WARNING LETTERS following a suspension when no proper investigation has occurred and there is no right of appeal are NOT ACCEPTABLE. And will not be accepted. What is it that the NEC doesn`t get about that huh?

Keith performing at a Labour Party fund raising gig.

Another member treated so appallingly by the disgusting disciplinary system which is abusive to members (and continues to be even after they know the injustices they meted out)

Well this is odd. In September I was auto-excluded (expelled) allegedly for supporting another political party. I’ve just had a letter saying my administrative suspension (?) for allegedly contributing to a crowdfunding website (?) has been lifted with a formal NEC warning?! Both letters are from Iain McNicol.

As others have said, this is outrageous to be told it will be kept on file when I haven’t done anything and have had no chance to defend myself! But I’m more staggered by the sheer incompetence of lifting something that was never placed on me in the first place and for a different reason than initially given. I also can’t believe I’ve been through three months of hell with no apology!

Response to the suspension lifting with a warning letter:

.

Dear Mr McNicol,

Thank you for your letter dated 19th December 2016. In the letter you state ‘I am pleased to inform you that your administrative suspension from the Labour Party has been lifted and that you are now free to resume active membership.’ You also state ‘You were suspended following allegations that you contributed to a crowdfunding website which directly contravened party rules by paying for membership of others.’

This is somewhat confusing, given that it contradicts the previous correspondence I received from you on 16th September 2016. In that earlier correspondence you stated ‘It has been brought to our attention with supporting evidence that you have publicly shown support for Socialist Worker.’ You go on to say ‘You are therefore ineligible to remain a member of the Labour Party.’

So in September I was auto-excluded for one charge, of which I am innocent, and in December you unsuspended me for a different charge of which I am equally innocent.

So was I re-admitted and then suspended without being informed? If so, can you tell me when this was? Or have you, in effect, dropped the first charge, re-admitted me, suspended me for a second charge and then unsuspended me all on the same day and this is what you are now communicating to me?

You claim there is an allegation I ‘contributed to a crowdfunding website which directly contravened party rules by paying for membership of others.’ This is untrue. Who made this allegation? Do you have evidence that was not revealed to me at the time of my recent Subject Access Request under the Date Protection Act (your letter dated 26 October 2016 from Mike Creighton)?

Or are you relying on the screenshot of a Momentum page on Facebook? If you are relying on the screenshot, you will clearly see that this does not demonstrate anything of the sort. The comment immediately before mine is not complete because it is too long to be displayed. If you were able to open that you would see that the person talks about being too poor to afford groceries. In context, my offer of ten pounds is clearly meant to go towards his grocery bill. In any event, he did not take me up on the offer and no money was paid. No crowdfunding website was ever involved; nor was the money anything to do with his membership. So every single word of the allegation is untrue.

Furthermore, in your letter dated 19th December, you say you ‘have considered it necessary to issue [me] with a formal NEC warning’. The rule you quote, ‘6.1.C’, states the NEC may issue a warning, but you say ‘I… considered it necessary’ to issue the warning. So was this issued by you or the NEC? Have the NEC discussed my individual case?

Either way I wish to raise an objection to this and request that this warning be removed, on the grounds that the allegation is unproved and therefore inaccurate. Additionally, no investigation into this allegation appears to have been undertaken and as a result, I have not been able to challenge the allegation or contribute any evidence to the investigation of it.

The Data Protection Act, within the provisions of Principle 4, states that information held by an organisation in relation to an individual must be accurate.

It is incumbent upon you as a data controller to ensure that this is so.
If you will not be undertaking an investigation into this allegation which I can contribute to then I feel I must point out to you that if an individual is not satisfied that you have taken appropriate action to keep their personal data accurate, they may apply to the court for an order that you rectify, block, erase or destroy the inaccurate information.

Please let me have a response to this letter within 14 days from the date of this email.

Keith Shilson

Di, resigned from LP for fear cancer would return

Unforgettable memories. It was a privilege to have met Jeremy and to have talked to him at length about Cornwall's housing problems. How on earth he made time for us at the phone bank that night following his demanding day at Heartlands, I'll never know. He is an inspirational man - a politician who truly cares about people. I may no longer be in the Labour Party but I'll support him through Momentum and the social media to the best of my ability.

This woman suspended from the LP for `vile racist etc tweets`. Left waiting and waiting and waiting to have it overturned – no chance to get it sorted out. Untrue accusations. Di is very ill (cancer) and has spend decades supporting and working for the Labour Party 😦

She finally had to give up because the stress has started to affect her health – so she has resigned from the Labour Party.

I condemn the Labour Party for their whole extraordinary marathon suspension ` purging` of members without any care for due process or respect for natural justice.

This is unforgivable.

Shame on the Establishment Labour Party. Contact this woman NOW!
Re-instate her NOW.

Anyone involved at any time at any stage in this woman`s suspension is culpable in my opinion. I condemn the whole (non) process on the basis of this case alone – and I have many other equally appalling examples.

.

Today I received my Subject Access Request (SAR) details and it appears my Facebook posts did not, as previously stated by McNicol, bring about my suspension. It was my tweets and re-tweets that brought about my downfall.

I attach pics and apologise for none of my comments except that had I noticed the words, “angela eagle rat”, I would not have re-tweeted it. All my tweets and re-tweets were made in response to the despicable conduct of those Labour MPs who have venomously attacked Jeremy Corbyn from the moment he was first elected as leader in September 2015.

If my tweets and retweets have been considered so abusive as to warrant my suspension, I am very glad I recently made the decision to quit the party and spare myself the ordeal of defending my online comments at a regional tribunal.

I still cannot believe the party I have supported for decades has been responsible for closing down freedom of speech for its members while giving full rein to Corbyn’s PLP detractors to bad mouth him on TV and in the Tory press.

The ‘old guard’ NEC and Iain McNicol have a lot to answer for.

UPDATE: Someone kindly pointed out something I had missed. The words ‘Angela Eagle rat’ were words the snooper software translated from the words, ‘Angela Eagle’ and ‘rationale’. So I hadn’t missed the word “rat” after all. Gawd – it’s beyond a farce now.

---

Di Coffey:

.This is a powerful piece of writing from Georgie Harrison who explains in graphic detail, the shock, the shame and the pain of being suspended from the Labour Party:

.
‘My reply to someone who is mystified over why those of us suspended from the LP feel hurt as “Corbyn got elected anyway”

It hurts because it’s unjust. It hurts because we are viewed with suspicion by others – ” no smoke without fire” and all that.

It hurts because prior to the shenanigans of the NEC & the 172 PLP members treacherous behaviour we had thought that the Labour and Trade Union movement was the one body we could rely on for democracy and fairness. It hurts because many Corbyn friendly delegates were unable to attend conference with resulting voting rights.

.It hurts because many of us were booked into conference and then informed we were non compliant and refused entry. It hurts because we are not able to attend LP meetings or have official contact with our comrades in the party.

It hurts because we cannot get involved in campaigning. It hurts that we have not been given proof of our alleged misdemeanours. It hurts because the LP are still removing our subs via direct debit.

It hurts that we are forgotten and unfairly dismissed as abusive or racist – particularly galling when we have been victims of racism and abuse ourselves. It hurts because nobody replies to our emails.

It hurts that you question why we are hurt. Most of all it hurts that our integrity has been brought into question when we are all decent and loyal human beings. Does that answer your question?’

Georgie Harrison :

My family and work deserve the best of me and this will not be possible if I succumb to another breakdown courtesy of the LP.  My medication has already been doubled due to the LP efforts to discredit me.

Natural Justice NOW

Demand for Natural Justice and Due Process

CLICK HERE TO SIGN STATEMENT

This Group is dismayed by the actions of Iain McNicol in his role as General Secretary and the manner in which the administration of the Labour Party has been used to suspend or expel thousands of members.

The NEC has fallen short in ensuring that any and all suspension and expulsions are carried out with respect for due process and natural justice.

We have been made aware of a list of tweets and posts supplied to NEC members and used to justify and rationalise the manner in which the Compliance Unit and the NEC panels conduct the disciplinary affairs of the Party.

We wish to make it clear that we condemn any process used by the Labour Party that is not in deference to due process and natural justice. Due process and natural justice MUST be the over-riding framework for all and any investigation.  We hold the NEC and the General Secretary responsible for the way this large scale action is affecting thousands of our members.

Regardless of whether we personally, or collectively, condemn many, the majority, or all of the tweets and posts provided to the NEC members as a justification we wish to categorically state that we condemn the process that has been used to deal with the problem.

Mr McNicol cites the rule book and the right for the NEC to automatically suspend a person if they are bringing the Party into disrepute.  Firstly to use this as a justification for immediately suspending members is an abuse of the trust given to the NEC to deal with any clear cut case that meets that criteria. It is obvious to the `man in the street` that the spirit of that option is given in good faith and trust to allow for instant action in exceptional cases. We consider that the Labour Party itself has been brought into disrepute by the use of this trust to suspend or expel FOUR THOUSAND members.

We have had brought to our attention dozens of cases of people being suspended or expelled for spurious reasons, for retweets or reposts which may show support for the sentiment of another Party on for example, green issues, or even to express displeasure of the sentiment (for example UKIP tweets and posts).  Equally we have examples of people whose health and wellbeing is affected to the extent they have taken the decision to resign from the Labour Party because the stress of the long drawn out process is aggravating their condition. We condemn the use of instant administrative suspensions by the Labour Party.

There are many issues related to this debacle: the lack of due process; the lack of natural justice; the issue of data protection violations.  Just one case where any single of these is lacking is sufficient to bring the whole system into question.

Further, we have been told that the NEC considers that `this should never happen again`. INDEED. To that end we wish to make it clear that we expect an open and transparent investigation to look at how this came about, how it is allowed to continue and what went wrong.

We are very concerned, dismayed, that such trust given to the General Secretary to apply instant suspension or expulsion has been applied to justify the expulsion or suspension of 4,000 members. We therefore also consider that Chapter 6 of the rule book is completely overhauled to reflect the members disquiet on what we consider to be an abuse of this trust.

We demand that the Labour Party now constructs a transparent, clear process of dealing with any cases of discipline. We must have a new system that has at its very foundation: Natural Justice.

click here to sign statement

Disputes Dept operating outside authority given under Party Rules

A disturbing new approach from the Disputes Dept has come to light. We had such high hopes that the promised overhaul of the compliance unit would result in a default position of respect for due process and natural justice.

 

Instead, we are seeing a lack of due care from the LP establishment giving consideration to the implications of any course they decide and a continued lack of consideration for the effect it has on the individuals. We continue to have a situation where the implication is guilty and actions taken and questions asked by the party are rooted in that mindset. It is this that must stop. The party `s approach to any complaints should be an investigation carried out from a neutral standpoint, and not dictated by assumption of guilt.

 

The Disputes dept have started sending out what amounts to Warning letters to members without any right to respond. In effect the party are using the social media code of conduct as if it were a set of rules. It is not. It has never been discussed or agreed at conference and there is much about it that causes problems.

 

Reading through the Social Media Code of Conduct it sounds on the face of it reasonable – BUT I would say that 70% of posts/comments made on social media could be said to break this code – context and intention MUST be considered, and a person must have the right to respond. If not then it is open to being used with any complaint. The thing is, it isn`t just brought to someone`s attention – it results in a warning letter.

The irony here is mind numbing – the party itself is not respecting its own rules.

Our legal position as set out by Duncan Shipley Dalton is:

The power to issue warning letters is in Chapter 6.Clause I. 1.(C):

“Where in the opinion of the NEC there are circumstances which might warrant the use of its powers under sub-clauses A above and B above, the NEC may issue written warnings to any individual member of the Party drawing attention to the conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is either incompatible with continued membership of the Party or may be in, or may lead to, a breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the Party.”

The powers in A and B relate to:

“any alleged breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the Party by an individual member or members of the Party,”

So under the rules in Chapter 6 for the NEC to have the authority to issue a warning letter there must be an alleged breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the Party.

The Social media guidelines are not part of the constitution, they are not rules, nor standing orders. They have the legal status merely of guidance notes issued under the NEC authority to issue “guidance” in Chapter 1, Clause VIII. 3.(M).

They are nothing more than non binding guidance. The only way in which they impact on disciplinary decisions is that under 2.I.8 when prejudice or disrepute is being considered the NEC and NCC must take the guidelines into account.

So it is not legally possible to have breached the rules by virtue of breaching the social media code of conduct and the letters being sent have zero legal authority in my opinion.

I would challenge anybody to direct me to a specific rule that gives the NEC authority to issue binding contractual rules in relation to the disciplinary process because I have read the rules backwards and forwards multiple times and never found one…

——————————————

It is time for the party to start listening to, consulting people who have experience of how the misapplication of rules, and how the lack of respect has affected and continues to affect, members wellbeing both physically and mentally. We offered this last year and were dismissed because we are not affiliated. That struck as then as a mere convenience, as members we do not need to be affiliated to be worthy of being listened to.  That offer remains open.

Are you listening HQ?

Peter Gates Expulsion Saga – details of all that is wrong with the `investigation` system and the lack of respect for due process and natural justice

Expulsion – Peter Gates

This has been a while coming. I have delayed posting this in order to give the Labour Party bureaucracy time to reconsider, but they have not taken that opportunity. So it is time to go public.

Ordinary Party members will not often get to see the documentation or the process that accompanies a Labour Party disciplinary hearing. Consequently will not know the level of subterfuge and corruption that goes on.

I was suspiciously suspended from the Party in March 2016, and only discovered over two years later that five people had concocted a series of ludicrous false allegations. As a professional, I have never encountered such behaviour from adults before, and found it quite shocking. The East Midlands Regional Office staff appear to have been complicit in this subterfuge. Which included total fabrications, forged documents, lies, interfering with witnesses, and so it goes. These were all kept secret from the CLP and local members and … me!

Many of you will simply not believe this. But there are many others in a similar position to me up and down the country who know this is everyday behaviour from the Compliance Unit. I suppose I should feel honoured to be so dangerous to these people that they have to go to these lengths. It is however a travesty.

Colleagues in my CLP have got together to produce the leaflet below which briefly summarises the issues. However, because it is a lot to ask people to believe such things can go on, I have uploaded all documents relating to this case to my website (petergates.org) for everyone to read and make up their own minds. This of course means the identities of those making the allegations, along with all the documents etc will now be made public. I have nothing to hide. I presume those making allegations will be pleased that their claims can be checked.

It is a lot to read. My evidence to the hearing (which the National Constitutional Committee forced me to cancel a holiday to attend) runs to 500 pages. This included all the documents, minutes, emails etc. that demonstrate clearly that every allegation is false.

So what was I found guilty of? Well apparently:

1. I am a misogynistic bully who intimidates women, though not a single example could be found. I am also a cult leader with a hold over a large number of local members who I “collect” and “manipulate” and who follow my instructions. No evidence was offered for this.

2. I sent “excessive emails” though only one email could be offered as an example of this.

3. I doctored the minutes of meetings, yet they were all approved as true and correct records.

4. I raided the CLP funds to put on meetings with speakers to attack the Labour Party, but the only example that could be offered was when, at members’ requests, I invited Andreas Bieler to speak on “Alternatives to Austerity”. Since “alternative” means alternative to Labour, this is an attack on Labour. No honestly.. one of the NEC witnesses said this! Anyone can ask my solicitor who was present.

5. I refused to advertise a social, organised by two complainants, to members of my Branch as Branch Secretary, yet I provided the two emails where it was advertised to all 800 membership .. twice. It was however a CLP social event and the complainant was …CLP Secretary.

6. And finally …. that when I was suspended, I used to hide in the kitchen at West Bridgford Methodist Hall during Branch meetings making tea and coffee. Look, even I couldn’t make that one up!

So, have a look and see what you think. The website has space for you to add comments.

I will add more posts going through various stages of this, but I will not take the Party to Court, even though I am advised I have a strong case. I would like Jennie Formby (General Secretary), Claudia Webb (Chair of NEC Disputes Panel), Anna Dyer (new Chair of the NCC) to look at this and realise this does no one any good, is a breach of Party Rules, is totally alien to any notion of justice.

This is not the time to give up, resign or be demoralised. This is one of the many attacks on the changes sweeping across the Party. Come back stronger. We are many; they are few

Solidarity.

petergates.org   

Spirit of Justice

As regular readers of this blog will know we show the effect of the unprofessional, unjust disciplinary system used by the labour party. It has been shown over and over again how the system has no respect for due process or natural justice. You can find on these pages an analysis of the rulebook, a letter to the NEC, and a cross-section of members who have been seriously affected mentally and emotionally by the lack of care or justice that characterises the system.

We have seen signs of improvements since Jennie Formby took over as General Secretary, but much still remains to be done. We are hopeful that the needed changes are all in the pipeline. We are actually in the process of doing a further analysis and would welcome the NEC being open to listening.

–
Meanwhile here is a case I came across recently that illustrates another factor that is missing – the common sense to read any situation in its context. True justice will always do this. Paul Harnett is someone who has my full respect and admiration. A person dedicated to social justice, and who, as a member, put in much time and effort to the cause, to get a labour government.

.
He was expelled from the party because he broke a very important rule. The rule that says we must not support another party. We absolutely must have such a rule and it requires no explanation to justify why. However what I consider has been a major failure here is that absolutely no consideration was given by the investigator for a) the SPIRIT of the rule and b) that it was inadvertent, and c) that it was known to be harmless. The judgement that it was harmless was supported by a number of M.P.s and also Ann Black (and we all know how well versed in, and a stickler for, the rules Ann is), but she asked that leniency was shown.

/
This is a perfect example of when looking at the circumstances alongside a rule the sensible and just thing to do is to read and apply the SPIRIT of the rule, and the intention and motivation of the individual who broke the rule. What follows is Paul Harnett giving us an overview of his situation. I say that anyone who reads this with a sense of true justice would not hesitate to say Bring Him Back to us, he should be a member.

.

The Spirit of the Rules

I was banned from the Labour Party in September 2017, the day after I had agreed to stand for chair of my local branch in Chorlton, Manchester. I had inadvertently broken the rule which doesn’t allow for members to nominate a member of another party.

I had done this in my own constituency as my co-director of World Basic Income Ltd., Laura Bannister, was pregnant and desperate for nominations to be the Green Party candidate. Apart from it being unlikely that Labour would lose a 15,000 majority.

I did it on the understanding that the Greens were not targeting Withington during the election (they didn’t – and LP almost doubled its majority), and was unaware of the rule preventing members nominating other parties. I stand guilty of stupidity.

I have been political my whole adult life. I was a volunteer teacher at the infamous Croxteth Comprehensive in 1982 during the successful campaign to keep it open. I was an active member of the Liverpool-Corinto Direct Links Campaign supporting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. I lived in Corinto and then Managua 1985-86, 1987-88.

I was a worker for SANE (US equivalent of CND) as well as the Committee in Solidarity with El Salvador in 1986. I worked in Namibia the year after it gained independence in 1992. I have worked in international development since 1990. In 2015 I founded World Basic Income Ltd. with a view to ending world poverty.

In 2015 I was so astounded by the Labour Party’s manifesto (austerity light), I immediately went out and joined a political party for the first time in my life – the Greens – the only party who opposed austerity. I was subsequently astounded by the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party, which left me a choice of 2 socialist parties after waiting for just 1 for most of my life.

I was more and more drawn to the Labour Party and after the second leadership contest in 2016, decided to join. I worked tirelessly to gather support for Corbyn locally and challenge the branch at the AGM. Then the 2017 election was called.

After some local canvassing for the LP many of us decided to also hit the marginals in the North West. I took 2 months off work. We went to Weaver Vale, Chester, Lancaster, Bury North and Bolton West – all on multiple occasions. My car was the vehicle of choice for many. The election night party for Labour in Chorlton was held in my house. Signs were all over my house/garden for Labour.

On 26th June 2017 I received a letter from Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes, asking for a statement as they had evidence that I’d nominated a Green candidate.

I sent in a statement with support of 4 MPs (including my own MP who I had canvassed with on a few occasions), Trade unionists and others with evidence of all my campaigning during the election. I also managed to contact Ann Black of the NEC who showed me her emails of support asking the committee for leniency) (n.b. Ann did incorrectly say I hadn’t campaigned in my own consituency – I think because she was mindful of me organising campagins in the local marginals).

I presumed I would get a slap on the wrist, and got on with organising the left in Chorlton for the forthcoming AGM.

In September 2017 I decided to run for the Chair position in my branch. The day after, a letter came through from Complaints saying I was banned and could appeal after 5 years or in exceptional circumstances 2 years.

Since then I have started Chorlton Socialist Club which has made a big impact locally and also inspired other similar ventures across the country.

In May this year I took 2 weeks off work campaigning in Brooklands, Trafford during the local elections (we won!). The win there meant the LP was the biggest party in Trafford and now leads the Council. I also do a lot of “other” organising for the left locally.

I still remain active and focused on getting the labour party into No 10 – I would welcome so much being able to do so as a party member.

 

 

Is Jennie Formby getting things shifting now

This blog has monitored the appalling lack of  due process and natural justice that the labour party was guilty of during Iain McNicol`s tenure. We have seen some signs of improvement since Jennie Formby became G.S., and we are starting to  see cases that have been left dormant for getting on for two years starting to be addressed.  We watch with interest to see whether or not respect for  natural justice is now at the foundation of the whole system.  

Nic Outteride was expelled from the party in 2016 for calling Angela Eagle a traitor.  He sent in an appeal, well a protest against this. Having chatted with him we have found him to be a man of principle and deep integrity. His use of the word traitor was as per the dictionary definition:

noun: traitor; plural noun: traitors

a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.
“he was a traitor to his own class”
synonyms: betrayer, back-stabber, double-crosser

Nic Outterside:

Some 21 months AFTER I was expelled from the Labour Party (and two years since my alleged offence, which until now I had no knowledge of!) I have today received a letter from the Labour Party setting a date to hear my appeal!
Complete and utter nonsense! My alleged crime was a tweet of a feature I had written in June 2016 in which I simply described Angela Eagle MP a “traitor”!
This is the Labour Party which I have been a member of since the 1980s.

---

His full appeal (addressed to Iain McNicol is on his blog here  but here is an extract from it:

• Your email/letter of 7 September 2016 says: “The Labour Party should be the home of lively debate, of new ideas and of campaigns to change society. However, for fair debate to take place, people must be able to air their views in an atmosphere of respect. They shouldn’t be shouted down, they shouldn’t be intimidated, and they shouldn’t be abused, either in meetings or online.”

I have NEVER in my lifetime shouted down or intimidated anyone. I have also NEVER abused anyone.

As a victim and survivor of childhood sexual abuse and later domestic abuse, which left me minutes from death, I believe the NEC needs to revisit its use of the term “abuse”.

But, if abuse means bullying, I am a long time campaigner against bullying in all its forms.

Indeed, I was the first to alert NEC member Johanna Baxter on 14 July 2016, that the cyber bully who had reduced her to tears was not a member of the Labour Party or follower of Jeremy Corbyn, but was a far right Nazi troll named Claire Khaw, a former member of the BNP.

• Your email/letter of 7 September 2016 says I am being expelled because “You have made inappropriate comments on social media including a post on 28 June 2016”.

A quick trawl of my own accounts shows that the only comments you might refer to was my blog posting: Hanging from Traitors’ Gate – Progress: Labour’s right wing Militant

I revisited this subject in more detail in another blog posting on 27 July 2016: The right wing incontinence of the Progress plotters

My blogs are always widely shared on Facebook, Twitter, Linked-in and other social media platforms. These particular blogs are typical of the scores of investigative newspaper reports which won me dozens of awards over a 28 year career in journalism.

They shine a light onto facts about Progress and its members.

If your problem is in the title of the blog piece, maybe lessons in English metaphor and history are required.

A view shared by many is that Progress is as much a right wing entryist party within a party as Militant was in the 1980s.

As for the bulk of the piece, it is written with the same dynamism that former Labour leader Neil Kinnock attacked Militant.

If your problem is with my use of the word Traitor/Traitors, I believe that anyone who has committed the treachery to our leader Jeremy Corbyn and to the 121,751 Labour Party members, 88,449 Registered Supporters and 41,928 Trade Union Affiliated Supporters who voted for him, as observed by the so-called #chickencoup, deserves to be called a Traitor.

---

PREAMBLE

I was born into a middle class Tory voting household and to my eternal shame joined the Conservative Party at age 16. Three years later I was elected Vice Chairman of the Northern Region of the Federation of Conservative Students. I even helped Margaret Thatcher get elected in 1979.

But, life is a great leveller and educator, as I am sure you will agree.

My education began in the early 1980s as a teacher in the South Yorkshire pit village of Darton. I lived in the village for four years among miners and their families, and many of my charges were destined to also become miners. I witnessed at first hand the devastation of the miners’ strike and the evil reality of Thatcherism.

My education continued in 1988 when I was hospitalised in Cardiff for four months for surgery and treatment of lung cancer. Many of my fellow patients in the ward and at the radiotherapy clinic were former miners from the south Wales valleys and sufferers from pneumoconiosis and consequential lung cancer. I listened at first hand to their stories of life in the pits and the betrayal of their futures and communities by Thatcher and her minions.

——————————————-

This blog asks on what basis, with what authority does Angela Eagle announce she will resolve `this impasse`: Angela Eagle says she will resolve this impasse!  

 

Dear John

A party member with a high profile was suspended today – so I thought I’d offer some insights into the journey he faces based on what party members have experienced in the Labour Party disciplinary process. 

Firstly a complaint will be made to party HQ.  Staff will decide whether or not to suspend you. 

You won’t know who made the complaint nor its detail in fact you may not get told by the party officially that you are the subject of a complaint or suspension, you might hear about it in the media or read it on Facebook first. 

But you won’t get to see the evidence straightaway.

Once you eventually receive the ‘evidence’ of your alleged wrongdoing, you will learn that your social media has been trawled and comments you made photographed by a group of people, who will remain anonymous, but consist of people who are affiliated to political parties or organisations that are in competition to your party.

Some of these comments will be taken totally out of context to the rest of the conversation. Some of the comments you made in privacy to colleagues and friends will have been included and you will start to question your trust in people.

Names will be redacted of course but you may be lucky enough to know enough about how social media works to be able to see that some of the accounts that have screen grabbed your comments out of context are actually fake.

Their profiles will reveal extraordinarily elaborate fake profile set up to prove they share your values and opinions, complete with check-ins. Oh and you will notice that many of your ‘friends’ have also been taken on by these fake accounts. At this point you may wish to contact social media providers to complain about infringement of your privacy and the fact that fake accounts are allowed  – don’t bother, you are on your own. 

Being on your own will start to really come home now as you realise you are unable to attend any meetings or events organised by the party you are committed to. And the public lynching on social media will begin. There you will be proclaimed as guilty and every aspect of your life and every comment anyone ever disagreed with will be published. And shared. And retweeted. And blogged. And ultimately it will appear in the Daily Mail or The Sun or The Telegraph, or Conservative Home or …….

And everyone with an opinion will be on it like a rash, because after all in the world of labour politics right now,  you are guilty – not innocent until proven guilty.

But the worst of the isolation comes when the investigation starts. `When` being the operative word, because the waiting time is as unpredictable as a waiting list in NHS England, there are people who have been waiting, in pain, since 2016.

When your turn comes, you will be hauled in front of a staff member (whose routine job is managing campaigns in the regions) and refused the right to be accompanied. Well, let’s be fair and explain in case you are not au fait with the rights fought for by the trade union movement, the right to be accompanied means having someone who is experienced in representation to act on your behalf in that investigation.

In labour’s investigatory process you can have a ‘silent friend’ with you at the meeting, but they will be silent, the process denies them the right to speak. You might be lucky and have an investigation officer who has personal standards and allows your ‘silent witness’ to speak. To be fair I have known this happen once. On the other hand you may get the investigating officer in one of the Labour regions who won’t allow you to have the evidence used against you until 48 hours before the meeting.

At the end of that meeting the staff member will write a report, which you will not see, and so not be able to correct any inaccuracies or misunderstandings, with a recommendation as to whether your case should be referred to the NCC with a view to expulsion.

It will be about half a page of A4 and it will go before the NEC disputes committee (tabled on the day) who will by all accounts have about six minutes to consider your case. Please don’t rely on contacting any NEC members to share your experience and full facts on your case, because if that NEC member dares to speak out they will not be seen as a person elected to represent members seeking to ensure the process has been fair but as a person with factional interests who is as guilty as you are for speaking in defence of justice and due process.

If you are sent to the NCC you have about 2 years of this continued isolation to bear. But eventually,  about 8 weeks before your hearing you will finally see all the reports. But you are still on your own because you can’t be represented there either unless you have enough surplus income to afford legal representation.

But of course, there is an alternative. You may be fortunate enough to bypass the waiting list by being eligible for the disciplinary process equivalent of ‘private’ treatment. You might be able to afford legal representation from the very beginning, you might have colleagues that can help you in any number of ways. You might not be part of a group that is the target of leaks even.

You might even be fortunate enough to come across a number of activists in labour who are willing and able to help you. People who are committed to justice and fair process who have experience of disciplinary processes and have learnt through experiences of helping the thousands of members who have been subjected to, what they describe as the ‘purge’.

But don’t hold your breath on that one either because their numbers are becoming smaller as they become discovered as having offered support and advice – they too have been outed by certain groups and accused of crimes against the party.  Most notably accused of offering sanctuary to antisemites, despite the fact that of the 900 members they have assisted they have only come across 5 cases of alleged antisemitism. 

But as we have pointed out, let’s not let facts get in the way of name calling people as ‘trots, rabble, dogs, stalinists’ and any other term those opposed to labour care to throw.

Finally let me give you hope.

The scenarios I have described are changing. The change began when the NEC Membership altered late last year. It’s changed again since the new administration came into effect in the last few weeks. You are lucky, your case will be dealt with by an administration and an executive of which the majority support confidentiality and the provision of evidence in a timely manner to the accused.

You may be even luckier to see these people who believe in justice for all and the need for a fair process introduce a new disciplinary policy that doesn’t act as described above, that allows representation, that supports those who offer representation (without judgement) and protects them from the kind of harassment and abuse they have suffered merely for standing by the basic tenets of a just system. An administration that implements the recommendations of the Chakbrarti Report and does not allow its author to be ridiculed, humiliated and abused for believing in Human Rights inside and outside of the Labour Party. 

I wish you well in your journey and I hope you do not suffer what I have witnessed your colleagues,  members of our party, suffer through a process that is not fit for purpose and can be manipulated for political gain.

You, and every member of our party, are entitled to a fair process and to be innocent unless and until proved otherwise, to call character witnesses and to be represented by people who should not fear harassment by either anonymous groups with political agendas or persons in power with a factional agenda. Just as any member is entitled to make a complaint, to be heard and not judged. 

The ability to clarify any issues, to get support, to ask any questions is virtually non-existent: emails are ignored or fudged. In short there has been no respect for the principles of natural justice. 

I hope you and your colleagues will now join the calls for a complete review of our processes because I believe we have a leader who believes in justice and an administrative body and general secretary who will, given the support, make it happen.

Maybe even this letter sent from us last year will no be thrown back in out faces again:

  Letter and Statement to the NEC

Disputes Panel – not fit for purpose

The NEC’s ‘Disputes Panel’ met on Tuesday to address around twenty cases. Every NEC member is entitled to attend.

An NEC member who was at the meeting told the SKWAWKBOX:

`… Disputes meetings are only supposed to last an hour, but usually go on double that – but even then, the time is too short. Twenty cases is about the usual number – and that’s too many, even for two hours.

The information we receive from the investigators can be sketchy and is often just a summary of their findings. Some members basically just want the recommendations of the investigating unit to be rubber-stamped – and treat any queries as an attack on the integrity of the investigators… `

It is extraordinary that NEC members do not see the irony re their own integrity when they: `treat any queries as an attack on the integrity of the investigators`.

The integrity (or otherwise) of an investigator should stand or fall on the quality of the investigation – not simply assumed by the NEC members who turn up at a Disputes Panel. Why do I even need to point that out?!

So they are saying that they do not ever question the rationale, the way so called evidence was disseminated, what spin is put on it – wow. It is horrifying that it is not a matter of course that the investigation report is not scrutinised. What then is the purpose of this disputes committee if they are just going to do what the investigator says. This beggars belief.

ANY NEC member who considers they are unable to do so should show at least half an ounce of integrity and say they will not sit on the disputes panel.

I hold them responsible for this stain on the labour party and the pain and anguish that they are continuing to allow to happen. I have see the style of investigations and they are not carried out from a neutral perspective – the whole vibe is that they ask questions to trap members and the underlying assumption is one of guilt.

I repeat no NEC member shouldn`t take a place at a Disputes Panel unless they are committed to natural justice and that requires you to look objectively at the investigation. In fact, I now consider that the investigator must be stopped from giving any recommendation. They should simply supply the report, and the job of the disputes Panel should be to scrutinize it and do so from a neutral position that is motivated by fairness and natural justice.

It is appalling that the promised overhaul of the complaints procedure has not even been started. So where then is the integrity of the NEC members on that huh?

Maria Carroll:

.

.

Eighteen months ago it was publicly stated that the Disputes Committee had agreed the need for a new disciplinary procedure. The elements that process would contain would include the right to representation, the presentation of all evidence used to suspend and other areas that are basic rights of justice. Rights that our unions have fought for in workplaces. Rights enshrined in the ACAS codes which if breached can lead to a judgement of unfair dismissal at Employment Tribunal…

.
We are still waiting.

.
The disputes committee is vitally important in the process of an accused member’s journey through the system. An investigation is conducted by staff of the party. At that investigation the member is denied representation and must self represent. They do not have the right to be accompanied – again a basic tenet of the union movement – instead, they can have with them a ‘silent’ witness who cannot speak.

.
The investigation report is not seen by the member before it goes to the Disputes Committee and it contains the recommendation of the officer as to whether the case should be referred to the NCC with a view to expulsion.

.
At NCC hearing the member is yet again unable to be represented unless they are fortunate enough to be able to afford legal representation.
At hearing any procedural issues are not taken into account.

.
So yes members are hurt and angry. They feel let down by a process that does not afford them fairness. Anyone who argues the process is acceptable needs to reflect that if that is so then they undermine everything our unions fought for and achieved to protect staff from unscrupulous employers.

.
IMO our unions and our NEC representatives need as a matter of urgency put together a modern procedure that reflects standards we expect of employers.

.
There is a vast array of talent and expertise in our Membership. There’s a vast amount of expertise regarding discipline in our unions. Rather than say we have to work with what we’ve got, rather than say we need a new procedure then appear to do nothing to push it forward – Make it Happen.

.
Let’s see the expertise of our membership recognised and utilised. Why not have Panels of investigators within the party who can act to independently assess the facts?
There is so much that could be done and should be done.

.
Labour proved it is possible to implement a complete restructure of our process for complaints of sexual harassment, it did so in days. Why not do this for complaints?
We don’t need a miracle, we need a new process and the end of the shenanigans we have seen.

---

 

An example of the injustice, and complete disregard for natural justice, that the  Labour Party process results in:

                                                               Syed Eyamen Siddiqi

NEWS ON MY LABOUR PARTY SUSPENSION AND NEC DISPUTES PANEL MEETING ON 6TH FEB 2018

Labour Party NEC had a disputes panel meeting on Tuesday 6th March to discuss my suspension and possible action against me. The NEC members were given a report by the investigating officer (Dan Hogan), a report which I am yet to see and a report which was “suppose” to be based on the findings of the interview he conducted with me on 22nd Feb.

The interview lasted for a duration of 5 hours, I was questioned on 15 separate allegations, every single allegation bar two were of complaints raised against me about incidents/ accusations AFTER I was selected as a Council candidate and also AFTER I raised a complaint with London Labour about me being subjected to an Islamophobic attack by another party member. I provided them will a voice recording of my attacker threatening me, calling me “Islamic fundamentalist”, “Islamic bullshit” amongst many things. Despite all the evidence and witness statements I provided to the investigating officer (Dan Hogan), he has come to the conclusion that I threatened and abused the individual who I complained about!!!

Whilst at the interview I was accompanied by Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, an individual who has received a KNIGHTHOOD, been a solicitor/ QC in London for nearly 60 years, has been a Labour party member for even longer, he represented the party as a Councillor and served as Chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers. He referred to the interview as a “denial of justice” and said “The meeting was conducted in a hostile and wholly inappropriate manner by Mr. Hogan, more reminiscent of a KGB interrogation than an impartial search for the truth.”

Nevertheless, Labours NEC voted by the majority to refer my case to the NCC and therefore have indirectly insinuated that I am the attacker rather than the victim of a hate crime as well as assisting in the right wing plot to keep me off as a Councillor candidate and protect there friend, my attacker. This means I can no longer stand as a Council candidate in the upcoming Local elections in Redbridge and have lost my elected position as CLP Secretary of Ilford South (2016, 2017).

I would like to place on record the individuals on the NEC who helped raise my matter and spoke up for justice, equality as well as speaking up against racism. They are Christine Shawcroft, Darren Williams, Yasmine Dar, Jon Lansman, Andi Fox, Rachel Garnham, Claudia Webbe and Pete Willsman. I wholeheartedly thank as well as commend you all for your courage, integrity and commitment to the grassroot/ working class members.

I was in total shock to hear the Trade Union reps on the NEC other then Andi Fox (TSSA) had decided to either vote against, abstain or not turn up to the meeting!! This is a total disgrace and in my opinion they should all question their purpose of being on the NEC, let alone being given the responsibility to act on behalf of the working class and vote on dispute matters which can change peoples lives for the worse…even when the evidence, witness statements and facts say one thing, they vote the opposite. Bear in mind that I myself work in a local hospital and am a Trade Union steward regularly defending NHS staff in disputes myself.

.

Whatever other evidence was presented in the case, this recording – in which the other member warns Siddiqi that he will not be CLP secretary for much longer, as well as calling him an Islamic fundamentalist and extremist – is clearly extremely relevant and potentially mitigating or even exonerating.

Recording of abuse not even included in the Investigation Report  

__________________________________________________________

Jeanette Fletcher: 

.

I am a victim of Labours disciplinary procedure.

I presented them with the evidence that showed clearly that the allegations were vindictive and part of a campaign against me, for the “sin” of helping to throw out a Tory MP and replace him with a Labour MP, much to the annoyance of some of the Weaver Vale CLP executive.

I do not know the origins of the allegations and I haven’t seen any proof, I suspect that is because it doesn’t exist and the party knows it’s all trumped up. This was taken with Iain McNicol who dismissed it saying the procedure had begun. Wow, thanks for that caring attitude.

On 7th December I requested and paid for a subject access request to see the “evidence” against me. Despite numerous requests for the party to fulfill their legal obligations I still haven’t had the information I require. The party are now in breach of the law.

When I know who accused me of racism, I intend to take it further to clear my name, but I cannot do that until I know who it is. Meanwhile, I am expelled from the party, with no way of clearing my name until such time as the party can be bothered to hold the disciplinary meeting. That’s now four months, not long by comparison with others, but shows what a farce the disciplinary procedure is.

IMO the members who make false, unsubstantiated, malicious and in my case libelous allegations against other members for their own ends, must themselves be subject to the disciplinary procedure.

---

.Every person I have spoken to who has been investigated speak about the structure of the investigation from beginning to end is such that it is loaded against them. It is not done in a spirit of fairness and from a neutral position. It is confrontational, questions are structured in such a way that it is clear that likely guilt is assumed.

People’s health, well being and reputations are at risk and many have been made very ill by the treatment they have received.

As Maria Carroll says above:

Eighteen months ago it was publicly stated that the Disputes Committee had agreed the need for a new disciplinary procedure. The elements that process would contain would include the right to representation, the presentation of all evidence used to suspend and other areas that are basic rights of justice. Rights that our unions have fought for in workplaces. Rights enshrined in the ACAS codes which if breached can lead to a judgement of unfair dismissal at Employment Tribunal.

We are still waiting.

————————————————————————————————

Nobody should be involved in the disputes process at any stage unless they understand the principles of due process and natural justice – and agree to abide by them!

 

 

Stop running to the Press

When accusations are made it is crucial that we respect the principles of due process and allow a fair and balanced investigation to explore all the evidence, the nature of the complaint, the context AND do not judge and or give evidence to the media. That is if you are motivated to shift society`s reflection of sexual inequality that can still be seen within the party.

.

There are, of course, various degrees from banter flirtation, flirtation that comes close to the line of using power, right through to sexual harassment.  It is wrong not to have a system that helps and supports people who are receiving unwanted attention and the labour party has acted quickly to provide that. BUT equally we must allow protection for the accused also and  space to answer the accusations and for an independent process to examine all aspects.

.

Sexual Harassment Policy  

.

Maria Carroll is one of our team who has worked tirelessly to get the labour party to overhaul the complaints system for all members that it respects due process and natural justice. Our work on that continues.

. 

We have been witness to endless bad practise by the compliance unit when it comes to administering investigations and our work to get that reformed is ongoing.  Many of the stories we have dealt with and are still dealing with can be found in this blog.  We are motivated by a core sense of justice and we are all horrified by the lack of care and respect for people being accused of sexual harassment. The specific policy on sexual harassment includes now an independent process separate from the compliance unit.

.

Here Maria Carroll expresses our concerns about  people  not respecting due process and running to the media:

There are those who need to use the media to be heard because no one will listen. There are countless incidences of whistleblowers who have only achieved justice through the assistance of the media.

.
The media does have a place on whistleblowing when people are not heard. IMO this issue is not one of those cases. Since bringing their concerns to light complainants have achieved much – a new independent and confidential service has been established and a new process for dealing with complaints. Details of that have been sent to every party member and anyone with concerns has been given the chance to come forward.
Therefore I cannot see a reason why today an MP, at this very difficult time, has taken her concerns of past matters to the press and not to that established service we have fought to achieve.

.
The person complained about is once again publicly placed at risk. The investigation and any subsequent process has been placed at risk. How does anyone get a fair hearing when all this is going on?

.
The systems of justice in this country are such that victim and accused are afforded the protections of fair process. Media is restricted in its reporting. Witnesses are restricted in their reporting too. These same restrictions must be placed on people in the Labour Party not just the accused.

.
Add to that is another MP criticising Skwarkbox for publishing a response for the ‘accused’ a response that shows yet again the anguish of the publicly suspended, the pursuit of the relentless media, the lack of support.

.
Have a heart and have a sense of justice please.

How the Compliance Unit has let us all down

In memory of Carl Sargeant

Maria Carroll:

No one who has not lived through the experiences of either the complainants or the one complained about can understand the level of trauma this has caused them or the way that they have reacted.

 .

What we do know from well researched evidence is the impact that public suspension, media pressure, isolation and not knowing what you have been accused of does to people’s mental well being.

There is much documented evidence that our party has been told repeatedly of the impact this treatment has had on individuals, irrespective of the nature of the allegations.

 .//

We have seen thousands and thousands of labour members go through this same experience. Ignored, scorned, labeled and not knowing what they may have been accused of.

They sit for hours and hours going over every meeting they have had, every discussion they have had, every comment on social media trying to see what they have done, trying to find a place to focus their efforts to be able to defend themselves. Repeated cries for more details of date, time and place and specifics are ignored.

 .

It eats into you, you cannot find an area to concentrate your defence on.

.

You believe yourself to be a decent person that cares about the world and society but a person/persons you believe in, see as a decent friend and fellow politician tells you that you have behaved in a way that you failed to recognise.

 .

Your identity fragments, your hope dissipates, you fear you are a monster, you no longer know yourself.

 .

These allegations have been made by people who are more than just your friends they are your political family, people who share your views of a decent society, yet they see you as someone that needs to be suspended and exiled from that family.

 .

A role that is not only a huge and major part of every aspect of your life but also a part of your identity who you are. Everything you think of yourself, everything the world believed you to be is taken away. You are forever identified as a pest, a danger to society and those you love..

The small number of people who still believe in you do everything they can to get you the evidence and facts you need so that you can focus and fight. A highly skilled barrister fights to try to get you the detail. He’s told we may be in a position to get some preliminary information by mid January.

 .

That’s a long time away, too long when you are going through every issue of your life to try to find facts and understand what this is about. You remember every mistake you ever made, every time you weren’t as kind as you should have been …..

 .

Your ability to focus on reality is gone. Hopeless and in despair you cannot see a future.

 So unless you have lived through this experience with someone you cannot possibly comment, you cannot passably understand. Unless you have been a complainant in such a matter you cannot understand or comment either.

 .

We are human, we expect certain events to happen in your life, people die, tragedy occurs. But when hit by the totally unexpected the shock is severe. No one expects to wake up one day for such an event to occur. It’s well documented the impact of unexpected events – look up PTSD or prolonged duress stress disorder. Neither did the complaints expect this matter to be handled this way. They were not to know what would happen.

 .

But what we do know is the process has failed all these people. It failed those who acted as they were instructed. More than anything the process failed a family and four children.

 .

Recovering from the loss of a loved one from suicide is so very, very hard. Most never recover. Most will be in the same vicious circle of ruminating over what they could have done, what they should have done for ever.

.

None of this is new.

The Labour Party process is wrong.  It’s been proved repeatedly to be failing everyone. It is devoid of due process and natural justice.

 .

Confidentiality is not given the respect it needs. Constant leaks that damage people for political expediency and factionalism is seen as just a normal part of political lives. It’s not.

 .

Natural justice is not at the heart of the process of discipline in our party.  Probably not in other parties either, but that is not our responsibility, our party is.

 .

And we are all left the worst for all of that. We will all now be wondering if we listened enough, if we judged without fact, or we should have done more. And if we are not then IMO we all should be.

.

For me and many of my colleagues who have been fighting to get our party’s disciplinary process to reflect natural justice for so very long, we are now questioning ourselves to say, should we, could we have done more?

 .

 .

 You are forever identified as a pest, a danger to society and those you love. The small number of people who still believe in you do everything they can to get you the evidence and facts you need so that you can focus and fight. A highly skilled barrister fights to try to get you the detail. He’s told we may be in a position to get some preliminary information by mid January.

 .

That’s a long time away, too long when you are going through every issue of your life to try to find facts and understand what this is about. You remember every mistake you ever made, every time you weren’t as kind as you should have been …..

Your ability to focus on reality is gone. Hopeless and in despair you cannot see a future.

 .

So unless you have lived through this experience with someone you cannot possibly comment, you cannot passably understand. Unless you have been a complainant in such a matter you cannot understand or comment either. We are human, we expect certain events to happen in your life, people die, tragedy occurs. But when hit by the totally unexpected the shock is severe.

 .

No one expects to wake up one day for such an event to occur. It’s well documented the impact of unexpected events – look up PTSD or prolonged duress stress disorder.

Neither did the complaints expect this matter to be handled this way. They were not to know what would happen.

 .

But what we do know is the process has failed all these people. It failed those who acted as they were instructed. More than anything the process failed a family and four children. Recovering from the loss of a loved one from suicide is so very, very hard. Most never recover. Most will be in the same vicious circle of ruminating over what they could have done, what they should have done for ever.

 .

 

 

Tuesday Conference Discipline Motion

At Conference Tuesday morning there is a debate scheduled which is causing much concern across the party membership. It relates to the rules and discipline within the party and is a further tweaking of Chapter 2  Clause 1, Section 8 Conditions of membership Page 11 8.

The concern expressed by members who are discussing this on social media and amongst themselves is not so much the intention of the rule or the intention of the NEC in tweaking it.  The problem is just how open to interpretation the rule in question is. There are so many generalisation, so much wooliness, and each and every aspect is by definition subjective. We all know and support the principle of not accepting abuse, and we all support a robust approach to ensuring that our party is a place of safety where members can explore and discuss their thoughts on policy, on society, with all the members in the broad church that makes up the membership.

Most of us can easily define abuse in the general sense, but when you chunk down to detail it is clear that what one person subjectively feels is an insult is by someone else “water off a ducks back” and part of normal day to day exchanges, especially when deep  feelings, sometimes personal experiences, are triggered and emotions brim over. Most of us know where the line is drawn.

The problem comes about when you try to put that knowing into words.   Here is the rule book section that will be discussed on Tuesday which includes the change that the NEC wants passed – and you can see just how subjective interpreting the rule(s) is, and how difficult it is to make judgements without being there.  Occasionally the person suspected of breaking the rules of behaviour has done or said something that is blatantly obvious in its abuse and intention. That isn`t the problem.  It is when the intention, the context, the history surrounding any accusation and accusor that it becomes very very difficult.   Scroll past once you have scanned it and got an idea and you can read this blogs suggestion and hope, along with some further insight into the issues.

NEC:  Chapter 2 Clause 1, Section 8 Conditions of membership Page 11 8. No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. Any dispute as to whether a member is in breach of the provisions of this sub-clause shall be determined by the NCC in accordance with Chapter 1 Clause IX above and the disciplinary rules and guidelines in Chapter 6 below. Where appropriate the NCC shall have regard to involvement in financial support for the organisation and/ or the activities of any organisation declared ineligible for affiliation to the Party under Chapter 1.II.5 or 3.C above; or to the candidature of the members in opposition to an officially endorsed Labour Party candidate or the support for such candidature. The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions. Delete all and replace with: 8. No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party. Any dispute as to whether a member is in breach of the provisions of this sub-clause shall be determined by the NCC in accordance with Chapter 1 Clause IX above and the disciplinary rules and guidelines in Chapter 6 below. Where appropriate the NCC shall have regard to involvement in financial support for the organisation and/or the activities of any organisation declared ineligible for affiliation to the Party under Chapter 1.II.5 or 3.C above; or to the candidature of the members in opposition to an officially endorsed Labour Party candidate or the support for such candidature. The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in any instance inconsistent with the Party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.

Solution – constructive way forward

This is actually a wonderful opportunity in the making. Clearly there are issues and concerns that need to be ironed out, but it is crazy to attempt to do this with more and more layers made up of a combination of more detail couched in more generalisations which is what is happening with this motion.

We must be seen as a party to defer always to due process and natural justice. Look around the rest of this blog and you will read heartbreaking examples of just how badly the compliance unit operates. I personally have been in tears when chatting with individuals who have been at the blunt end of the current process, and not just acutely but running into many months, some currently running at 18 months without a hearing or a right of reply/response.

What we really need is a complete review and overhaul and for that to come about following a robust and detailed examination and discussion. And this is exactly the opportunity that this gifts to delegates on Tuesday – they can simply refer it to the NEC Review headed by Katie Murphy and Barry Gardiner.

This is an important aspect of the Party, we must not cut corners.  Let`s give space and air to do a comprehensive review, that fully considers how to ensure party discipline without bringing into question our commitment to natural justice and fair play – two things that are at the very core of what labour is about as an organisation, as a party and  every member. It is the essence that reflects back and forth from individual members to the collective and generates the very trust and energy that achieves the full potential of the party.

I have contact with individuals who have a deep knowledge of the rule book and disciplinary processes and natural justice – members who are legally qualified and or very experienced in disciplinary processes in other organisations (and are representatives of Unions for employees). If any delegate wishes to be put in contact with them for more detailed discussion just message me.

  Delegates please please please I implore you – refer this motion to the NEC Review.

DS: It is poor and badly drafted in my view. Don’t like reasonable in it as it is extraneous and the harassment of protected class point is useless as this already covered by Equality Act 2010. Also too long. Would be better as clause then sub-clauses making one point each. As stands open to interpretation problems due to lack of clarity.

It moves the NEC discretion from a Q of particular conduct being prejudicial/grossly detrimental to the party to in the instances specified being a Q of “can the incident be reasonably seen as demonstrating prejudice?” if yes then it is automatically prejudicial to the party. That is a very different assessment. The “incident” doesn’t have to be actually prejudicial just that it can be reasonably seen as demonstrating prejudice.

The reasonable is attached to the seen so just acts I think to dilute that verb. It means there is no requirement for an incident to actually demonstrate prejudice just that it could reasonably be seen to do so. Seen by who? The recipient? bystanders? the person on the Clapham omnibus? Is this objective or subjective?

I also think the structure reduces the NCC discretion as well. Essentially you could be found guilty of prejudice against the party on the basis that an incident could be reasonably seen to demonstrate prejudice but you were not actually provably prejudiced. I am uncertain it passes muster on the basis of natural justice as you don’t get to actually refute the issue of causing the party prejudice only to try to show it is unreasonable to see the incident as demonstrating prejudice against a protected class. That is a more difficult accusation to refute.

Essentially you could be found guilty of prejudice against the party on the basis that an incident could be reasonably seen to demonstrate prejudice but you were not actually provably prejudiced. I am uncertain it passes muster on the basis of natural justice as you don’t get to actually refute the issue of causing the party prejudice only to try to show it is unreasonable to see the incident as demonstrating prejudice against a protected class. That is a more difficult accusation to refute.

MC: There is growing move to refer the AS motion to the Corbyn Review as is going to happen with other motions There are huge problems with labour`s disciplinary processes and rules as has been seen through various purges. The entire discipline process is not fit for purpose and is subject to serious abuse as we have seen.

It is pointless to agree a change without addressing all the issues.  For example, the process gives no recognition to the impact of disability (particularly MH issues) on conduct. No assessment as to whether there is a health issue that needs to be addressed.

The NCC is bypassed. Members have no right of representation unless a case goes to a full hearing at NCC and then it is legal representation that is allowed. Who can afford that. Of over 3,000 complaints to labour over the leadership election and resulting suspensions only 140 remain suspended and of those only s dozen or so have been referred to NCC. If the party was an

If the party was an employer they would be constantly at employment tribunal. This is the best opportunity yet to get those issues addressed by referring the matter of this rule change and the whole issue of discipline to the review If this or any motion on discipline is voted on then the chances of getting the disciplinary processes reviewed are reduced because it will be said Conference has only just voted on this – whichever way it goes Please think seriously about referring this to the review I and others who have considerable experience with labours discipline process are strongly in favour of referring the whole issue to the review As it stands the NEC motion is not good enough not clear enough for labour members.

Solution – constructive way forward

This is actually a wonderful opportunity in the making. Clearly there are issues and concerns that need to be ironed out, but it is crazy to attempt to do this with more and more layers made up of a combination of more detail couched in more generalisations which is what is happening with this motion.

We must be seen as a party to defer always to due process and natural justice. Look around the rest of this blog and you will read heartbreaking examples of just how badly the compliance unit operates. I personally have been in tears when chatting with individuals who have been at the blunt end of the current process, and not just acutely but running into many months, some currently running at 18 months without a hearing or a right of reply/response.

What we really need is a complete review and overhaul and for that to come about following a robust and detailed examination and discussion. And this is exactly the opportunity that this gifts to delegates on Tuesday – they can simply refer it to the NEC Review headed by Katie Murphy and Barry Gardiner.

This is an important aspect of the Party, we must not cut corners.  Let`s give space and air to do a comprehensive review, that fully considers how to ensure party discipline without bringing into question our commitment to natural justice and fair play – two things that are at the very core of what labour is about as an organisation, as a party and  every member. It is the essence that reflects back and forth from individual members to the collective and generates the very trust and energy that achieves the full potential of the party.

I have contact with individuals who have a deep knowledge of the rule book and disciplinary processes and natural justice – members who are legally qualified and or very experienced in disciplinary processes in other organisations (and are representatives in Unions for employees). If any delegate wishes to be put in contact with them for more detailed discussion just message me.

 

Delegates please please please I implore you, refer this motion to the:

PARTY DEMOCRACY REVIEW

At the NEC meeting on Friday 22nd September the NEC agreed to a review of Party Democracy as proposed by the Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

The review will be led by Katy Clark, a former Labour MP and presently Political Secretary to the Leader. She will be assisted by Andy Kerr and Claudia Webbe from the National Executive Committee and will report to the Leader and to Party Chair Ian Lavery MP. Jeremy Corbyn set out the terms of reference for the review which will include the following areas:

 Developing democratic policy-making procedures, including strengthening the role of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) and of Party Conference, the role of contemporary motions and the development of local and regional plans.

  Addendum-NEC-Report-2017 (1)    

Typical timeline for disciplinary enquiry: Typical timeline for disciplinary investigation

We need to be disciplined about our approach to the rules and the processes used to uphold them. The process and the rules are inaccessible and cumbersome. In the labour party we champion natural justice throughout society. We have to be seen to do that within the party itself. The disciplinary rules and process require a complete overhaul to ensure natural justice informs every step. Despite the

Despite the detail in the rule book there is no reference to respecting due process and natural justice. Our disciplinary process must be rooted in and embrace natural justice. This requires clear rules and clear process – currently we have neither. This is our opportunity to MAKE IT SO by referring the system for review.