Despite reassurances that things have changed and acknowledgments from the party that huge mistakes were made in administering the disciplinary process and the interpretation of the rules, the disregard of natural justice and due process continues.
have been at the receiving end of the appalling administration used by the party concerning discipline.
Members have been personally affect ted by the dismissive and callous attitude and it is ongoing. This has given me a worrying insight into the dismissive and incompetent structure of the disciplinary system used. I understand that through Ann Black there are signs that improvement on the process are being discussed to ensure that such a debacle cannot happen again.
I personally, along with others, consider that such a promise is without much strength when:
a) there are no actual rule changes suggested that would make it impossible for it to happen again
b) that even though it is acknowledged that it was wrong and shouldn`t happen again the lack of communication, the lack of consideration and the lack of due process and natural justice CONTINUES NOW.
People who have had their suspension lifted are still being bullied by the party.
Even though suspensions have been lifted the saga continues.
It is clear from the rule book that warning letters are an OPTION to be used when an admin suspension is not necessary. An admin suspension is made in order to prevent the member participating in the party for fear of bringing it into disrepute. Once there is an admin suspension then an investigation is expected. Once there is an investigation then each person should be exonerated or found guilty and disciplined.
Instead the party is itself being brought into disrepute by the very people tasked with administrating the disciplinary system. Following investigation after an admin suspension either a person should be found guilty or not. If found guilty then natural justice demands they would have the right of appeal. However even though I not found guilty a warning letter is sent and without any explanation or evidence of what should not be done in future – just a generic fudging template letter – AND CRUCIALLY no right of appeal!
Any attempts to get natural justice and replies to queries asking on what basis the warning letter is issued, and a demand that unless the accusation is substantiated that the warning letter is removed from the file is ignored.
It is incumbent upon every single NEC member to ensure fairness in all dealings between the party and any one else either within or without the party. Each NEC member needs to demand that these warning letters are withdrawn, or each person is given the right to appeal and natural justice is respected.
Here are just 2 examples (of dozens) of the complete disregard shown by the party for members:
Carl John Freeman: My story is pretty well known. I could not remain in the party with an unfair warning on file. They refused to lift it so I resigned. But if they were to write to me and reassure me that they would lift it – I will rejoin.
Nigel Chapman: I had the warning kept on file letter. I sent a reply refusing the decision and demanding they produce the evidence against me so I could test it. This was back in September last year and as yet I’ve not received any response and my suspension remains lifted. Makes me think that they are hoping I’ll forget and let it go. When Iain McNicol apologises I’ll let it go.
And then we have this – a situation where they provide no evidence and yet the crime lol was of such magnitude that it deserved an auto admin suspension wow:
Kevin Safford “Following investigation after my admin suspension I was not found guilty.” – Hmm, I don’t believe they actually held an investigation in my case. The letter that lifted my suspension certainly did not mention any investigation; the actual crime I was meant to have committed was never made clear; and I was never asked to give my side of the story. One minute I’m suspended, the next I’m not, but I have a written warning. I think McNicol and his cohorts have been reading Kafka, and got the wrong end of the stick.