|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 6, 2021 19:05:30 GMT
I sent this email to the Labour party's 'disputes team' three days ago, and have had no answer, despite over four months now having passed without any word from them about my suspension, following an initial email which promised more details, and questions, 'within ten working days'. Now, with a Gloucester Labour AGM scheduled for tomorrow, Saturday the 7th, and the CLP's current secretary, now Hoddy has resigned, still insisting I have to abide by the party's decision, despite a four month silence, and not attend, I have to publicise this staggering intransigence. I'll probably put the rest of my attempts to broker a correspondence with the 'team' online, starting three weeks after the suspension, in follow up replies to this post, over the weekend. It may be useful to others who have been suspended and then heard nothing. My understanding is that Labour are extremely short-staffed, due their funding difficulties post Keir becoming leader, and seem to think that it's suspended members who should bear the brunt of that. Time will tell how that strategy fares. ![]() ------------------------------------------------- Hi, This is the latest false and malicious claim from James Hoddy. @jahoddy Replying to @mattphypers @trollhunterx and 2 others I think his unpopularity started before he had a restraining order put on him by a Labour MP well over a decade ago and I'm pretty sure it's not just Labour either because, as a renowned Troll & bully, he has taken it outside the online world to the real world & it's disgraceful. 9:55 AM · Jul 30, 2021·Twitter for Android There is absolutely no truth in the allegation of a 'restraining order', but Hoddy should have the opportunity to provide the evidence backing up his claim, truth being an absolute defence against a charge of slander, as I recall the saying goes. This should all be part of a process which has gone on [theoretically] for over four months now, and well past the stated term of 'within ten working days' to contact me. I was initially told I would have to wait for the details of why I was suspended, and questions that would be put to me, for those ten working days. I know now, from seeing the experience of other Labour members on social media, that these questions would probably be along the lines of being asked to justify my [to me, quite reasonable] comments made about the Labour party, and its members, including councillors and MPs. The failure of any such communications to materialise would suggest that either someone dropped the ball at Labour HQ, or nothing I've said online was deemed serious enough to challenge me. Now, however, the Gloucester CLP's AGM looms, a week from now (information I was only apprised of because James Hoddy has now thankfully resigned as secretary, and the new secretary didn't fully understand the exclusory functions of the email system), and I am keen to attend, but I'm being told that I'm still suspended, and so can't. I've made it very clear that being banned from attending a party meeting over allegations which have been undealt with for four months is wrong on any imaginable level, but the CLP's representatives are unyielding in stating that this is for the disputes team to deal with, and for me to contact, and they've ignored my response that you have been contacted several times over the past few months, since the email below, dated April 21st, and failed to answer every time. I still intend to be at that AGM, despite the personal stress I know that a potential confrontation at the doorstep, or inside, will probably cause me, because I know that party officials should not be allowed to get away with shoddy behaviour, on a local or national level. I personally have no intention of causing a scene, by, for example, using the AGM as an opportunity to raise the issue of the several incidences where those local officials have blocked my access to CLP social media websites without explanation. I just want to assert my right as a CLP member to attend an event which only highly questionable, but still unaccounted for, skullduggery is preventing. Of course, I know it puts those officials in a difficult position, or rather, the disputes team has, by apparently not treating their allegations seriously. But I've obviously been put in a difficult position too, and through no fault of my own, that anyone has cared to demonstrate. Last Sunday was my birthday. I turned the Big Five Five, which I guess makes me a senior citizen, if the government haven't moved the goalposts. Hardly the best of times, psychologically, and certainly not the time to be anticipating hostility at an event that should be about the 'comradely behaviour' I've been told, but not shown, that I've failed to respect on occasion. I could still not turn up, cancel my DD, and put the Labour party, and the shenanigans of my CLP, well behind me. Many others have already done this, and feel the better for it. I'd like to feel better, too, so with a week to go, I leave it in your hands, again, to demonstrate that you are dealing with this. Joe Kilker Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 7, 2021 18:04:07 GMT
I tweeted this, after returning to the meeting:
About twenty people turned up in person, with ten on Zoom. @jahoddy stamped his feet a lot, but his authoritarian whims, 'weirdly', weren't accommodated, and I was allowed to stay. Sam Maynard, sadly, wasn't made chair, and Tom Coole was. That's the CLP kind of virtue screwed now
When I got to the meeting, there was a lot of pressure on me to leave (there was even a representative from Southwest Labour), but I stuck to my guns, pointing out that four whole months and no communications from the people supposed to be dealing with my case (while completely ignoring my prior complaint about Hoddy) was hardly grounds for taking the suspension seriously, and that over a hundred CLPs has instead chosen to ignore the 'rules' that @glos_labour stuck to so slavishly. James Hoddy was, as I said above, particularly peeved when the management decided that doing a Walter Wolfgang on me would not be a good look, but he wasn't at all keen to back up his 'restraining order' slur. I settled in for the meeting, occasionally getting prompts not to film, when actually I was taking snapshots of the previous AGM's minutes, since I wasn't going to be getting my own copy, by the sound of it.
Up to this point, I hadn't realised that the Labour party in Gloucestershire no longer has any county councillors. This is quite staggering, given that the CLP is behaving in a way which won't attract any new voters, or members. The membership is also down from, IIRC, 600 to 470, and its income is about £6,300, while membership fees come to about a grand and a half. I'm no financial whizz, so I assume there must be extra funding coming from somewhere, but I'd like to know exactly what, and no-one else seems curious.
The only motion to arouse any real interest was on PR. All the excitement about this subject, from excitable people, belies the fact that it isn't attainable without getting into power, and there isn't much chance of that the moment, as Jonathan Hoad pointed out. Hoddy, of course, claimed that three quarters surveyed wanted PR, which Kate Haigh countered by noting that 'pressure groups' conduct surveys, the implication being that some of these polls can be slewed. It made a change to agree with something Haigh has said, and I temporarily abandoned my principle of not applauding someone who has blocked me.
Not so for Tom Coole, who is as mad about PR as Hoddy, and can only lose the CLP more of its credibility. He won the position of chair over Sam Maynard, who I'd earlier confused with Jake Pier because I expected the chair to be the person trying to persuade me, politely, to leave. Ironically he, Maynard, found himself falling foul of those 'rules' during AOB, when he asked that Community Organiser roles should be restored, and was told this should have been put forward as a motion, earlier (perhaps even two weeks in advance?). Sam used to be secretary, and felt sure the rules allowed his request, but got nowhere. Welcome to my world?
The Southwest Labour rep (who put her email address on the table at the meeting's end for people to give her feedback, but I didn't peek at it, as I'm sure it wasn't meant for my eyes) told me at the start that my insistence on attending might colour the investigation that has done nothing in four months, but I was ready to take that chance. The only question is, will cancelling my DD subscription affect that investigation, or the one that should be conducted about Hoddy? I'm guessing that would be a yes, but it's galling, paying to be abused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 8, 2021 11:01:37 GMT
Squawkbox just posted this resignation letter (both as a party member and chair of Colchester CLP) sent by Richard Hill to Keir Starmer. Hill's reference to 'my own bloody-mindedness or idealism that kept me staying a member so long' strikes a chord with me, except that my reluctance to quit is also bolstered by the very strong doubt that I will ever be told, in full, what prompted the suspension if I'm no longer a member. I wish I had the luxury of being able to make a clean break.
Chair of Colchester CLP, recent candidate, quits post and party – and writes to ’empty’ Starmer to tell him why he’s to blameFrom: Richard Hill Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 17:07 Subject: Resignation from the Labour Party To: <keir.starmer.mp@parliament.uk> Dear Keir, I am writing to inform you of my decision to resign as Chair of Colchester constituency Labour Party and as a member of the Labour party. As one of over 100,000 people to leave under your tenure I doubt my decision will give you pause for thought but I write anyway as after donating thousands of hours of my time over the last 5 years I feel I have enough skin in the game to express my immense disappointment in you. Your pitch to members was unity, authority and integrity. You are certainly an authoritarian. Unity and integrity seem to be sadly lacking. I’ve never wanted one faction to control our party, I value respect, plurality, robust debate and consensus-building. These are values I’m not sure we share. Another of your strengths that was lauded in the leadership campaign was your “electability”. That’s a meaningless notion in my view, and certainly not true in your case. You are 10 points behind an utterly corrupt and incompetent government that has decimated public services over the last 11 years. In recent elections the Labour vote has tanked, Hartlepool, Chesham & Amersham and the loss of 300 council seats aren’t indicators of “electability”, quite the opposite. The sight of you crowing after Batley & Spen was especially distasteful after Labour scraped a win with a massively reduced majority. Your triumphalism was pure delusion, if the Greens had stood, Labour would have lost. Perhaps winning elections isn’t what motivates you? It seems that punching left, controlled opposition and narrowing the political discourse matters more. This was not the vision you sold to party members. You promised not to trash previous leaders and to offer radicalism. You have removed the whip without grounds from Jeremy Corbyn and offered no policies whatsoever (barely even stating NHS workers deserve more than a 3% raise simply isn’t good enough). The blueprint for electoral success was written in 2017; a radical manifesto that understood how ordinary people were badly treated by a rigged system and offered a genuine alternative that would serve them better. This saw the largest increase in vote share for Labour since 1945. You have rejected that and played along with a narrative that it wasn’t appealing to voters, this can only be for ideological rather than pragmatic reasons. Young people and left behind communities, those with little power to change things, don’t agree and want and deserve a lot more. Labour is more than a party, it is a movement. You had half a million people, ready to campaign with you to undo decades of neoliberalism, rebuild our public services and build a better, more equal future. You’ve squandered that goodwill and with it your opportunity to become Prime Minister. I can only conclude you aren’t serious about winning power. Of all your failings and the endless excuses for them, the worst is giving approval to this criminally inept government’s handling of the pandemic. You could have challenged the obvious incompetence and corruption and maybe save lives but instead chose to “back the government”. Thousands died unnecessarily but you decided it wasn’t the time to challenge their actions for fear of negative Daily Mail headlines. You waved everything through, cowardice dressed as cunning is just weakness. I think it’s my own bloody-mindedness or idealism that kept me staying a member so long, under FPTP Labour is the only show in town after all. When you paid off Labour staffers in a case in-house lawyers advised you’d win, with the endless delays in publishing the Forde Report, when you lied about Rebecca Long-Bailey sharing an antisemitic trope, withholding the whip from Jeremy Corbyn and the general contempt you seem to hold [for] members. All of these should have been enough to send me packing. I held on in hope of the unity and radical vision you promised. It is with much sadness that I leave Colchester CLP. The fantastic members are like all across the country demonised and seem an inconvenience to you, this goes against everything the Labour party should be. My comrades aren’t hard left extremists, they’re ordinary, committed people who give their energy and enthusiasm in the hope of a better country and a better world. They deserve better than your empty rhetoric, endless relaunches and the slide towards irrelevance you are overseeing. Regards, Richard Hill |
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 12, 2021 17:15:30 GMT
Well, here's where it all started (the suspension, not the Facebook blocks). Or rather, here, on April 21st, 2021, is where I first asked the 'disputes team' why I had heard nothing further about my suspension, twenty days after the notifying email. That twenty days has stretched to four months and almost two weeks now of not responding, so any further correspondence will just be me trying to get answers, and failing to do so. To:disputes@labour.org.uk Details Hi, It's surely been more than 'ten working days' since I was notified about this. When am I going to be'contacted'? I assume I am still being charged for membership in spite of the suspension? Also, why has my own complaint about the online behaviour of James Hoddy, co-secretary of Gloucester Labour, not been responded to, and he himself been suspended? I sent it on February 5th, to phil_gaskin@labour.org.uk. (please see the forwarded email I'm about to send). Joe Kilker ----------------------------------- Ref: L1755635 Case No: CN-3678 Dear Mr Kilker, Notice of administrative suspension from membership of the Labour Party Allegations that you may have been involved in a breach of Labour Party rules have been brought to the attention of national officers of the Party. These allegations relate to your conduct online which may be in breach of Chapter 2, Clause I.8 of the Labour Party Rule Book. It is important that these allegations are investigated and the NEC will be asked to authorise a full report to be drawn up with recommendations for disciplinary action if appropriate. We write to give you formal notice that it has been determined that the powers given to the NEC under Chapter 6 Clause I.1.A of the Party’s rules should be invoked to suspend you from membership of the Party*, pending the outcome of an internal Party investigation. The administrative suspension means that you cannot attend any Party meetings including meetings of your own branch, constituency, or annual conference; and you cannot be considered for selection as a candidate to represent the Labour Party at an election at any level**. In view of the urgency to protect the Party’s reputation in the present situation the General Secretary has determined to use powers delegated to him under Chapter 1 Clause VIII.5 of the rules to impose this suspension forthwith, subject to the approval of the next meeting of the NEC. The General Secretary has appointed the Governance and Legal Unit to arrange conduct of the Party’s own investigation. We will contact you within ten working days to provide you with the evidence to support these allegations and a series of question that require your response. Your point of contact for this investigation will be disputes@Labour.org.uk. Please quote case number CN-3678 on all correspondence. ***********aol.com is the email address that we will be corresponding with during the course of this investigation. If this email is incorrect please call 0345 092 2299 to update it. The Labour Party’s investigation process operates confidentially. That is vital to ensure fairness to you and the complainant, and to protect the rights of all concerned under the Data Protection Act 2018. We The LabourParty 2 must therefore ask you to ensure that you keep all information and correspondence relating to this investigation private, and that do not share it with third parties or the media (including social media). That includes any information you receive from the Party identifying the name of the person who has made a complaint about you, any witnesses, the allegations against you, and the names of Party staff dealing with the matter. If you fail to do so, the Party reserves the right to take action to protect confidentiality, and you may be liable to disciplinary action for breach of the Party’s rules. The Party will not share information about the case publicly unless, as a result of a breach of confidentially, it becomes necessary to correct inaccurate reports. In that case we will only release the minimum information necessary to make the correction. The Party may also disclose information in order to comply with its safeguarding obligations. The Party would like to make clear that there is support available to you while this matter is being investigated. There are a number of organisations available who can offer support for your wellbeing: • You can contact your GP who can help you access support for your mental health and wellbeing. • The Samaritans are available 24/7 – They offer a safe place for anyone to talk any time they like, in their own way – about whatever’s getting to them. Telephone 116 123. • Citizens Advice - Provide free, confidential and impartial advice. Their goal is to help everyone find a way forward, whatever problem they face. People go to the Citizens Advice Bureau with all sorts of issues. They may have money, benefit, housing or employment problems. They may be facing a crisis, or just considering their options. www.citizensadvice.org.uk/ • If you have questions about the investigation process please contact the Disputes Team, whose details are included in this letter. It is hoped you will offer your full co-operation to the Party in resolving this matter. Yours sincerely, The Governance and Legal Unit The Labour Party c.c. South West Labour Party *In relation to any alleged breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the party by an individual member or members of the party, the NEC may, pending the final outcome of any investigation and charges (if any), suspend that individual or individuals from office or representation of the party notwithstanding the fact that the individual concerned has been or may be eligible to be selected as a candidate in any election or by-election. (Disciplinary Rules, Chapter 6 Clause I.1.A of the Labour Party Rule Book) ** A ‘suspension’ of a member whether an administrative suspension by the NEC or by the NEC or NCC in imposing a disciplinary penalty, unless otherwise defined by that decision, shall require the membership rights of the individual member concerned to be confined to participation in such ballots of all individual members as may be prescribed by the NEC. A suspended member shall not be eligible to seek any office in the Party, nor shall s/he be eligible for nomination to any panel of prospective candidates nor to represent the Party in any position at any level. The member concerned will not be eligible to attend any Party meeting. (Disciplinary Rules, Chapter 6 Clause I.3 of the Labour Party Rule Book) ----------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Disputes <disputes@labour.org.uk> To: ***********aol.com <starredark@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Apr 1, 2021 7:25 pm Subject: Important information regarding your membership Ref: L1755635 Case No: CN-3678 Dear Mr Kilker, Please find attached a letter regarding your Labour Party membership status. Kind regards, Governance and Legal Unit The Labour Party Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT The Labour Party’s investigation process operates confidentially. That is vital to ensure fairness to you and the complainant, and to protect the rights of all concerned under the Data Protection Act 2018. We must therefore ask you to ensure that you keep all information and correspondence relating to this investigation private, and that you do not share it with third parties or the media (including social media). That includes any information you receive from the Party identifying the name of the person who has made a complaint about you, any witnesses, the allegations against you, and the names of Party staff dealing with the matter. If you fail to do so, the Party reserves the right to take action to protect confidentiality, and you may be liable to disciplinary action for breach of the Party’s rules. The Party will not share information about the case publicly unless, as a result of a breach of confidentiality, it becomes necessary to correct inaccurate reports. In that case we will only release the minimum information necessary to make the correction. The Party may also disclose information in order to comply with its safeguarding obligations. Sent by email from the Labour Party. Promoted by the Labour Party at Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT. Website: www.labour.org.uk. To join or renew call 0345 092 2299. |
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Oct 20, 2021 13:29:54 GMT
Last month, I finally used a subject access request to try to obtain the information from the Labour party that would explain my suspension. That turned out to be a huge rigmarole, with them insisting on photo ID that I don't have. In the end, they appeared to find a scan/photo of my membership card and a bill with my address on acceptable, but I don't think I ever got the data, officially or otherwise.
What I did get, finally, was the 'evidence' I was looking for, or rather the infamous 'questions' letter so many people have been talking about. It was all about various tweets I had made, half a dozen out of hundreds, and this was my immediate response.
To disputes@labour.org.uk
Case No: CN-3678
Hi,
Am I right to think that this is all the information you have on me, since its arrival only seems to have come about as a result of a Subject Access Request made to the Labour party?
It looks like the 'Are you or have you ever been...' letters other Labour members have been getting, but as it's almost five months short of the 'we will be sending you details and questions within ten working days' you originally promised on April 1st, and you ignored several emails remind you of that, and asking if I was required to keep paying a subscription while suspended, it can't be a serious interrogation of my alleged behaviour. If you wish to argue otherwise, though, I'll indulge you.
Chapter 2, Clause 1.8, 1/2/3
a. You quote a tweet I sent to Melanie Philips, but don't include the tweet I was replying to, or the umbrella emoticon (though it's mercifully still revealed in your screen grab) I used to clearly denote that it was ironic humour. Pretty much every other charge you make against me is similarly stripped of context, and would be mocked in a court of law. Unless you are prepared to include everything, I have no case to answer.
b. When I tweet, regarding Ephraim Mirvis boasting of his role in interfering with the general election of 2019, 'And people wonder why racist claims of lying Jews ring true' , you choose to highlight the 'lying Jews' and not 'racist claims'. Are you really accusing me of making the broad (and therefore unacceptable) statement that 'Jews lie'?
c. I said, 'Now Starmer is becoming a paid puppet for Israel'. Does Starmer not receive funding from Israel? Is he, along with David Evans, not conducting a pogrom against those, including Jewish members of the party, who criticise the Israeli government, on the spurious grounds of 'anti-semitism'? Deny this if you can.
4. Belittles the Holocaust
a. I questioned whether '5%' is really 'terrifying' (percentage of people in the UK alleged to not believe the Holocaust happened). 5% percent of people in the UK believe a lot of dumb things, and I would similarly question if we should be 'terrified' by all that. I guess I'll have to let you judge, since you're doing so well.
5. Targets or intimidates members of ethnic or religious communities.
a. I say to someone who claims to support @jewishlabour, 'Oh wow, @jewishlabour. Big fan of @louiseellman, then? Just not Jews on the left.'
I don't see how that 'targets or intimidates' anybody. Certainly, the current party leadership are doing far more targeting and intimidation of party members, including Jews as previously mentioned, with impunity.
b. I can't really go into detail about this without naming names, but remarking on a vocal resemblance to Louise Ellman is hardly targeting or intimidating.
(hmm, I have used Louise Ellman's name twice now. Is that 'targeting'? I'm pretty sure Louise Ellman didn't report me. Is it against Labour party rules now to refer to *anyone* in a tweet?)
6. Holds Jewish people or institutions in general responsible for alleged misconduct of Israel
a. 'I appreciate that @margarethodge and her ilk (which includes you) like to attack the wrong kind of Jew, and lie about @jeremycorbyn. Most people prefer to attack those who shoot children in the street with sniper rifles, irrespective of their religion.'
Since it's implicit that the 'ilk' I was referring to included @dpjhodges, who as far as I know is not Jewish, then it should also be clear that you've got this one wrong as well. Note, also, the 'irrespective of their religion'.
Oh, and that seems to be everything.
In response to your final questions, 5) yes I do feel my conduct has been consistent with the anti-semitism code of conduct, and
6) social media code of conduct; ditto
7) Looking back, I don't regret 'posting, sharing, or endorsing (if I even did that) anything.
8) Given that I don't believe I've done anything wrong, then yes, I'll post, share, and who knows, maybe even endorse in future, sure.
I'll leave most of 9) and 10) off the page, as that's confidential, but I'll note here that while I've waited over five months for you to deign to finally send your email, I'm responding to you on the day of receipt, not at the end of the two week period offered. Perhaps you'd like to offer me a job? I might also be the wrong sort of employee, though. I'm sure I have a whistle around here somewhere...
9) and 10) I don't know if this qualifies as being in my 'defence', since I've already covered that, but I should note that Disputes have ignored a complaint I made earlier in the year about a false and malicious claim made about me on Twitter by a former secretary of the Gloucester CLP, James Hoddy. He is no longer in any position of influence in the party, and his account has been deleted, but it was pretty clear that he was at no point suspended by the party, as he was still allowed to attend meetings.
Are you ever going to respond to my complaint, or are only the wrong kind of members 'targeted' for investigation?
Joe Kilker
Given the experience of others, I can't say that for certain that this suspension was brought about by the centrist shills that seem to infest the top ranks of the CLP currently. Maybe I was just another one snatched up by the 'Lobby' to bulk up a new dossier. What is certain is that it'll be many more months before I receive any answers about my suspension, in which time I'll continue to pay subs, albeit carer's ones. During this time, I will continue to be kept in the dark about our CLPs activities, greatly reduced as they seem to be.
|
|
