MP John Woodcock, who has been suspended from the Labour Party after ‘sex pest’ allegations, announced at the weekend that he was ‘withdrawing his cooperation’ from the disciplinary process against him – by releasing a potentially libellous letter blaming Labour’s General Secretary for leaking information about his case to the media. He has not responded to requests to show any evidence for his allegation.
It was reminiscent of Radovan Karadzic’s refusal to recognise the court at the Hague.
Matt Pound is the paid ‘organiser’ for the other main right-wing Labour faction, Labour First – his main brief is to fight supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, whom Woodcock also despises. Based on his Twitter comments a few weeks ago, he disagrees with Woodcock’s view.
Pound was defending Labour First trainer Ian McKenzie, who has been suspended over tweets about the gang-rape and murder of Labour front-bencher Emily Thornberry – and he had an entirely different opinion of Labour’s disciplinary processes to that of John Woodcock:
The SKWAWKBOX contacted Mr Pound to ask for his opinion on Woodcock’s comments and his allegations of corruption in the disciplinary process – since Labour First’s Maggie Cosin is chair of the NCC, Labour’s senior disciplinary body.
He has not responded. But his unequivocal support for the integrity of Labour’s disciplinary processes sends a strong message about John Woodcock’s pre-emptive accusations in any case.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Woodcock isn’t the only one attempting to undermine the process.
“Ava Etemadzadeh says concerns about neutrality are deterring complainants”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/26/sexual-harassment-victims-are-losing-faith-in-labour-party-neutrality
The Guardian has also given Ava her very own little opinion piece
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/26/labours-sexual-harassment-complaints-procedure-inadequate
My allegations against Kelvin Hopkins were so badly handled that I’ve started a petition for an independent process
I earned myself a blocking by Ava after I posted a screenshot of a facebook conversation where she said she had complained to Rosie Winterton (ie the first complaint) and she had been asked how she wanted the matter dealt with and she agreed “a warning would be good enough” she has changed her tune since then and come up with new allegations, but you can see why JC would have thought “the matter had been dealt with”
Her transformation from this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/politics/2018/01/12/Ava-Etemadzadeh_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqYKsjryDaFOJwed7i-3ScQfCx5N7oklDnuXG52pl6X-M.jpg?imwidth=450
to this for her TV appearences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQHigawnrM4
was quite remarkable.
What’s worrying is that Pound and Woodcock think it is okay to minimize inappropriate sexist offensive behaviour. He treats it like a cavaliers delict and that in itself is offensive and degrading.
So Progress’ John Woodcock complains about receiving the same media attention as the left winger Kelvin Hopkins (although deferred 6m from than original accusation and then only after McNicol resigns). Then Hopkins’ accuser (who is also an avowed blair supporter) jumps in to align herself with Woodcock’s complaint… in spite of the fact that she has been assiduous in getting repeated mainstream media coverage for her accusations … but that is precisely the sort of leaking that John Woodcock accuses Jennie Formby of facilitating and as being prejudicial to his hearing. Confusing isn’t it?
Meanwhile, Labour First mount support for one of their own to have their hearing heard by the Labour First dominated NCC.
Clearly, the different political allegiances seem to be important … and as Sabine says, neither Woodcock, Pound etc seem to be taking the substance of these accusations seriously…. However, it all serves to demonstrate the manner in which LP complaints have been dealt with in the past, and it is to be hoped that Jennie Formby’s reforms in implementing the Chakrabarti report will produce a fair hearing for both accused and accusers
You’ve neatly summed up the situation.