The form Ryan would have signed to access Labour systems acknowledges criminal offence to breach

Joan Ryan

Last night, the SKWAWKBOX revealed an email from Labour quitter Joan Ryan to local Labour members that links her or her agents to the reported unlawful use of ‘Organiser’ – the Labour system giving access to members’ personal data. The Labour Party is pursuing the matter.

Now a Labour organiser has sent the SKWAWKBOX a copy of the form that all users of the system have to sign before being allowed to access it. It informs the signer that unauthorised access or use of the data for unauthorised purposes is a criminal offence:

Sending Ms Ryan’s email to members, which explicitly states that it was sent after she had resigned, is certainly ‘an unauthorised purpose’. ‘Organise’ is a new system, used only since last year, and all users were required to sign the form.

Joan Ryan was contacted for comment about the incident.

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 or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. 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. It’s to be expected, some of these “moderates” are totally lacking in scruples and Ryan is probably one of the worst if you take into account her antisemitic charges against an innocent woman.

  2. Such criminal action. What next, used a pen and piece of paper bought from party funds. Get a life!

    1. Edward this is GDPR a law that had been beefed up only last year and is a serious matter so stop being so flippant

    2. It’s clear that you don’t know much if anything about Data Protection legislation. Breaches are pursued by the Data Commissioner largely because people such as yourself ignore the law out of their ignorance and they don’t take it seriously. And no data theft is not at all like using someone’s pen and paper without their permission.

    3. Tell you what eddie, how about she wrote to the lot of them on HoC stationary, instead of using labour’s database – would that’ve been ok?

      1. Its not the writing, it’s the acquisition of personal data of members (names, addresses email, bank details, union affiliation,and much more) that is the illegal part of this. It is serious breach of security of all party members.

      2. I’m aware of that, Flo. The reason I asked the question was to see if edward would’ve said yes.

        Then he’d have proved his ignorance because that would’ve been against the IPSA rules, as well as the data breach in order to get the addresses to send the letters to.

  3. Having seen her performance in “The Lobby”, I hope the party (local/national) are taking robust security measures.

  4. and she’s got form – The Independent reported in March 2012 that “at least 10 attempts” were made from computers on the Parliamentary estate to remove information about Ryan’s expenses from her Wikipedia article. A further 20 attempts were made from inside her former constituency.

  5. LabourList has an interesting article examining the current and future status of JLM within the Labour Party

    How could a new party affect the Jewish Labour Movement?


    JLM yesterday notified its members of an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), to be held on 6th March in London and Manchester. The event will feature Jewish parliamentarians and provide a space in which members can discussed the way forward, but this is just discursive – no formal decisions will be taken. Those will happen the following month, at JLM’s annual general meeting on 7th April. This is a regularly scheduled meeting but could turn into an extraordinary one, in the least strict sense. The email sent to members included a hint as to what kind of interesting decisions might be made: “We will be electing our team of officers for the next three years, as well as debating the issues that our members put forward, including our affiliations.” The last three words are key.
    To be a member of JLM, like all other socialist society affiliates, you must be eligible to be a member of the Labour Party. That means you don’t have to be a Labour member, but you cannot be a member of a party that intends to stand candidates against Labour – and this is precisely the longer-term intention of “The Independent Group”. When Berger, who remains chair for now, sets up a new party that would challenge Labour at the ballot box, she could not be a JLM member as it currently stands. And others who have quit, such as Langleben, might join that party too. JLM would have to choose between keeping those valued figures – should they want to remain active within the organisation – and keeping their affiliation.

    1. I think they will try to disaffiliate. Most JLM members seem to be hostile to the Labour Party as currently constituted and they would make a reasonable membership base for the new party. This would still leave LFI as a fifth column.
      However this would alienate non Zionist MPs who want to jump ship but would never agree to regroup under the Israeli flag.
      I think the Funny Tinge Party is pretty much screwed from the off. As Tusk suggested, there is probably a special place in hell for people who leave without a plan.

      1. Ceredig 21/02/2019 at 1:00 pm ·

        I think they will try to disaffiliate.

        That seems to be far from certain

        To quote from further on in the article
        “One JLM source told LabourList that there are concerns vacating the space will hand over their authority on issues of antisemitism to Jewish Voice for Labour (even if JVL does not formally affiliate).”

  6. ryan, like most of the squitters, ought to have been prosecuted under the trades descriptions act when acting as though they were labour MP’s.

  7. I may be wrong on this, but the GDPR doesn’t appear to have penalties for people within an organisation who breach the GDPR as an individual.

    What could she be charged with. theft of the data perhaps?

    1. True, but, to quote the late great Spike Milligan, “it will happen a lot!”.

  8. Maximum penalty under GDPR Act , fine of £17 million . As Joan Ryan is a member of the ‘ Independent Group ‘ , and did this on their behalf , it would seem that they could be jointly and severally liable for this penalty potentially .

  9. The 2018 legislation says;
    Sec 170 Unlawful obtaining etc of personal data
    (1) It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly—
    (a to obtain or disclose personal data without the consent of the controller,

    Under “Penalties”
    Sec 196 Penalties for offences
    (1)A person who commits an offence under section 119 or 173 or paragraph 15 of Schedule 15 is liable—
    (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
    (b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

    It is clearly a criminal offence so I presume anyone who believes that their data has been unlawfully obtained would be perfectly justified in reporting the matter to the Police

  10. Just to clarify the above Sec 196 goes on ;

    (2)A person who commits an offence under section 132, 144, 148, 170, 171 or 184 is liable—
    (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
    (b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
    (c) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: