Labour Response to Subject Access Request - Blacked Out Emails
Like the Gestapo & Stasi
Labour’s Witch-hunters Hide Identity of Informers
 |
| Labour's idea of a disclosure of information! |
 |
| Times article based on leaked information |
The efforts of Labour's Compliance Unit to control and roll back internal democracy, dissent and debate is the opposite of Karl Popper’s Open Society. In its stilted discourse and reaction to criticism, and its attempts to hide its workings from external and internal scrutiny, its deviousness and dishonesty in how it operates, Labour’s unelected civil service, headed by General Secretary Iain McNicol, exhibit the classic symptoms of those who run a closed society. It is a society where different rules of logic prevail. Whereas in an Open Society the right of the accused to defend themselves is taken for granted and seen as a sign of a healthy and democratic society, in the world of McNicol’s minions, defending oneself against accusations of misconduct is seen as proof of one’s guilt. There is a perceived resentment that someone should have the audacity to question the judgement of Labour’s unelected bureaucracy.
 |
| A helpful warning to the Compliance Unit to beware of the new Brighton LP Secretary who is also a journalist! |
A closed society encourages anonymous informants and goes to extraordinary lengths, including breaking the law, in order to protect them. The idea that people who make allegations against others might be called to account and expected to defend their allegations, is foreign to these people.
I have been suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’ from the Labour Party since March 18th. My original letter of suspension refused to elaborate on the reasons why I had been suspended, other than that they were for remarks I was alleged to have made. The first time I knew of some of the details of my suspension was when the Telegraph and The Times printed details of why I had been suspended on April 2nd. See Labour’s Disciplinary Procedures would put the Star Chamber to Shame and The Paper of Record Joins in the 'anti-semitism' Witch-hunt
On May 9th I put in a Subject Access Request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. It was received on May 13th. I didn’t get a reply until July 19th, a mere 67 days later. The prescribed period for responding to such a request is 40 days.
The DPA s.7(4) prescribes that:
(4)Where a data controller cannot comply with the request without disclosing information relating to another individual who can be identified from that information, he is not obliged to comply with the request unless—
(a)the other individual has consented to the disclosure of the information to the person making the request, or
(b)it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual.
(5)In subsection (4) the reference to information relating to another individual includes a reference to information identifying that individual as the source of the information sought by the request; and that subsection is not to be construed as excusing a data controller from communicating so much of the information sought by the request as can be communicated without disclosing the identity of the other individual concerned, whether by the omission of names or other identifying particulars or otherwise.
(6)In determining for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual concerned, regard shall be had, in particular, to—
(a)any duty of confidentiality owed to the other individual,
(b)any steps taken by the data controller with a view to seeking the consent of the other individual,
(c)whether the other individual is capable of giving consent, and
(d)any express refusal of consent by the other individual.
(7)An individual making a request under this section may, in such cases as may be prescribed, specify that his request is limited to personal data of any prescribed description.
(8)Subject to subsection (4), a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day.
(9)If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under the foregoing provisions of this section that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the request in contravention of those provisions, the court may order him to comply with the request.
As will be seen from the documents which I have been sent, the Labour Party has signally failed in its duty to disclose the information I requested. In many cases it has blanked out whole documents. In all cases, except where the identity of the persons is clearly known, it has blanked out the names of the informants.
Those who make allegations against others should be prepared to have their identities disclosed. Indeed it should be a condition of receipt of such information that, just like in a court of law, their identities are revealed.
 |
| Anonymous informants are invited to supply information without fear of their identity being blown |
The model McNicol and his protégé John Stolliday [JS], head of the Compliance Unit, have adopted is the method of the Gestapo and the Stasi. Anonymous informants providing information which, by definition, can never be tested. Such methods should be repugnant to any party which considers itself democratic let alone socialist.
I have therefore appealed to the Information Commissioner to impress on McNicol and his minions their statutory responsibility. If necessary I will seek to enforce disclosure of information under DPA s.7(9).
 |
| Solicitor's warning to McNicol that he has a duty to act in good faith |
Background to my suspension
Apparently I have been suspended for anti-Semitism – which kind of makes sense. If you want to show that you are dealing firmly with allegations of anti-Semitism, then what better way to show this than to suspend a Jewish anti-racist! Especially if you are dealing with the kind of ‘anti-Semitism’ that involves criticism of the ‘Jewish’ State of Israel.
I am reminded of a joke of Hajo Meyer, a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz:
‘formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews but nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews.'
Hajo Meyer was someone who refused to accept the lesson that Zionism drew from the Holocaust, viz. that it entitled Jews to be racists. Hajo believed that the message of the Holocaust must be that genocide and racism must never again occur to anyone – Jewish or non-Jewish.
Amongst my many sins was having compared Israel’s marriage laws to those of the Nazis Nuremberg Laws. Comparisons between Israel and the Nazis is, by definition anti-Semitic according to the Zionists - except when the Zionists do it! For example when Netanyahu explained how Hitler was talked into the Holocaust by the Palestinian Haj al amin-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem. [see Rewriting the Holocaust].
There are very many examples of comparisons between Zionism and Nazism in the period before the Holocaust. There are differences too but Zionism’s belief in the need to create an ethnically pure Jewish state and its obsession with a Jewish demographic majority in Israel, belong to the Nazi era.
The reason why comparisons between Zionism and Nazism are valid was best put by Professor Funkenstein, formerly Head of the Faculty of History at Tel Aviv University. He compared soldiers in the German army who refused to serve in concentration or extermination camps to Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in the Occupied Territories. To those who asked how it was possible to compare the actions of Nazi soldiers with Israelis, Funkenstein replied
“As a historian I know that every comparison is limited. On the other hand, without comparisons, no historiography is possible. Understanding a historical event is a kind of translation into the language of our time. If we would leave every phenomenon in its peculiarity, we could not make this translation. Every translation is an interpretation and every interpretation is also a comparison. “
Chakrabarti
 |
| Solicitor's letter warning McNicol that his leaking of information to Press is a serious disciplinary offence |
Shami Chakrabarti wrote in her reporton racism and anti-Semitism in the Labour Party that the
‘there is a lack of clarity and confidence in current disciplinary procedures from all sides of the Party’ She went on to say that ‘It is completely unfair, unacceptable and a breach of Data Protection law that anyone should have found out about being the subject to an investigation or their suspension by way of the media and indeed that leaks, briefing or other publicity should so often have accompanied a suspension pending investigation…. Labour Party should seek to uphold the strongest principles of natural justice, however difficult the circumstances, and to resist subjecting members to a trial by media.’
This is the system that is presided over by Iain McNicol.
 |
| Labour General Secretary Iain McNicol professing concern over the leaks to the Press that he and the Compliance Unit authorised |
As Jackie Walker observed, the Jewish Chronicle knew the details of her suspension before she knew. It has been the standard response of Labour’s Compliance Unit and Iain McNicol to deny suspended members details of why they are suspended at the same time as they leak the details to the media. So when McNicol wrote to me stating that
‘I am disappointed that you have taken the opportunity to make an unwarranted attack on a hardworking and diligent member of the Compliance Unit…’
and went on to say that
‘Like you I regret that information was given to the media. However, I entirely refute the allegation that the Compliance Unit leaked any details of your suspension to the Daily Telegraph or to anyone else.’
he was doing what comes natural to him. Lying. There is no other explanation for the details of my suspension appearing in the national press other than that the Compliance Unit leaked them. If the Compliance Unit did not do the leaking, then who was responsible?
McNicol prefered not to respond when I put this question.
 |
| Solicitor's letter to McNicol who did his best to keep Corbyn off the ballot paper |
Lies to McNicol are like water off a duck’s back. He even tried to deceive the Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell as to the timing of the National Executive Committee meeting. Below are the documents which the Labour Party have either redacted or blanked out altogether. I have posted them on Google and you can click on the link to read the document in its redacted entirety!
Documents Disclosed by the Labour Party
Doc 1: This is from a facetious Zionist It follows from my revelation that in 1984 Jeremy Corbyn was Chairperson of a Labour Movement Conference on Palestine, which called for the disaffiliation of the racist Poalei Zion (now the Jewish Labour Movement) from the Labour Party. PZ, the British wing of the Israeli Labour Party, which ethnically cleansed Palestine of nearly 90% of its Palestinians in 1947-8. It is a party that in elections attacks the opposition Likud for being too soft on Arabs. See When Jeremy Corbyn Supported a Democratic, Secular State & Breaking Links with Poale Zion (JLM) and The Times & Jewish Chronicle Report our Story on Corbyn Backtracking on Palestine
The email begins ‘There are some very serious accusations in The Times today which are making you out to be some form of antiSemite. How dare they.’ His mock indignation is belied by his two emails, noteworthy only for their deceptive literary style, which is as transparent as it is dishonest.
Doc 2is a supportive letter to Shami Chakrabarti which asks why I have been expelled from the Labour Party (in fact suspended). The name is blanked out.
Doc 3 is one of a number of documents which have been completely and unlawfully blacked out. All I am entitled to know is the fact of its existence!
Doc 4 is another completely blacked out document.
Doc 5 is from the Jewish Labour Movement and their liar-in-chief, Jeremy Newmark. The first email appears to be completely blacked out but the second is nonetheless illuminating. After apologising for having to write once again, Newmark protests that I published a full transcript of my investigation hearing with SE Regional Organiser, Harry Gregson [HG]. The idea of open and transparent justice is alien to Zionists. Newmark, having been branded a liar in the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal case, should know that it is a practice of the courts, even in Israel, to provide transcripts of hearings. What Newmark was really objecting to was that I had made my interrogator HG and therefore the JLM witch-hunters look stupid.
 |
| Tweet objecting to racist JLM being in charge of anti-racist education |
 |
| Newmark objects to the racist JLM being compared to Nick Griffin of BNP |
Newmark clearly didn’t like my post Labour’s Inquisition – from the banal to the mundane which contains a linkto the 16 page transcript. Newmark says that the transcript consists of ‘further slurs against the JLM and our leadership’. Jeremy Newmark takes himself very seriously being an important figure. He doesn’t take kindly to being slighted. He is unaware that in court proceedings what the accused says, however defamatory, is protected speech.
According to Newmark, the transcript apparently consists of ‘a whole host of unsavoury comments’ and even worse has been published on at least 1 other website as well as being circulated on social media.
Newmark informs McNicol or JS (this is blacked out!) that ‘he [me!] is determined to use the process itself to further disseminate offensive, uncomradely and potentially actionable comments.’ The JLM doesn’t take kindly to criticism. Suffice to say I don’t expect to be sued anytime soon as telling the truth is an absolute defence! As for being uncomradely, well I don’t consider the JLM comrades and if my comments were offensive so much the better!
Apparently I am ‘fermenting hatred and opposition’ to the JLM. Well I certainly hope that people hate racism and therefore the JLM, whose sole purpose is to defend Zionist racism. If they hate a racist affiliate of the Party I won’t complain.
Newmark asks ‘is it acceptable to publish a full transcript of a post-suspension interview… given that Mr G is already suspended.’ You can see the Israeli police state mentality at work. Someone is using the trial process as part of a campaign against the trial. You can just imagine Jeremy Newmark at the time of the Guildford 4 complaining that people were campaigning against the frame up!
Although much of the letters are blacked out one can gain a good understanding of the mentality of Jeremy Newmark and the JLM.
Doc 6 is a Zionist complaining to Chakrabarti. Despite his name being blacked out the company logo Searchlight Electric is left! He complains that his son can’t walk in Manchester City Centre with a skull cap without people conflating Israel and Jews. I agree that is wrong. The obvious answer is for the Jewish Board of Deputies to stop claiming that British Jews support Israel and for Israeli leaders to stop claiming that it is a Jewish state that acts on behalf of and represents Jewish people like Mr X’s son. Illogically the conclusion he draws is that opposition to a Jewish state is anti-Semitic.
Israel is a settler colonial state where Jews have privileges over non-Jews and the indigenous population. It is no different to similar states that Europeans established in the colonial past. It is a state but one based on Jewish racial supremacy. In so far as it claims to be a Jewish state, Mr X’s criticism should be directed at Zionists not anti-Zionists. Mr X also complains that Jackie Walker and myself were readmitted to the Labour Party ‘without even so much as apologising’ without saying what we’re supposed to be apologising for. Jackie Walker is criticised for ‘peddling a lie that Jews were the main financiers of the slave trade.’ Jackie however never said any such thing. The only lie being peddled is the one Mr X is peddling!
Doc 7-8 is another document from the JLM. For an organisation that claims not to have been involved in my suspension they were remarkably well informed about when my hearing was due to take place.
They seem to have taken exception to my perfectly reasonable comparison between asking the JLM to conduct anti-racist education courses and asking Nick Griffin of the BNP to do the same. Griffin loves Israel because it is racist and anti-Islamic. It was Griffin who, on BBC Question Time some years ago said that the BNP was ‘the only political party which in the clashes between Israel and Gaza stood full-square behind Israel’s right to deal with Hamas terrorists.” The Guardian of April 10th2008 reported: Ruth Smeed, spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews as saying that:
‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel’.
Apparently my criticism of the JLM was ‘beyond any boundaries of normative political discourse’. Translating this, I think, means that you mustn’t stray outside the strict parameters of what passes for political debate in the bourgeois press and TV. Revolutionary rhetoric is definitely beyond the boundaries. Further it is ‘an attempt to bring us [the JLM?] into disrepute’. Presumably if we were to disaffiliate the JLM from the Labour Party we would avoid all these problems?
Doc 9– this is from the same person as Doc 1 – the Zionist who is ‘concerned’ that Jeremy Corbyn is being called an anti-Semite!
Doc 10 The reaction of the Labour Party press office to the story on my blog about how Jeremy Corbyn sponsored and chaired, in 1984, a Labour movement conference on Palestine which called for the disaffiliation of Poalei Zion. Instead of facing the issue and saying yes, Jeremy supports the disaffiliation of the racist JLM, they preferred to say nothing.
Doc 11 From an unnamed person to HG – it refers to a tweet about the bombing by Israel of homes, clinics etc. (in other words nothing out of the normal when it comes to the Israeli military) which I sent to idiot Brighton Labour Councillor Emma Daniels, when she announced she was joining the Zionist Labour Movement. It refers to ‘the latest delightful communications with the delightful Mr Greenstein’ - Now why do I suspect that the person concerned was being sarcastic? Especially when they sign off !
Naturally I’m not allowed to know the name of my admirer.
Doc 12 These are interesting documents despite heavy redaction. They involve internal dialogue of Labour Party bureaucrats. The first email is completely blacked out. The second email on p.41 draws attention to a blog post – which simply remarks that I had finally been told something of the reasons for my suspension. I also pointed out that peoples’ membership fees had also been wasted paying £30,000 on a new Compliance Administrator A small victory – I have been told the basis of my suspension! - Labour Party is prepared to spend nearly £30K a year on a new Compliance Administrator. An anonymous Labour Party hack doesn’t seem to understand that when you accuse someone of something that they might have the right to know what they are accused of. They remark in a heavily redacted email, that ‘no staff member should have to put up with this. It’s completely unacceptable.’ It is fortunate that this person isn’t in charge of the Justice system. On p.42 a Caroline remarks, in a heading entitled ‘Greenstein Suspension’ to HG ‘Depressing to think a year ago we were apparently on course to win an election. Now we’ve been reduced to this.’ It’s difficult to see the connection with myself.
HG, who has been delegated to investigate me and from who one might expect a modicum of impartiality responds that ‘Obviously his behaviour is unacceptable’ and that ‘this is top of my list of priorities’. One might have thought that the Regional Organiser for the Labour Party South-East region might have other priorities than my investigation. HG reassures Caroline that ‘this matter will not be anywhere as protracted as previous disciplinary action against certain Brighton members.’ I assume that this refers to the newly elected Brighton Secretary, Greg Hadfield. Greg was suspended without just cause for 11 months and told next to nothing about why he was suspended.
On the same day another anonymous person informs HG that I launched a ‘very unpleasant attack on Cllr Emma Daniel … He also called Ivor Caplin a war criminal.’ Emma Daniel announced on Twitter that she had joined the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement. I simply pointed out some salient facts about the organisation she had joined and the Israeli human rights abuse that she was now endorsing. Presumably pointing out that if you join a Zionist Apartheid organisation you should be taken to endorse their politics is an ‘unpleasant attack’. Perhaps I should have refrained from pointing out that Israel gaols and tortures (Palestinian) children as young as 12. As for the former MP for Hove, Ivor Caplin. He was junior defence Minister at the time of the Iraq War and fully merits the title of junior war criminal.
 |
| Zionist objects to my calling him a Jewish Nazi |
 |
| Israeli Zionist generalises about all Palestinians being cowards - but Chair of Brighton LP Russell Lloyd-Moyle objects to the term Jewish Nazi |
 |
| Racist Zionist says Palestine 'never was (nor will be) |
Another email from HG is entirely blacked out as is part of a further email. I don’t know who has penned it though I have my suspicion that it could be the former Chair of the B&H Labour Party Russell Lloyd-Moyle, who forwards a piece of ‘evidence’ whilst asking when the Compliance Unit will finally hear the case. The evidence he encloses is a twitter link to an image from @FalafelBig. Falafel who complains that I call ‘Jewish critics’,in fact Zionists, Nazis rather than Zio scum. Mr Falafel names himself after an Arab cuisine that Israel has stolen and called its own. As other tweets show, this person is an entrenched racist and fully merits the description of a Jewish Nazi. For example his reaction to Google’s decision to erase ‘Palestine’ from its maps and to replace it by Israel was ‘how can you delete something that never was’ In fact the area now occupied by Israel was known as Palestine for 2,000 years.
Doc 13 A small interchange between HG and JS in which the latter suggests young Harry ‘might want to take this pleasant Facebook post by Mr Greenstein into account as well.’ I assume that the stolid Stolliday was being sarcastic!
Doc 14 A minor exchange with an Emillie Oldknow in which HG asks whether he’s got to agree to a change in the date of the investigation hearing so that I can bring a silent witness. Emillie advises that he does have to agree.
Doc 15 This is a long email from JVoiceUK, a group which claimsto be ‘The Voice of Socialism and Progressive Jewish Values’. It is also a Zionist organisation and therein lies the problem. The email is sent to the Chakrabarti Inquiry and attempts to defend Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. In truth it doesn’t understand it since it suggests that this collaboration was solely based on Ha'avara, the Zionist trade/transfer agreement with the Nazis. Zionist collaboration went much further than Ha'avara. See hereand here.
JVoiceUK claims that Jewish emigration from the Arab countries from 1948 onwards was a result of forced emigration, whereas it was a product of a number of different circumstances including, as in Iraq and elsewhere the activities of Zionist activists who planted explosives and bombs in areas that Jews frequented to simulate anti-Semitism. [See The Zionist Destruction of the Iraqi Jewish Community] The incoherent email compares Hitler’s support for Zionism with the Tories support for the Minimum Wage! In the section on myself and Charley Allan, a Jewish reporter on the Morning Star, it equates giving offence to someone who is Jewish to anti-Semitism. Giving offence is the essence of free speech. Without the right to offend the powerful and privileged, including Zionist racists, then the right to free speech is meaningless. It comes out with the absurd phrase that ‘when someone is offended that is the start of potential anti-Semitism’.
JVoiceUK introduce a new phrase ‘Ziophobia’ – presumably a fear of Zionism. Ziophobia ‘ignores all forms of left wing Zionism and Zionism that is pro-Palestine’. Perhaps we should have had ‘Apartheidphobia’ and perhaps ‘Naziphobia’ too!
Doc 16 Concerns an informant. The first email is completely blacked out, the second email omits the name of the recipient. The third e-mail is completely blacked out too and the fourth email (pp. 113/4) is heavily redacted but concerns my ‘abuse’ of two councillors, Caroline Penn and Emma Daniels, who joined the JLM and the right-wing Chair of Young Labour. My ‘abuse’ consisted of pointing out that the JLM was the British wing of the Israeli Labour Party. The informant – who I suspect is the previous Chair of Brighton Labour Party, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, complains that I was abusive to members who support or had joined the JLM. I guess telling the truth is also considered abusive! Moyle goes on to state that ‘Thisis part of a general rudeness and offensive nature of Tony, please note that this is nothing to do with his views on Zionism.’ I shall leave it to others to judge this.
Moyle appeals for the investigation to be conducted urgently as ‘the local party is being disrupted (despite him being a suspended member) by his presence at public events… and the shadow of his reappointment hanging over us.’ And just in case the message hadn’t got through about how dangerous I was, Moyle pleaded ‘Can I remind you that Tony can be a manipulative person, it is important that the case against him is watertight.’’ Lloyd seems to fear that if the witch-hunters don’t follow a fair process then I might have grounds for overturning any expulsion. Clearly he fails to understand that unfairness lies at the heart of the process.
Doc 17 On page 116 there is another completely blacked out email.
Doc 18 On p. 143 there is a letter from a supporter of myself and Jackie Walker protesting our suspensions. Again the name of the person is redacted.
Doc 19 Another supportive letter. This time the name of the Rev. Beverley Molineaux is left at the end of the document but her name is redacted at the top!
It is a powerful letter and speaks of ‘This almost McCarthy like witch hunt that has unfolded’ and speaks of how I have been ‘a campaigner against holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. So how has someone with these credentials been suspended?’ Beverley also speaks about the suspension of Jackie Walker and she quotes Jackie’s statement that ‘I have been suspended from the Labour Party for alleged anti-Semitic comments. I have been an active anti-racist trainer and campaigner for years, often in all white communities and in the most vulnerable situations.’
Doc 20 This is another supportive letter. Again the name of the person and who she copied it to is blacked out but Val Cane’s name is left at the bottom of the letter! Val is an active trade unionist in Brighton with the National Union of Teachers.
Doc 21 Another supportive letter. This time from someone who is Jewish and a former Labour parliamentary candidate who joined the Labour Party 45 years ago. The identity of the person is blacked out. As s/he says, there is anti-Semitism in the Party ‘but I have never actually experienced it within the party… It is rare.’ S/he notes that both Jackie Walker and myself are Jewish and correctly notes that what the suspensions are about ‘is an unwillingness to keep quiet about what Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians.’
Doc 22 This is a curious email presumably a press release stating that I have been suspended. Needless to say all salient points are blacked out.
Doc 23 This contains a response to a Jews 4 Jeremy press release about my suspension. All names are blacked out.
Doc 24 This is another supportive letter from a Jewish member of the Labour Party
Doc 25 All names are blacked out from an email from an informer. It reads much like the many communications that used to be sent to the Stasi and Gestapo. One email is entirely blacked out and the person hopes that Greg Hadfield, the newly elected Secretary of Brighton Labour Party (before he was deposed!) won’t get anything into the press whilst highlighting an article Greg wrote on the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It contains various allegations against me, including a false allegation of fraud and the fact that I stood 4 times (actually 3) against the Labour Party. The informer seems to have problems with facts.
Doc 26 Another letter from a Jewish member of the Labour Party adding his name to that of the 52 Jewish members who signed a letter supporting me.
Doc 27 This consists of 3 mails – 2 of which are entirely blacked out. It would appear that HG went fishing for information and the informant tells him that he has no information on the issues relevant to my suspension but gives some background on me. I suspect that the informant is either Dave Leppar, the previous MP or his wife, Jean Leppar, however I cannot be certain about this.
Doc 28 This is another email from an anonymous informant. Most of the email is blanked out but point 6 complains that he hasn’t replied to me because I put everything online. He asks when my accusations that JS leaked details of my case to the press has become actionable. The answer of course is never, since they are true! Is it, he asks ok to call people ‘scum’, as opposed to ‘Zio scum’! Again it depends on who I’m calling ‘scum’. The one witty point is when he asks ‘does he give the Andrew Fisher defence.’ Fisher is an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn whom the Right tried to prevent being employed on the grounds that he had, as a joke, recommended support for Class War in an election.
Doc 29 2 emails from anonymous Zionists who attack me and others. One of them says that the witch-hunts ‘save the party and restore our values!’ Presumably these include the values of Israel which today bulldozed the home of a Palestinian who was inside his home, thus murdering him.
Doc 30 HG on a query from the Jewish Chronicle which was interested in my suspension. I can’t imagine why!
Doc 31 An intriguing letter from someone who is supportive of my case who observes that I am ‘not a man to mince his words mind you and perhaps this has upset you.’ From the language I suspect this person occupies some position in the Labour Party echelons.
Doc 32 A sarcastic remark from some Labour Party hack asking how many of Brighton Labour Party’s members attended a meeting which voted to oppose my suspension.
Doc 33 An internal memo to HG relating to the bureaucratic mechanisms of the suspensions. It would appear that on 17th May there were 5 suspensions in the SE Region.
Doc 34 An anonymous ill-wisher who cannot imagine why I was allowed to join the Party. Apparently neither the Greens or the SWP will have anything to do with me! Strange that. It’s not been my experience but who am I to quibble?
Doc 35 A lying email from crooked Iain McNicol, Labour Party General Secretary in reply to me.
 |
| Letter in response to Mike Creighton who is responsible for responding to Data Protection Act requests |