On 30th June Shami Chakrabarti produced
on Racism. It has now been taken down on
the orders of Labour’s General Secretary Iain McNicol from Labour’s website. The reason for this is that the
recommendations of the Chakrabarti are clearly inconvenient to McNicol’s
apparatchiks in the Compliance Unit who would not recognise a breach of natural
justice if they had stumbled into Ronald Freisler’s Peoples Court (he was Hitler’s
I have therefore copied it to my google drive
and people can access it there!
In a section on Publicity Chakrabarti
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.
She spoke about ‘the application of the vital legal principles of due
process (or natural justice) and proportionality.’ and noted in respect of
Labour’s complaints and disciplinary procedures that ‘they are wanting. They lack sufficient transparency, uniformity and
expertise in delivery.’
Peter Mason of the JLM is a member of the NCC – this right-wing twerp has previously expressed the view that Ken Livingstone should not be part of the Labour Party
You might think, given that McNicol’s
monkeys in the Compliance Unit had taken 17+ months to bring a case against me, that the NCC would have no objection to me having more than 4 weeks within
which to prepare a reponse to a bundle comprises 189 pages. However you would be wrong.
Labour’s witch hunters are in a
hurry. After having received a knockback
over the expulsion
of Moshe Machover, an Israeli anti-Zionist, they are determined to get the ball
rolling. I am one of the three main
targets of the witch hunters, the other two being Jackie Walker and Marc
The Jewish Chronicle predicted on October 31st that ‘Three forthcoming NCC hearings will involve
Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and Tony Greenstein – all of whom face charges of
antisemitism.’ and sure enough two days later I was emailed a Bundle of
anti-Zionist Moshe Machover readmitted to Labour Party
suspects that even the notorious Justice Melford Stevenson, whose house was
named ‘truncheons’ would have had some difficulty in refusing an application
for a postponement when the person is in hospital! However Labour’s nominally independent National
Constitutional Committee is made of sterner stuff.
I won’t bore people with the details as I am copying below the relevant
correspondence. A Jane Shaw, who is one
more party apparatchik, has only once shown signs of humour. That was when she told me that “The Party
never discusses matters relating to individual members with third parties.” Given that the first I learnt of why I was
suspended, back in April 2016, was when the Telegraph and Times printed stories
on the basis of leaks from the Compliance Unit, I can only assume that this was
said in jest.
Moshe Machover’s reinstatement was a severe setback to Labour’s witch hunters. They are determined to gain their revenge with further expulsions and ‘auto-exclusions’
What is clear is that McNicol and Labour’s Blairite
bureaucracy, after the Left’s success at Conference, are determined to pursue
the witch hunt and to do their best to ensure that right-wing MPs are protected
against reselection. It is to the shame
and discredit of the Left on the National Executive Committee that they have
been silent on the witch hunt.
The major mistake of Jeremy Corbyn so far has been
to refuse to move against Iain McNicol. As long as the Labour apparatus is in
the hands of Blair’s appointees then the Party will not be in full support of
its leader. We saw that in the last
election when on McNicol’s instructions the Party’s main efforts were put into
defending the position of Progress MPs and not in supporting candidates in
winnable seats. McNicol is a treacherous
snake whose head should have been cut off long ago. As long as this viper is allowed to remain in
post he will do as much damage as he can to the Labour Party. His first loyalty is to Labour Friends of
Israel and Progress/Labour First.
I have also written to Ms Shaw stating my objection to Peter Mason, from the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, having anything to do with my case as he was elected to the NCC. In the Jewish News of July 2016 he expressed the view that ‘Ken Livingstone’s continued membership of the party is no longer tenable.’ I realise that Mason probably thinks he is in Greater Israel where convictions in military courts, which try Palestinians (not Jews of course) are running at 99.7% but I have let the NCC know that I object to this creature being anywhere near a tribunal hearing my case.
It has been a slow process getting people together
but we have the next meeting of Labour Against the Witchhunt on Saturday 2nd
December at 12.00-3.00 at the Calthorpe Arms, Gray’s Inn Road, Kings Cross.
I don’t want to be offensive
but corresponding with you is akin to arguing with a dictaphone. You or those who instruct you seem incapable
of responding to the points I have made.
I sent you a detailed
letter of 21st November. I
referred you to the sections of the Chakrabarti Report in respect of due
process. What was your response? Nothing.
By your own admission the
time limits, which are a minimum not a maximum, in Appendix 6 have not
been adhered to yet no flexibility has been shown on the question of time
I have also pointed out that Appendix 6
of the Rules which governs the proceedings of the NCC is in any event advisory i.e.
it is not part of the Rule book. In
other words the NCC retains its discretion but has chosen not to exercise it.
I have also pointed out that section
6(D)(i) of Appendix 6 states that complaints about the procedure adopted by the
Party prior to the presentation of charges will ‘not be entertained by the NCC or panel thereof unless it is material or relevant to the consideration of the evidence
to be used by the presenter in support of the charges.’ (my emphasis)
You say that ‘Your email includes no new information or evidence
to support your contention that you are unable to provide an answer to the
charges by 1 December.’
It should be obvious that a delay by 17+
months in preparing the case against me is highly relevant as to whether I have
sufficient time to prepare my case.
Again you are struck dumb. There
are only two explanations. Either the person instructing you is incapable of
understanding a point that any normally intelligent child would be able to comprehend
or that they are determined to do
McNicol’s work as quickly as possible.
My preference is for the second explanation.
You say that my complaint re the above ‘should be
directed to the General Secretary.’ But
I thought the NCC was in control of its own procedures? Are you really saying that even over the
simplest matters of timetabling that you are taking instructions from the Iain
McNicol? You would seem to be confirming
that the NCC lacks even a figleaf of independence from those prosecuting the
case. Iain McNicol is the last person to
direct a complaint to.
As regards providing ‘independent evidence’
regarding my health or caring obligations, the evidence I have provided so far
is more than sufficient. I am not
willing to play games with you. The fact
that I was in hospital when you sent the charges and the fact that I am under
continual medical supervision by virtue of a liver transplant would be
sufficient evidence for most people.
Whilst I am happy to provide evidence that my son
is detained under the MHA and that he is due for release soon I have no intention
of asking the hospital to provide what can only be subjective evidence about
something they have no knowledge about.
In any event I would not wish to involve them in such a matter.
The real question is what is the objection to
allowing a reasonable time within which to fully answer the 59+ separate charges? The fact that the Labour Party has taken some
20 months since my suspension, which is itself an outrageous length of time for
anyone to be suspended, would be considered extremely relevant by anyone who
purported to be independent.
The only conceivable explanation is that the NCC is
more concerned about going through the motions in its desire to effect my
As part of your commitment to transparency you have
also failed to inform me of the identity of the NCC members who will try my
case. In addition to, of course, the
identity of the complainants. I
therefore wish to register my objection to Peter Mason, a member of the NCC
being on any panel. He is a member of
the Jewish Labour Movement which has made a complaint against me and whose
Chair Jeremy Newmark has tweeted comments desiring my expulsion. The inclusion of Peter Mason would be what is
usually known as a corrupt practice.
Dear Mr Greenstein,
I refer to your email sent on 21
November at 05.59.
Your email includes no new information
or evidence to support your contention that you are unable to provide an answer
to the charges by 1 December and be prepared to attend a hearing on 11th
December. The NCC’s position therefore remains as stated in previous
As regards your complaints regarding
the administration of the investigation and other processes undertaken between
your suspension and the charges against you being presented, it is not accepted
by the NCC that the matters of which you complain are “material or relevant to
the consideration of the evidence to be used by the presenter in support of the
charges” and as such in accordance with appendix 6.6.D.ii the complaint should
be directed to the General Secretary.
I still look forward to receiving your
answer to charge, but regarding the timetable and hearing date, I have to
advise you that there will be no further consideration by the NCC of the points
you have raised unless you are able to provide independent evidence that your
health or caring obligations will prevent you from meeting latest submission
dates and/or attending the hearing.
I confess that when I read your statement ‘The
Party never discusses matters relating to individual members with third
parties. ‘ I had to rub my eyes in astonishment. I can think of
only 3 explanations for your statement.
Either you are in possession of one of those extendable Pinnochio noses or
ii. You are in possession of a
sense of humour, a quality not normally known amongst Labour’s Blairite civil
You are suffering from delusions, hallucinations or other symptoms of a
psychotic disorder, in which case you have my sympathy.
I first learnt about the reasons for my suspension
when I read the Telegraph and Times of 2nd April 2016. Up to then the
Compliance Unit had refused to tell me what it was that I was alleged to have
said that had led to my suspension. This could only have come from a leak
from Labour Party staff such as yourself. Jackie Walker and others have
complained about having been leaked against suggesting that it is an unofficial
policy condoned by Iain McNicol.
McNicol has consistently resisted my suggestion
that he Inquire into these leaks. It is of course understandable that he should
resist having a leak Inquiry since there is no purpose in inquiring into that
which you already know.
Perhaps I should remind you what Shami Chakrabarti
said in her Report, a Report that is no longer available on the Labour Party’s
website. In a section titled Publicity she wrote:
‘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
Your absurd statement was sent in response to my
having pointed out that you were saying one thing to me and another thing to
others who are suspended in respect of time limits for preparing
You have no said where the NCC hearing is.
Please be advised that because of care for my son I will, like the
Investigation Hearing, be unable to make a meeting at a venue outside Brighton
I have just received a copy of your email to
another person under suspension:
‘The relevant section reads:
‘The NCC and I take no part in any aspect of the
Party’s Disciplinary proceedings prior to charges being presented against a
member and regardless of process undertaken and the time taken previously;
thereafter the NCC proceeds towards hearings without unnecessary delay in
accordance with appendix 2 of the Rule Book. We appreciate that Christmas
is imminent and allowance will be made for that when the hearing date is
arranged, but being legally represented is not a reason that is normally
accepted for deferring the date when the answer to charge is due to be
received. Therefore until you hear otherwise I be advise you that your answer
etc. remains due on 8 December.
A panel of the NCC will now be appointed to
hear this case and details of the hearing will be given to you as soon as
possible. Hearings are currently being arranged to take place in January
2018 and every effort will be made to accommodate you according to your
availability if you can let me know before 28 November which dates you could
not attend a hearing in January.
I look forward to hearing from you.’
Perhaps you would like to explain why I was not
asked which dates I could make. It would seem that I am being singled out
for ‘special treatment’ (you can ask McNicol the significance of that phrase
A Question of Equity – the proposed hearing by the NCC of charges
Dear Ms Shaw,
Thank you for your email of 20th
November in response to my previous communication. Before responding to the substance of your
comments it might be helpful to outline the basis of the disagreement that
exists between us.
I was suspended from the Labour Party
on March 18th 2016 because of comments I was alleged to have made. I
was not informed, either then or subsequently, as to the nature of those
comments. It is noticeable that the present charges do not refer to those
comments. I was therefore suspended first and then a search was made for
evidence to justify that suspension. Repeated requests on my part as to the
nature of the allegations against me elicited no response from John Stolliday
of the Compliance Unit.
On April 4th I emailed the
Respondent concerning the above whilst simultaneously being refused any
information concerning the accusations against me. Iain McNicol replied that he
was more concerned at my ‘unwarranted
attack on a hardworking and diligent member of the Compliance Unit’, John
Stolliday, than the leaks themselves.
There can be no doubt that the
Compliance Unit deliberately leaked this information. The Telegraph article spoke
‘’Evidence compiled by Labour’s compliance unit when Mr
Greenstein attempted to join the party last summer, seen by The Telegraph.’ (my emphasis)
At no time has McNicol set up an
Inquiry or displayed any interest in finding out how confidential material
concerning my suspension found its way to the press. Others who have been suspended
have also reported experiencing similar leaks to the press.
McNicol’s disinterest is
understandable. Why set up a leak inquiry into what you already know? The
purpose of such leaks can only have been intended to prejudice future hearings
into the allegations apart from being a flagrant breach of the provisions of
the Data Protection Act 1998.
On May 30th I attended an
Investigation hearing into the allegations which was conducted by Harry Gregson
of Southern Region.
your email of November 2nd 2017, over 17 months later, I received no
further communication regarding my suspension or any hearing.
Rules and Procedures of the NCC
You state in your email that ‘The NCC proceeds towards hearings in
accordance with appendix 2 of the Rule Book in all cases regardless of the
process undertaken before charges are presented to it.’ Appendix 2 is concerned with procedural
guidelines on membership, recruitment and retention.’ I presume you meant Appendix 6.
Appendix 6, the Procedural Guidelines in disciplinary cases brought before the NCC,
do not form part of the Party’s rules although they have been approved by the
NEC. [paragraph 2, Appendix 6] In other words they are advisory and not
The NEC has also given its approval to
the Report of the Chakrabarti Inquiry of 30 June 2016, which I notice has been surreptitiously
removed from the Labour Party’s web site.
In view of the detailed attention paid by Shami Chakrabarti to the Labour
Party’s disciplinary process it is, to say the least, remiss that you didn’t
also send me this Report or the relevant parts.
Chakrabarti devotes Section 5 (pp.
15-22) to ‘Clear and transparent
compliance procedures for dealing with allegations’ and the opening
paragraph speaks of ‘a lack of clarity
and confidence in current disciplinary procedures from all sides of the Party,
including on the part of those who have complained and been complained
says that it is ‘important that the
procedures explain that those in respect of whom allegations have been made are
clearly informed of the allegation(s) made against them, their factual basis
and the identity of the complainant – unless there are good reasons not to do
xiv. In a section Publicity Chakrabarti states that ‘It is completely unfair, unacceptable and a breach of Data Protection
law that … leaks, briefing or other publicity should so often have
accompanied a suspension pending investigation. Indeed such an interim
suspension being public ought to be the greatest exception rather than the
Under The Power of Interim Suspension Chakrabarti speaks of the ‘application of the vital legal principles of
due process (or natural justice) and proportionality.’ It is unacceptable that you have chosen
to pay no regard to Chakrabarti’s recommendations and comments which have equal
if not greater weight than Appendix 6.
the specific points which you make in your letter:
You state that the NCC ‘proceeds towards hearings in accordance
with appendix 2 (i.e. appendix 6 – TG) of the Rule Book in all
cases regardless of the process
undertaken before charges are presented to it.’ (my emphasis).
Not only is this contrary to the most
basic rules of natural justice and equity but it also ignores section 6(D)(i)
of Appendix 6 which states that complaints about the procedure adopted by the
Party prior to the presentation of charges will ‘not be entertained by the NCC or panel thereof unless it is material or relevant to the consideration of the evidence
to be used by the presenter in support of the charges.’ (my emphasis)
My complaints are clearly material and
relevant to the consideration of the evidence especially in the light of
You state that ‘Appendix
6.5.B.i requires letters enclosing the charges and bundle to be relied upon, be
sent to the Respondent giving about six weeks’ notice of the hearing.’ Not only is Appendix 6 not part of the Labour
Party’s Rules but it has to be seen in the light of Chakrabarti and also the
basic principles of natural justice, fairness and equity.
You state that the charges and bundle
were emailed to me. There is no provision within Appendix 6 for email. The
email did not include a copy of the Rules and being in hospital I was unable to
act upon it. Regardless I do not accept service by email.
You state that the package was posted
to me with guaranteed next day delivery on November 2nd. There is of
course no postal rule. It is a fact,
which you do not dispute that I was in hospital in London until 3rd November
and therefore was not at home to sign for the package. I signed for it on
Monday 5th November. Since I
was expected to respond in full within 4 weeks, this was clearly less than 4
It is also noticeable that s.5(B)(i)
says that ‘Letters shall normally be
sent… giving about six weeks notice’ whereas in 5(B)(ii) it specifically
mentions ‘two weeks after date of posting of the letter’. There is no reference in the former to time
running from the date of posting as opposed to receipt.
By your own admission the bundle and
papers were only ‘technically sent’
within the guideline at appendix 6.5.B.i, and you yourself admit that I was ‘given
less than a full six weeks’ notice of the hearing’. Having accepted that I was given less than
the requisite time it is clearly untrue to then go on to state that I was given
a ‘full four weeks’ to submit my
response to the charges. Your suggestion
that ‘If anything that puts the NEC at a
disadvantage’I shall treat as no more than a
Regardless of whether the procedures in
Appendix 6 were strictly complied with, despite admitting that they weren’t
adhered to or were only ‘technically’
complied with, my complaint relates to the procedure leading up to the laying
of charges which have had a serious and adverse affect on my ability to conduct
The NEC had over 17 months since my
Investigation Hearing or 20 months from the suspension itself before it laid
Although there are 3 separate charges
in the Charge Sheet they are broken down into what are, in reality, 54 separate
points. In addition there are 6 separate
complaints. Contrary to assurances that were given at a hearing concerning an
Order under s.7(9) of the DPA 1998, the identity of the complainants has not
been revealed. That cannot help but be
prejudicial since it leaves me unable to assess the complainants’ motivation.
Apart from a copy of my suspension
letter and 4 pages of notes of my Investigation Hearing by Harry Gregson there
are 152 pages of social media posts and random articles as well as 4 pages of
Labour’s Social Media Policy.
Despite the fact that the meeting was
tape recorded and a verbatim transcript produced, the NEC has chosen to use
Harry Gregson’s inaccurate notes even though the Labour Party produced in the
DPA hearing above the actual transcript from my blog.
Clearly a lot of work has been
undertaken assembling the charges and evidence against me and this has taken 17
months. It defies belief as to how you can suggest it is not material to the
charges made against me.
Even were I fit and healthy then it
would be reasonable to extend the period by which I had to fully respond. In
view of the 17 months taken by the NEC then a further period of 3 months would
not be unreasonable unless the Panel has reasons for wishing to expedite the
process. To refuse all consideration of my requests suggests that the Panel is irredeemably
Your second paragraph makes no
sense. You state that you did not
dispute the fact that I was in hospital but you simply required more
information. This is disingenuous. In your email of 13th November you wrote:
‘As regards your request for a postponement of the
hearing set for 11 December and for additional time in which to submit your
answer to the NEC’s charges, I have to advise you that the it has been brought
to the attention of the NCC that although in hospital recovering from surgery
when you received the emailed notice of the charges and hearing on 2 November,
on Saturday 4 November you travelled to London to attend a PSC march and rally
and that that your photograph taken at Brighton station, was posted on Twitter. https://twitter.com/BrightonPSC/status/926761392203497472
I am therefore instructed to ask you to
provide medical evidence regarding the matters that you wish the NCC to make
adjustments to the usual timetable for.’
It is clear that you considered that
your photograph of me at Brighton station was conclusive proof that I was not
convalescing, otherwise why mention it?
I won’t go into the morality of someone who searches the net for
photographs of someone attending a demonstration or their motivation or even
If you had actually bothered to read
the evidence I sent you then you would have realised that my stay in hospital
related to having recently had a liver transplant. Being registered disabled,
the fact that I went on a demonstration is completely irrelevant to the
timescale required to respond to the charges which have been levelled.
I repeat once again that the time which
has been given for a response to the charges, which is less than 4 weeks, is
wholly insufficient and suggests that the Panel is merely going through the
motions by holding a hearing. If the
Panel refuses to review their previous decision then I shall be forced to take legal
advice with a view to preventing the hearing on 11th December going
I will copy this to the NEC and other
interested parties as the matters above are clearly of more general concern.
November 2017, 14:21
NCC proceeds towards hearings in accordance with appendix 2 of the Rule Book in
all cases regardless of the process
undertaken before charges are presented to it, in which the NCC and I take
no part. Appendix 6.5.B.i requires letters enclosing the charges and
bundle to be relied upon, be sent to the Respondent giving about six weeks’ notice of the hearing. In your case
the letter and bundle was emailed
and posted to you with guaranteed next day delivery on 2 November. In
addition to the letter, charge sheet and bundle the posted package also
included copies of the rule under which you are charged, chapter 6 and appendix
6 of the Rule Book. Taking account of the fact that although the package
was technically sent within the
guideline at appendix 6.5.B.i, you had
been given less than a full six weeks’ notice of the hearing, a timetable
was set and included in the letter sent to you that ensured you had a full two
weeks after the letter was received to confirm whether you intended to contest
the charges and a full four weeks to
submit your answer to charge, witness statements etc. as required in
appendix 6.5.B.ii. If anything
that puts the NEC at a disadvantage in that its’ time to respond to your
answer, should it wish to, is reduced.
regards the request for medical evidence, it
was not made because the NCC disputed that you were in hospital when you received
the emailed letter and bundle on 2 November, but to confirm and provide more
information about matters mentioned by you that could require the timetable as
set to be amended to accommodate; i.e. your health issues and your caring
obligations to your son. However the document you provided (there
was nothing further sent with your email dated 16 November) only confirmed that
you had a two night stay in hospital for elective surgery and when considered
together with evidence of you being able on 4 November, the day after discharge
from hospital, to travel to London to attend the PCS march and rally, the NCC decided there was insufficient reason
to amend the timetable and that your hearing should take place as planned on 11