@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland It is absurd. 2.I.8 states 'No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party.' The conduct in this instance is the circulation of the resignation letter
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland The creation of the content of the letter is the conduct of the Chair who resigned. The letter was circulated only to members. Gross means 'very obvious and unacceptable', detriment means 'the state of being harmed or damaged'. Exactly how did the circulation of the letter by>
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland Crispin, only to Party members in his CLP, cause obvious harm or damage to the Party? He is not responsible for the content of the letter. The NEC has a discretion to decide if conduct is grossly detrimental but they are still limited by the need for it to be >
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland subject to honesty, good faith, and genuineness, and the need for the absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality. Evangelou v McNicol [2016]. This suspension appears to breech a number of these criteria and is Wednesbury irrational. The instigator of >
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland This suspension is either so monumentally bias that 'perversity' barely does it justice or they are so incredibly moronically stupid that it is the kind of irrationality which is the equivalent of not hiring a teacher because they have ginger hair. Only a perverse tribunal would>
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland uphold this charge. Unfortunately the NEC Disciplinary Panel does look like the picture, so as absurd as it is justice may never be done here. 😢

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Duncan ShipleyDalton

Duncan ShipleyDalton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BaronVonDuncs

17 Feb
18th Feb in approx. 15 mins. That is the date Jeremy is due to have the Whip restored. My understanding of the PLP Standing Orders is that under the Code of Conduct a member has the Whip suspended for a fixed period at the discretion of the Chief Whip. Once that period >
expires only the Parliamentary Committee of the PLP has the discretionary authority to extend the suspension period. If they do not extend it then it would automatically end by operation of the PLP rules. So unless the Parliamentary Committee meets on Thursday and votes by >
majority to extend the suspension then at midnight on Thursday 18th Jeremy Corbyn automatically gets the Whip returned. (A caveat to this is that the set of PLP SO I have seen are a few years old so it is possible they changed. I am assuming they have not substantially changed.)
Read 4 tweets
4 Oct 20
As far as the allegations made against a leading Cllr go I have no knowledge of the events or the evidence so I cannot make any judgement about the veracity of any claims. My assumption in relation to those accused is that they are innocent until proven guilty. >
The Labour disciplinary system should make the same assumption and treat people as such. Effective automatic suspension is unnecessary and should only be used when exigent circumstances effectively exist. In a matter as serious as sexual assault allegations it is quite frankly>
absurd for the Labour Party to operate as some kind of Police agency and investigate such matters. Serious allegations should be referred to the Police. If Police and Prosecution action results and a person is convicted then the Party should take proportional disciplinary action.
Read 5 tweets
12 Aug 20
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist The NEC and therefore the GS has no authority in the rules to dictate what is 'competent business' for a CLP to discuss. The only authority is in Chap 1, VIII, 3.E-"The NEC shall from time to time, issue guidance and instructions on the conduct of meetings..." CONDUCT not CONTENT
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist Conduct is a noun meaning 'the manner in which an activity is managed or directed.' That is not the same as the content or subject the meeting deals with. The NEC can issue guidance on how a meeting can be run/organised but not dictate what motions are competent business.
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist Secondly, the idea discussing the IHRA will "...undermine
Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of
racism..." is so absurd as to be in the realms of irrationality. As previously stated the NEC/GS has no authority in the rules to dictate this. If what is being threatened>
Read 5 tweets
24 Jul 20
It is very annoying the way assumptions are made about supporting Corbyn. I supported him in 2015/2016. That does not mean I unequivocally agree with every decision or action he took or even with his views on every issue. I am an adult I can support someone but have differences.
I backed Remain and disagreed on Brexit, I am a Unionist and disagree on a UI. I think getting sucked into the 2019 GE was monumentally daft. I was unimpressed by many of his support staff. He was poor on Party reform and disciplinary issues. >
But if he ran for the leadership tomorrow I would vote for him again. I am no cultist but Jeremy still earns my trust and enthusiasm. I have 2 beliefs about him: 1. He genuinely, in his soul, cares about the well being of other people, >
Read 5 tweets
22 Jul 20
Can anyone clarify the defendants in the Labour Party action? The listing said Evans as a representative of the Labour Party. This seems wrong. A member of an unincorporated association cannot be owed a duty of care in Tort by the other members. >
As all members are equally liable for a Tortious act, even if vicarious, a claiming member are themselves jointly liable for the Tort. You cannot owe a duty of care in Tort to yourself. Harrison v West of Scotland Kart Club 2004 SC 615. A claim in libel as a representative action
is not usually allowed because the members may not have authorized the publication and will have a different interest to the person who did published the libel, Mercantile Marine v Toms [1916] 2 KB 243, Winder v Ward (1957) The Times Feb 27.
Read 5 tweets
29 Jun 20
I do wonder about the assumption the Blairite/Right faction in Labour are super competent. 2019 was a disaster. It was bad and predictably so. In % vote terms 2010 was worse, so was 1983. 1997 was good but not actually as good as all of 1945-1970. Image
An upswing had begun under John Smith in 1992 and the Blairite playbook had a short term effect 94-97 to reach a Labour vote modern high point in 1997. Post 1997 it was a strong downwards slope to a 2010 result that was close to the worst since 1931.
It is worth noting the Blair 1994-97 upturn was matched by a historically low Tory vote (their worst in 100 years). The Tory downturn had begun in 1992. Obviously it is impossible to know why Labour % went up a steeply 1994-97 or if the declining Tory vote was a factor.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(