Search

Labour Party Shadow NEC

Demand for Natural Justice and Due Process

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

Advertisements
Featured post

Martin Luther King: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Angela Mcevoy: I believe your point about advocacy is a good one. I would also suggest the evidence is examined by NEC + a representative from members CLP who can then provide a copy of the evidence immediately. I would also stress how insulting it is to be suspended, deprived of a vote without being told the reason. Then after weeks of chasing appeals, how insulting it is to have your suspension lifted with approx 2500-3000 others en masse but with a sting in tail. The formal Warning to remain on file without being allowed the right of appeal.

Eddie Clarke: I was amazed the evidence could not be provided immediately with the suspension letter and it took weeks and weeks and a formal SAR request to get the data, which in my case took the form of one tweet and two retweets over a couple of weeks. I was unsuspended with a warning letter along with most other people.

The unsuspending letter identified one retweet as being particularly bad; however it was very apparent that whoever wrote the letter completely misread the tweet as I did not do what they claimed I did. Moreover, whilst my twitter profile makes no claim of my political affiliations, other tweeters of the same tweet who are publicly LP members weren’t suspended.

The process was so drawn out and so unhelpful I just lost the will to carry on pushing this on the issue of the open-ended warning, which is deeply unfair. Complete reform of the process needs to be made, together with clear and simple user-friendly guidelines for members. What occurred this summer was a breach of free speech and I feel Orwellian scale intimidation. Certainly not the democratic values we hope to uphold. I think a system which includes advocates is a good step forward.

Marilyn Browne: I was reinstated after being excluded on the grounds of repeatedly supporting another party on twitter. This was on the basis of one retweet and one taking part in a poll. I don’t call this repeatedly but also as it was based on a trawl for the phrase green party was misconstrued and out of context. SAR did not show any discussion at NEC and who reported or decided to exclude. In fact not very much sent to me on my SAR at all. I now have this on my record which they may use against me in the future. No one spoke to me about my intentions on the tweets and no one contacted or notified my branch where they actually know me and know that I supported the Labour Party all my life.

Anon (my decision as person is very fragile due to this abuse allowed by the NEC): I have never been abusive because that simply isn’t my style. My mother brought me up to behave properly at all times and my career was built on acting appropriately and sensibly. I also don’t swear.
When I got the letter, I was in actual shock. I cried solidly for about an hour. I had never been accused of anything like this before. And then I got angry. Before being accused of anything, I always want proof – you need to show where I did this. So I sent them an email and demanded my proof.
Around 3 weeks later, I got a letter. I had apparently insulted John McTernan & grievously damaged his reputation. He had said during a Sky interview that trade unions are trying to destroy & damage the country. My reply on Twitter was that I was incredulous that a Labour party member could say that.
That was enough to warrant a slur on my reputation & character.

(my decision as person is very fragile due to this abuse allowed by the NEC): I was a complete mess. I’d really never been accused of anything like that before. All I could think of was all the work my mother had done to bring my brother & sisters up properly. She always used to say ‘whatever you do, don’t ever bring police to my door’. And that’s exactly what that letter felt like. As if I’d let her down.

Sheree Bell: I was accused of Abusive Conduct and told that my actions were detrimental to the Labour party. My crime was expressing an opinion about an MP in a private message that nobody else could see! I am a qualified Social Worker, with a 40 year career in safeguarding vulnerable adults, who fights for equality and social justice constantly, and so to be labelled an ‘Abuser’ was one of the hardest things I have ever had to read.

After complaining to Iain McNicol I was reinstated to the party but with ‘a warning’ on my file. Can you imagine how this feels for a public servant working in Health & Social Care to have it recorded on a government system somewhere that I have engaged in abusive and detrimental behaviour? And that recording has been done with no investigation and no access to appeal? I am furious and devastated at the same time.

Linda Meehan: Unequal treatment. Members and supporters are treated as scum. Whilst the poisonous ones like Jess Phillips get rewarded with media attention. And they’ll use the old ‘lessons will be learned’ crap but no actual change to benefit the members will take place. I too have been suspended then unsuspended with a warning on my file. A warning. Are they joking. We pay their undeserved salaries and yet they treat us with utter contempt. For the most part the initial suspensions was bang out of order in the first place. I joined the party to make a difference and all that’s happened is a denial of my, and others, vote. The process sucks because there isn’t a fair process. It’s guilty until proven innocent and even then, your card is marked. I believe in due process, that’s the basis of the law of our land. Yet we have been abused, accused and denied basic rights of reply.

Pat Roberts: After going 69 years without a stain on my character My beloved party put one there! I’ve stopped my membership and monthly donation until they remove a warning for something that was a retweet of someones opinion!! They can also do their own doorstepping, admin work and envelope licking in future, as well as their telephoning and running people about on voting day!!

Mal Sainsbury: I continue to be disgusted by the disgraceful and completely unwarranted accusation of ‘abusive conduct’ by nameless people I don’t know targeting members who they believe support Corbyn, including myself. I now firmly believe this was in order to remove their votes and voices as delegates in conference.

The people who orchestrated this ‘purge’ must be brought to account with an independent enquiry. I will remain in the Labour Party but will not rest until this slur on my character has been removed with full apologies and the assurance that this kind of behaviour can never be allowed to happen again, and that those responsible are stopped from bringing the party into such disrepute.

To suppress freedom of speech, an open and honest exchange of ideas and defame the character of so many Labour Party members through such underhand procedures must be stopped if we are to see Labour in power again.

 

d5058-einstein-justice-quotes

 

`The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy`  Martin Luther King 

`In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends` Martin Luther King 

`Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matterMartin Luther King 

 

What a loss to the Labour Party due to the unacceptable open ended Warning letter

Carl was accused by the LP of abuse. The case is quite pathetic and to call it abuse is an insult to people who have been abused. Carl demanded that the Warning letter was withdrawn and the abuse by the Party disciplinary procedure meant they simply ignored him.

Given his appalling treatment and the stress and pain it has caused him, and the refusal of the Party to allow a proper hearing and an appeal, he resigned from the Party.  Here is his resignation letter:

Although he resigned he continues to do good humanitarian work – but you now no longer have him as a valued member of the Party because of the abuse from the Party toward him and the sickening disregard for due process and natural justice.

Any member, no matter their station, and especially any member of the NEC who does not condemn this has ZILCH respect from me.

What Carl is up to now:

As well as advertising our events on line, we put up posters in key places around the city but have always wondered if they are effective. I found out last night when a gentleman turned up declaring that he had seen our poster in a local shop and thought he would come along to see the film. It’s always satisfying to reach new people.

The film we screened (Palestine Blues) is an incredibly powerful indictment of the abuses committed by an occupying power but also a reminder of the steadfastness of the Palestinian people desperately trying to hang onto land their families have farmed for generations.

There is something obscene about the use of giant bulldozers to destroy the citrus groves and olive trees that those families depend on them for their livelihood under the gaze of heavily armed Israeli soldiers. I am grateful to Sarah W for adding to her already packed itinerary to travel to Worcester to be with us and for taking these photos. I didn’t get around to taking any myself.

Carl`s resignation letter

The usual adage `you have to laugh or you`d cry` doesn`t work with this: you do both – that is how heartbreaking and worthy of derision the disciplinary debacle is

On Tuesday yet again there is a meeting about the appalling abusive  (non) procedures of the Disciplinary system currently used and DEFENDED by the NEC.

We demand:

a) that from now on each and every single case of discipline is automatically allowed an appeal.

b) that every person who is under `investigation` (that must be in quotes because the lack of investigation for the majority is conspicuous by its absence) is automatically notified that they can appoint an Advocate (that may seem extreme but needs must when confronted with the abusive way most members have been treated in relation to the disciplinary `procedure`).

c) that any Administrative suspension absolutely MUST be followed by a full and proper investigation where the accused is given the opportunity to fully hear and respond to every aspect of the accusation. In other words no Warning letters without a full enquiry and even then an appeal must be allowed.

It is clear from reports and responses to date that the NEC is not taking responsibility for this abusive shambles. They are making noises that it `won`t happen again`  – this is unacceptable as it HAS happened and unless they take full responsibility for the mess it can happen again. It is unacceptable that they consider it just to behave like the police policing themselves.

Now given the dismissive attitude that we and members have so far received none of that will be considered. That is the measure of just how little respect the NEC is displaying toward members.

Lets see if they even have the decency to immediately advise people that any warning is time limited (quite ludicrous that it is not already the case).

For your interest here is a cross section of the heartbreaking and ludicrous aspects of this situation, and it continues:

Clive Andrews: To be suspended for comments that are less bad than many others such as MPs etc and then have no power of appeal or indeed no appropriate process to challenge judgment is unprofessional, unethical and frankly is a disgrace. I now have on file a black mark that I am not allowed to contest given by a group I do not trust or feel have any legal right to have done so. I have written to Compliance, Legal and Ann Black and have been dismissed or sideswiped or ignored.  It’s completely disgusting.

Pamela Ann: I think the warning letters are intimidating, and threatening.

Gordon MacIver: What is missing, in my opinion, is the right to have the evidence against you with chapter and verse as to why it merits suspension as well as the right to a hearing ALL before suspension can occur: particularly when suspension denies the right to vote or hold office. I have demanded same and more before I will meet with them. One other thing is this ‘chat on the phone’. Imagine that being a procedure at work …….. that is truly laughable and I have told them I will not dignify it. It is for them to justify their accusations, before we defend ourselves. I need to know EXACTLY what I am accused of before I can respond.

Marilyn Browne: I was reinstated after being excluded on the grounds of repeatedly supporting another party on twitter. This was on the basis of one retweet and one taking part in a poll. I don`t call this repeatedly but also as it was based on a trawl for the phrase green party was misconstrued and out of context. SAR did not show any discussion at NEC and who reported or decided to exclude. In fact not very much sent to me on my SAR at all. I now have this on my record which they may set against me in the future. No one spoke to me about my intentions on the tweets and no one contacted or notified my branch where they actually know me and know that I supported the Labour Party all my life. It was clearly used as a means of taking my vote out of the system. Funny too that I am reinstated just before membership fees are due.

Sheree Bell: I was accused of Abusive Conduct and told that my actions were detrimental to the Labour party. My crime was expressing an opinion about an MP in a private message that nobody else could see! I am a qualified Social Worker, with a 40 year career in safeguarding vulnerable adults, who fights for equality and social justice constantly, and so to be labelled an ‘Abuser’ was one of the hardest things I have ever had to read. After complaining to Ian McNicol I was reinstated to the party but with ‘a warning’ on my file. Can you imagine how this feels for a public servant working in Health & Social Care to have it recorded on a government system somewhere that I have engaged in abusive and detrimental behaviour? And that recording has been done with no investigation and no access to appeal? I am furious and devastated at the same time.

Glynis Millward: I am still suspended for “breaching the rules on recruitment”. I have just undergone an “investigation” meeting and am awaiting the notes from that. My suspension letter did not state which clause/rule I had breached – so how can I know and more to the point how can I confirm that the NEC have correctly applied the admin suspension. Despite making 64 phone calls to the Labour helpline, legal queries and ERS I did not receive my ballot or indeed receive details of the alleged breach. It was not until I submitted my court claim that I finally found out what clause I was alleged to have breached. Are the NEC honestly expecting suspended members to make 64 phone calls and lodge a court claim before finding out what it is they are alleged to have done? Although I have not had a warning (yet) I do not believe for those that have, that it should lie on file indefinitely; that is a clear breach of DPA (retaining data accurately & fairly).
 
Carl Freeman: “I poured my heart and soul into correspondence with the General Secretary and spent hours composing letters in which I have desperately sought evidence of my “crimes” and attempted to have an unjustified warning on my file removed. And I got nowhere. I was therefore reluctant to spend any more time writing on this matter. The opaque, intransigent disciplinary process, lacking in any natural justice had taken such a toll on my emotional wellbeing last year that I took the decision to withdraw from the Labour Party.
I refused to be treated as a second class member and so I had only two options. To continue to try and secure justice for myself or to throw in the towel. Those close to me saw the effect that it was all having on my mental health and so urged me to give up. Which is what I have done. Taking a break from it all over Christmas gave me the space I needed to see how the fiasco was impacting on my health.

The only reason I am writing now is in the hope the the NEC is serious about wanting to learn lessons. To be honest, I am not overly confident that they really want to. I suspect they would prefer to try and brush the whole thing under the carpet. But that strategy is doomed to failure and will simply hold the Party back. Only an independent review will work and even then it requires a genuine commitment from the NEC to accept the findings.

Of course that will take great courage. I am sure that in their heart of hearts, most NEC members realise how badly the Party got things wrong and so will be reluctant to open themselves up to criticism. But owning up and apologising for mistakes can be hugely cathartic. It is not too late to try and put things right. OK – it is too late for me. I am no longer a member. But the Party itself needs to heal. And only an open, independent and transparent review will enable that to happen.”
Pat Roberts: After going 69 years without a stain on my character My beloved party put one there! I’ve stopped my membership and monthly donation until they remove a warning for something that was a retweet of someones opinion!! They can also do their own doorstepping, admin work and envelope licking in future, as well as their telephoning and running people about on voting day!!
Colin O`Driscoll: I was expelled on the the basis of a retweet from a twitter account of a joke by David Schneider about Zac goldsmith. This made me a Tory apparently. The expulsion was replaced by a suspension for a retweet from October 2015. I am still waiting to hear when I would be interviewed for this alleged crime.
Demetra Jones: The NEC carries out the purge and the same NEC discusses the purge and what can be done differently. To me this is a joke. There should be an investigation carried out by an independent body.
IF THE NEC STILL CONSIDER IT IS REASONABLE TO ISSUE A WARNING WITHOUT EVEN A RIGHT OF REPLY INVESTIGATION THEN YOU MAY THINK THAT THEY WOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY TO MAKE THAT TIME LIMITED (you know a bit like that which happens in criminal law),  But nope. They act as judge jury and lifetime executioner.
broken-trust

This is NEC Abuse. We will NOT ACCEPT WARNING LETTERS as a `resolution`! We demand an ADVOCATE system is put in place for every single member accused of breaking Party discipline rules.

Carl John Freeman:

 

So after some serious reflection I have made my decision. My battle with Iain McNicol and the Labour Party NEC is over. I was at serious risk of further damaging my already flaky emotional wellbeing. I took the whole purging thing too personally. I love the local Party and I wish them well in the sterling work they are doing fighting for a fairer society. But whilst Iain McNicol remains as General Secretary and I have an unjustified official warning hanging over my head for which I allegedly have no right of appeal, I cannot remain a member of the Labour Party.

One thing I will credit Iain McNicol with though is that he is an absolute master of irony. He accuses Jeremy Corbyn supporters of being Marxists while ruling over a Compliance Unit that would have made the Stasi blush. Plus he has the audacity to suggest that I and countless others are bringing the Party into disrepute!

My fight is not with the Labour Party itself and certainly not with local Party members. I will still urge friends and colleagues to vote Labour for a fairer society. But while that awful man remains in post as General Secretary then I feel I have no choice but to leave. Of course in posting this comment and this photo, I admit that it would constitute grounds for my suspension or expulsion from the Party. But having today written my letter of resignation, that is academic.

Sarah, the young heroine of the film Labyrinth, escaped from the emotional maze in which she had been imprisoned by the odious Goblin King when she realised that she no longer had to tolerate his mind games. She had an epiphany and declared, “You have no power over me”. And so it is with me. 2016 was an awful year for all sorts of reasons and I refuse to take crap with me into 2017.

.
.

Here is Carl`s letter to the L.P. establishment, and specifically to Iain McNicol:

Dear Sirs

My Membership of the Labour Party

I received your latest correspondence just before the Christmas break. It merely reinforced conclusions that I had already reached:

• Under your stewardship, the Labour Party has become devoid of natural justice
• Last year’s purge of members was entirely politically motivated solely targeting people who are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn as part of a futile attempt at rigging the Leadership election

You have both consistently failed to respond to my requests for detail of allegations against me or provide concrete “evidence” of wrong-doing. You have also failed to acknowledge the hurt I felt as the result of your false and unproven accusations. I am sure you are well aware that there are numerous closed and secret social media groups of purged members who are all comparing notes. You have annoyed a great many decent people who do not take such shoddy treatment lightly. If you think your template letters unsuspending people with warnings on file are going to enable you to brush all this under the carpet, then I have news for you. It is merely the latest in a line of miscalculations you have made over the past year or so.

As I have indicated in previous correspondence, last year was particularly stressful for me. I lost both of my parents within the space of three months which magnified the negative impact your false allegations had on me. My instinct is to always fight injustice. Ordinarily in the face of an unwarranted suspension based on zero evidence and the placement of a formal warning on my file with no right of appeal I would keep fighting. But I realise that the distress this has caused me and which it continues to cause me is having a detrimental effect on my emotional wellbeing.

You and I know full well why I and countless others have been given an official warning of indeterminate length with no right of appeal. Your statement that you reserve the right to “return to the matter in the future” makes it abundantly clear that next time there is an internal election you can simply invoke these warnings and once again, disenfranchise people who have publicly declared their support for Jeremy Corbyn. I am aware of hundreds of people who continue to fight this unfair and undemocratic policy. But I personally don’t have the emotional resilience to continue the fight. Last year I lost two of the dearest, kindest, most caring and compassionate people I have ever known. I still grieve for them and I do not need this additional emotional stress.

My Dad was a great observer of life. He recognised that sometimes you have to throw in the towel, no matter how much you might want to struggle on. He would say to me that “graveyards are full of dead heroes”. I knew exactly what he meant. It is clear to me that you have a strategy of battening down the hatches and ignoring reasoned argument and so I have no chance of securing justice on your watch. As you have made it perfectly clear that I have no right of appeal against my warning and your replies to letters that I have written and into which I have ploughed time and emotional energy are impersonal off-the-shelf and dismissive. I have given up any hope that you actually care anymore and the fact that hundreds if not thousands of members are all getting standard replies is indicative of the industrial scale of the clean-up operation after the mess you have created.

Of course, you have not actually read this letter and as with all my previous correspondence, whoever has been given responsibility for dealing with it will have only given it the most cursory review. But for what it is worth, I hereby formally give notice that I am no longer a member of the Labour Party. I am deeply saddened by the actions of the NEC, the PLP and of the General Secretary in particular. The country is crying out for change. People aspire to a new kind of politics and at a time when the Party could have been building on waves of enthusiasm generated by Jeremy Corbyn’s election, sections of the Party have chosen instead to fight him and the membership rather than the Tories. I find that and the way I and countless other members have been treated to be utterly disgraceful. Hence my decision to move on with my life.

Yours faithfully,

Carl Freeman

Cc: West Midlands Regional Labour Party
Officers of Worcester CLP

 carl
We demand an ADVOCATE system is put in place for every single member accused of breaking Party discipline rules.

Arrogance of the NEC. ENOUGH! Respect the members!

Still the NEC allow the abuse of members to continue. NO NO and NO we will NOT accept these sickening abusive Warning letters meted out after suspending members. This whole debacle has brought the Party into disrepute and what is further unforgiveable is that they KNOW they allowed a screw up to happen. And then it gets worse: they allow Warning letters to be sent out and they do this to make it look reasonable that they suspended members in the first place lol (yep first laugh then cry).

It was completely and utterly an abuse of the trust given to the NEC to suspend people should it be considered the member posed a threat to the Party. Wow. Any reasonable person with a smidgen of a sense of justice would KNOW that once that happens then natural justice and due process MUST be invoked. In short the member deserves the right of reply. BUT NO. The NEC consider themselves judge jury and executioner and worse than that no right of the member to respond to ANYTHING  and cannot appeal or question the warning.

This is even the case when alleged evidence is specifically being questioned. LOOK if a crime is sufficient to warrant a suspension then it is most definitely a crime (which is being committed over and over and over again) by the NEC to not allow a proper investigation where a member can question the evidence` and the charges.

WE WILL NOT ACCEPT WARNING LETTERS AFTER A SUSPENSION WITHOUT A PROPER HEARING AND A RIGHT OF APPEAL. This is not a spoof, but it seems incredible that it is the truth.  I am simply astonished that the Rule Book is being abused in this manner, and what is more that the members of the NEC are allowing it. Let me be real clear: any member of the LP, no matter their position, has zilch respect from me if they do not utterly condemn this!

Here is a letter to Iain McNicol from a member who was treated in this shameful manner:

Angela McEvoy:

Re: Iain McNicol Appeal my Formal Warning

Thank you for your email to inform me that I cannot appeal a formal warning, I do not countenance such Dickensian rules and I am very surprised that a supposedly modern Democratic Labour Party would support such an authoritarian disciplinary process.

After 40 years voting Labour, I joined the party in May 2015 devastated at the General Election result. My first choice for Leader was Yvette Cooper. I attended the hustings and realised she had nothing new to offer. I then listened to Corbyn and was very impressed with his alternative to the existing narrative. What finally convinced me to support Corbyn was the poster of Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendal under a banner stating “Anyone but Corbyn!!! I thought I had joined an inclusive Labour Party, and was shocked how all the candidates demonised Corbyn the man, rather than the vision and direction he wanted to move the party towards.. The personal attacks on the man were disgusting, although the dignity he displayed towards his fellow candidates put their bullying tactics to shame.

Since his election September 2015, I have watched in amazement at the attempts of the Right Wing members of the PLP to sabotage Corbyn’s Leadership. This resulted in the 2nd Leadership contest and also damaged the parties credibility within the country. Divided parties don’t win elections, I believe the moderate PLP members, Progress and Labour 1st are quite aware of that fact but are willing to sabotage the next General Election rather than support the Corbyn/ McDonnell partnership. How pathetic is that? And yet, as stated in my previous email, there appears to be no impunity for these moderate saboteurs who are supported by the double disciplinary standard practised by the NEC.

I have been issued with a formal warning without the right of appeal for 1 retrospective tweet 9th July calling Tom Watson a “Traitor” I stand by my written post. Mr Watson called me as a Corbyn supporter, part of a rabble, a Trot and a Dog. Plus a number of other insults and yet these insults were not included on your list of inappropriate words. Another demonstration of Labour Party disciplinary double standards.

As stated in my previous email I am not willing to accept your formal warning and sadly have no alternative, other than to leave the Party. I believe the impasse has been engineered by the NEC with the sole aim to rid the party of a Corbyn supporter. This has left a nasty taste. Maybe I am naive, but joining the Labour Party was such a big event for me. I believed I had joined a Democratic Socialist organisation where every member was valued in the spirit of Solidarity, Tolerance and Respect as said on the membership card. The scales fell from my eyes pretty quickly after Corbyn’s Election in May 2015, the moderate Blairites have behaved appallingly. They have undermined the Leader in the House of Commons, on Mainstream Media, colluded resignations with BBC and many, many interviews where the credibility of the party was brought into question. The NEC and you personally have assisted them to undermine this honest politician to the detriment of the party, hoping to gain power at the next election. I believe our poll rating is very low….the NEC needs to examine their own role in this debacle. In my honest opinion you are not worthy of power.

I no longer believe the party puts its own aims and values into practice and I would find it extremely difficult to campaign for MPs that have totally lost my respect. I will, of course, support Corbyn independently of the Labour Party.

I have paid a full years membership up until May 2017 although I have been unable to participate in Party activities since September 2016, I would be grateful for you to refund 8 months subscription.

Thank you

Angela McEvoy

 

blog-mcevoy

HOW TO DEAL WITH DONALD DUCK

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.

don

NO CONFIDENCE IN IAIN MCNICOL

A motion of no-confidence in Mr McNicol over the wave of suspensions and expulsions that prevented tens of thousands of members voting in the recent leadership election on top of those excluded on the basis of an arbitrary date, was debated at the CLP’s monthly meeting, with passion on both sides of the debate but in a completely comradely fashion.

An attempt was made to neuter the motion by proposing a drastic amendment to it, effectively removing all but a couple of lines, including the no-confidence motion, turning it into a mere expression of concern and request for clarification – but this was rejected by almost all those present.

 

Those against the motion argued that members should ‘move on’ and let bygones be bygones in order to concentrate on attacking the Tories.

Those for argued that this was missing the point – that taking the fight to the Tories properly is hampered as long as people prepared to exploit and subvert proper process to deprive members of their right to vote are left in a position to do so in future and that this would discourage new members from joining, or from full, enthusiastic participation if they do join.

The full motion is available at the end of this article, but the crucial part reads as follows:

As general secretary, Mr McNicol has legal responsibility for the Labour Party and must ensure that everything done by the party is legal. He has not ensured that the processing of complaints against members has achieved an acceptable standard and – because this directly relates to the leadership ballot – this means he has not ensured that the processing of ballots to members has been carried out properly.

We therefore call for a vote of no confidence in Mr McNicol as general secretary of the Labour Party. The CLP resolves for the process of suspensions/expulsions to be transparent, fair, clear and completed in reasonable timescales due to members not being able to particpate in meetings and the distress and damage to members mental health.

The result of the vote was ‘against’ 14, ‘for’ overwhelming (i.e. no full count of the ‘for’ votes was taken because the vote was so clearly carried. Ms Eagle voted against, as is to be expected.

MOTION CARRIED:

1. Retrospective code of conduct and suspensions/expulsions This CLP notes with alarm the imposition of new rules of conduct by the National Executive Committee which were supposed to be used to prevent abusive behaviour between members but which seem to have been used as a tool to purge people from the party prior to the leadership election, by suspension or expulsion.

There seems to have been no clear standard or even guidelines and the NEC ‘panels’ enforcing the new rules seem to have relied on their own arbitrary judgment. This means that people have been purged for things they have said on social media in the distant past even when the comments do not relate to their political lives in any way.

Some have been purged over previous support for policies put forward by other parties – but when we need to win over those who have voted for other parties in the past, why should anyone be barred from Labour just because they have expressed support for a policy proposal by another party?

Others have been purged for reasons that can only be described as ridiculous – such as the person who expressed her support for a particular rock band in a forceful way. All of the letters notifying members that they are no longer members had Iain McNicol’s name attached to them.

As general secretary, Mr McNicol has legal responsibility for the Labour Party and must ensure that everything done by the party is legal. He has not ensured that the processing of complaints against members has achieved an acceptable standard and – because this directly relates to the leadership ballot – this means he has not ensured that the processing of ballots to members has been carried out properly.

We therefore call for a vote of no confidence in Mr McNicol as general secretary of the Labour Party. The CLP resolves for the process of suspensions/expulsions to be transparent, fair, clear and completed in reasonable timescales due to members not being able to particpate in meetings and the distress and damage to members mental health.

Garston and Halewood: overwhelming no-confidence in Iain McNicol

The SKWAWKBOX

As of this evening, Garston & Halewood Constituency Labour Party in Liverpool – Maria Eagle’s constituency – officially has no confidence in the party’s General Secretary, Iain McNicol.

mcnicol-noconfA motion of no-confidence in Mr McNicol over the wave of suspensions and expulsions that prevented tens of thousands of members voting in the recent leadership election on top of those excluded on the basis of an arbitrary date, was debated at the CLP’s monthly meeting, with passion on both sides of the debate but in a completely comradely fashion.

An attempt was made to neuter the motion by proposing a drastic amendment to it, effectively removing all but a couple of lines, including the no-confidence motion, turning it into a mere expression of concern and request for clarification – but this was rejected by almost all those present.

Those against the motion argued that members should ‘move on’ and let bygones…

View original post 458 more words

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑