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

Advertisements