“Labour against Antisemitism” in ‘serious breach of data protection laws’

The group ‘Labour against Antisemitism’ (LAAS), in spite of its name, has no standing with the Labour Party – a fact either missed or ignored by mainstream journalists who wish to portray its various attacks as having some kind of official weight.

CLP (constituency Labour party) secretaries have been complaining bitterly on their Facebook forum today about an uninvited email apparently sent by the group, or by its representative Euan Phillips in what some have complained to the SKWAWKBOX is a ‘clear and serious breach of data protection laws’:

A challenge on Twitter to Euan Phillips of LAAS. Twitter handle was deleted as possibly incorrect

The email, signed in the name of Euan Phillips, demands that recipients ‘Reject and Condemn the Open Letter to the NEC Regarding Labour’s Code of Conduct‘. It attempts to refute the open letter point by point and asks the Secretaries to forward it to all members:

laas email.png

Mr Phillips has been criticised by members of the CLP of which he used to be chair for alleged unauthorised use of the CLP’s social media accounts and for his attacks on the party’s leadership. He has also been accused of running ‘myriad anonymous trolling accounts’.

LAAS has no entitlement under data protection laws to email anyone without their express permission, including CLP secretaries. Such an uninvited email and the unauthorised possession of email address could, if a complaint is submitted to the Information Commissioner and upheld, result in large fines.

If someone at Labour Party HQ has disclosed the information to LAAS, that will also represent a serious breach and should also be result in immediate dismissal for gross misconduct.

LAAS has also posted the message to its Facebook page.

LAAS was contacted about the complaints and to ask how it obtained the recipient email addresses. No response has been received so far. No contact information could be found for Euan Phillips.

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.


  1. That’s very strange.

    I didn’t even know he was still a member since he got reported for his own dodgy tweets, and then he removed his CLP info from his bio.

    Not relevant to this particular article, but I just came across this on Ann Black’s report of conference last year, and just found it sad after reading this that it was Luciana leading the “enough is enough” protest, which seemed to be against Corbyn in particular, and claims he does nothing about antisemitism (false) and doesn’t care (false).


    “Women in Transition

    The women’s conference was attended by 1,500 members. Dawn Butler, shadow minister for women and equalities, gave a rousing introduction, and had the entire hall chanting “we are phenomenal women”, the hook from a poem by Maya Angelou. Jeremy Corbyn – the only man to speak – was warmly welcomed, and again deplored racist and sexist abuse of Diane Abbott and anti-semitic attacks on Luciana Berger. “

  2. I was one of many people who paid to vote in the 2016 leadership campaign. Obviously the Labour Party held my details. I was sent texts by the Owen Smith Leadership Campaign Group telling me to vote for him. I had never contacted them or authorised them to use my number. I contacted the Owen Smith Leadership Campaign Group and complained but they never replied.

  3. For Info it was actually me (Mike Martin, sec Erewash CLP) who flagged this up originally and I have complained to gen sec about it

  4. Just a spelling error on somebody’s part I think – @EuanPhilipps appears to be the correct account for the “Spokesperson for @LabourAgainstAS” on Twitter.

  5. My apologies for changing the subject, but something just occured to me re the ‘perfume bottle’, and that is that apart from the absurdity of an assassination attempt being planned and executed in such a manner, surely – and bearing in mind that we were told in the weeks following that traces of Novichok were found in Zizzi’s restaurant and then on the front door handle – if Yulia brought it with her (having been given it by someone as a present/gift), then both she and her father would have said as much after they recovered and, as such, it would have been widely reported by the media.

    And it’s interesting to note that while the security services were more than happy to keep the media informed of all their theories and speculation during the first three weeks or so (which came to end when they supposedly found Novichok on the handle of the front door), we haven’t heard a word about what they were told by the Skripals (and DS Nick Bailey) when they were debriefed AFTER they recovered. The point being of course that if the Novichok WAS in a perfume bottle that Yulia brought with her from Russia, then it is inconceivable that it wouldn’t have been all over the media once it was determined that THAT is how Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley were contaminated.

    There are so many holes in the story that Swiss cheese pales into insignificance by comparison!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: