We have in our possession the document issued as guidance by the NEC for investigations of any alleged Disciplinary offenses NEC Advice Note:
`How to carry out an investigation into a breach of rule by a Member`
The document ends with an example of the bundle to be presented to the disciplinary panel.
The first paragraph refers to the member as: Mr A Member.
But after that the member under investigation is referred to as DONALD DUCK!
Model Charge Sheet
Charge Sheet for Mr A. Member (Membership Number), Anytown CLP
The charge is that Mr A. Member is in breach of rule 2.I.8 regarding the following:
Charge 1
That on 18 January 2013 during the AGM of Littletown Branch, and subsequent Littletown Branch meetings on 7 March and 4 April 2013 and also a CLP General Meeting meeting on 26 February 2013,
Donald Duck behaved in an intimidating, threatening and/or uncomradely manner towards other members present and/or encouraged other members of the ward to behave in an uncomradely fashion.
This strongly implies that whoever compiled the document thinks it’s a laughing matter when it’s not. Secondly the Donald Duck would have been removed by any conscientious discerning person as it’s disrespectful, and even if only seen by the investigating person is dismissive and patronising.
It is further extraordinary that ANYONE seeing this does not lodge a formal complaint against it. But then the Labour Party bureaucracy doesn`t provide a way to complain about them directly does it!
We cannot think of any procedural guidance issued by any organisation that would produce and circulate such a document containing such a ‘joke’ on such a serious matter.
We at the Members Compliance Support Team are astonished and incensed on behalf of members that they are referred to in such a joking fashion. We have been privy to some heartbreaking stories of the effect of the `purge` on people, and this just beggars belief.
November 30, 2016 at 4:05 pm
i cannot believe anyone would think this is an acceptable terminology for such a serious matter.
In the least it’s name calling.
Wasn’t name calling the most common allegation against members who got suspended?
Imagine if a group of nurses produced guidelines and named the patient in the scenario Donald Duck.
Or the judiciary producing guidelines for courts calling the defendant Donald Duck rather than Ms A.
Or an employer producing guidelines for the discipline of staff referring to the employee as Donald Duck?
Just think innthat scenenario what the TUC and the unions would be saying. As every union knows discipline is not funny, it’s not a matter for entertainment, it’s serious and heartbreaking for all. I hope unions will say this is wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 30, 2016 at 11:24 pm
If this was dictated by the NEC, WHO IN THAT TEAM GAVE THE ORDER?
To take the PISS out of US the members of the LABOUR PARTY.
Who will whistle blow and DO THE RIGHT THING and put their name on this FORUM?
Is it not the time for us who were wrongly accused, to have JUSTICE?Against those, for what they have done?
Purge them who tried and failed to rig the ELECTION!
LikeLike
December 1, 2016 at 12:59 am
The behaviours of the NEC against Its members, those who fund and support the Labour Party has been deplorable. You have made unfounded accusations, bullied and purged members and failed to be accountable or take appropriate steps to rectify this disgusting treatment.. I have been shocked, dismayed and horrified at the undemocratic behaviours of the Labor Party’s governing body, “moderate” MPs and certain donor. We are not Donald Ducks. Neither are we Trots, Trotskyists, Natzi storm troopers, Hard Lefts or any other insult which you have failed to investigate and punish. Yet we, the members, the majority if whom voted to support Jeremy Corbyn have been demonised and cyber bullied as has our ELECTED Leader!
I believe there should be an independent enquiry into the the purging and demonisation of Labour members. An apology and the votes of the members should be counted and added to the election total. Those purged should be refunded. Those reinstated with no proper account as to the charge have been traumatised by the NEC yet have been denied a voice, denied answers, denied redress.
A truly democratic governing body would have taken these actions not left these people feeling traumatised.
LikeLike
December 1, 2016 at 10:59 am
There needs to be a full and independent judge lead inquiry instigated by the party leader.
Nothing less will do.
The leader has the powers and should use them. Many members are being punished for supporting Jeremy Corbyn and it’s time the same loyalty was reciprocated to those members who are beng abused by these undemocratic and questionably lawful procedures.
We have A PLP who think they are not accountable, a Labour HQ who forget members pay them, and an NEC which apply rule changes on the fly. Changes which appear to be nothing more than a few has-beens in the party looking for scapegoats to aportion blame for a situation of their own making.
Data Protection principles spear to be being ignored, and members details are being passed around the party for inquisition and often based on flimsy evidence and questionable trawling of sociable media.
A judge would be astonished by the laughable quasi legal farce that the NEC and “Compliance Unit” operate under at the behest of those who claim to be acting on behalf of the Labour Party.
No natural justice, no due process. No due dilligance. Moreover, continental style civil inquisitions which disregard the very basic of human rights UK law would expect, and whereby members are assumed to be guilty before there is even a hearing. A hearing which is not open to public scrutiny and therefore cannot be criticised or held to public account. These practices belong in in the medieval era of “Star Chambers” and not what is supposed to be a modern Labour Party. Aparty with principles the electorate will respect, and not laugh at. The NEC and Labour HQ are not only doing a diservice to innocent and often long standing members, but are also creating a tragedy that will effect the very nature of the party for decades to come
I expect to be expelled for refusing to cooperate with these inquisitions for doing nothing more than acting within the law. After decades of being a member, then it will be Labour’s loss not mine.
LikeLike
December 1, 2016 at 4:22 pm
the fact that there are charge sheets in existence implies that there isan actual disciplinary process. But there has been no sign of any procedure or hearing just straight to the punishment.
LikeLike