Murder In the Guise of Self Defence? by Les May

THE Times recently carried a piece with the headline ‘Let women use weapons against abusers, urges QC’. Dame Vera Baird, the ‘Victims Commissioner’ wants Priti Patel to change the law to allow victims of domestic abuse to use disproportionate force in self defence. At present a domestic abuse victim can lawfully use only strictly proportionate force to protect themselves.

This woman is a QC and one might expect she would have given some thought to the possible consequences of such a change. Aside from the problem of a woman murdering her husband under the guise of self defence, it has the potential to change a violent, but non-lethal, attack upon a woman into a killing, if the perpetrator feels himself threatened with a weapon being wielded by the victim.

Any competent defence lawyer make the most of this.

****************************************

The British Way

by Les May

MY wife and I are old enough to be considered ‘vulnerable’.  We chose to isolate ourselves from 21 March, which is a few days before the government introduced the ‘lockdown’.  At this moment I have no expectation that we shall ever be able to take up what we thought of as normal life before this; seeing our grandchildren, spending time with our friends, an occasional meal out or a visit to the theatre.

Though I have watched hours of news reports, daily briefings, read innumerable reports and searched the World Wide Web for information, I have been left puzzled by one thing; why did the government allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the causative agent of Covid19, to become established in the British population?
Yesterday the BBC Parliament channel repeated a broadcast of a Select Committee hearing of 25 March 2020 which included oral evidence given be Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College.  At the time Ferguson was recovering from a Covid19 infection and it was not always easy to hear clearly what he was saying, but he said, or appeared to say, that the reason attempts to confine the virus and so prevent it becoming established, was a lack of testing and contact tracing capabilities.

At this point someone, and I am not pointing the finger at Ferguson as this was clearly a political decision, shifted the goal away from preventing further deaths to just controlling the spread in such a way as to prevent the capacity of the NHS to deal with cases becoming overloaded, or as it came to be called ‘to flatten the curve’, and accepting the additional deaths which would be the inevitable consequence.

If indeed lack of testing was one of the reasons for abandoning efforts to confine the outbreak then I find this rather strange.   The WHO guidance on contact tracing does not make reference to testing, it seems that a medical diagnosis is sufficient to initiate contact tracing. Ebola was initially recognised in 1976 though no specific test was available for several years. The guidance is given below.
‘People in close contact with someone who is infected with a virus, such as the Ebola virus, are at higher risk of becoming infected themselves, and of potentially further infecting others.
 

Closely watching these contacts after exposure to an infected person will help the contacts to get care and treatment, and will prevent further transmission of the virus. (my emphasis)

This monitoring process is called contact tracing, which can be broken down into 3 basic steps:

Contact identification: Once someone is confirmed as infected with a virus, contacts are identified by asking about the person’s activities and the activities and roles of the people around them since onset of illness. Contacts can be anyone who has been in contact with an infected person: family members, work colleagues, friends, or health care providers.
Contact listing: All persons considered to have contact with the infected person should be listed as contacts. Efforts should be made to identify every listed contact and to inform them of their contact status, what it means, the actions that will follow, and the importance of receiving early care if they develop symptoms. Contacts should also be provided with information about prevention of the disease. In some cases, quarantine or isolation is required for high risk contacts, either at home, or in hospital.
Contact follow-up: Regular follow-up should be conducted with all contacts to monitor for symptoms and test for signs of infection.’
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/contact-tracing

But having ruled out the labour intensive process of contact tracing and isolation, and moving to the present containment/mitigation strategy it seems likely that at some future date that is precisely what will have to be implemented. This is what Neil Ferguson is quoted as saying on the Imperial College website
‘The challenge that many countries in the world are dealing with is how we move from an initial intensive lockdown… to something that will have societal effects but will allow the economy to restart. That is likely to rely on very large-scale testing and contact tracing.’

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196477/j-ideas-neil-ferguson-tells-mps-lockdown/

If the government is hoping that the ‘testing’ will be a reliable antibody test it is possible it will have a long wait as this does not seem to be on the horizon at the moment, so we are back to asking why contact tracing cannot follow a medical diagnosis.

https://www.klfm967.co.uk/news/world-news/3085229/coronavirus-no-evidence-that-covid-19-survivors-have-immunity-who-warns/

I have previously commented on the proposal to develop an ‘app’ for use in contact tracing.  Even the USA is recruiting staff involved in census data collection to assist in contact tracing.  Perhaps the UK should do likewise now and not leave it until ‘they get round to it’.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2020/04/test-isolate-track-and-trace.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2020/03/we-have-cunning-plan.html

Rigorously making sure that no potential virus carriers enter the country without being quarantined and tracing and isolating contacts if this fails, would have been costly to the economy because of its effects on trade as well as to our personal freedom to move freely to and from other countries. But are the uncertainties of the present situation really better? 

 

In case you think I am using 20/20 hindsight in constructing my comments I’m not. On 14 March just at the time the UK government was abandoning any attempt to confine the outbreak Martin Hibberd, professor of emerging infectious disease at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was quoted in The Times (page 7) as expressing concern about government planning that the virus cannot be stopped and instead aiming for a controlled peak in the summer which assumed a large proportion of the population would become infected and recover.

Even before there were any cases in the UK on 25 January the website ‘Technical Politics’ published a long article about Covid19 which ended by saying ‘Our Government needs to be ahead of the game: ahead in its thinking and in its action’ and included the following questions;

Does the Government have a plan to quarantine parts of the UK if there is a localised outbreak?

If the pandemic reaches the UK, where will suspected sufferers be treated? 
 
What facilities will be designate for the treatment of sufferers? 
 
Who will staff those facilities?
What palliative care can be provided prior to the development of a vaccine?
Who needs to go to work, and who can stay at home?
If school is cancelled, will teachers get paid?
How will the supply chain bear up under the circumstances?
What happens if Britain is not able to import that which it does not produce?
What about people working in the private sector?
How will the economy bear up?
Will companies lay off workers and if so, are we ready for an increase in unemployment?
How to make sure that public finances don’t take such a great hit that a debt crisis is caused?
What about the risk of civil unrest?

https://web.archive.org/web/20200222131735/https://www.technicalpolitics.com/articles/too-weak-too-slow-the-uk-governments-dithering-response-to-the-wuhan-coronavirus-increases-the-risk-of-major-loss-of-life/

Whilst I think the government response to this pandemic has been shambolic, contradictory and even duplicitous in so rapidly abandoning attempts to confine and eliminate the virus so that it did not become endemic in the UK now is not the time to hold an inquest because there is still plenty of time for the foolishness of this strategy to become even more apparent.  But I hope that pressure will build for the establishment of an independent and public inquiry into the government’s response including its use and reliance on ‘modelling’.
http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2020/03/we-are-following-science-oh-really.html

***********************************

Hidden in Plain Sight

by Les May

NORTHERN VOICES does not have a ‘party line’ in spite of some people thinking it should adopt theirs.  But there are some discernible themes; a belief in Orwell’s dictum ‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’, a reluctance to spray around like so much confetti words like, nazi, fascist, racist, sexist, anti-semite, islamophobe, homophobe etc and an unwillingness to inflate the importance of Tommy Robinson and his ilk.

Recent events have shown that it is not the streetwise rabble rousers like Robinson that we need to fear will move us along the road to a far right politics. It’s the respectable schemers who have managed to get themselves into 10 Downing Street and are working on ways of keeping themselves there in perpetuity, we should have been keeping a close eye on.

In this context it’s interesting to note the different reasons cited by MPs who have left the Tory party in the recent past and those who have left the Labour party. In a joint letter Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston described how the leadership had allowed a ‘hard-line anti-EU awkward squad’ to take over the Tory party. In other words their reasons for leaving were political differences about the EU.   In sharp contrast the MPs who have left the Labour party have claimed it to be ‘racist’ and ‘anti-semitic’, two vague and infinitely elastic notions. It seems that the Tory dissenters have been far more aware of where the real danger lies than some who claim to be ‘of the Left’.

During the weeks immediately prior to Johnson sliding into the position of Prime Minister, having first been crowned by Tory party membership,  I watched, three Labour MPs who at different times were contributors to BBC2’s ‘Politics Live’, launch their on attack Johnson by saying he was ‘racist’.  It was the Tory ‘grandee’ Chris Patten, last governor of Hong Kong, who launched his attack on Johnson by saying he as a ‘liar’, before saying a lot of other uncomplimentary about him.

Calling Johnson a racist on the slender evidence of remarks he has made is lazy. We should be able to expect some deeper political insights from our MPs.  One only had to listen to the MPs who are backing him to realise they were single mindedly determined to take the UK on their own terms. And behind them are a few Tory MPs who would not serve in his administration to make sure he does not waver and leave the EU with ‘a deal’.  Is he going to end up as their puppet?

The shape of things to come if Johnson wins the next election can be seen already.   Sajid Javid is said to be unhappy with Johnson’s spending pledges.  After he is safely in Number 10 these could be quietly dropped.  Bullying has become the order of the day.  According to The Times, Dominic Cummings who has been imported as Johnson’s enforcer told a meeting of special advisers, ‘If you don't like how I run things, there's the door. Fuck off.’ Johnson is threatening to withdraw the whip from Tory MPs who do not back him.

If we do end up leaving the EU without a deal and Johnson does win the next election, I hope the Labour MPs who have worked so assiduously to undermine Jeremy Corbyn are proud of themselves.

**********************

This Sporting Life

by Les May

ACCORDING to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church my wife and I are adulterers.
According to an Australian rugby player called Israel Folau the doors of Hell await us, along with ‘Drunks, homosexuals, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators’.  As that covers most of the human race I assume the place is going to be a bit crowded when I get there.


Personally I don’t take this sort of stuff very seriously so as to avoid encouraging them.

Unfortunately some people do take it seriously including rugby player Billy Vunipola who ‘liked’ it on Instagram, the English Rugby Football Union who have ‘summoned’ Vunipola, his club Saracens, and Channel 4, which has decided not to employ him again as a contributor to its match coverage.


Now I don’t think that the decision by these organisations to pillory England’s number 8 is an attempt to pledge their undying support for we adulterers, atheists, drunks, fornicators, idolators, liars and thieves. It’s more likely to do with a Times headline of ‘England rugby star defends post telling gay people hell awaits’.


Which rather prompts a question about why homosexuals are thought more worthy of protection from comments like this than than the rest of us.  And please don’t tell me that homosexuals are a persecuted minority.  Forty odd years ago my wife lost her job because the life she had chosen did not meet with the approval of her church.


Will the English Rugby Football Union and Saracens behave like the Roman Catholic Church did all that time ago, and how Channel 4 have behaved just recently?  Quite likely, but what strange bedfellows they make.


As far as I am concerned those who feel offended by this kind of thing are what my Dad would have called ‘mard-arses’.   It’s a pity they’ve nowt better to do with their time.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mard

*******

Half Bricks and Abuse of MPs

by Les May

HARRIET Harman has been at it again.  In last Saturday’s Times she was reported to have said that some MPs had changed their stance, presumably on Brexit, because of threats and abuse they had received.   But as is often the case with Harriet the story she is telling is a bit lacking in detail. Or to put it another way we have only Harriet’s say so for it.

As I pointed out recently, Luciana Berger has been repeatedly verbally abused and physically threatened, but the people doing it are not connected with the Labour party.  It’s not good enough for her to say that she believes that the abuse she received after the incident with the mural in 2018 came from ‘left wing individuals’.  Without some firm evidence I am not willing to believe claims of this kind.

This is a re-run of what we saw in July 2016 when The Guardian ran a story about a brick being thrown through the window of Angela Eagle’s constituency office after she declared her intention to challenge Corbyn for the Labour leadership.

According to the paper, ‘Eagle called on Corbyn to rein in his supporters, saying attacks such as the vandalising of her office were “being done in his name, and he needs to get control of the people who are supporting him and make certain that this behaviour stops and stops now.  It is bullying.  It has absolutely no place in politics in the UK and it needs to end”.'

What’s interesting about the Berger and Eagle cases is the lazy assumption that it is supporters of Jeremy Corbyn who were responsible and that he should somehow or other ‘control’ them. I’m a supporter of Corbyn, but if I write something to which you take exception, take it up with me, don’t try to blame Corbyn.

If you make lazy assumptions like this and are not meticulous in finding out the facts before rushing into print it’s easy to give the impression that Labour is a hotbed of bullying and anti-semitism.  Just because they print it does not mean we have to believe it. 

********* 

A Symbol of Global Repression

by Les May

THE title of this piece is that used by the ‘i’ newspaper to preface two extracts, one from The Times and the other from the Daily Telegraph.  Both relate to the case of Asia Bibi the Pakistani Christian woman who was held on death row for eight years accused of blasphemy before finally being acquitted by the Pakistan Supreme Court.   The acquittal resulted in mobs taking to the streets demanding that she be hanged.  The rioting mobs were only placated when the president of Pakistan Imran Khan said that her acquittal would be ‘reviewed’.  Since then she has been in hiding and her defence lawyer has fled to the Netherlands of fear of his life.

A report in The Telegraph quoted Jeremy Hunt the Foreign Secretary as saying:  ‘So often, the persecution of Christians is a telling early warning sign of the persecution of every minority. But I am not convinced that our response to the threats facing this group has always matched the scale of the problem’.

A Times editorial said ‘Asia Bibi’s case symbolises the fate of persecuted Christians around the world. It is welcome that the Foreign Secretary has clarified the Government’s stance whilst acknowledging the UK’s failings with regard to safeguarding Christian’s overseas.’

What is both surprising and disappointing is that it has been left to a Tory cabinet minister and two Tory supporting papers to take up the Asia Bibi case. The normally very vocal so called ‘liberal left’ with its obsession with identity politics has ignored her plight.  I am also aware that some time ago one of the Northern Voices editors contacted Jeremy Corbyn’s office for a response to the Asia Bibi case.  A reply is still awaited.

As I have mentioned before I have no axe to grind on this as I am an atheist.   But I cannot help noticing that all too often, because some Christians express views about homosexuality and abortion that some people do not like, Christians are seen only as persecutors of others and never as victims of persecution.

So far as I am concerned Christians are free to believe that they know what God thinks about homosexuality or abortion and to tell the rest of us if they are minded to do so.  I am free to ignore them. It’s called tolerance and stems from the belief that freedom of speech is having the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Given that Asia Bibi is in fear of her life, yet her plight is ignored by the so called ‘liberal left’, puts into perspective the constant whingeing from assorted self interest groups about trivial incidents which they claim are ‘offensive’. A stray hand on someone’s knee or calling someone with full set of wedding tackle ‘he’ when they claim to be ‘she’, doesn’t really compare with having mobs on the street determined to hang you from the nearest lamp post.

Richard Howson took the money & shares!

THIS morning someone curious had got onto the Northern Voice Blog by googling 'richard howson + panama papers'.

Who is Sir Richard Howson?

Richard Howson worked at Balfour Beatty, Bovis and Tarmac before becoming Operations Director for the Carillion Building business in 1999. In March 2004 he was promoted to National Construction Director on the Carillion Building senior management team, before becoming Managing Director of Carillion Rail in 2006, and then Managing Director of Carillion’s Middle East and North African operations in 2007.^[2]  Howson was appointed chief operating officer of Carillion in September 2010 and CEO in December 2011.^[3] He stepped down in July 2017, following a profits warning that led to the company's shares falling almost 40%, with Keith Cochrane temporarily taking on the role.^[4]
Howson was asked to return his bonus, following the announcement of a £845 million impairment charge in its construction services division under his leadership at Carillion.^[5] On 29 September 2017, it was revealed that Carillion's losses for the six months ended 30 June 2017 totaled £1.15 billion, following a further write-down of £200 million, this time in its support services division.^[6]

The company Carillion is under formal investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority for the term Howson was CEO.^[7]

Last September, The Times reported on demands from leadiing shareholders that Carillion should be clawing back bonuses paid to former directors of the stricken construction firm as it tried to shore up its finances.

The aim then was to recoup millions of pounds in shares and cash paid to ex-chief executive Richard Howson and former finance chief Richard Adam.

Carillion has been suffering since admitting in July 2017 that it had problems with contracts in the UK, the Middle East and Canada that would cost it £845m in writedowns.   It then fell out of the FTSE 250 index of mid-cap companies.

Carillion’s downfall, at that time had wiped 84% from its shares in a year, has left investors nursing heavy losses. Its shares closed at 42.75p, valuing the £5.2bn turnover company at just £184m.

Long-serving Sir Richard Howson and Adam last year made £591,000 and £418,000 respectively in bonuses and long-term incentives.

Richard Adam quit in January 2017, after serving in the role of finance chief since 2007, he was rewarded with a  2016 bonus of £139,932 which was paid entirely in cash, against company protocol. However, Howson’s £245,224 bonus was paid half in shares.

At the time Howson earned bonuses and long-term incentives worth £439,000 in 2015 and £246,000 in 2014, while Adam made £332,000 in 2015 and £203,000 in 2014.

Not bad fir someone who saw the ship go down on his watch.

 

Www.northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2012/06/tameside-council-leader-kieran-quinn.html

****** 

FEEDING CARILLION CONTRACTS

by Brian Bamford

LAST November, the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Sir Vince Cable, expressed his anxiety that the Tory government was 'feeding' contracts to the blacklisting company Carillion.  iIn a speech at the Construction News Summit Sir Vince said that he was worried the troubled contractor was seen as 'too big to fail'.

This statement followed a claim by the public accounts committee chair, Meg Hillier, who had announced to The Times that any failure at Carillion would be 'catastrophic' for some government projects.

Last week, Kate Burgess, in the Financial Times wrote:
'If Carillion was a bricks n’mortar building rather than a bricks n’mortar business employing 43,000 workers it would be rubble by now.  It is a miracle of engineering that Carillion still stands. Its debt — close to £900m — plus a £590m pension deficit tower over equity.  The shares have fallen from above 200p a year ago to 17p, valuing the group at £75m, and it has only just averted breaching its banking covenants.'

What's interesting is that the now deceased chair of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, Councillor Kieran Quinn, in September last year called for 'direct relationship with our contractors'.  At that time Coucillor Quinn juggled the job as Pension Fund Chair with his position as Labour leader of Tameside local council.   Significantly, Council Quinn had formed a close municipal partnership with Carillion in Tameside providing contracts for the troubled company at least since 2010.  When it was
pointed out to him by Tameside Trade Union Council that the company had long been up to its neck in the blacklisting of trade unionists in the British building trade - reply came there none!
{see www.alanwainwright.blogspot.com/2017/07/carillion-lies.html  }

Councillor Kieran Quinn died on Christmas Day, it remains to be seen who will replace him in his many jobs.

The Financial Times journalist Kate Burgess has written of Carillion’s current predicament:

‘Some may hope that Andrew Davies, who replaces Mr Howson as chief steeplejack this month, can repair the group’s stock market rating from his boatswain’s chair.  They will be lucky.  The group has staved off its lenders for a bit. But a debt-for-equity swap is on the cards.  The banks now in charge of Carillion will be slow to call in the demolition team. The group is, after all, one of the UK government’s biggest contractors, employs thousands of sub-contractors and is entwined with rivals in joint ventures.  Unravelling the cross-guarantees and insurance bonds would take time and skill. But when necessary, lenders are as adept as any demolition expert at causing unstable skyscrapers to implode and minimising the damage to surrounding buildings.  Note to investors, it takes months to prepare sites, but a building can fall in on itself in less than 10 seconds.' 

There is a saying that before the house falls in, one always hears the crack!

*****************

Unite Chief & Anonymous 'Smear' Tactics

Len McCluskey says 'Unite members deserve better'

LAST week, Len McCluskey, the current General Secretary of Unite the Union, dispatched a letter to the members of the Unite union complaining about an 'anonymous' communication which he described as 'abusing and smearing both the name of our great union and myself'.

Mr.McCluskey claims: 

'Clearly, this mailing is connected with the election for General Secretary presently under way and is part of a campaign to attack Unite for its fighting back approach to defending our members.  The “articles” contained within it recycle smears from newspapers which are not merely hostile to myself, but to trade unionism.'

The anonymous document is a re-print of stories in the press from the MailOnline; The Times and The Sunday Times.  The claims, which Mr. McCluskey describes as 'lies' including claims about a 'cut-rate £90,000' loan and other lurid stories..

McCluskey argues that the 'ruling establishment, both in the media and political circles, have ,,, an absolute interest in both undermining myself as your General Secretary and your union as the leading democratic force fighting to defend and advance the interests of working people across our nations.'

It is suggested that the anonymous communication seems to be 'a breach of Unite's data security' and Gail Cartmail, the Acting General Secretary of Unite is presently investigating the matter.

Up to now two other members of Unite have declared their intention to fight for the top job in Unite:  Ian Allinson, from Higher Blackley in Manchester, the chair of Unite's UK combine in Fujitsu, and Gerard Coyne, a full-time officer from the West Midlands.

Trade Unionist Disciplined: Alec McFadden case

Below is a campaign statement that has been sent to Northern Voices
by the Campaign to defend Alec McFadden.  Though we have made some
investigations about this problem, Northern Voices does not have enough
information to justify us taking sides at this stage.  In the light of this it has
been decided to publish the statement below in full without comment, which
was sent to us by Liz Epps on behalf of the campaign to defend Alec McFadden.

ALEC McFadden, a stalwart of the trade union movement for over 50 years, has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice which is having terrible repercussions. He needs your support. Alec is known and respected throughout the country for his work as a union organiser, and for his role since 1996 in running the Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre which has provided help and assistance to thousands of people. He is a committed campaigner against sexism, racism, fascism and opposition to benefits sanctions. He suffered a serious facial wound when a fascist attacked him with a knife at his home on the Wirral.

Alec organised a very successful Anti- Austerity March in October 2015. At the end of the protest, on 3rd October 2015, the marchers had a meal at Smith’s restaurant in Eccles, Salford where Alec was the compere for the evening with a number of speakers including Rebecca Long Bailey MP for Salford, Steve North Unison branch secretary and the then Mayor of Salford Ian Stewart. Also present were other local councillors and the press.  Five weeks later Alec was informed by Unite (13 November) that it ‘had received a formal complaint from one of our members about your actions during the March against Austerity from Thursday 1st October to Sunday 4th October.’ It was alleged he had breached Unite’s Dignity and Harassment Policy. No further details were divulged. Two weeks later Alec had received a further letter from Unite (25 November) which told him no more than the identity of the complainant and that she had made a complaint which ‘relates to alleged incidents which took place between 1st and 4th October 2015 towards another Unite member’.

Investigation

Unknown to Alec, witness statements were made by the complainant and two supportive witnesses.  On 6 January 2016he complainant and one witness were interviewed by a Unite Investigation panel on 6 January 2016, again without the knowledge of Alec. So Alec had no opportunity to challenge them, nor was the panel able to put any response from Alec to the witnesses, since the panel had not disclosed the witness statements or even the nature of the allegation to Alec.  It had certainly not asked him for his side of the story.

Alec was then called to attend before the Investigation Panel on 22nd January.  By then all Alec knew was what was in the two letters he had received. He had no idea what was alleged against him.  The Investigation Panel chose not to share with him the statements it had obtained from the complainant and her witness or the notes made of their interviews by the panel. So Alec had no idea of the case against him and no chance to prepare a defence.   When the interview with Alec commenced he was still in complete ignorance of the date, time, place and nature of the alleged ‘incidents’.  It was not until half way through the interview that he was shocked to be told that he was alleged to have slapped the complainant on the bottom at the dinner in the middle of the restaurant.  He was not told that the complainant’s witness had added ‘the lights were quite bright and we were very visible to our fellow marchers and other guests’.  Alec denied the allegation.  The panel asked no further questions about it.  Neither the complainant nor her witnesses were present when Alec was interviewed, and since he had not been provided with their witness statements or notes of the interview, he had no opportunity to point out inconsistencies or contradictions in their evidence.  Nevertheless, the investigation panel found that there was a case for him to answer.

Disciplinary

Next Alec was called to a formal Unite disciplinary hearing on 15th April 2016. Before hearing Alec’s defence or his witnesses, he was startled to be told by the Chair of the Disciplinary Panel: ‘From what has been presented to us, in all probability, some misconduct has taken place.’ This conclusion was based on solely on their reading of the report of the Investigation Panel.

The Disciplinary Panel refused a request that the complainant and her witnesses should attend and give evidence to the Panel because it would be ‘inappropriate.’ So Alec and his representative were denied the chance to question them, put his case to them or explore the serious inconsistencies in their account of the alleged incident. Likewise, the Panel denied itself the opportunity to hear the complainant and her witness in person so as to weigh up the credibility of their account. Even Alec’s offer that the complainant be questioned without Alec being present was refused.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, the Disciplinary Panel reached the same conclusion at the end of the hearing that it had before the case began: ‘that in all probability, Mr McFadden did commit the offence of slapping [the complainant] on the bottom.’ The conclusion was expressed to be based solely on the evidence of the Complainant’s witness, since it said that to disbelieve her statement ‘would be tantamount to an accusation of lying.’ How the Panel could determine whether she was lying or not without hearing and seeing her give her evidence and being questioned about it was not explained. Nor was it explained on what basis the Panel were able to disregard the evidence of Alec and his witnesses (that they had neither seen anything untoward nor heard anyone speak of such a thing during the course of a long evening during which both Alec and the Complainant were present, at one stage sitting next to each other.) The Disciplinary Panel decided that Alec must be banned from office in Unite and attend Unite’s Dignity and Respect Training Course.

Appeal

Alec appealed to an Appeal Panel of Unite’s EC. Again Alec’s rep asked that the complainant and her witness attend, give their evidence orally and be subject to questions from him and the Panel. He emphasised that inconsistent and contradictory evidence of the Complainant and her witnesses should be subject to at least some questioning and scrutiny as no such questioning or scrutiny had occurred at the Investigation or Disciplinary stages. This request was dismissed out of hand and the Panel refused to hear for themselves the evidence against Alec or allow it to be questioned.

Alec provided the panel with even more witness statements of those present in the restaurant including the MP and even the Restaurant manager and staff, all of whom clearly stated they saw or heard nothing of the alleged incident which according to the complainant took place in view of everyone.

Particularly significant was that Alec’s rep also sought to introduce the evidence of a Mr S who had, in August 2016, been told by the complainant that she had not been assaulted by Alec and that she had been pressurised into making the complaint.  The Appeal Panel refused to entertain this evidence on the ground that ‘it was an unsubstantiated account of an alleged conversation with the complainant that had been compellingly and comprehensively rebutted by her.’   This appears to be false.  There was no evidence that Mr S’s account had ever been put to the complainant - let alone that she rebutted it.  As noted, Alec’s request for her attendance had been refused. It was not suggested that she had made a further, undisclosed statement rebutting Mr S – such a statement would surely have been produced had it been made.

The Appeal Panel’s refusal to entertain this crucial exonerating piece of defence evidence can only have been because it fundamentally undermined the prosecution case. That is a travesty of justice.

In the light of that it was no surprise that the Appeal panel upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Panel. When his rep asked how long Alec would be suspended from Office he was told it was for at least 5 years! That is until Alec is 75.

Breach of Confidentiality + Media Smears

If that were not bad enough, what followed will shock and concern every trade union activist. Confidential details of the case, including a statement by the complainant were leaked to the media. This could have only come from someone within Unite.  The angle the media took was to attack Alec and link him to Jeremy Corbyn so as to undermine him.  Alec had been one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters and articles in the Telegraph, Times, Liverpool Echo and Guardian were spun to try to damage Corbyn and denigrate Alec.

The TUC

In September 2016, the TUC informed Alec that in addition to the sanctions imposed by Unite, the TUC also banned him from holding his elected position representative to and as chair of the TUCJCC. That is not an ‘office’; it is certainly not an office in Unite and besides Alec’s position on the TUCJCC is also because he is a member of Unison.  More significantly still, the TUC has no power to prevent Trades Union Councils nominating who they wish to represent them on the TUCJCC, the TUC has no disciplinary powers over members of affiliated unions and had held no hearing to allow Alec to present a case before imposing such a penalty.  But the penalty imposed by the TUC went yet further than that imposed by Unite: Alec was barred from unofficial pre-meetings of the TUCJCC and from attending any TUC event, including those open to the public!

Questions have even been raised about Alec’s employment.

Facebook Lies

Now new evidence has emerged from the Facebook postings of the complainant.  She has changed her mind again and decided to revert to claiming that the incident did take place and she has broadcast details of the allegation along with grossly offensive comments about Alec.  Even more disturbingly, having linked to an article about an (unrelated) Employment Tribunal case against UNITE for sexual harassment she made the following comment in relation to her own case:

‘In my experience the equalities officer was invisible, the questioning that I was subject to would not be out of place among rape apologists, the concern for the person making the complaint was non–existent’.

This is a quite remarkable claim since one of the most unjust features of this drawn out disciplinary process is that the complainant was never questioned about her allegation - let alone in the manner she describes.  She was never present to face any questions put to her by Alec, his rep or the Disciplinary or Appeal Panels which took the decisions.  Before the Investigatory Panel the notes show that she was never asked even to describe the alleged incident; her prepared statement was simply accepted as fact. The sole questions about the alleged incident were: ‘…you had to ask him to move is this when the incident happened? And if so what kind of a slap was it?’  To which the answer was ‘Yes.  It was a hard slap; I was shocked and carried on walking…’  The allegation that the Unite Investigation Panel were behaving like ‘rape apologists’ is both a very serious allegation and one that is totally refuted by the notes.

This Facebook posting casts further serious doubt on the credibility of the complainant.

Unfortunately there is no further appeal under Unite rules and Alec appears to have no alternative but to take his case to the Certification Officer, given the appalling consequences that he is facing.

Every trade unionist should fight to root sexual harassment out of our movement and ensure our events are safe places for all members. But there is also no place in our movement for those who make false accusations against individuals and the union, then broadcast false and wholly misleading details of the matter on social media. More than that, no-one should be convicted without a fair trial.

Defend Alec

Alec has a long and proud record of promoting and encouraging women to get active in the union movement, he has never been subject to these kind of accusations in over 50 years of service in the movement.  Natural justice is a requirement of Unite’s disciplinary rules (rule 27.2) but Alec has been denied it.  Here, that denial was in refusing Alec the right to question those who made allegations against him and in refusing to hear a witness who had vital evidence for his defence.  The witness statements of many respected people present at the restaurant where the alleged incident took place have been simply ignored or discounted.  He has had confidential details of an internal union matters leaked to the press where it was spun to attack Jeremy Corbyn.  He has now discovered that his accuser has put on social media claims which are clearly both untrue and bring the union into disrepute.

He has been removed and suspended from office for over 5 years and the TUC has tried to remove him from elected positions that are completely unconnected to his membership of Unite.

Questions for Unite

We call on the Executive Committee of UNITE and the General Secretary to review this case as a matter of urgency.  As trade unionists we fight on a daily basis against injustice; we cannot allow this to happen to Alec.  Please support our call for a review of this decision and an investigation into the scandalous claims made by the complainant and the manner in which confidential information was leaked to the Tory media to be used to attack both Alec and Jeremy Corbyn.

Email: defend.alec.mcfadden@hotmail.com   10th October 2016

Printed and Published by defend Alec McFadden campaign

Child Abuse Judge Lambasts Enquiry

DAME Lowell Goddard, who became the third judge to walk out when she resigned last month, described the inquiry’s size and scale as an 'inherent problem' that needs 'remodelling'. 
She also claimed it is under-funded and suffers from a lack of experienced staff. 
The New Zealand judge urged home secretary Amber Rudd to review the inquiry’s remit, which was set up to probe child abuse allegations in institutions, such as Westminster, the church, councils and schools, over the past 60 years. 
In a memo to the home affairs select committee, which was seen by The Times, she wrote:
'With the benefit of hindsight, or more realistically the benefit of experience, it is clear there is an inherent problem in the sheer scale and size of the inquiry (which its budget does not match) and therefore in its manageability.' 
The new head is Professor Alexis Jay, a social work specialist. 
She added:  'My departure provides a timely opportunity to undertake a complete review of the inquiry in its present form, with a view to remodelling it and recalibrating its emphasis more towards current events and thus focussing major attention on the present and future protection of children.'
Dame Lowell, 67, stepped down on August 5 after it was reported that she had spent three months of her first year in the job either on holiday or overseas, primarily in New Zealand, her home country. 
She had been appointed with an salary and benefits package totalling £500,000 after Mrs May’s two previous choices for the post also resigned. 
The new head is Professor Alexis Jay, a social work specialist who is backed by a panel, victims of sex abuse and other expert advisers. 
The inquiry, set up in March last year, has already amassed millions of pages of documents but has yet to take evidence from witnesses.

Labour: Conspiracy, Cock Up or Catastrophe?

by Les May

Is there really a conspiracy within the Labour party to prevent Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party? On the evidence available to us the answer to this question must be 'Yes!'  

So what is the evidence? Consider the following newspaper headlines since Corbyn was elected in September 2015. 'Secret bid to oust Corbyn' (The Times 28 November 2015); 'Revealed: plot to oust Jeremy Corbyn by using veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge to spark leadership contest' (Daily Telegraph 3 May 2015):  'Labour rebels hope to topple Jeremy Corbyn in 24 hour blitz after EU referendum' (Daily Telegraph 13 June 2016):  'Labour rebels plan to elect own leader and create 'alternative' if Jeremy Corbyn is re-elected' (Daily Telegraph 30 July 2016). 

Now, Owen Smith dismissed the last of these stories by insisting he would not 'indulge in gossip'.  But given that the other two stories from the Telegraph proved to be true this hardly looks like a considered response.

Not only does this point to a conspiracy but given that no disciplinary action has yet been taken against any of the people involved it would appear that those who run the party are turning a blind eye to what is going on.

If not actually encouraging the plotters they are certainly guilty of a monumental 'cock up'.

On 15 July, Iain McNicol circulated members informing them that the National Executive Committee had decided 'to suspend all normal party meetings at CLP and branch level until the completion of the leadership election'.  The reason (excuse?) given was the by now all too familiar one of some people feeling 'threatened'.

Now I can think of little that would be more likely to destroy cordial relationships between a sitting MP and Labour members in his or her constituency than this.  If Labour members disagree (or agree) strongly with the behaviour of their MP in the Leadership contest (or anything else) they need a way of resolving their differences.  Being unable to meet for two months to do this collectively is asking for trouble.

Three days after these instructions were issued a Labour party member asked me rhetorically, 'what does she think we are, postmen to deliver her leaflets at election time?'  Later that day at an informal meeting of his branch, complaints were voiced about the something the MP had been doing for some time.  My response when I was told this was to point out that it clearly had not bothered anyone up to the present, so why complain now?

Keeping channels of communication between Labour members and their constituency MPs is important.  Whilst I do not doubt that a number of Labour MPs have been plotting against Corbyn, I am sceptical that all those who resigned from his front bench team were active plotters.  Nor do I know what pressure was applied to them to persuade them to resign.

If, as seems likely, Corbyn is re-elected as leader of the Labour party some of the MPs who originally resigned may wish to reconsider their position and agree to work with him.  They need to have a way back without losing face.  Bridges have to be built (or rebuilt) to enable this to happen.

The alternative, that a group of MPs attempt to form a parliamentary group calling itself the 'Labour' party and with a different leader would be a catastrophe, not least because it would involve tearing up the 'one member one vote' electoral system for leader in favour of one in which members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) chose the leader.

Neither The Times nor the Daily Telegraph can be described as papers which support Labour.  A weak and factional Labour party suits their proprietors very well.  So perhaps we should take some of what they say about Labour's difficulties with a pinch of salt.

However that should not stop us from wondering whether the plotters are in fact puppets with someone else 'pulling the strings'.  Bankrolling a legal challenge over who has the right to use the Labour name and owns the assets would not be cheap.  But perhaps someone intent on destroying the Labour party would think it was worth it.  

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4626500.ece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/revealed-plot-to-oust-jeremy-corbyn-by-using-veteran-labour-mp-m/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/labour-rebels-hope-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/labour-rebels-plan-to-elect-own-leader-and-create-alternative-gr/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/jeremy-corbyn-mps-considering-splitting-the-party-should-think-c/

Prime Minister Material?

by Les May

A LABOUR voting friend today told me that Corbyn 'did not look like a prime minister'.  But does he act like one?

 

Yesterday Ajazeera's London correspondent said Andrea Leadsom 'hadn't got the bottle' to make a prime minister.  He was referring to the fact that she had responded badly to a less than favourable article in The Times.  Being unruffled by bad press goes with the territory if you are a prime minister.

 

Corbyn has shown himself to be completely unruffled by the adverse publicity which followed the mass resignations from the shadow cabinet.  How Leadsom must envy this quality.

 

Those who plotted this coup, (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, so lets not quibble about my use of the word 'coup'), relied upon him resigning from the leadership to make it a success.  Clever eh? And they think they are fit to run a country.

 

https://gapingsilence.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/taking-back-control/  

 

https://gapingsilence.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/playing-by-the-rules/