Analysis Breaking News

Breaking: Unison backs president Paul Holmes – supports application for ‘Interim Relief’ as victimised union rep

Rally Saturday morning in support of dismissed union head

In news likely to have blindsided the union’s right-wing management, the national Unison organisation’s lawyers are backing elected president Paul Holmes, who was dismissed earlier this week by the Labour right at Kirklees Council, where Holmes had worked for almost five decades and served as a union rep for almost as long.

The union will now back Holmes’s application for ‘Interim Relief’ against his dismissal on the grounds that he is a victimised union rep. A statement just released by the union left’s ‘Time for Real Change’ group explains:

National Union Backs Paul Holmes’s Legal Case

UNISON members and many in the wider Labour Movement will be shocked at the decision of Kirklees Council to dismiss UNISON president Paul Holmes from his post with the Council. Paul has 48 years of unbroken and unblemished service with Kirklees stretching back to 1973.

A lifelong Trade Unionist, Paul has been Branch Secretary of first NALGO and now UNISON Kirklees Branch for 32 years, during which time he has represented hundreds of members in disciplinary cases, led strikes and defended the interests of all 10,000 plus members of the branch. Paul is one of the longest serving NEC members, having first been elected in 2007; and subsequently re-elected seven times. His track record as a Trade Unionist speaks for itself.

Paul was suspended from work in November 2019 and although the Council’s investigation, carried out by an external consultant, was completed 18 months ago, and the disciplinary case was completed in early December 2021, the decision of the Council was only relayed to Paul on Wednesday 2nd February 2022.

Paul will not let this issue rest. He could have left quietly and retired with 48 years’ service but he is determined to clear his name and let everyone know the real reasons behind his dismissal.   It is his intention to appeal against the decision taken by Kirklees. UNISON is supporting Paul’s case against Kirklees Council.

UNISON nationally is supporting an application for Interim Relief to an Employment Tribunal on the grounds of Trade Union Victimisation. There is no substance to the allegations against Paul, and he entirely refutes them. This is clearly a case of an employer targeting a leading Trade Union activist.

Until now, neither the Council nor Paul have publicly commented on the details of the case. We understand that a number of libellous allegations are being shared on social media. Copies of these have been sent to Paul Holmes and his legal Team.

Paul is unable to make any public statement due to ongoing legal process.

Supporters of the Labour right have circulated a number of smears and innuendo on social media since the dismissal, even though union figures had already apologised for defaming Holmes in earlier comments.

The union’s right wing has previously banned Unison branches from voting through resolutions of support for their president and has been accused by Holmes’s supporters of obstructing his defence.

A rally in support of Holmes will take place tomorrow morning (5 Feb) at 11am. Register here to attend.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and 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 doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. “We understand that a number of libellous allegations are being shared on social media. Copies of these have been sent to Paul Holmes and his legal Team.”
    Did they identify themselves? Will he take them to the cleaners?

      1. Steve H Hall……The time as come were you need to keep your libellous trap shut….Spreading filthy lies from the Labour party Hq is a disgraceful and cowardly way to promote your fascists agenda.
        Youve got to get a grip on yourself and your degrading comments.This nasty bit of propoganda promoted by you and your gang goes to the heart of the sickness infecting the Labour movement… gone!

      2. Joseph – Thanks for histrionics but I’m not the one that is pre-judging the outcome on the basis of nothing more than factional loyalty. I think it is important they to get to the truth of the matter, whatever the outcome is. Don’t you?

    1. Paul is doubtlessly being vilified by Right Wing Tory parasitic infiltrators. Meanwhile, Coyle, a known vile bully, who has admitted his unsavoury and unacceptable behaviours, has now been BANNED from the publicly funded drinking den – Parliament’s Strangers Bar. Coyle was shrieking F words to other drinkers and being his usual abusive self.

      Keith Starmer … SIR Keith should suspend Coyle for repeated disgraceful behaviour., but Sir Keith, is unlikely to act with decency. Why? because Coyle & Sir Keith are both consistently disgraceful individuals abusing a once great Labour Party.

    2. On Tue 08/03 Paul Holmes’ application for ‘Interim Relief’ was rejected by the court.

  2. Great news!!
    Kirklees is a local authority in which Labour is the Party with more seats but still a hung administration as Labour don’t have an outright majority.
    Hence, we are going to find out how much of a stomach for a fight the local Labour Group has now that Paul is supported by Unison.
    It is very little doubt in my mind that Paul will win his case at an industrial tribunal and possibly win a six figures compensation.
    If the local Labour Group is foolish enough to reject the appeal, Kirklees lost at an employment tribunal is going to be milked for years to come by the Tories for all its worth.

    1. Like you Maria, I’m dlighted that the union’s lawyers are backing Paul Holmes, knowing that sme of their bosses in the nationalm union can be severely embarrased by the investigation their work uncovers.

      To make the point equally pertinent (read ‘threatening’) against the stamerRW clique in Labour, I hope there is at least one former party member in Kirklees/Hudderfield who has good reason to stand in competition to an official Labour candidate.

      I for one, and probably tens or hundreds of other former members would be proud to help a genuine democratic socialist stand in an election for what we believe.

      1. Barry Sheerman Huddersfield’s long standing Labour MP has already announced that he will be retiring at the next GE.

  3. Why does the external consultant receive a nice, warm blanket of anonymity? What have they done to deserve this? Are they petrified of being seen to be associated with the Draconian conduct and the resulting reputational damage?

    1. I’m guessing that their evidence and conclutions will be presented at the employment tribunal.

      1. Wirral – Do you think I care?
        On your metric that makes it three.🥱

    2. Wirral, you are right at to a point but, somehow I doubt the external consultant cares about his/her reputational damage, more than the money he/she is making from investigating complaints.
      I would argue that if he/she did care for his/her reputation, the investigation wouldn’t have recommended for Kirklees to fire Paul in the first instance.
      I am a cynic, if anything the consultant is counting on other local authorities to hire him/her as a safe pair of hands that would get the employer whatever it is that the employer wants to get for an investigation into the conduct of any employee.
      He/she cares for the money more than for yours or my opinion. But, of course it is preferable to have your cake and eat it. Hence, I don’t expect the independent consultant be keen on the general public knowing his/her identity. However, I don’t believe it is stopping him/her from sleeping at night.

      1. Maria – It is also worth considering that the HR consultants will also be well aware that they are not going to remain in business for long if their advice leaves their clients with massive liabilities because Employment Tribunals find their conclusions were flawed.

      2. I suppose you’re right in a way, Maria. This brand of fly by night can always close the company, clamber from the wreckage and use the proceeds it has stolen to start up a new touchy feely organisation. One that can rig up new window dressing and attract far more attractive customers than crooked, devious councils next time around.

      3. SteveH, the employer in this case is a Local Authority hence, the liabilities will be met using public money.
        The right of the Party sabotaged Corbyn in the knowledge that it would be very difficult for Labour to wind a General Election after their sabotage and still they did it.
        The right of the Labour Party isn’t paying with their money but with public money and we know they rather have tories in government than socialist.
        Simply, put they wanted Paul out at any cost.

  4. “This is clearly a case of an employer targeting a leading Trade Union activist…” At the behest of anti-socialist zealots who control the Labour Party after assuring the membership that they shared their values and egalitarian objectives and would continue to pursue the policies spelled out in the Party’s manifesto.

    1. bevin – Or maybe the 14 complainants, mostly local reps, were telling the truth. As neither of us has seen the evidence neither of us in a position to judge. Check out the link given in the second comment above.

      1. There is nothing stopping individuals making any accusation they like and being held to account, industrial tribunals have little authority to punish lying scumbags
        If there has been a defamation committed then go through the courts
        Are any of these individuals associated with the internal report
        If part of Union can they be sacked on the spot

      2. SteveH
        14 cases in short order when the individual has been in post for 50 years
        Time taken to sack him with nothing from the Union, 2 years, if it was so prevalent then he could have been sacked on the spot
        Once he was suspended then you would have expected a tsunami of historic complaints to come in
        Is my best GUESS

      3. Doug – These people worked for Paul he was effectively their manager. Whichever way you look at it, it can’t have been a healthy working environment.

  5. I am delighted Paul is getting the support of his TU comrades. He has represented others for nearly 50 years and I am glad they are now supporting him.
    Solidarity Paul and don’t let the b******s get you down

  6. The employer would have been petrified of getting this case wrong against such a high profile left wing employee. Very interesting to see the evidence at tribunal. Maybe Holmes not the hero we have been looking for. We need to keep an open mind not jump to conclusions like previous commenters.

    1. No they wouldn’t Plain Citizen. They have unlimited access to the best legal representation money can buy ( and that counts big time in a Tribunal) and not one member of management will have to fork out one penny if they lose the case. They have nothing whatsoever to fear. They are protected public servants in senior positions and will never be called to account for what they did to Paul ( or anybody else for that matter) because they make it their business to know where the bodies are buried (and I don’t meet the local graveyard.)

    2. Plain citizen….when fighting an enemy no quarter should be given,thats the only way to fight and I was taught by the very best…!,otherwise you loose which goes to the heart of why hundreds of thousands disillusioned ex members are still without a home for their politics..Most of the so called “evidence” is mear hearsay and scandalous gossip that the old ladys used to chat about over the backyard wall whilst hanging out the washing on the line.

      1. Jpseph – I wasn’t aware that you had either sat in on the HR enquiry or read the report. 😕
        You have expressed a worrying propensity to sacrifice the truth on the alter of your ideology.
        Given your liking for authoritarian regimes we really shouldn’t be surprised that your attitude appears to be that the truth doesn’t matter as long as you are protecting your comrade.

    3. The employer would have been petrified of getting this case wrong against such a high profile left wing employee.”

      Not necessarily PC – once (in a moment of hubris or pride/sectarian malice), they commit to this course of action, they have to see it through. It’s a bit like poker, the RW should be good at that as it involves deception, deceita and delusion.

      (FWIW my analysis tells me they’re not good poker players, they still have much to learn in the dark arts of neoliberal politics fom the pure-bloods, the Conservatives and Liberals)

  7. Quite right smartboy and I have seen and fought against just that type of witchunt when officers of the council aided and abetted by councillors take a dislike to a individual and run them into the gutter using public money.Many at pauls age would have given up ,but it shows the calibre of the man to take the fight back to the Labour establishment.

  8. This is what “Yorkshire Live” reports

    ‘In a statement, several current and ex-members of Unison staff said: “To date the union has not heard any of our complaints, preferring to hide behind the employer for them to act first.

    “During this whole time, we all have suffered anxiety and poor mental health waiting for an outcome of our complaints.’

    This smacks of total incompetence in respect of both parties. For example I have
    not heard there was any hearing whereby Holmes was able to present his defence.

    It seems that there is no evidence that his employer pursued anything like correct
    procedures which should have preceded his dismissal or even to tackle the grievances
    of the complainants.

    1. How can this be right Holby? Paul was suspended by Unison for 2 years – are the complainants now saying this suspension took place without Unison hearing their complaints. If that is the case then its further evidence that Paul was set up and should be very useful to him in a Tribunal.

      1. Well yes I agree Smartboy!

        I’m not sure what happened with regard to
        the complainants – but there are several options with
        regard to the various parties – one if which is that:

        Unison heard their complaints, suspended Holmes but then did
        nothing else – .which smacks of total incompetence and unfairness
        with respect to Holmes AND the complainants.

        I can see a problem in that Unison is representing both Holmes AND
        the people he manages but there surely should be procedures for this?

        Leaving the Union aside – we assume that the complainants complained
        to HR – but they did nothing either except suspend Holmes

        (I may have made a mistake with facts – I find the whole thing

        I do know of a similar case – where a manager belonged to the same
        Union as the people he managed – where bullying got to the point
        where peoples health was affected. No-one did anything at all – not
        the Union and not Senior Management and not PR. I won’t go into
        this any further because of possibility of revealing private information
        but the results were extremely serious.

      2. Thanks Holby for the clarification. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and I would love to hear what a Tribunal has to say about it all.
        However I suspect it may never come to that as Kirklees will probably make a very good offer to Paul to settle prior to the Tribunal hearing.
        The danger for Paul (and the reason why so many cases are settled before going to a tribunal) is that if he sticks to his guns and refuses Kirklees offer Kirkless can apply for its legal costs if the Tribunal awards Paul less money than they offered him. These costs are likely to be awarded against Paul as his refusal to settle prior to the hearing would be deemed unreasonable by a Tribunal.
        Also if Kirklees make Paul a good offer and he refuses it Unison is likely to withdraw support ( they’ll be looking for an excuse to do so anyway) claiming they got Paul a good offer which he unreasonably refused and they can’t risk members money on legal fees. Paul would then be on his own and facing potentially heavy costs ( his own plus Kirklees which like most publicly funded bodies with probably retain a QC) so he would really be forced to settle. Terrible but true – the whole system is heavily weighted against claimants in respect of representation and costs

  9. Dispite some ill informed people on here imagining that an Employment Tribunal would hear the allegations again & make some sort of determination about guilt or innocence that is not the case. An ET hearing will not involve a re-trial of the allegations it will in short consider whether due process was adhered to & that the conclusion reached by the Council was done so without prejudice and in a fair and reasonable manner.

    There is no suggestion that any of the allegations that were made concerned any criminal behavior or else the matter would have been taken out of the Councils hands by the police long ago. We are therefore talking about allegations of breaches of the expected standards or of ones’ conduct within an organisation which would themselves have to stand up to a test of their reasonableness. So just relying on the argument that Holmes is guilty because his employer says that in its opibion he is guilty of something and therefore it has him bang to rights once more misses the point of what an ET would look in to .

    1. Albert Swift:
      1- it shouldn’t take a Local Authority over 2 years to conclude an investigation
      2- 48 years service, shouldn’t the Local Authority offered him a warning before dismissal?
      3- Would any reasonable employer terminate his employment on the evidence provided?
      These are questions that an ET would take into consideration. The fact that it has taken over 2 years to conclude the investigation would be prejudicial to the employer, specially since Paul was the local Unison’s convenor.
      Under the circumstances any reasonable employer wouldn’t have taken over two years to conclude this sort of investigation.

  10. To ‘SteveH’ : above in a response to ‘Wirral’ you say “Do you think I care”. You clearly don’t care that the Labour Party has been trashed by your hero and that an honourable person has been trashed by Kirklees Council. However, if you don’t care why the hell are you always here – like an annoying buzzing insect. I wish everyone would just stop responding to your inane, patronising, comments which add nothing to any topic under discussion. . What you get out of it I do not know, some sort of sad thrill? I try to be respectful online but quite frankly your comments today have made me so angry and I wish you would just go away and annoy elsewhere.

    1. Well said Julia,

      He’s a paid for shill…..’working’ on here to disrupt things and divert the narrative. Just ignore the idiot.

    2. Julia – My apologies if you misunderstood, I thought it was quite clear that I was saying that I didn’t care much either way about Wirral’s opinion.
      There are at least 2 sides to this dispute and whether Holmes is proven to be an honourable man persecuted by KMC or a misogynistic bully who’s got his just deserts will be determined by the employment tribunal and/or the courts.
      I’m amazed by how partisan people like yourself are and how little regard you all seem to have for the fourteen complainants (who are in the main Union officials themselves).
      I look forward to this being resolved once and for all, not because I support one side or the other but because I think it is important to get to the truth. Don’t you?

  11. Regarding my post of 11.03am there was an omission – Sorry!

    “Leaving the Union aside – we assume that the complainants complained
    to HR – but they did nothing either except suspend Holmes and subsequently
    dismiss him.”

    It doesn’t not appear as if Kirklees followed any procedures whatsoever

    1. Hopefully Paul Holmes will win his case and sue the arse off Kirklees Council.

      This Red Tory Brigade think they’ll win by continually battering the decent people in the Labour Movement. They’re in for a shock come the May elections, because if recent by-election results are anything to go by Labour’s share of the vote will reduce by at least 15%. And it’s clear the electorate would rather vote Tory than vote for Starmer’s racist, corrupt, paedo protecting Labour Party.

    2. HFM – If that proves to be the case then Paul will have a very easy win at his employment tribunal.

  12. I am sick to the teeth of having to glimpse at comments made by “SteveH”. I dont read his comments nor do I read any responses made to his comments. Having followed the Paul Holmes case for some time I am delighted by this latest development-its not often us lefties have something to smile about-why undermine it by reading and responding to garbage?

    1. James – What in particular do you object to, is it that I have quite reasonably pointed out that there are at least 2 sides to this long running saga and that we shouldn’t pre-judge who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. Nearly all of those involved are also Union officials.
      I don’t think that the out of hand dismissal of the complaints about bullying and misogyny from so many of Paul’s staff is a good look. I don’t have any skin in this I just want to see the truth come out whatever it is. Don’t you want the same?

  13. Someone told me it was a brilliant on-line rally with 160 attendees and there were about 4 male speakers including Labour MP & Unison MP John McDonnell, and 9 female speakers including the President of PCS and the Chair, with brilliant letters of support from Ken Loach and a Left Wing female Kirklees Labour Councillor.
    It emerged from the speakers that what this was all about was trade union victimisation and it was a Political Decision, with Paul being dismissed for being a bloody good trade union activist and leader!
    As one of the women said, in the end you have to make a judgement, so I would come down on the side of PH.
    The Left Unison NEC Reps said their TIME FOR A CHANGE website will offer a range of actions that people can take to support the campaign which has just started.
    Interesting fact 1: PH has represented members in 200 misconduct cases during his years at Kirklees and has lost nil plus also in that time there has been just one redundancy.
    Interesting fact 2: When Paul was initially suspended the Deputy Labour Leader of Kirklees sent an email to the Kirklees Labour Group saying “There is a Father Christmas after all!”
    And a little birdie told me a group of Kirklees Managers where sent on an away day and at the end of it were made to chant 30 times “We’re gonna get rid of Paul Holmes!” (?)
    Check out the website and stand by plus act for campaigning trade unionism.

    1. Reply to Bazza
      I have no doubt whatsoever that every word you say is true. The Father Christmas remark is horrifying but unfortunately typical of what some reps have to put up with. I know of at least 3 union reps – clever principled people – whose careers were blighted because of their Trade Union activity and who were then stabbed in the back by their right wing union because their politics didn’t fit .
      I hope Paul takes Kirklees to the cleaners and exposes them for the vindictive bullies they are preferably in an open Tribunal but as I posted above he may be forced to settle with them so that may not happen.

      1. Smartboy – Let’s not forget that most of the 14 complainants are also Union Reps.

      2. Steve H
        I have previously posted why I am dubious about Pauls case but to reiterate – there is no way in the world that if even 3 complainants ( never mind the alleged 14 you refer to) came forward with the same accusations, each supporting the other’s story, that it would take any employer 2 years of investigations to reach a decision to discipline the person they were accusing.( especially if the employer wanted to get rid of them as badly as it appears Kirklees wanted to get rid of Paul).
        The whole thing screams stitch up to me ( as it would to any genuine and experienced TU rep). It is also clear to me that Unison was in it up to its neck and colluded with Kirklees to bring Paul down.

      3. Smartboy – I’m not making anything up, all that I’ve said can be verified in local press reports and from the complainants own website. My concern is that most of the people on these pages are just dismissing the complainants out of hand on the basis of little more than factional loyalty to Paul. If they have been subjected to misogynist bullying as alleged then they are victims. As I’ve said elsewhere I will be glad when the truth is out whichever way it goes.

      4. reply to Steve H
        Like most people posting here I am inclined to dismiss the allegations against Paul.
        Paul was unpopular with Kirklees management because he was a good union rep and as a good union rep he would have represented members in grievances, disciplinaries etc and resisted any management attempts to bring in less favourable terms and conditions so they wanted rid of him
        Unison is a pitiful excuse for a Union and has always, in my experience, offered minimal resistance to the worsening of their members conditions so they didn’t want Paul there rocking the boat plus he had been elected President and they didn’t want a Left wing President either. So I believe both parties agreed to work together to get rid of him
        Then out of the blue and after ( at that time) 46 years service without a single complaint being made against him and after the people he worked alongside nominated and voted for him for various union committees including the NEC 14- fourteen – of his co-workers made complaints against him. This screams stitch up to me because if Paul spent his time abusing people he worked with why would they support him in union elections. They just wouldn’t.
        Paul was suspended but despite the number complaining, Unison was unable, after nearly two years digging to find any wrong doing on his part. This would indicate there was nothing to find but this did not prevent Kirklees from dismissing him.
        Kirklees has access to unlimited public money so I assume they dismissed him in the full knowledge that he would lodge Tribunal proceeding and if he won or settled they would be able to pay out any compensation without cost to themselves.
        As I said before Steve H the whole thing stinks.

    1. What is funny is Right Wing Labour member on a Left Wing website SH lining up with the Revolutionary Socialist Trotsky worshipping Members of the Socialist Party (nee Militant).
      As top down vanguardists they have a ready made programme to lead us all to a top down socialism FOR working people.
      And as bourgeois socialists they perhaps will tell us all how to live our lives as they believe in the banking concept of political education – all they need to do is to deposit into the heads of the diverse working class their ready made programme!
      When what we really need is a grassroots, bottom up, participatory, left wing democratic socialism worked out WITH diverse working people.
      We decide and work out ourselves as diverse working people who has the power and how we should live our lives.
      Perhaps as John Lennon sang: “Strange days indeed!”
      Back Paul and trade unionists everywhere and in every country like him who are fighters and want power for grassroots members!

      1. Bazza – You are conveniently forgetting that the 14 complainants against Paul are also trade unionists (most of them are Unison Reps).

      2. *Strange Days Indeed* EXCELLENT post. The analysis behind it is spot on.

        It explains why so many ‘former communists’ easily “converted” to Blair and Clinton’s heavily centralised neoliberalism (“the third way”) back in the mid-1990s (of course, v few ‘forme communists’converted, but the propagandist aspect of the synchronised MSM’s stiory created the percption (thank you former Manchester Guardian) and made it massive!

        (a bit like they’re doing with a virus that has always had a 99.5% survival rate and which is not producing any measurable excess death anywhere in the world.)

  14. And SH you are conveniently forgetting the infamous Panorama programme “The Greatest stitch up since the Zioviev letter” as the brilliant Jewish Dissident website showed that 8 of the complainants featured on the programme (tears and all) were Jewish Labour Movement Officers or ex-officers!
    Well done for falling for my trap.
    As socialists in the end we have to make political judgments and I come down on the side of real socialist fighting trade unionists here and in every country!

    1. Bazza – I’m glad that I’m not the one comparing local authority union reps to JLM activists to try and make my point

      1. Well Steve H Hall try comparing the photographs that has been handed into the police and maybe the other one of a criminal offence (alleged) of your leader swigging from the neck of a beer bottle with a clearly defined lockdown breakdown in a labour party shindig.Could you please explain the difference between the two,other than one the knight is clearly drinking from the neck of the bottle whilst Johnson is holding a glass of ?water wine \beer?..who knows?…you I guess?

      2. I think that’s another of your assumptions Right Wing Labour member on a Left Wing website SH.
        I have been consistent in previous posts in supporting the right of union members to make a complaint even if it’s against a union official as that person has a right to defend themselves too.
        I knew for the 10th time you would repost the complainants points so gave an example from another case to show that life’s not always so simple.
        160 mainly Unison members from all over the country attended an on-line rally to support PH on Saturday and as well as letters of support from the likes of Ken Loach and a Left Wing Kirklees female Labour councillor, there were 13 speakers including John McDonnell and 9 of them were strong women all backing and standing by PH.
        In the end we have to make a judgement and I back PH.
        As someone said when you have managers at an away day chanting they are going to get rid of PH then most of us know who’s side we are on.

  15. Tell a lie and say it enough times using the ever increasing media lies and miraculous truth appears.and becomes fact….IF only life was so simple then we would have a fascist dictator in the Labour party…mm😇😇😂😂

    1. Steve H thanks for the link but I tend to avoid the VPN and downloading when it comes to films.Now whilst you are being ever so helpful could you answer the above question on your leader and the clown Johnson both breaking lockdown rules in the partygate romp that applys to Sir keir starmer Labour and the conservatives farce both liable like the working-class people to criminal prosecution under the draconian laws brought in under the cover of the virus?and supported by both lying hypocrites.

      1. Joseph – I haven’t seen any credible evidence that Keir Starmer has broken the Covid-19 Regulations, have you?

      2. Refer you Steve H to the article in squawkbox showing the hypocrisy of the knight partying swigging beer from a bottle….tough guy 👦?
        .We might also question the using of the virus for his regular quartly disappearing act.which was even brought to the attention of the public in the independent.front page….in fact Tom peck quoted 87times?as a record breaking number ?

      3. “Joseph – I haven’t seen any credible evidence that Keir Starmer has broken the Covid-19 Regulations, have you?”

        I suspect he hasn’t. I certainly haven’t. But then again this is all part of the synchronised MSM’s game-plan, isn’t it?

      4. Joseph – Can you explain why enjoying a bottle of beer with his lunch infringed the Covid-19 regulations and why you are critical of Keir for following the lockdown rules to the letter when he has tested positive.

    1. Steve H Hall centrist Dad ..Can you tell me why others were swigging from bottles whilst enjoying a liquid lunch?.And i can only assume that the gent in the doorway had a bad lunch the way he was proping up the doorframe.And can you explain the difference between a party and the so called lunch were food didnt get served or is it that boozing is when they discuss policy and campaigns?along with the usual hatefest against socialism.Absolutely nonsense stevie boy and you know it.

      1. Joseph – You’re the one making the accusations that you can’t substantiate.

  16. Very good piece Goldbach.
    I had read about these very brave Jewish socialist women before, I think it was on a Socialist History Society Facebook post.
    It is interesting as you get older how you remember things.
    As a white working class non-Jewish kid from a council estate I remember at about 14 of 15 our team going into a tough inner city area youth club to play in a 5-a-side football tournament and there was also a team of Jewish lads.
    And when the white working class local lads in the changing room were using the ‘Y’ word I stood up and laid into them; they were shocked and embarrassed but stopped using it.
    I think what’s going on today is that socialist critical thinkers from diverse backgrounds are being attacked by those who are neither.
    It could perhaps be summed up in a few words:
    Is this what they have done to us?
    Perhaps also an old saying needs updating:
    Diverse Working People of the World Unite.
    Love & Solidarity.

  17. Bazza – “When what we really need is a grassroots, bottom up,
    participatory, left wing democratic socialism worked out WITH
    diverse working people. We decide and work out ourselves
    as diverse working people who has the power and how we
    should live our lives. ”

    Spot on!

    What the pandemic showed – or rather reminded us – is
    that Communities are perfectly able to look after
    themselves – and in fact HAD to during lock-downs ..

    This ws also true in WW2 – as several BBC films about
    the Blitz showed. The authorities made a mess of
    arranging somewhere safe for the general public to
    take shelter and they had to take control of their
    own safety.

  18. Yes holby fan isnt it strange that so little is commented on when the massive German military machine is encouraged to move into Lithuania and the old eastern bloc without even raised eyebrows.I am pleased that in my part of the world that the Japanese military are still watched very closely especially here in Cambodia and sorounding countries including China veitnam malaysia where some of the most horrific atrocities against the locals were commited under the empire of the Sun.The Cavalier attitude by Nato in Europe is breathtakingly deceitful and dangerous.Here the people have thankfully longer memorys than the europeans….?

    1. I T looks like Keir starmer has been let off by the police in his lockdown breach and drinking session.,IT goes to show that all of that man to go to for bent coppers has won him some very influential friends in high places .

      1. Or – like I retorted to stevieh above – that it’s all part of the synchronisedMSM’s game plan. (Do as you’re told, eh, sorry, nudged and have yet another another booster of the drugs we mislabel as a ‘vaccine’)

      2. quertboi….I understand from RT that they are now looking to drag dogs in on the act…. “Mysterious disease infecting dogs tied to covid”.
        I wonder if Dr blair will be recommending 4jabs or half a dozen and one for luck?

  19. Just watched a trailer for a potential film ‘Labour – The Big Lie’ which needs support to finish it. Recommend this, it is on You Tube.

      1. That’s for the voters to decide.
        The clip. however, does represent a clear view on what’s wrong with the LP under the current regime.

      2. goldbach – “That’s for the voters to decide”

        How right you are, it is all well and good showing off about how many candidates they had in 2015 but if hardly anyone wants to vote for them then what is the point. At the 2015 United Kingdom general election the TUSC stood 135 PPCs across England, Wales and Scotland as well as 619 council candidates in local elections.
        The party performed badly at the election, winning 36,327 votes, or 0.1% of the popular vote. No parliamentary seats were gained and no deposits were saved.
        They did little better in the Local Authority elections. TUSC gained no seats (and, in one ward, no votes) and lost three anti-cuts councillors in Leicester and Hull. They retain one affiliated councillor each in Warrington, Walsall and Hull, and two in Southampton.

      3. I am not sure that he will loose his deposit Steve H especially if the amount of activists turn up as promised.Theres also a funding issue with the Labour party and the few available activists amongst the right wing extremist Labour party..I would expect a very close run election and a suprise.

      4. Joseph – Judging from the TUSC’s past record ‘the only way is up’.

      5. “Judging from the TUSC’s past record ‘the only way is up’.”
        Up or down, it’s up to the voters in that constituency and, if it is up we’ll have to see if it’s just up or “up yours”.

    1. I watched this today and he was very good.
      1. If I was his agent in the election I would scrap the silly name of TUSC (which is perhaps activists talking to each other) and have a better more understandable name that resonates with peoples’ lives like ‘Working People’ (?)
      2. I would have a powerful message but written in simple language that communicates with diverse working people, aims to empowers them and resonates with their lives.
      3. And we would say we want to change society with you and not for you.
      And until a new left wing democratic socialist party came along they could perhaps do a bit better.

  20. Apologies in advance for this being off topic. Unfortunately, this site has not got the bottle to have the comments section available on its recent article about Rosie Duffield MP.

    So here are some questions for the site Editor/editorial team:

    Using the same basic standards and principles of objective evidence which are being required for due process in other issues – for example unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Semitism:

    1. Could you please provide objective science based evidence to justify as to why you allege it to be ‘controversial’ for anyone to openly state the bleeding obvious that only a Women – ie An Adult Human Female – has a cervix?

    2. Could you at least give an indication as to how large, in terms of proportion of both Constituents (ie people who live in the Constituency) and Constituency Party members who have raised the ‘concerns’ you have alleged?


    2A. Is it a significant proportion or a vocal self interested group?

    3. Could you please provide some basic journalistic standards to your reporting?

    The UK Parliament website


    “MPs do not have to live in their constituency. In fact, there is no residency qualification at all – an MP could even live outside the UK. There are, however, nationality and age qualifications and a number of other disqualifications for MPs.”

    Would it too much to ask for Skwawkbox to apply the same standards of balance and objective evidence it expects others to apply in regards, for example, to the anti-Semitism issue on the matter of Rosie Duffield’s MP home base?

    For example, how many other MP’s have a home outside the Constituency they represent?

    4. Could you provide some specific objective based evidence to substantiate why you or anyone else consider it to be not viable for an MP to have their home base outside the Constituency they represent.?

    There has been criticism of the situation in which Members of Parliament (among others in society) receive threats of violence and even death. Some have even lost their lives as a result.

    5. Could you please explain why it is you treat the concerns of Rosie Duffield MP to the threats and abuse she has received with such disdain in such an offhand and cavalier manner?


    5B. Do you consider that to represent a quality standard of journalism?

    Thank you for your attention and consideration.

    Dave Hansell.

    1. Dave Hansel spot on once again but to be fair to Squawkbox its not a case of having the “bottle” ,I am sure that its a matter of boxing clever to avoid a wipe out from the Labour party and Torys who have targeted media outlets like squawkbox for extinction..This is a war and its certainly possible that if the Labour party get into government its curtains for a whole raft of left wing outlets and socialists activism..What Rosie Duffield is doing maybe the actions of a terrified young women targeted by the trans lobby or the machinations of a neo liberal who feels entitled?…I really dont know other than a lot of hard work was put in to gain that seat and I am sure the members feel let down by Duffield.I have sympathy for anyone targeted by extremists having been so myself by the UVF and had not only myself targeted but my family.and thats why I left the UK.for France..
      Maybe like you say we need more evidence but we obviously can then make a judgment on just who is Rosie Duffield.My final resting place was supposed to be France and then the virus intervened.

      1. If Rosie Duffield MP or anyone in the Party is pushing neo-liberal policies – economic, industrial, whatever, then present the argument on that basis, complete with objective based evidence.

        Because that lack of objective evidence for allegations made, along with proper due process, is a general principle and standard applicable not just to Paul Holmes or JVL members and others smeared by allegations on the basis of someone with a mob behind them insisting something is so simply because they say it so.

        It applies across the board. To Duffield just as much as anyone else.

        The whole emphasis in the piece in the matter of an MP having their first home outside their constituency is a total irrelevance. No evidence is offered other than some unspecified nebulous statement that some people are unhappy with that. What evidence exists that this unspecified number of people have a valid case?

        Other than their opinions. If Duffield is not doing her job properly according to the existing Parliamentary standards then the evidence should be presented. Alongside, of course, all those other MP’s who may be in the same position.

        Otherwise this is just a mirror image of right wing neo-liberal click bait. Virtue signalling with calorie free argument.

        On the matter of neo-liberalism you cannot get any more neo-liberal than what Duffield has criticised.

  21. Back in La La Land – a contact has sent me this:-
    “Role: Regional Hub Fundraising and Events Officer – Northern Hub
    Location: Northern Regional Hub
    Salary: £34,622.46 (gross) per annum, with a fixed sum allowance of £1,127, plus a £5000 car allowance per annum.
    Length: Permanent

    The Labour Party is looking to recruit a Regional Hub Fundraising and Events Officer for its Northern Hub who will be responsible for a programme of successful events across the regional hub and for a sustainable fundraising programme. The Regional Hub Fundraising and Events Officer will report into the relevant Regional Director for matters within each region and is line managed by the Head of Regional Governance and Local Government.

    The successful candidate will have experience of working on and organising events and visits, as well as experience of fundraising. They will also have the ability to develop clear objectives, assess success and report back in a clear way as well as being able to prioritise work effectively under tight deadlines.

    The closing date for this role is Wednesday 9 February.”
    What’s notable is the closing date.
    Either they want to be seen to be taking action but know that 2 days’ notice will mean they get very few applicants, if any
    or it has been advertised previously and nobody wants to touch it with a barge pole.
    £41k plus on costs? It’ll take a lot of jumble sales to recoup that.

    1. I didnt see any alowances for refreshments as they seem to be very popular amongst the “party” and liquid lunches are the norm according to our Resident “Lurkio” Steve H Hall…..I think a steady permanent job is out of the question at the moment?..and the future if there is one.?

    1. yes goldbach
      Keith’s gang … SIR Keith gang targeted nasty vexatious attacks on Diana. They made their usual politically motivated allegations of antisemitism against yet another of hundreds of committed / active / devout Jews.

      In my opinion, for political machinations the parasitic gang informed Diana that she was being investigated for the third time in less than three years for tweets she posted about Israel and Zionism.

      WELL DONE to Diana for not being defeatist, with pathetic uncoordinated hysterical whining and wanging on about definitions as if all life is a 6th form chinwag. Instead she did the logical thing – FIGHT in court. In a letter to Keith’s gang, Bindmans, her lawyers, said “the investigation was unjustified and disproportionate, resting on a single tweet by Neslen from 2017, which said “the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and I am an antiracist Jew”.”

      Bindmans informed the parasites and real antisemites, in other words, that if they persisted with their wicked attack on Diana Neslen, she would sue for discrimination and harassment. Obviously Keith’s gang pretend ignorance that under the Equality Act. anti-Zionism is a protected philosophical belief.

      SIR Keith’s gang failed to respond until Diana and Bindmans DID as all who are able should when attacked. Take legal action, and GO PUBLIC.

      No surprise, the parasites dropped their investigation.

      Last year, victories were won, when those attacked, including Young Labour, took FIRM action against HARASSMENT. Only then, Sir Keith’s gang crawled away with their tails between their legs.

      Diana has proven as others have, that whining, moaning and spreading a can’t do helpless attitude, achieved, achieves and will achieve nothing, except make things worse by assuring the parasites they could get away with anything.

      Congratulations and gratitude for showing what should have been done from the get go!!!

      1. I agree Signpost but not all can take legal action –
        either they do not have the funds or they
        do not feel physically and mentally strong
        enough – or both.

        The fact that the Labour Party bullied a woman
        who has cancer and recently lost her husband
        is cowardly beyond belief – so well done her for
        going ahead with this !

      2. yes HolbyFanMw, but those who can should. Tis the only way or the bullies are emboldened. 🎉🏆🎉🏆🎉🏆

      3. ps HolbyFanMw, thanks for mentioning the physical and mental strength needed. Definitely EXTREMELY demanding … drains energy, that’s one reason to save all energy, spirits, time … all resources, for what makes fruit… what is productive.
        Other reactions eg defeatism / hopelessness etc drain lots of resources, discourage others, cultivates the can’t do attitude in younger people etc. It preserves the myth that nothing can be done etc

        The fact is, we stand a GREAT risk now that the most coordinated liars might stumble into power because a chaotic liar Johnson has angered ENOUGH of the electorate.

        Why? Because the facts remain that at every single turn snd step, Sir Keith & gang were appeased, pampered, emboldened, empowered, put in power… GIFTED for no decent reason control of the party. The tragedy is STILL, not one jot has been learnt by those who empowered OPEN liars, parasites and frauds. They were not “sly”. They made their plots as plain as ever and publicised it regularly. The likes of Coyle for eg was never subtle. Neither Ashworth nor Tom Watson, yet where there were oceans of silence and absence, suddenly we had determined action and voice to save them. Dreadful, I’m still grieving about but grateful as i learnt lots. 🌻💈🌻💈🌻💈

      4. What could be the reason(s) behind the back down?
        1. They knew they would lose, have to pay out a significant sum, get some bad publicity
        2. They knew that regardless of the outcome there would be much reporting of the arguments, including about the nature of Zionism.
        3. If they lost it would establish legal precedent – that anti-Zionism is a protected characteristic – Backing down gives them room for manoeuvre, so they can use the same argument against others who may not have the will/finances to take them on.

      5. goldbach, often the simplest / basic explanation is the right one. They backed down because they knew their allegations were wicked, false and politically motivated.

      6. I have to take issue with you SNW – “They backed down because they knew their allegations were wicked, false and politically motivated.” I think you are giving them credit for decency that they don’t possess. They knew that their allegations about Corbyn were wicked, false and politically motivated but that didn’t stop them. I think it more likely that they knew that it would become clear to many that their allegations were wicked, false and politically motivated.

      7. goldbach – “They knew that their allegations about Corbyn were wicked, false and politically motivated but that didn’t stop them.” True. The MARKED & SUSTAINED difference with Jeremy is that he never acted against them throughout his tenure. Instead he “did everything they asked”. ENDURING APPEASEMENT even reemploying Starmer after EACH of his two coups, rescuing Ashworth & Tom Watson, never censuring Coyle Hodge Jessica Phillips etc… list too long, but even at the end, he recommended Watson for a Peerage. And even to date we can all see that he’s making sure he says as little as possible. Interestingly, Amnesty International found that Dianne Abbot received more attacks than ALL others combined ie including Jeremy. Yet Dianne has ALWAYS spoken up. I feel i’ve always known of her. I only knew of Jeremy when he stood for leadership.

        That’s the difference, the polar opposite of Diana Neslen and a few others. Jeremy was and is still around a clique who shriek : nothing can be done / those attacking WILL attack … etc etc on and on.

        So, Sir Keith’s gang backed down as they know in court, they would lose and Diana Neslen would win. Bet they won’t “attack” her again.

      8. Yes, I think you’re right. They won’t go for Diana again. They are relentless though, and they will certainly go for others who are not as able to see them off.

      9. indeed goldbach. they r relentless in seeking the interests of those they serve. They won’t go for Diana again if they know legal action will be taken. They will go for ALL who appease & keep quiet, and who believe Sir Keith’s gang will change / be converted / come round to our way etc etc etc (actual quotes said to me) despite ZERO sign of that over THEIR fifty sixty years doing the same things expecting a different result.

        Oh and p.s. damages & costs are not important to Keith’s funders. What they fear most is the GUILTY verdicts + SUSTAINED publicity given to FACTS … not obscure theories, nor empty threats nor cancelled memberships.

        Tories have won election after election without even a tiny fraction of membership dues during Jeremy’s tenure. TONS of millions r available to status quo guards. Hard facts day after day are their concern. eg Mr Starmer (Keith) had FULL CONTROL & responsibility of the DPP when Jimmy Saville the rampant pedophile & necrophile was ALLOWED to escape justice.

        The Mr Keith later was made SIR. HARD facts, that’s why the status quo guards are in overdrive to suppress SIR Starmer’s KEY association re Jimmy Saville.

        Compare their ZERO drive re Covid-19 mammoth fraud by Tory chums eg SERCO, Deloitte, RANDOX etc. Barely a peep from Keith. Why??? Because that gang r desperate to have their turn at defrauding the public.

    2. Well done Diana, proud my union branch contributed to her crowdfunding campaign.

  22. Sorry to divert the discussion-
    but well done Dave Hansell for expressing so cogently
    what I have felt myself – for I felt uncomfortable
    when reading your article.

    What is blindingly obvious is that yes Duffield IS being bullied
    – not by Skwawkbox but by the extremist Transactivists trolls –
    and Hodge is taking advantage of her vulnerability. Duffield
    is so far as I understand still being investigated by the
    Labour Party – for being “transphobic” so has Hodge taken
    up her case with the Labour Party?

    Duffield has said she has spoken to the speaker and been
    treated sympathetically and by others too – I just hope that someone
    with her interests at heart has proffered good advice as well as
    sympathy. Eg IF bridge building with some in her Constituency
    is necessary -then she should do so – though the real test is
    whether she is doing her job as an MP adequately.

    A question – is she is a terrified young woman who may not be
    making the best decisions – I think this is probable. She has
    not long come out of an abusive relationship and that likely
    affects her point of view of male entitlement and misogyny.
    It is notable that JK Rowling who has also come out of an
    abusive relationship is another who is supposedly
    transphobic because of what she has written.
    Note that Transactivists attack trans women too
    – and in fact anyone who does not agree with them, including
    Lesbians. Some allege that lesbians should admit that
    they are really men ie of male gender.

    PS As for her protecting her private life for fears of her safety –
    does her new partner have a public presence? If so – if they
    want to track her down they only have to track him down.

  23. On another subject
    Has the Queen turned Republican
    Within the space of a couple of weeks she personally gives the War Criminal the highest honour in the land and now she makes Camilla the next Queen
    That’s this years Darwin award for the monarchy

  24. The tax office should simply write to every tax payer.
    If you want to opt in to contribute part of your tax to the Royals all you need to do is buy a stamp & envelope and complete the enclosed form and return this to us.
    If you want to opt out you don’t need to do anything.

  25. In a further development to this long running saga Unison staff in Kirklees are refusing to work with Paul Holmes.
    “A Unison rep told ExaminerLive that staff decided to take action on Friday after Mr Holmes was cleared to re-enter the Unison office on New North Parade, off Huddersfield town centre.
    She said: “They went off sick with work-related stress on Friday, February 18, that was the day that Holmes would come back into the branch.
    “They believe they should not be having to work with him.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: