Ian Hodson targeted by Labour over support for ‘proscribed’ group – vote to be held on day of Starmer’s conference speech
The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union (BFAWU) has announced a recall of its conference to vote on disaffiliating the union from the Labour party, over Labour’s threatened expulsion of BFAWU president Ian Hodson.
Hodson is linked to one of the groups that Labour’s right has decided to ‘proscribe’, making membership or support for them an automatic expulsion offence, though Labour’s decision to apply the ban retrospectively is probably unlawful.
The union has issued a statement warning Labour that it will not stand for such cowardly bullying, accusing the party of siding with the bosses and reminding it that BFAWU members have already said, in an indicative survey of the whole membership, that they do not feel the partyrepresents their interests.
And if Labour expels Hodson,the vote by a union involved in the formation of the party to disaffiliate from it will be timed to coincide with Keir Starmer’s closing conference speech next month:
Tuesday, August 24th, 2021
Today the Labour Party has made a clear statement of intent in its aspiration to repair its relationship with the bosses but seems to be determined to widen the divide between the representatives of labour and those our movement represent.The recent decision to proscribe organisations is seen as a divisive and a purely factional attack which will do nothing to unite the party or provide any real opportunity for the party to be able to unite to fight and defeat our real enemy The Tory Party.
We have decided to make this statement following recent media speculation in relation to the expulsion of our National President. Our executive have met to discuss the potential of this event occurring, and reaffirmed its position that our National President has only ever conducted himself in line with the policies and the decisions taken by this trade union.
The executive expressed dismay and anger at the idea the Labour Party should consider expelling the office of our nominated political lead in our organisation, and agreed that a firm response was required should the party take such actions.
The BFAWU executive unanimously agreed a timeline that would coincide with the leaders address to national Labour conference in September should such a situation arise and that from Wednesday 25th August communication to Branches would be initiated and would be formally issuing notification of our intention in preparedness to recall conference to debate the disaffiliation from the Labour party.
The Executive made it quite clear an attack on one of ours is an attack on all of us and stood in absolute solidarity with our Elected National President.
It’s also worth remembering that the recent survey of our membership returned a slight majority in favour of disaffiliation.
The feeling is should the decision to debate disaffiliation go ahead it would result in a break with the Labour party for the first time since we helped fund its creation in 1902. But we will not accept bullying from any bosses or a party that seems to be choosing to prefer to be on the bosses side.
Solidarity. That’s how you deal with bullies.
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.
As you rightly say, expelling people retrospectively is probably unlawful. So what’s this almighty idiot doing wasting members hard earned money on probable lawsuits when he’s already taken the party to the verge of bankruptcy?
lundiel u r absolutely correct!!! but mandelson directed and advised evans & starmer, are doing EXACTLY as they promised.
once beckett pulled out, he sunk in my estimation re ‘Left’ leadership we need. i will never support any puller outer / cave inner; no matter how the excuse is dressed up.
bernie sanders pulled out for OBVIOUSLY unsuitable hillary clinton. base WAR MONGER clinton was defeated then blamed the Electoral College system which existed since b4 she was born. That shifting exposed another unsuitable trait; blaming externalities. ALL who repeatedly blame externalities rather than analysing their contribution to defeats, are GUARANTEED repeated defeats. BASIC.
clinton therefore was defeated by Donald Trump then the predictable status quo corrupt racist wandering hands joe biden “trust him to F*** things up” according to Obama.
HOW so? as we see on this side of the pond, enough people prefer switch off their powers of observation and INDEPENDENT thought. They pump with the thinest sheath of tritest ideas of virtue and “smartness” and give birth to bastards like heartless biden, conscience free blair & professionally deceitful starmer. Think of it; how many times have we heard people who have neither met nor looked into starmer’s vile record, call him “forensic”??? HOW? Because they unwittingly repeat EXACTLY as fed to them by others. U could not make it up.
But timfrom, back to Sharon Graham. a month or so ago, Turner gave a poor excuse for being absent from a general public hustings. sharon graham surprised me+++. TOTALLY impressive. Content +++. Delivery+++. posted that on skwawkbox.org. she was exceptionally brilliant. I’m unsurprised now to learn that she is doing well.
coyne managed to be even lower than expected from the briefest scanning. worse yet, he claimed he’d not spoken to sir keith starmer. Many found his claim unbelievable. coyne seemed like “bad Bad BAD news” EXACTLY like SIR REMAIN starmer. MUCH less dull… (not difficult) but almost as shifty.
but back to biden. predictable and predicted on skwawkbox.org IMMEDIATELY it was declared Pr. Elect, prepare for back to back back bombings and endless bloodshed as was THROUGHOUT the lifetimes of EVERY single person alive up to Biden managing to be declared President. Proxy wars by Saudi Arabia on The Yemen, and horrors in Mali and the Congo etc, but on the whole NOTHING compared to everything until Obama began raking in his millions.
HOW are these catastrophees ALLOWED to be repeated over and over? EASYLY;
EXCEPT for those hillary clinton disparaged as “deplorables” and others even here call “poorly educated”, “stupid”, “racist”, “sheeple”; ENOUGH people made their assessments based on the most ridiculous spin. EXAMPLES: “Biden is PRESIDENTIAL”, “calm”, “adult in the room”… on and on, a constant stream of superficialities = utter tripe. Smart people rabbiting on about presentation rather than studying public record and SUBSTANCE.
RESULT? – a distressing horror, WORSE than even the most observant may have expected. The usual invasions and bombing to feed the military industrial complex, which was put on a four year diet, but not this mother of all dreadful cock ups.
Though, it just occurred. Twin Towers horror also provided a pretext for bombing not Saudi Arabia or Egypt or even the USA where the pilots trained, but Afghanistan and Iraq. This latest ‘Western’ arranged Taliban Version II, therefore, is going to be a pretext for BOMBINGS and BLOODSHED in Afghanistan by OUR USA, UK, European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand regimes in particular… the usual suspects.
Funny how our wars are THOUSANDS of kilometres away with countries, many of who have NEVER invaded their neighbours, let alone us.
Anyway the fruits of MSM propaganda have ripened again = joe biden. When Trump ripped up agreements, he was condemned. Biden not only kept an agreement made in 2020 with the Taliban, with SILENCE from the usual virtuous prattle mob. Biden apparently BROUGHT FORWARD a withdrawal date from
MAY 2022 to THIS August 31. I need to double check that May date. BUT, in any event Biden prioritised a SUPERFICIALITY for BASE politics i.e.
No doubt Biden planned a tub thumping speech for what he thought was “smart”.
Biden promised the Taliban of Bush Snr, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Obama and BIDEN, to ALLOW them to replace a KLEPTOMANIAC AFGHAN REGIME on the general Afghan public.
Even their tribal leaders have NEVER invaded nor attacked any country at least for the last two hundred years. DITTO Iran, and Iraq ONLY with ‘Western’ encouragement, funding and intelligence – hence Saddam Hussein & his Baath Party then Kuwait.
Interesting and TRAGIC to see the REPEAT. Having CREATED the Mujahideen to fight against Russia, now morphed into the Taliban, they are ENABLED again.
The Taliban will now PREDICTABLY stick FIRMLY to Biden’s 31 August withdrawal promise. Biden FAILED to withdraw Americans and allies including Afghans in good time. The Taliban will OBVIOUSLY STOP more Afghans from fleeing.
No regime can survive without people.
Like any ‘hermit kingdom’, Biden has CONDEMNED the Afghans to captivity.
PREDICTABLE predicted. Neither difficult nor complicated. No practically useless definitions nor academic theories needed as if ideas are worthless without them.
Like Mandelson, Campbell, Blair, Straw, Evans, Hodge, Blunkett, Frank Dobson, King, Phillips nos 1 & 2, Starmer, Swinson, Reeves, Blunkett, Twatson, Berger, Ummunna … the whole crass caboodle of TRUE “DEPLORABLES,” (sic h clinton), Sleepy Joe was ENABLED by the repeat loops of all those who REFUSE to learn.
“They look and look, yet fail to see. They listen and listen and fail to hear”. They read and read and learn nothing. But worse, most irresponsible and deplorable of all, they use all their energy to ensure those who follow them, continue to fail as profoundly as they have, for thirty, forty, fifty … even SIXTY years. Once again, as ever, “The Many” pay the deadly price
🔥🦠⚰️🔥🦠⚰️🔥🦠⚰️
How tragic is that ? ? ?
Speaking of Afghanistan, wtf has it got to do with the G7? NATO took us into that occupation under the auspices of ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’. So even though Afghanistan didn’t attack America, it should be NATO explaining and taking blame for the almighty fuck up and supervising withdrawal.
Much truth in that. But tragically the Afghans who have neither invaded nor attacked anyone without having been attacked first, pay the price with their lives.
The HORROR is on the head of Joe Biden as HE is the USA President. HE is “Commander in Chief”. HE decides, while STILL President what the UN, NATO, G7, the European Union and Johnson & Starmer do🔥🔥🔥
They are all paper tigers. They won’t even be that soon. As for Biden, his future depends on if the military industrial complex gets their only food – TONS more money in return for their usual bombing and bloodshed.
Biden arranged the 31 August withdrawal deadline with the USA UK EU G7 made Taliban. He therefore is derelict in his duty to make sure all those who wanted to leave Afghanistan INCLUDING Afghans, especially those who unwisely worked with the G7.
FACTS
🔴🔥🔴🔥🔴🔥
TRUMP arranged to leave and hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban. Trump would have got out earlier leaving thousands behind. Biden inherited Trump’s mess. There never was a clean way to leave and Trump knew it. He just wanted a DEAL because he told everyone that was what he was good at. Trump would not know a good deal if one bit him on the arse.
MR ANDREW JENKINSON,
Biden could have changed Trump’s arrangement. Trump inherited and ripped up quite a few. The world still turns.
Trump is no longer President.
One need not be a trainee soldier, nor six year or five year old child to know that it is reckless DEADLY incompetence to withdraw the military, leave arms and other infrastructure worth trillions for the Taliban, THEN return in the last two weeks to extract civilians.
Nothing is gained by defending the indefensible, except preservation of the status quo.
🚨🕹🚨🕹🚨🕹
I am not defending Biden. I am saying that Biden would not have been in this position if that lunatic narcissistic piece of excrement Trump had not surrendered to the Taliban
Biden wanted to exit Afghanistan also, no matter what. When asked years ago about Women’s welfare, he dismissed the question in his usual crude manner when challenged.
Also – Trump binned arrangements he considered bin able. Biden could have done the same. Furthermore failing that, he had MONTHS to evacuate civilians…
Priorities & Sequence❓💬❓💬❓💬
In fact, while he had military control, civilians ESPECIALLY Afghans could have been evacuated to safety, PLUS thereby making it difficult for the Western made Taliban to keep Afghans in a ‘hermit kingdom’.
Not complicated. Logic rather than fruitlessly blaming Biden’s predecessor. My focus is the least worst option for ANY and as many of “The Many” as possible rather than maintaining the MSM chorus which brought us Biden, Starmer and Blair.
We should not dance to the tunes of others and accept so many burdens as givens. We must prioritise and sequence effectively.
The world still turns despite rules broken by Trump and Starmer. The Many may not now be suffering the most devastating events and untold distress, if Biden prioritised caring for his own fellow citizens and victims of the Western created monsters like the Baath Party, the Mujahideen Taliban and the occupiers of Palestine … to name only three.
🪡⚛️📯🪡⚛️📯🪡⚛️📯
Why are you defending Trump?
not “DEFENDING” trump. PRESENTING FACTS.
Why r u “DEFENDING” totally inept and INCOMPETENT warmongering Biden, who like Clinton supported EVER USA invasion and proxy BLOODSHED❓❓❓
U mean well but u r your own WORST blindfold, handcuffs, foot-shackles and MSM regurgitated loop parroter with passionate determination. REFLECTION may help.
Try it, MR ANDREW JENKINSON. Try reflecting + thinking 4 yourself; THEN you too will have predicted the EASILY predictable.
In fact, prediction is too prophetic a word for using our own ears, eyes and INDEPENDENT reasoning / analysis to EXPECT the expectable and PREPARE.
🗽✴️⚙️🗽✴️⚙️🗽✴️⚙️
To think I once supported Labour. I will NEVER support whatever this Party has become.
*rolls eyes and sighs heavily*
Which proscribed organisation has Ian Hodson been linked with?
He was a member of the Tufty club 25 years ago.
Bastard. Squirrels will grab your nuts from you first chance they get.
The Labour Party …
I am surprised that the above article has failed to make it clear which proscribed organisation Hodson has been linked to,
But neither surprised nor arsed they’ve been proscribed…
Toffee – Not really
I am surprised that the above comment failed to recognise the vote losing strategy of publically disavowing basic protocols, principles and standards of due process inherent in creating a retrospective offence to disembowel your own membership and supporter base.
Dave – I’m surprised that nobody seems to know which proscribed organisation he was connected with. Is it a secret for some reason.
Not necessarily a secret more a rare instance of something you don’t see that often, if at all. The application of sensible and responsible journalism.
The report clearly indicates that the LP hierarchy and bureaucracy have formally written to this individual on the matter. It is reasonable to surmise that the contents of the correspondence will be similar, if not identical, to that sent to JVL co- Chair Leah Leveane which, thanks to the JVL web pages is in the public domain.
In which case the correspondence, as with those members of the Jewish Community who are being targeted as the ‘wrong kind of Jew’, ( an institutionally anti-Semitic action by the Starmer led LP and all those associated with that sectarian wing of the Party) contain what in normal legal due process parlance is nothing more than an allegation of being a member of one of the four organised initiatives which in essence are all seeking the same thing – the proper application of due process protocols, principles and standards.
However, those instigating this action and sending out this correspondence are, as in previous cases, treating what is in reality only an unproven allegation as proven and demanding those in receipt of this correspondence prove a negative.
This is not how normal rule based legal systems operate. The onus is on the accuser to prove the case not the accused to prove a question akin to that of ‘when did you stop beating your partner?’
Now logically there are only two possible circumstances in which the Party sending such correspondence can substantiate it’s allegation (we will put to one side for the sake of simplicity the issue of creating a retrospective offence after the fact, if indeed said fact exists).
The accused’s association with the proscribed organised initiative can be having publicly associated themselves in one of two ways. (i) Speaking at a meeting of or contributing written material in a supportive way to the organisation as a guest. (ii) Openly declaring themselves being a fully paid up and subscribed member of the organised initiative.
The first of those two possibilities is applicable to the case of JVL co-Chair Leah Leveane. Which creates it’s own legal difficulties in this context because the allegation is weak in terms of evidence of formal membership of the organised initiative. Expelling people retrospectively for speaking at a meeting before the decision to proscribe is certainly challan table in legal terms and anyone presenting such a weak case deserves to be pauperasid for their arrogance.
What is not clear is whether or not the head of the Bakers Union has publically associated himself with one of these organised initiatives to the extent of declaring membership.
In the absence of this being case the only concrete evidence the sectarians making this allegation could bring forward to substantiate the allegation is proof of membership. For that to be the case they would have to have in their possession the membership lists of the said organised initiatives. Should that be the case, and at present their is no evidence as such, it would represent a clear breach of the accused individuals GDPR rights.
Assuming of course that one is dealing with parties who subscribe to normal protocols, principles and standards of due process such as innocent until proven guilty; the right to a defence; and the use of testable objective evidence. On the basis of consistent practice over recen times that cannot be taken for granted.
However, until such time as the individual subject to this allegation openly admits to being a member of one of these organised initiatives a potential GDPR breach occurs simply by the fact that an open, rather than private, allegation has been made by the sectarians in the LP which ‘outs’ that individual as a member of the organised initiative. This is separate from proving the allegation.
It is therefore both sensible and prudent reporting to minimise such risks of breaching GDPR requirements by not providing such detail which at present may be nothing more than pure unproven speculation. No doubt there will be those who would view such an approach a tad old fashioned in a zeitgeist where a subjective opinion based allegation is sufficient to determine guilt with no need for due process or substantiating and testable evidence.
For those who inhabit the reality based community it’s not exactly quantum mechanics to figure out the answer to such questions.
Dave – You could have saved yourself a lot of time and just said ‘I don’t know’.
An objective reason was requested and an objective reason was supplied.
The question asked was therefore answered. Whilst it might not be the answer you wanted it nevertheless remains congruent with the available objective facts rather than subjective opinion – mine or anyone else’s – which are completely irrelevant.
Irrelevant because no one should believe what I say. Or anything said by anyone, whether man or women, black or white, heterosexual or gay, cis or trans, left handed or right, ginger haired or bald. They should only believe and operate on the basis of the facts, Because facts are the basis of civil society and civilisation. Everything else leads to witch trials, lynchings and mob rule.
One is moved to observe that it is an interesting public position to adopt of preferring to stand on the opposite side of that line.
It looks like Ian Hodson has been too forthright in standing up for his members’ interests.
We can’t have that in today’s Labour Party.
It might scare rich donors away !
john – What rich Donors?
Maybe he’s just broken Labour party rules, surely you aren’t advocating that he should be treated any different from any other member.
Do you know which of the proscribed organisations he is associated with, for some reason it appears to be a big secret?
Party rules joke. Don’t tell ’em Pike! Which proscribed organisation? None of their business. Starmer wants to eliminate Socialism from the Labour Party under instruction from Ephraim Mirvis; a self evident truth that evades only those who are blind because they will not see.
Gosh. I’d better hand myself in then for having voted for a MP who subsequently defected and formed their own tinge coloured party. It being against the Party rules to vote for someone who stands against the Party.
Are you seriously hanging your hat on declaring people retrospectively in breach of the rules for actions taken before that action became a breach?
You are Matthew Hopkins in disguise and I claim my free ducking stool building kit.
Arguably the key point in this piece is that of the retrospective imposition of a sanction. Charging someone with an ‘offence’ committed prior to the decision creating the ‘offence’.
This decision and the actions which flow from it essentially outlaws solidarity within the Labour Party and represents the LP equivalent of Thatchers outlawing of secondary picketing – taking its logic a stage further. Certainly any one at any level in the Party who supports this should be considered suspect and anyone in an elected position is no longer worthy of support on the basis that if they are prepared to play fast and loose with such basic judicial due process concepts when applied to their own members they cannot be trusted not to do the same with the same power over the average voter.
I can’t recall coming across any rules or law based system where such a process is considered reasonable or acceptable. Yet this, along with the practice of considering any allegation as sufficient to automatically conclude and determine guilt with evidence being treated as suspect and an irrelevant hinderence, – not to mention any support being classed as guilty of the same offence by association – is rapidly becoming the norm.
It surely cannot be too long before the same principle of a retrospective offence arising from the Labour Party Retrospective Offences Act 2021 is used against left handed people, those with ginger hair or any member who failed to vote for Owen Smith in the leadership contest the other year. After all, these are the same sectarian mardy arses who actively sabotage election campaigns to get their own way and reject membership applications from anyone who has tweeted anything positive about the Green Party whilst desperate to win over Tory voters with Tory policies.
Effectively abandoning a majority of the electorate to uphold an unsustainable dead end status quo.
Can you imagine what this bunch of malevolent numpty management clones would do with power over the average voter when they are using this approach as their template?
Exactly, and why I have called Starmer the most dangerous man in politics. Be afraid, be very afraid if he ever got the keys to Number 10.
Jor – You’re being silly.
If on walking down the street you witness a man kicking a dog and you conclude that such behaviour is more than likely to be common in this individual towards others such a conclusion is, apparently, now considered to be “silly.”
Glad we cleared that one up.
Dave – Do you have a photo of the this man kicking a dog?
it would certainly be interesting to be able to produce a photograph of a metaphor.
Indeed, anything seems possible when such copious evidence exists on the pages of this site alone of the existence of a caricature.
I might even be tempted to start taking bets on who it is on this site ‘drinks his age in pints.’
Dave Hansell, you have the patience of a saint. I wouldn’t waste one more precious minute of your life replying to such inane questions.
Julia,
Firstly, when people wish to play with ropes supplied to them who am I to disavow them from their intent by refusing assistance?
Secondly, it would be somewhat churlish to ignore so many on a plate open goals.
Can you imagine what this bunch of malevolent numpty management clones would do with power over the average voter when they are using this approach as their template?
A very sobering thought.
And you thought toerag disregard for rules/law was the worst it could get?!!
Three things:
Firstly, BFAWU is a brilliant industry. Just go to its Campaigns page to see working class responsibility in all its magnificent glory.
Secondly, it takes an auto-expel threat against BFAWU’s President to cause the Union to consider (well, consult Members) about disaffiliation from a horrendously right wing PLP administration?
Thirdly, the quote by Martin Niemoeller: “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Well Done, BFAWU and its President – but you should have acted sooner and more noisily.