Tony Greenstein | 14 May 2016 | Post Views:

I am invited to a
Labour Party Investigation into Allegations against me, I am not allowed to know the nature of these allegations
Alice in Wonderland in her trial – Labour Party practice is modeled on her trial

I was suspended  from the Labour Party on the 18th March. Despite repeated requests, the
Labour Party’s General Secretary Iain McNicol has refused to release any
details of the allegations made against me. 
I apparently made certain comments to which persons unknown took
objection, but I am not allowed to know either the comments nor the persons who
were so aggrieved. 

Little could Franz Kafka have known that the Labour Party would model its witch hunts on his  book
McNicol’s reticence in letting me know the
reasons why I was suspended, did not extend to that well known Labour newspaper,
The Telegraph.  On April 2nd it led with
a story on my suspension Corbyn told to‘exorcise’ anti-Semitism in his party and The Times followed suit the same day Labour welcomes back blogger who compared Israel to Nazis 
I have now been summoned by Harry
Gregson, Labour’s acting Regional Organiser, to an investigation
hearing.  Gregson has not provided
me with any details of the allegations against me, despite my having requested this of him.  Any questions that he might put to me could
only be asked as a form of ambush.  Such
a method of inquiry, if an employer tried it on, would result in a finding of
automatic unfair dismissal.  No court of law would allow cross-examination on the basis of refusing access to evidence.
Alice dismisses her judges as a pack of cards
Of course I would have little difficulty
swatting away questions from a minor apparatchik such as Gregson but that would be entirely
besides the point.  There is a principle
involved.  Anyone who is accused of an
offence, however trivial or grievous, is entitled to know the nature and
detail of those allegations.  Only in a
police state are you not given the details of what you are accused of.  It is a damning indictment of the Labour
Party that they are incapable of adhering even to the most basic rules of fairness.
For the Labour Party to tolerate such a
situation sheds much light on the nature of the accusations I am facing and the
people who have made these allegations. 
Because of course in Israel when Palestinians are administratively
detained without trial for periods of 6 months at a time, they too have no
right to see the evidence against them. 
This is the system that Blair brought in for terrorism trials, with its system
of special advocates, whereby the accused was not informed of much of the
prosecution case.  It would seem that Blair’s rules of justice have now seeped into the Labour Party.
Perhaps attacking Apartheid Israel and Zionism
is a form of political terrorism?  Most
people would think that a state that discriminates in every area of its life
against the indigenous population and locks people up without trial is the
Exactly my position!
Fortunately the Labour Party isn’t able
to detain or torture me and since the Blairites who put McNicol and co. in office
are not in power themselves, they can’t extraordinarily render me to a country
that will carry out third party torture on their behalf.
I have therefore written to Gregson
saying that the dates and times of the proposed meeting are not in any event
possible but that I have no intention of meeting up with him until I am
provided with the requisite details.  In
any event I have put in a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act
1998 and if Gregson isn’t forthcoming any investigation meeting will have to
wait until the information I have requested is delivered to me.

I can’t imagine what Alice in Wonderland in her trial would have made of it.  She would probably have dismissed Gregson and
McNicol as just a pack of cards!  Or as
Humpty Dumpty said, ‘When I use a word, it means just what I
choose it to mean — neither more nor less. 
The question is which is to be master — that’s all.

Tony Greenstein
May 2016
Mr Gregson,
you for your email which I received today.
am unable to attend for an interview on the day suggested, May 21st
or on any weekend because I have shared responsibility for my autistic son,
Daniel.  I am only therefore able to make
meetings on a weekday.
I do not normally travel outside Brighton both for reasons relating to the care
of Daniel and the need to be on hand in case of an emergency.  I also do not usually travel long distances for
reasons to do with my own health.  I
would therefore expect you, as the acting regional organiser, to attend such a
meeting in the Brighton & Hove constituency.
you for the NEC Advice Note.  I was
already in possession of it.  As you are
aware, since I have both written and spoken to you, I wish to be informed of
the details of the allegations which have been made against me and the
complainant(s).  This is a basic
precondition of any open, fair and transparent investigation.
Having practised in both Employment Tribunals and the
Employment Appeal Tribunal I can assure you that someone who was subject to an
investigation on the basis of unseen and undisclosed allegations would be
considered to be automatically unfairly dismissed.  Even the worst employer wouldn’t fail to
inform someone of the charges or allegations made against them.  I can see no conceivable reason as to why you
are continuing to refuse to disclose the allegations against me and I note that
the NEC Advice note states that: 
‘Unless the complaint or allegations being
investigated are about intimidation by the respondent, the respondent should be
notified of the investigation and the nature of the complaints or allegations
at an early stage.
have this week submitted to the Labour Party General Secretary Iain McNicol a
Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the above
information.  I would therefore suggest
that instead of waiting the statutory 40 days before handing the said
information over to me, that you voluntarily disclose it now.  You also made a promise to the Chair of
Brighton and Hove Labour Party, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, so he informed me, to
provide me with the relevant information.
the event that you continue to refuse to send me the requested information,
then I shall wait until you are forced by law into disclosing it.  I am not prepared to be interviewed ‘blind’
and subject to questioning about matters I cannot prepare for in advance.  Any fair and unbiased investigation would, as
a matter of course, disclose all such information because otherwise it is
interview by ambush.  Any such
investigation would be bound to be seen as unreasonable.
NEC advice states that I can suggest names of witnesses who you will
interview.  Again it is not possible to
suggest names of possible witnesses when I am unaware of the nature of the
allegations to which there might be witnesses.
that the Compliance Unit has already leaked details of the complaints against
me to The Telegraph which, together with The Times, printed a story on 2nd
April 2016, there cannot be any possible reason other than an ingrained
unfairness for your failure to comply with my request.  I would therefore ask you once again to
supply me with the details of the allegations which have apparently been made
against me together with the name(s) of the complainants.
will also be aware that both The Times and The Telegraph retracted any
suggestions that I was anti-Semitic, which I understand to have been the tenor
of the allegations which have been made. 
They also printed letters from me to that effect.  I have made it clear to Mr McNicol that I
will not hesitate to issue claim for defamation should The Labour Party make
any finding that I am anti-Semitic.
look forward to receiving a positive response to my request for information and
an agreement as to time and place when an investigatory hearing might take

Harry Gregson inviting Tony Greenstein to an ‘investigation’ meeting

Posted in

Tony Greenstein

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.