively investigated. In addition the bank accounts of the GS and all
members of his family have been comprehensively investigated.
This is not true. The investigation instigated
by MSF in early 1999 and carried out by the union's accountants HW Fisher &
Co did NOT involve an examination of Lyons' bank accounts nor those of his
family. The investigation was criticised for this by a witness acting for
Solomon at the Employment Tribunal. If an investigation of the bank accounts mentioned has
been carried out, it has not been performed on behalf of MSF nor has its
findings been published.
There is no evidence of fraud, and the
conclusions remain as reported to the MSF NEC on 12th April 1999 - that
"allegations" against the General Secretary are untrue and without
foundation, and that no evidence of misappropriation of union funds by the
General Secretary had come to light. Indeed no evidence whatsoever has ever
been produced to substantiate the fraud allegation, even though the
"£130,000 fraud" headline was used by Hencke in The Guardian to lead
his 'story'. The conclusions of 12th April 1999 were endorsed by the
Certification Officer in his report of 21th July 1999, and no evidence against
the General Secretary was raised at the Tribunal
hearing.
This passage tries to conflate the allegation of
fraud, where there is little documentary evidence, with those of expenses and
credit card fiddling, where there is a great deal of documentary evidence.
However it is absurd to say the fraud allegations are without foundation, and
moreover it is an attack on Marcia Solomon's integrity. When independent
evidence was provided, the Fisher enquiry omitted it: Joan Frances works in the
MSF Subscription department. Having seen a cheque made payable to MSF Guildhall
(one of the fake accounts) she spoke to NEC member Bob Braddock. She was then
contacted by Stuart Burns of Fishers who omitted to record the contents of
their conversation into the Fishers report - this only came to light when
Marcia challenged Fishers competence at her Employment Tribunal. Fisher's then admitted this 'loss' and had to provide a
supplementary statement which confirmed that Joan had spoken to Fishers.
Fishers are the union's accountants and can hardly be described as independent.
Marcia has consistently said that she thought their enquiry was a sham.
At the tribunal, it was also discovered that 22MSF bank accounts were not
listed. When Laurie Bell of Unity Trust Bank took the stand he told the chair
that with Mendes & Lyons being sole signatories, it would be quite easy for
them to raise a cheque for their own purpose and the bank would not discover
this. They also admitted that they had not carried out a comprehensive search
for the cheques.
2. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GS
The bulk of expenses claimed by the GS were
on behalf of union delegations, at conferences, associated with meetings of NEC
members and other lay members, and as an essential part of a GS programme of
visiting all regions regularly, meeting as many sector conferences and
committees as feasible, and developing merger discussions with staff associations
and building up inter-union relationships.
The issue is not whether Lyons was assiduous in
carrying out his duties but whether he acquired and spent union funds and
property to which he was not entitled when doing so.
No-one has ever attempted to claim that every
single claim he made was bogus. However on some of the more outrageous items,
even the internal Fisher report states: 'he should have sought authorisation
for the video recorder and radio located at his home. Similarly in respect of
petrol expenses on his holiday, the claim should have been authorised or a
proportion not claimed'
A particular feature has been an agreed
concerted effort to raise the public profile of MSF, including a proactive
media strategy, to promote MSF policies on behalf of the members. This has
involved being "on top" of 'breaking' news stories from 5.45am (Radio
5 Business News) to midnight (Late Night Live), has involved extensive briefing
of journalists on key MSF campaigns, and extends to all regions of the union in
both the UK and Ireland. This strategy has produced major advantages for MSF
and its members over the past 3 years, with some of our key demands taking on a
national profile, influencing public policies, winning results and increasing
the credibility of the union and its members industrially and politically.
It is nonsense to suggest that the General
Secretary should monitor the media personally which is the implication of the
above passage. As for the public profile of MSF, it remains low in comparison
with other unions of a similar size. In addition Lyons’ profile is equally low
(thankfully at the moment some might say) for such a highly paid leader of one
the largest unions in the UK.
3. THE ENGAGEMENTS OF THE GS
The "allegations" tabled by Marcia
Solomon, and The Guardian reports were made without any check against the range
of responsibilities and proper engagements of the GS. In response to MS's Witness Statement at the Tribunal,
Stuart Burns, H.W. Fisher said "I understand this was her first job with a
Trade Union, and would ask how she was aware of what the normal level of
expenditure of a GS is, given the responsibilities that person holds."
See earlier on the provenance of the
allegations. In addition, Burns is a white, professional man who has never
worked for a union while Solomon is a black, non-professional women with a
degree who has worked for a union. The writer of the document should indicate
which of these factors should incline us in Burns' favour in this difference of
opinion. Moreover it is not true that Marcia has no idea of the role of the GS.
At the time she had been a Branch Secretary for 2 years. It was John Chowcat
who saw that her concerns were real and valid and acted upon them. Chowcat, who
actually tabled the allegations, was at the time the second most senior person
in MSF and a very experienced trade unionist.
Take the "allegations" and The
Guardian reports of "unjustified sustenance claims". Solomon alleged
these claims for £371 for a total of 43 meetings (between 5 January 1997 and 19
September 1998) were unjustified as they were "normal" meetings
during 'office hours". However any scrutiny of the list tabled by Solomon,
checked against the calendar, would show that 18 of these "normal"
meetings during "office hours" were on Sundays, 9 on Saturdays and 3
on Bank Holidays. Of the rest, 5 were early morning engagements before 8am,
whilst 8 were late night commitments after 9pm. That accounts for all 43!
This is a very selective cherry picking of the
expense claims (i.e. only pick those you have a chance of accounting for).
Chowcat records that the claims for expenses for these meetings were
unreceipted, that the meetings were normally held at 9 am and lasted for one
hour, and that the union provided free tea and coffee. Lyons’ contract does not
specify any ‘normal’ hours. To quote from Chowcat's
report:
"R A Lyons has
utilised standard MSF Officials Expense Claim Forms and been reimbursed for
"Hotels & Meals" to the value of £6,366.70 for a period covering
nine months of 1998 and five months of 1997. However, only three receipts for
meals were actually provided over this period, and only £546.26 is justified by
R A Lyons as for "hospitality". While it may be the case that a
proportion of the remaining expenditure is for the purchase of drinks for lay
or full-time officials attending meetings, it is noteworthy that an amount has
been claimed for every single meeting in which R A Lyons was involved
over the period, including internal office management strategy meetings (which
last for one hour and are usually held at 9am in the General Secretary's
office), GPFC meetings, and others where either food and drink were provided by
the union, or the time of day clearly precluded any related meal or drink being
consumed."
Neither Solomon nor The Guardian bothered to
check out these "allegations" before making them, and publishing them
"to the world". Nor has Hencke of The Guardian interviewed the GS
over these or any other of the "allegations" subsequently published.
And Solomon refused to ever discuss her allegations, or provide any evidence to
the MSF internal investigation, or to the H.W. Fisher investigation, and also
refused an invitation to meet with or submit evidence to the Government's
Certification Officer.
Solomon gives an entirely opposite account to
the in her sworn statement of her dealings with HW Fisher and Co. and with the
Certification Officer.
It is totally untrue that Marcia published these
allegations ‘to the world’. She quite correctly passed the information to the
appropriate officer (John Chowcat) for him to deal with and kept matters
internally up until the time of the tribunal.
Lastly the Guardian has made a considerable
effort to arrange an interview with Lyons.
4. MEETINGS WITH GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
Solomon alleged and The Guardian reported
that the GS claimed £4 for "meeting Tony Blair". This was not an
expenses claim for meeting the PM, but part of the expenses incurred briefing 2
named journalists in a hostelry in Whitehall after the meeting in Downing
Street. The same is true for other meetings, such as after meeting Gordon Brown
etc. The "allegations" indicate no knowledge whatsoever of the role
of the GS, the role of the meeting, the role of the briefing, the ways MSF
members interests are promoted at GS level.
Again, the allegations were made by Chowcat who
knew a great deal about the role of the GS, etc. The document is attempting to
argue that the unreceipted expenses claims were not made for the event
mentioned but for a different though related event. www.rogerlyons.com has copies of these expense claims, ‘meeting tony blair’
appears in Lyons' own handwriting, it is not a phrase made up by the Guardian.
There is no mention of named journalists. www.rogerlyons.com will be submitting his Tony Blair expense claim along with
others to the Inland Revenue as we suspect the tax due upon it may have been
evaded.
5. MEDIA INTERVIEWS
Solomon alleged and The Guardian reported
that claims for media interviews were "unjustified" as
"hospitality" was always provided. Any simple check of the record
would demonstrate beyond doubt that 5.45am, 6.00am, 6.30am and similar radio
and TV interviews at Millbank and Shepherds Bush do not attract
"hospitality". And "hospitality" is limited to a cup of
coffee or tea. Likewise evening and late-night interviews, which were the
subject of the claims. No attempt was made by Solomon or Hencke to check these
out, even to exclude the interviews on weekends and public holidays!
This is cherry picking of expenses without
actually having to say which expenses are being selected. www.rogerlyons.com does
not have copies of these early morning expense claims. What were the expenses
claims actually for? It is being suggested that radio and TV studios are only
open 9 to 5 and do not provide sustenance or hospitality outside these hours?
It is inconceivable that people working at these studios would attempt to claim
expenses for every tea, coffee or meal they had before 9am or after 5pm.
6. THE 25P BUN INCIDENT
Hencke in The Guardian made a big issue of a
'25p bun' purchased by the GS on the union credit card at Patisserie Valerie.
His story was
fabricated. The facts are that the GS was involved with the MSF members at the
Royal Institute of British Architects in a long-running struggle to win back
recognition, and after one campaign event, a pre-work outdoor demonstration-in
Portland Place, supported by TUC General Secretary John Monks, the GS, the RO
and John Monks arranged to meet 6 of the activists in the Cafe inside the RIBA,
which is open to the public. The breakfast for c. 9 came to £13, but for some
reason the cashier put through 2 credit card vouchers, for £12.75 and 25p. Thus
the report of Hencke in The Guardian on the "25p bun for the GS" is
completely made up, as with much of his other coverage of the case. However,
although the campaign for recognition was successful, at least 2 letters from
RIBA activists to The Guardian, pointing out that The Guardian failed to report
their successful struggle against a vicious anti-union employer (backed by the
GS without the help of a "25p bun') have been refused publication by The
Guardian!
www.rogerlyons.com does have copies of the expense claims concerned. In fact
the amounts are £12 exactly and 25p, not £12.75 as stated above. Lyons has
signed separate credit card slips for each amount. He has then, in his own
handwriting, claimed expenses for both amounts. Then both amounts have been
through the admittedly short process of authorisation, which involved Lyons
writing 'Please Pay' on them (seriously!). The truth of the matter is that even
if the cashier had made a mistake, the right thing to do would be to have GIVEN
her 25p out of his pocket. It costs the members more money just to put through
another transaction for the measly sake of 25p. The incident is a perfect
example of a 'claim for everything'
contemptuous attitude to MSF members. It is not surprising that newspapers have
picked up on it. For reference the 'fabricated' newspaper article is here .
This trivial incident illustrates how
"cherry-picking' through expenses claims, without any knowledge of the
daily working life of the union, its members and its GS, is so potentially
damaging. It invites media intervention. It is designed to undermine member's
confidence in their union and its leadership. The NEC was aware in April/May
1999 that publication of detailed expenses in the public domain would be used
against the union. The fact the GS was with the members on a picket line from
7.30am is ignored, and scurrilous fabricated nonsense is given wide publicity.
Here The MSF PR department are again ‘cherry
picking’ which allegations they want to answer. For example, the document does
not mention the question of unauthorised loans. The minutes of the meeting of
the MSF General Purposes and Finance Committee of 6 February 1999 record that
Lyons and Mendes confirmed that there were no outstanding loans to employees.
This is somewhat disingenuous as Lyons received unauthorised loans arranged by
Nelson Mendes of £4000 in April 1997, paid back in April 1998, and of £2000 in
June 1998, finally paid back on 15 January 1999. The Fisher report gave the
opinion that Roger should not have taken these loans without prior
authorisation.
7. "TAKE-AWAYS" AND FAMILY
FRIENDLY POLICIES
It was suggested that occasional
"take-aways" of £5 to £10 were in some way unjustified. When the GS
returns to London from engagements around the country, or from central London
meetings after 9pm, he could either eat something in a restaurant away from his
family, or purchase a "take-away" on the way home at around 10pm or
11 pm which would enable him to see his children, and his partner long after
any family mealtime was over. The hours away from home associated with the
responsibilities of the GS job are extensive, and the allegation that the
occasional late-night "take-away" after an evening engagement is
unjustified, is very wrong and an attack on the family-friendly employment
policies to which the union is committed.
Lyons’ expenses claims show that he frequently
went to restaurants on his way home from work at his normal office, spending
between £20 and £60, in addition to the take-aways. Surely there can be no
possible justification for his not purchasing his regular evening meal out of
his wages. Other MSF officials gave their opinion that it was reasonable to spend
£10-12 on an evening meal when travelling on union business. This is different
from being in transit from their normal workplace to their home. This
difference is well expressed in law by the Inland Revenue:
"In considering
the application of Section 74(a) ICTA 1988 to the cost of meals taken away from
the place of business, the Courts have held that no deduction is due because it
cannot be said that the expense was incurred wholly and exclusively for the
purposes of the trade since everyone must eat in order to live -- see
Caillebotte v Quinn (50 222).
However we have long
accepted reasonable claims for the cost of evening meals and breakfast taken in
conjunction with overnight accommodation if the cost of the accommodation would
otherwise be allowable as an expense in carrying on the trade or profession.
This practice has received the approval of the Courts, most recently in the
case of Watkis v Ashford Sparkes & Harward (58 468).
Long distance
self-employed lorry drivers have therefore been able to claim a deduction for
the reasonable cost of meals taken in conjunction with overnight accommodation.
www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/bulletins/tb8.htm
The argument about family-friendly policies is
specious and surely the product of a necessarily imaginative PR dept.
This also ignores the fact that we know that one
of the meals for which Lyons claimed was after a meeting of the MSF London
Region management committee at which sandwiches, fruit and soft drinks were
provided. The meal in question cost £20.25 from the Balti Tandoori. This claim
was for a meeting at Lyons’ own workplace at which refreshments were provided.
Again www.rogerlyons.com
has a copy of the expense claim concerned and will be submitting it to the
Inland Revenue along with other claims as we suspect the tax due upon them may
have been evaded.
8. FURTHER ALLEGATIONS BY MS
MS alleged the GS bought petrol for private
purposes whilst on holiday in France. This is totally untrue. The GS produced
his personal credit card statements confirming private purchase of petrol in
France.
Totally untrue? The Union's own Fisher report
states:" in respect of petrol expenses on his holiday, the claim should
have been authorised or a proportion not claimed". This is repeated by the
Government Certification Officer. The Fisher report, relied upon so heavily by
Lyons, must be faulty here. Or are we now reduced to cherry picking accountants
reports too?
MS alleged that a "family meal"
was paid for in France. This is totally untrue.
This seems to be an invented allegation (cherry
invention now!), we can find no reference to 'family meal' or 'France' in
Marcia's witness
statement or affidavit, but would be interested to see any documentation.
MS raised questions over purchase of
equipment for home office use. All such equipment (e.g. fax, filing cabinet,
etc.) is listed in an inventory held at head office, confirming MSF ownership,
and is available for inspection.
There can be no possible justification for Lyons
purchasing items such as a briefcase, home video and home radio out of union
funds. Nor can there by any justification for the financial arrangements made
for his wife to visit a conference in Darmstadt, Germany in May 1998. Lyons
claims that the union has agreed to pay for the partners of the General Secretary
and the President to attend events with them. In the case of Darmstadt, Lyons'
partner returned separately from the conference in order to attend to her own
commitments but the union still paid all her travel expenses.
9. SEVEN-DAY WORKING
MS did not know anything about the range of
duties and responsibilities undertaken by the GS. Nor did she know that the GS
works long hours, often for seven days a week. She questioned his need for the
union Mondeo in the evening and at weekends without understanding the GS has
regular engagements to fulfil. For example at weekend schools, visits to
section conferences and schools at Whitehall College, meetings at head office,
Bermondsey Street; and around the regions. Further, the need to fulfil many
speaking engagements and media interviews, often late at night or early in the
morning, necessitating the use of the Mondeo.
Yet again this is trying to air brush John
Chowcat out of the picture. Chowcat, not Marcia, tabled the allegations. Here
is his experience:
"I have worked as
a full-time trade union official, mainly at national level, for over 25
years.... for the Trades Union Congress itself, the broadcasting and media
union now known as BECTU, and the multi-sectoral white collar union ASTMS,
later MSF. I joined ASTMS as an official in 1976 and was promoted to the post
of National Officer in 1987. 1 was promoted again, to the post of Assistant
General Secretary in 1992, working closely with the newly elected General
Secretary, Mr R Lyons, in that capacity.
As for not knowing what hours Lyons worked,
Chowcat said he had worked with Lyons "in a small senior management team
over a period of seven years".
10. TRANSPARENCY
Finally, MS claimed that all claims by the
GS would be paid "without question". This is untrue. Finance
Department asked for clarification of claims, and also adjusted totals from
time to time. The GS claims were treated in the same way as any other official.
They were available for inspection and were not "locked-away".
Further any occasional, unavoidable private purchase was always reimbursed by
private cheque before the claim went in for payment. MS never checked out any
of her allegations. Had she done so, she would know why it was reported to the
MSF NEC on 12th April 1999, that allegations against GS are untrue and without
foundation, and that no evidence of misappropriation of union funds by the GS
had come to light.
This is not an accurate summary of the findings
of the Fisher investigation. For example, the investigator stated that the
union would have to take a view on the claims to ‘sustenance’ mentioned above.
The union has been denied the opportunity to take that view.
Who exactly is entitled to inspect Lyons'
expenses claims? We believe Lyons has frustrated efforts to examine financial
records in connection with this matter.
Here is what Marcia's sworn witness
statement says about authorisation of
Lyons' expenses:
"Roger would
authorise payment by writing 'please pay' on the credit card slips, the bills
would then be paid directly to American Express by MSF, without question".
We think this paragraph of the defence document
is libellous to Marcia Solomon.
11. B. KEEGAN (FORMER DRIVER) ALLEGATIONS
(a) BK reports that he dropped the GS's
younger son at school. In fact, it was half a mile from the school, precisely
on the normal route to MSF head office, and only happened if it coincided with
the GS's transport requirement. And by the way, it is normal family friendly
conduct, where journey route and times coincide. What is being alleged if
anything?
(b) B. Keegan says he drove the GS to
Arsenal. As BK lives at Finsbury Park near the Stadium it made sense to drop
off the GS after his last meeting before evening mid-week games. If the GS was
delayed at union meetings, he sent his ticket to former AGS Tim Webb to use.
Tim lives 2 miles from the office, and recalls 2 or 3 occasions when the ticket
was dropped off by B. Keegan, whilst the GS remained in union meetings (and
missed the game!).
Lyons admits that he sent his chauffeur to
Stamford Hill in order to lend Tim Webb his Arsenal season ticket on two or
three occasions. This is an unequivocal admission that he sent his driver on a
personal errand that had nothing to do with MSF. The fact that Tim Webb lives
"a couple of miles" from Moreland Street (although I would say it is
further than that) is immaterial.
(c) The visit to Hillsborough (Sheffield
Wednesday) on 26th September 1998, was an invitation from Irwin Mitchell, whose
senior partner is now Chair of the Board of Sheffield Wednesday FC. The GS was
travelling to Blackpool for the Labour Party Conference, and stopped off in
Sheffield for 3 hours or so, on the way to Blackpool. His 2 sons were expecting
to share a car ride back to London, but it fell through the day before, and at
24 hours notice 2 x £30 rail warrants were arranged, which were reimbursed.
(d) The allegation regarding the NEC
Christmas reception is totally untrue. Most of the wine was used for the
reception. The rest was locked away by Marion Watson-Blake and used for other
MSF functions in the New Year. None of this wine was taken for personal use. By
the way the wine was purchased on 10th December for use on 11th December (not
10th October as claimed by B. Keegan). And the reception had been moved to
Moreland Street to save on previous higher restaurant/hotel costs.
(e) The references to 2 x weekend lifts to
and from airports are correct, but omit the crucial fact that B. Keegan then
had Monday to Friday off as additional paid leave twice, whilst the GS was away
on leave, and that B. Keegan was understandably keen on the arrangement.
What is being said here, that Lyons has
corrupted Keegan? And that MSF members have been doubly ripped off? We think
this is an example of the unacceptable vindictiveness being shown by a major
trade union to whistleblowers.
(f) The reference to claiming for false taxi
rides is totally untrue. The GS has never claimed for a taxi ride when using
MSF provided transport. The allegation is scurrilous and unsupported by any
evidence whatsoever.
We think section 11 demonstrates that Lyons
treated Keegan as a personal retainer rather than as another employee of the
union. This is entirely unacceptable.
The document omits to mention that Keegan drove
Lyons' adult daughter to work as a solicitor, well off his normal route.
By no stretch of the imagination is it allowable
for Lyons to use his driver and PA in union time to acquire rail tickets for
his sons in connection with a football match, even if the cost of the journeys
was reimbursed later. Nor is it permissible to use a union employee to deliver
his season ticket to a friend.
On the matter of the wine for the Christmas
reception, Keegan has sworn on oath that he delivered four cases of wine to Lyons'
home. There will be an opportunity to test these contradictory assertions at
Keegan’s Employment Tribunal hearing,
scheduled to start on 26 January 2001.
*
A great deal of effort was made to prevent the
members finding out any of this, and had it not been for Marcia Solomon’s
employment tribunal, we would still be largely in the dark. The Tribunal
records demonstrate the inadequacy of Head Office’s case. MSF’s defence of the tribunal was that Marcia Solomon acted in bad faith but that John
Chowcat, a much more senior member of staff, acted in good faith when acting on
her information (they had to say this because of the terms of his compromise
agreement). After four days the impossibility of keeping up this pretence
became obvious, a substantial settlement was reached.
The document under discussion is a poor attempt
by MSF Public Relations department to suggest that Lyons’ current predicament
is the fault of malicious journalism rather than his own hubris. However, the
facts of the case, many of them extremely well documented, tell a different
story.
There is no doubt that Lyons constantly teeters
on the threshold of misconduct. The question is whether he went beyond the mark
on any occasion. We think there are at least four occasions when he did so:-
There are many other examples which are
borderline at best.
Upwards of half a million pounds of MSF funds
have been squandered to cover up or deny these facts. Union employees have been
forced out of their jobs and unions members threatened with legal actions for
the same purpose. In comparison to this Roger's
expense claiming, estimated at a mere £14,000
a year, is shameful more for the pettiness of it all, and the contempt it
shows for the ordinary paying members.
The italic
text in this document has been compiled from work by Hugh MacGrillen and David
Beaumont amongst others, all MSF members. Please email any queries in the first
instance to