EHRC report said that any leadership interference in disciplinary processes was outlawed. Now Starmer and Evans plan to be both judge and prosecutor
LabourList reported yesterday that Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) had approved the ‘outlines’ of a new disciplinary system that would end the role of the NCC, the National Constitutional Committee first set up by Labour to ensure that the NEC could not be both prosecutor and judge on disciplinary cases that might result in a member’s expulsion.
However, the key details were missing. Labour does intend to create a new process for ‘cases relating to protected characteristics’ – and supposedly this is in response to the findings of the EHRC report on Labour’s disciplinary processes.
But the EHRC report concluded that any ‘political interference’ by the leadership of the party in complaints is discriminatory – yet according to senior insiders, Keir Starmer and David Evans intend to respond by taking direct control of a large element of the disciplinary process.
In the new process, a panel of ‘trained’ NEC members will judge all complaints relating to any ‘protected characteristic’ – for example race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability. According to senior Labour sources, that panel will consist of just three NEC members.
And Starmer and Evans will decide who the three are.
According to the same sources, the appeals ‘board’ will also have three NEC members – and those three will also be chosen by Starmer and Evans.
One source told Skwawkbox:
The NCC was set up to ensure that the same people couldn’t act as both prosecutor and judge on complaints against Labour members. Now that’s exactly what will be happening – but it will be badged as ‘independent’.
Meanwhile, the NCC – trained, highly experienced and independent volunteers who give hundreds of hours for free to the party to run quasi-judicial hearings – is either sidelined on key cases or, more likely, going to be abolished completely and apparently without even a rubber stamp from Labour’s supposedly sovereign conference, despite Labour’s now well-known financial troubles.
The Labour party has been contacted for comment.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to without hardship, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
What has Starmerfuhrer ever cared about the democratic process, whether it be as The N-Opposition or Labour Party Executive procedure process?
Yesterday Anneliese Dodds published a fairly detailed and informative article on this.
https://labourlist.org/2021/07/labour-is-changing-were-working-to-make-our-party-a-safe-space-for-everyon
They can’t afford to pay the ‘independent’ lawyers and taking advice from the Jewish Labour Movement isn’t independent, it’s heavily biased
FACT – sir keith & co
🪱🪳🪱🪳🪱🪳 r doing exactly as they said they would, long b4 he was allowed to deceive the membership.
Yeah I read that. It made no sense whatsoever. The new disciplinary process will be independent and not independent at the same time. And apart from that basic logical flaw, contained no detail whatsoever.
You can find some further details here.
https://labourlist.org/2021/07/exclusive-how-labours-newly-proposed-internal-complaints-system-would-work/
drwilliamlarge – Did you miss this bit when you read the article?
“the new process is not fully ‘external’. This is important, because without any link into the party’s decision-making structure, decisions could be challenged in court. That is an outcome that no-one needs, least of all those who have been subjected to harassment and abuse.
Passing the new process at the NEC is just a first step. Before it can be implemented, changes to our rules will need approval at conference in September.
“A safe space for everyone.”
Except for the protected characteristic of any belief at variance with the narratives being imposed by both foreign governments and corporate interests.
The existence of which is considered anathema to the subjective based ideological purity of the narrative. No matter how at variance with objective reality it happens to be.
Year Zero. Again.
Steve H.., do you really believe that?? ? ?
Sabine – Yes,
………..& that doesn’t frighten you Steve H?
Steve – Not in the least.
Labour was never any unsafe space for anybody on the Labour Right, like Dodds herself. There’s no need for ANY more suspensions of expulsions- and Labour can’t BE a radical party or even a party recognisably non-Tory at all if it adopts the measures Keir wants.
Read it. Nothing but bilge. There never was an “AS problem” in Labour- there were a tiny, trivial handful of people guilty of actual AS and Corbyn got them all out. None of the artificially-created frenzy was justified.
Also, SteveH, do you REALLY believe that Labour couldn’t address any form of bigotry OTHER than AS until the JLM was willing to say that that imagined crisis was put to rest?
yes barriereid, but can’t u feel it in the air? i think u sense it barrie; many are sincerely and decently surprised at what the parasites are doing. from the time starmer was allowed to deceive the membership by having the internal report findings withheld from them, i said “worse was to come”.
it’s palpable; many have learnt nothing. they are decent sincere people with the best intentions but have been inculcated in an array of self defeating myths. they still hope that open actions and associations over thirty, forty, fifty or more years will change. that adults can be “converted” and we must sacrifice everything and all if “the many”; to “convert” a few.
u can see it in the language barriereid, people are obsessed with the myth that pressure of funding will force some change of direction that will make this lot less unacceptable than if they were in their own party. it is bewildering to me. yesterday someone used the word “blundering” as if starmer and evans are trying to do something good but making an error. i don’t think many realise how the language we use can powerfully constrict and paralyse thoughts and actions.
if pointed out, people will say things like “u know what i mean”. well i don’t. but the problem is this; others who may never post, read. inaccurate words create the impression that we as very involved people should understand what’s happening. some can assume that starmer is not as wicked as he is but is just “blundering”, “foolish”, “incompetent” etc. those inaccuracies have a ripple effect.
the fact that the “engaged” repel with sincerity, is that starmer and co ate doing exactly as they said they would do even before he was allowed to deceive the membership. they were all over the media saying exactly what they will do, long before the internal report revelations were revealed after the members were deprived of it for four whole years.
they were out in force immediately as General Election 2019 results they said openly they “worked night and day for”. they said what they intended to do. i posted that here on skwawkbox.org. they are doing what they said openly they would do. our problem is not them including steveh davidh sh who are all open. our problems include the most remarkable refusal to deal with basics like eradicating defeatism. feeling that something is achieved by silencing sh but not allan howards who on every occasion including yesterday or today, have repeated their mantra that nothing can be done wether a new party or this one. yet people who claim to be more inteligent, educated, engaged and informed than general public, can’t recognise the basic pattern and illogicality. i.e. if everything is impossible, then what exactly us the motive of prowling 24/7 repeating that… and with such strong bile.
it just occurred to me, show your primary school children the less offensive bits of allan howards’ shrieking to date. i guarantee they will spot the strangeness at once. whats critical is that there are many allan howards infiltrating every single movement for change. one tactic is to ferment physical violence which then easily discredits the movements. the other is to preach hopelessness over and over at every opportunity. people get worn down; hence too his cut and paste of extremely lengthy repeated posts. their aim is to distract attention but also to plant gross inaccuracies within the long cut and paste with the hope we would waste time searching them out.
but not their swift squirting out with energy to shoot down even the slightest positive suggestion of anyone. their mission is to hammer in the myths: nothing can be done; don’t even try; nothing can be done; don’t even try over and over.
i say don’t be worn down, don’t be deterred, dispirited, distracted, despondent. all history to date, proves allan howards do what they do and others achieve magnificent life improving things and attitudes. allan howards preach lies. all history proves that. obvious. uncomplicated. basic. not some academic theory but facts of life.
allan howwards screamed for ages that the world was flat so all who ventured too far would fall of the edge. o how they laughed. they r still laughing their heads off, because despite all evidence some still insist the world is flat.
allan howards screamed too that electricity would never catch on; anyone who looked different or behaved differently was a witch.. never a wizard i think. flight, medical and surgical progresses… u name it, perfectly inteligent people switch their intelligence off and swallow the allan howards can’t do; don’t do; no use; would never work; don’t even try… on and on.
I say, don’t believe allan howards. look at history. learn from history; even these last twelve months. improvements have always been possible and have always been accomplished.
🗺🧭➡️🗺🧭➡️🗺🧭➡️
Here we go again when a cancer has taken over and gone past a certain point doctors can’t cut it out it’s terminal. This is Labour oh yes we can play the lets struggle for the next 20-40 years fight on every point and I bet the outcome will be the same Labour is dead. These fools don’t listen to facts these cult of new Labour 2.0 like Starmer and Evens they only care about temporary power before the cussy job for services rendered the house of lords, The job for a couple of hours a week in the city for hundreds of thousands that’s there goal if Labour party is down to 3 seats so what? They will still be in charge the same right wing will pack the NEC the PLP and every level of the party machery safe in the knowledge of no matter how much you vote and change the rules they will stay and poison the body.
This is not defeatism it’s acceptance of baciuc truth. I have watch the last 50 years Labour swing left right back left and now so hard right it’s Tory in name only. Still were told hang on vote we can change it back nope won’t happen they won.
The smart choice is to rebuild without the useless NEC with appeasers calling themselves socialists that then vote cult of new Labour 2.0. The only choice is to start again maybe with one of two MP’s who can be rebilirated but I expect actions not useless appeasing words if they are to stay in post.
This socialist only Labour party using the 2016-02019 manifesto’s as a base that we know this country is crying out for whould be popular but it has to be a bottom up origination. No more party back room staff that can remain playing power games nope every party machinery person must be carefully vetted for what they have said if it’s not socialist nope not allowed.
If you play games in office intimidarte termination as you broke your contract and you have to have yearly elections. Actions not words the same for all local CLP’s the same for MP’s ithen recall and reselection.
Only yearly congress can make party rules voted by more than 51% of all attendees unions don’t get extra votes one man one vote.The NEC or whatever you call it is only there to do the mandate of congress yes they can debate motions etc but no longer will they set any policy.We have seen what happened when it does haven’t we!
I could go on and on but most smart people can write and figure better party than me but at the most basic we need a socialist only labour party and 95% of the current PLP & MP’s knead not apply from what I can see they can join the damn Torys.
Or we can play the vote them out you have 40 years to try your way and do you honestly believe in 40 years as this cult is going there will be any party left? Do you think they will change when there is less MP’s that in the useless green party they will change? I do not the cancer will remain spreading it’s poison demanding more and more right wing BS.
Even splitting the party can you trust the current so called scalists members of the PLP, MP’s and NEC? Just look at last nights total embarrassment voting out socialist groups because Starmer don’t like them!.We have them spaffing more and more cash on stupid crud. The Top party officials refusing to take less wages. Nope this is the death spiral Labour party is dead accept it.
This is NOT defeatism it’s using your head rather than heart Labour will never again be socialist that time has past. The future is the socialist only Labour party…
So what medication are you taking signpost?
PS And just in case anyone missed it, WC dissembled a Big nazi-type Lie about me recently, concocted and contrived to paint me in a negative light to readers. The following is self-explanatory (as of my third paragraph):
https://skwawkbox.org/2021/07/20/labour-mp-hillier-voted-in-meeting-with-no-entitlement-against-motion-to-make-mps-answerable-to-conference-says-didnt-mean-to-and-cant-remember/#comment-191499
Check it out and, if you don’t know it already, you will see what a lying little shill WC is.
Howard is “a few bricks short of a load” snw, and should get the same treatment that little Stevie should get, though for different reasons, little stevie knows what he is doing, Allan Howard does not, just ignore them.
thanks johnthatcher, i used to think Allan Howards needed treatmeant too, that’s why u remember i pointed him in the right direction 4 help on several occasions, as best as many of us tried. I’m convinced now that all the Allan Howards and SteveHs davidHs … all AHs and SHs are actually several people working in teams. You can tell by the language and the confected crazed rage of the Allan Howards. That i suspect is meant to have a twofold effect: Those without tenacity will give up. Others will be worn down. Very many will keep their heads down. None of these people are bad. It’s general human nature, made mote intrenched by nurture parents and schooling. Some parents and teachers encourage “compliance” “keeping out of trouble” etc. All of those qualities are positive when applied to positive endeavours.
It is illogical to let Allan Howards and SteveHs go totally in rebutted. That was Jeremy’s KEY error.
AHs and SHs are part of reality. They must be observed and dealt with. Eg in France especially Paris, where dog mess is everywhere … mire prevalent than the Allan Howards and SHs, we don’t pretend; SH? it’s not there. No we step around it. In the event of a absent minded miss-step with malodorous results; we clean the AHs and SHs off.
Yes, of course we should not be
totally distracted; BUT the repeated expressed wish for us to exclude SHs but not AHs is illogical. AHs are more discouraging to others. They know what they do.
💢🌞💢🌞💢🌞
windchime – Are you pleading for a ‘safe space’.
Perhaps you are the one that needs help.
Temporary Embarrassment?Well the money been siphoned off or given away The Labour party under control of the BOD,JLM and and thats okay is it?
If the EHRC outlawed political interference from the leadership. What will be done about this. Can the EHRC legally enforce this rule.
Apparently they can, the EHRC were given both investigatory and enforcement powers by the Act that created them.
….so who’s going to do it & when?
Steve – I’m sorry but I don’t understand your question. If you clarify your question I’ll answer it if I can.
In context Steve Richards question is not exactly quantum mechanics to figure out. Why this is proving to be of difficulty for some Malvolio’s on this site is intriguing. Some are born obtuse; some achieve obtuseness; and others have it thrust upon them.
The claim is that if the EHRC has powers to prevent political interference from the Party leadership why has it not done so already and when is it going adhere to those responsibilities?
Surely, we need to see the Forde Report before going down any other road?
Joe – George Peel posted this link about the Forde report on another thread, you may find it interesting.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1417605967731122181.html
Steve H – you state that the EHRC have investigatory & investigative powers so who in the EHRC will be willing to do it? The EHRC is made up of a bunch of chums in inner London chambers who do work for gov’t. You state they have the power to not only investigate political interference by the leadership but who will do so. There is no will from their paymasters nor MSM.
Steve – I have not in anyway endorsed the EHRC or its findings. I have simply pointed out that the Act that brought them into existence also gave them enforcement.powers
If you don’t believe me you are welcome to check the Act yourself.
The three characteristics most in need of protection:
A. Honesty
B. Courage
C. Integrity
Persons holding all three of the above, instead of receiving affirmative action, found themselves shunned and wandering lost in the wilderness.
“Working to make a safe place for everyone” .what a rediculas statement.No wonder the voters dont trust Labour when they are told that its full of revolutionary fanatics who want to attack jews and Muslims,hate Catholic Irish and hate the country.This is a rough feed back that the knight gives of the Labour party…..downright dangerous and trying to bring down the country..Just leave em to the demolition job..!
Either the unions get their arses into gear to pull the plug on these spivs and thieves
Or
We name a date after conference for a mass resignation of members
Good Doug,but a full investigation by a “outside body” to find out whats happened to the missing millions…..of members hard earned money?.before the walk out.?
Joseph
Hope they are trading whilst insolvent, that way they can be asked to contribute to the companies assets
No idea what kind of entity they are, so will be interesting to see what sanctions are available
One month’s reserves, means they are extremely close to the edge, so it won’t take much to tip them over
Sooner the better for me
Good night campers,I am off to bed before Lurkio steve h or white flag man Allan Howard crazy man enter the scene…!and good night John boy in HCM very near were I am.interesting few days missing millions?
Joseph – We can catch up when you’ve had a good nights rest. Sweet dreams
“In the new process, a panel of ‘trained’ NEC members will judge all complaints relating to any ‘protected characteristic’ – for example race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability. According to senior Labour sources, that panel will consist of just three NEC members.”
Guess who ‘trains’ all prospective NEC applicants? You guessed it, the Jewish Labour Movement.
Sounds like the kind of political indoctrination they used to accuse North Korea of.
lundiel – The new board has 12 members: four independent lawyers, four HR or regulatory experts and four lay members of the party who have been through a recruitment process (the details are yet to be finalised as stakeholders need to be consulted on it). These cases will be heard by three people, one from each category, meaning two thirds will always be independent of the party.
If they have undergone training by the Jewish Labour Movement, they are not independent. They start from a particular term of reference.
Don’t argue about this it’s a fact.
Also.
We’re all still waiting for your apology for insulting us and our intelligence over the membership numbers.
lundiel – It may surprise you but all bodies of this type undergo training so that they start from a particular term of reference. The process would be impossible without agreed terms of reference
“Don’t argue about this it’s a fact Why would I, as you say it’s a fact. However I do think that in the interests of transparency the detailed terms of reference should be published along with any training material.
I see no reason to apologise for accurately quoting published figures. I did supply links wherever possible.
I suspect what you meant top say lundiel is that they start from a subjective biased frame of reference based on the predominance of the following:
Vested interests subjectively claiming and seizing:
– Monopoly rights to define all terms in the language and the narrative as incontestable. In this case what is anti-Semitism and how it is and should be defined.
– Monopoly rights to determine what is and is not acceptable ways to think, talk and act enforced with punitive measures.
– Monopoly rights to speak on behalf of an entire community on the basis not of the reality of diversity of views and experience but as a single homogeneous and undifferentiated group. To the extent that any member of that community not conforming to the narrative is denied their identity as part of that community.
– Monopoly rights to make claims and allegations and determine sanctions based on the above seizure of those monopoly rights to define, determine and enforce all aspects of the claimed subjective ‘reality’ and its narrative without the need for due process or objective testable evidence to substantiate either claim or allegation.
This latter aspect includes the enforcement of guilt by association. Anyone defending or standing alongside someone subject to this process or challenging the acceptable imposed definitions being classed as ipso facto also automatically guilty of the same ‘offence.’
A process where the outcome for those affected are not only smeared and subject to character assassination but also cancelled, de-platformed, and expelled from the Party en masse for not agreeing to particular narratives with no effective and transparent due process.
Dave – Hopefully the new process will fix the issues you are concerned about.
That was a description of the new process. As lundiel accurately identified.
Meet the new process. Same as the old process.
Dave – You obviously haven’t compared the two processes. Besides the obvious differenced this is an EHRC approved process and it will therefore be much more difficult for the likes of CAA to challenge their findings.
Lundiel’s point concerns the frame of reference within the process. The key features of which I subsequently provided a systemic outline.
Any new process will be problematic vis a vis the previous one and regardless of structural composition, when the key features of the process remain in place.
In this case a definition of the key concept which, while contested in the real world – even by members of the community in question as well as the authors of that definition, – forms not only the basis of that frame of reference but also denies the legitimacy of any narrative which contests that frame of reference and that key concepts subjective based definition.
A frame of reference which also impacts on the structure of the process in terms of excluding anyone contesting that monopolised definition within the processes core frame of reference. Including those from within the affected community.
This is not exclusive to one specific issue but represents a generic problematic practice which elevates subjective opinion above objective reality across a range of issues. Setting in aspic the outlawing of the reality based community practice of empirical testing of objective evidence in favour of ultra acute power disparities based on the creation of subjective realities which further xacerbate those uneven power relationships.
To paraphrase Professor Brian Klug’s 2013 lecture (still surprisingly available both on you tube and as a PDF) it’s about joining the dots. Particularly Klug’s dot about misusing a definition for political purposes to misrepresent and malign others.
Lundiel. Is this this the same JLM that ‘independently’ selected the ‘cases’ for investigation by EHRC? It’s not North Korea indoctrination, it’s Israeli.
What’s an independent lawyer? Is that someone who is invited onto the EHRC by chums? What’s an HR expert or a regulatory expert & stakeholders in what? Who decides? Confused? You will be.Who are these unaccountable faceless wonders? And I thought ‘Yes Minister’ was a documentary.
Steve – I don’t know yet, as I understand it the recruitment processes are still being fine tuned.
It would be difficult to devise a procedure that is as bad as the discredited one we currently have. At least it will be ‘an approved process’ so it will be much harder for the likes of the CAA to criticise.
The point is that whatever your opinion is the Labour party doesn’t have much choice because it has been issued with a legally enforcible order.
We’re all still waiting for your apology for insulting us and our intelligence over the membership numbers, over and over again.
lundiel – I’ve already answered that one for you
I see no reason to apologise for accurately quoting published figures. I did supply links wherever possible
Seems to have been able to choose NOT to produce a Complaints, Discipline and Appeals Policy that is fit for purpose. Surely the EHRC said that this should be done
SteveH. No matter what the recruitment process, if recruits have to undergo training (indoctrination) by racists it’s worthless having them.
Lisa Nandy gives Stephen Kinnock a dressing down after criticizing Israel in parliament
In a debate in parliament in September, Kinnock criticised Israel for building settlements on Palestinian land. He also called for a ban on products made in Israeli settlements, which he said were “tantamount to profiting from the proceeds of crime”.
The speech infuriated supporters of Israel, including Nandy and Starmer
They see clamping down on criticism of Israel as central to proving Labour is dealing with alleged anti Semitism among party members. And of course R L Bailey said criticism of Israel was anti Semitic at that Labour husting with Robert Peston. Well is it, or isn’t it, over 60% of LP members need to know before they are bundled out of the party. Lisa Nandy who Asa Winstanley rightly called a snake and RLB a so called solicitor don’t have a clue.
It seems Grave war crimes hundreds of Palestinians being murdered are to be brushed under the carpet, Starmer wants everyone to keep their mouths shut, to which everyone should say GFY.
Or
Post a picture of yourself on social media with a tub of Ben & Jerry’s
Is that anti semitic and should they be Proscribed
Could hundreds and thousands lose their membership by sundae
Dug a hole that will keep on giving with an Eleven Bullshit Brick lining. How about equality, respect and fairness?
Friends of Israel? Interesting that many Jewish people aren’t and the geography and inhabitants are both contested. Being ‘friends’ with everyone is some reach.
recommend ‘Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel’ by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky which will entertain and inform.