Analysis Breaking

Labour refusing to comply with legally-required disclosure relating to data affected by criminal breach

Party continues to ignore demand by members’ and ex-members’ lawyers for information relating to breach

The Labour party is flouting the legal rules of lawsuits as the party’s arrogant handling of its massive breach of members’ and ex-members’ data continues, according to lawyers acting for people affected by loss of data to criminals.

A letter sent by lawyers to their clients informs them of Labour’s stubborn refusal to comply with its legal obligations:

‘Although the Labour party have acknowledged our letters they have continued to refuse to cooperate and comply with the pre action protocols which require them to disclose further details of the data breach

As a result, the lawyers say they have been forced to ask the High Court to force the party regime to do what it is legally required to do. Its refusal to comply with pre-action protocols can be taken into account by the court to increase any award against Labour for its repeated failure to protect the data of members, along with data of ex-members that it should not even have been holding.

In addition to costs and damages of the lawsuit, Labour – already in a financial crisis – could face a fine of around £17 million imposed by the Information Commissioner (ICO) for the breach, particularly as the data it outsourced to the company that was hacked included data of former members. The party has already been found by the ICO to be breaching its legal obligations in regard to ‘subject access requests’ from people affected by the breach.

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. Why is Starmers Labour afraid of to provide disclosure of the facts around the data breach – what has the leadership got to hide? Plenty I expect

    1. Great question! The most likely explanation of the refusal to disclose, is that a senior person, even, very possibly, the General Secretary or the party Leader himself, appointed the deficient or shoddy Third Party, the company in whose care the sensitive data was breached.

      My money’s on Evans-the-Spiv (but Starmer-the-Mo$$ad-Appointer is not quite beyond possible).

      1. I think it could be worse than that Qwertboi. I don’t ever remember hearing about any tendering process. If the work was given out without tendering it then big questions need to be asked about who got the work, who are they associated with or related to in the party, what if any donations did they make to the party or to individuals etc etc Obviously the Leadership won’t answer these type of questions and are trying to keep a lid on it but I don’t think they’ll succeed. I think it will all come out eventually and it won’t be pretty

      2. You’re probably right Smartboy. Wouldn’t it be great if the Labour party were so transparent to be able to see who (which plc) runs our data services (many successful, supposedly dynamic technology firms are actually CIA shell companies), when the contract was appointed and what Key Performance Criteria are attached to the contract?

        One thing’s for sure: The company which was ‘breached’ probably didn’t work for us, sorry, work for the Labour party, when the wonderful Jeremy Corbyn was leader. It’ll be a Starmer/Kaplan/Evans appointee

        (and FWIW, the fact that no NEC member is publicly suggesting any ofg this convinces me that I was right to leave Labour)

  2. Are they compiling datasets on ex-members? Corbyn supporters who quit under Starmer to prevent them rejoining? Sure reads like it. There is no reason to keep that data. I Tories are welcome, even far-right ones, but if you’re a leftist it’s no way, Jose.

      1. Not one of the 19 card vote changes says anything about entrusting the personal-property-data of members to shoddy or charlatan or unfit for purpose Third Parties – or even about recruiting Mos$ad operatives to investigate any member the leader sees fit.

        And FWIW those very changes convinced me to break a family tradition and leave the Labour party. I’m now a dearly departed.

      2. So cutting through all the crap steveH what you are basically arguing is that;

        1. Labour Party Rules trump the law of the land and the rights of the subjects of the “Loyal Opposition”.
        2. You as an individual are more than comfortable with that position.

        Thank you for clarifying. I’m sure everyone here fully comprehends your pick and choose to suit convenience approach to everything.

      3. Dave – You tell me, you’re the one that’s making up crap in a feeble attempt to justify a load of drivel.

      4. ” I’d be surprised if they did, wouldn’t you?”

        Grin, Yes I would SteveH, but then again it was documented words and meticulous record-keeping that proved the holocaust. The “Mr Rules” mentality of Starmer and the various the LabourRight cliques (and, separately, the German bureaucratic nature) is not always an advantage.

      5. I see that you are in projection mode today steveH.

        How predictable.

    1. We are on some database somewhere, don’t you worry!
      I doubt very much that it has anything to do with ‘Club’ Minimum Entrance Requirements!

    2. Andy – “Are they compiling datasets on ex-members? “

      It isn’t a secret.
      Some examples of how long we retain membership data are as follows:
      Investigation into conduct of a member or elected official: This will be kept for the lifetime of the individual under investigation, in order to safeguard the wider public, uphold membership rules and defend any future claims through the courts;
      Names, addresses and values of donations given to the Labour Party – Indefinitely where we believe you may leave a legacy to the Labour Party. 7 years (from tax year of transaction) for all other financial data.
      Disciplinary outcome (e.g. expulsion): This will be kept for the lifetime of expelled individual, in order to safeguard the wider public, uphold membership rules and defend any future claims through the courts.
      Call notes: indefinitely where this relates to disciplinary action and 15 years after cessation of membership for all other notes.
      Self-declared equalities data: Seven years after end of membership.

      1. Indefinitely where we believe you may leave a legacy to the Labour Party.

        We believe you may leave a legacy to the smarmerist party? (As fucking IF)

        Oh well….There’s their defence summed up in that one sentence.

        You didn’t know it, but smarmerist labour believed all those people were leaving keef a gift in their will…against their will.

        What a crock of shit.

        Does MacMillan keep my details forever because I once sponsored someone doing a fun run in aid of their charity?

  3. I made a request for any data they held on me as a non member. I know they do it as they have lists of non member activists. I was ignored too. What do they have to hide.

  4. Steve H you are defending the indefensible,.But as the labour party keeps stum…the labour leader stears the labour party into bankruptcy hoping that they will not have to face criminal charges for the deeds done…

      1. ‘What have I defended?’ SteveH “Nothing that’s worth a balloon”. A political party with a fascistic authoritarian leader. whose frightened of free & open debate, preferring to expell anyone who dares question.

    1. Steve H… are playing distraction politics once again
      .New rules at the conference make not a jot of difference when the perpatrators of these criminal acts seek to use bankruptcy as a cover for their nefarious activities on behalf of their foreign unelected funders…
      ..The scandal is that it just might work with a new party of the old order set up a New Labour party.of the right.out of siphoned funds…..!from the comotose members who might just sign up for more punishment.

  5. Why they do not respond?

    Apart from them not winning the years Good Manners prize –
    I am convinced they awarded the contract to a “mate of
    a mate” – sheer incompetence I guess.

    This is exactly what they criticised the Tories for
    in awarding PPE and they were of course right
    in that case.

  6. Makes you wonder if the data breach was done on purpose by the current Labour Party ‘leadership’ mob to ensure the party’s coffers are well and truly drained. Sounds like it’s all part of destroying what remains of this once great party.

    1. or as “cover” for the activities of the ‘former’ agent of the national intelligence agency of Israel?

      Your cynicism and sarcasm do you credit JulieT. I love it when a soul of the left exhibits an ability to kvetch (as my auntie Sadie used to say). More Kvetching please. It’s sorely needed atm.

      1. Starmer did say he’d root out each and every anti-Semite. That could include crunching social media data on all members and ex-members. The sort of trawling exercise would be farmed out to a 3rd party with the capability to handle big data.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: