The Labour Party

We seem to have made little progress Jen, in using the current law on social media. Surely we can trace back those posts and treat them as if they had said the same thing in a public place. You do worry about our population when this is an example of it.

The problem is Jalima, that we are now back in the logical fallacy land of "when did you stop beating your wife" so beloved by some of our own members. Such poor reasoning undermines - even more - our faith in papers like the Times and flags up, if it was needed, just how biased it is prepared to be.

Just put this on another thread, but it fits in well here, too.

twitter.com/MayorofLondon

Well unless she says, it can’t go anywhere really can it? This is really awful - if it’s true it’s no laughing matter and if it’s false it’s no laughing matter. Remember the AM in Wales?

So she had double mastectomies in 2014 and 2015?
Poor woman.

Oh, I think it has been established that the moon is not made of blue cheese.
Unless the moon landings were faked of course and they just alleged that they went there.

Perhaps you're right Gracesgran

But then again, perhaps he did do as alleged.
Why would someone say?

Perhaps it never happened. Perhaps the moon is made of blue cheese. We seem to have about the same amount of evidence. Someone said.

Perhaps the remarks were to the same woman? The same one whose backside he allegedly slapped?

Perhaps she and any witnesses are worried about losing their jobs.

"It was reported two witnesses also said they heard Mr Turner tell the woman, who had recovered from breast cancer, she "shouldn't have got rid of her real t* because they were great", before adding: "The ones you've got now are nice enough."

The MP, a former barrister, is alleged to have first made such comments in 2014 and repeated them on other occasions."

How many women who have had double mastectomies has Karl Turner employed?

In the past I don't think a paper like the Times would have printed it maryeliza. I imagine they have covered themselves by putting it as a question, etc., and they use the word 'allegedly' quite freely but it still seems to me you should be able to prosecute for slander somehow.

If we can all go round making anonymous claims about the behaviour of others there are a few on here who might find the mud coming back in their direction and they would be no more able to do anything about it than the MPs, etc., are.

There has to a difference between someone making a complaint about something that happened to them personally eg bullying, sexual harassment etc and a third party saying anonymously that they saw something happening to someone else.

Stories of harassment seem to be turning up in strange places now. There's an article in the FT about Karl Turner about sexual harassment and some pretty horrible comments.

I have to wonder just how far you will go with the mud slinging Primrose. Firstly this was alleged in the FT and now the Times. Now I do wonder if you actually believe they have no axe to grind. I imagine you just don't care as long as you can borrow their mud. True or not you will throw your usual in the direction of the Labour Party without any feeling for the need to ensure there are any facts to back it up.

He denies these accusations. There are no names in the articles, not the name of the "women" or the accusers. The "women" hasn't made any complaint. Labour is unable to investigate what has been printed as there is nothing to go on. There has been evidence - again from an unnamed person so untraceable - that it didn't happen. At this point that is worth about as much as the accusation.

Grandad, I do read the text comprehensively. I'm noticing a pattern in your posts - "with the greatest respect, but" and then something pretty disrespectful. I won't cut and paste your entire posts, but you should check them. Here are some of the phrases you've used.

Under existing employment legislation she would have been retained ...... and that grievance also under current employment legislation has to be heard

I'm afraid you've written paragraphs which refer to employment legislation, which is why I queried it in the first place. There was certainly no hint of any 'compatibility' or equivalence.

The IPSA is responsible for setting ... and paying MPs’ annual salaries. The foregoing would facilitate them being compatible as any employer in the UK

IPSA does indeed set their salaries. It is an independent regulator. Independent is a pretty key word here. Independent from MPs.

The vehicle for the above within the IPSA is a theParliamentary Commissioner for Standards,

I think you're trying to say the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is within IPSA. It is not.

Therefore MPs have an employer who sets their salaries and standards, and within that a vehicle for disciplinary action against them and a body to which to apply their grievances

That's just wrong.
One question I have for you. Which half of this cobbled together Frankenstein 'employer' is investigating the complaint about Debbie Abrahams? IPSA or the PCS?

Whatever remuneration she received for that office was for her employment with that body.
Well, does the office employ her in any capacity at all? Good to see you've got people 'in the office' working on this for you. I asked the cat to give me a hand, but she showed no interest at all.

Another apology for the essay.

Primrose, again with every respect, but I have to ask " do you ever read any text "comprehensively". In regard to ISPA I stated " The foregoing would facilitate them being "compatible" as any employer in the UK", somewhat a big difference there to stating they are "legally" employed under employment contract legislation.

in the above obviously ( to most of us) the ISPA has put in place bodies which give MPs facilities equal to those employed under the above legislation and to which they must comply. Therefore that is employment as I stated.

Also, as a shadow minister Debbie Abrahams was employed by the office of the Leader of the opposition and therefore directly by the Labour party. Whatever remuneration she received for that office was for her employment with that body. Therefore, she had a second employer under which all employment legislation would apply.

she and them are "employed"

Short money is used for the maintainence of the Leader of the Opposition's office, which again would in include imbursement to shadow ministers. One of our legal Secretary's helpfully found me a link to a site that gave full details before I left the office. However., I will try to find that later or when I am in the office again probably Thursday.

durhamjen what did you think of Corbyn's ‘performance’ in the House today......did you watch it all? Be honest.

apology accepted maryeliza

ooohhhh I meant Primrose well there you go really important to pick up on every little point especially when it was obvious and not really important. Terribly sorry for the error

politicalscrapbook.net/2017/10/scandal-tory-mps-have-made-more-appearances-on-russia-today-in-the-past-two-years-than-labour-mps/#more-67624

maryeliza you addressed a post to me which clearly was not for me......that was why I said I had not asked you a question.

Granddad1943, your knowledge of a party you have no loyalty to is admirable, your manners sadly are not, please do not ever address me with -' come an Anniebach tell us' ever again Thank you

Primrose, with every respect, but I find your above statement completely without basis.

Here's the basis.
www.theipsa.org.uk/publications/freedom-of-information/2010-11/foi062/

In short, they are employed.

No, they're not. According to IPSA.

Debbie Abrahams was also a shadow minister who received an enhanced salary by way of the "short money" paid to her from that account within the office of the Leader of the Oppositions Office.

Grandad, with every respect, I find your above statement completely without basis. Can you at least provide me with a link where I can see that this is how a percentage of the Short money is used? What makes you think this is the case?

Quote[ Primrose65 12/03/18. @ 18:28

It's not his job Jen. Employment law does not apply to MPs.

Grandad, MPs are not employed. So employment law does not apply to them. Everything about 'existing employment legislation' may be relevant to employees, but not to MPs. As they are not employed.

Just repeating the same nebulous comments about Hamas and Russia, despite me sharing some contradictory evidence is pretty disappointing. It makes me think that you have your opinion, not based on any sort of evidence, and whatever anyone says, that's your view. Is that a fair assumption that I've made?]End Quote

Primrose, with every respect, but I find your above statement completely without basis. Members of parliament have their salary paid by the IPSA ( the Independent parliamentary standards authority) The IPSA is responsible for setting the level of and paying MPs’ annual salaries. The foregoing would facilitate them being compatible as any employer in the UK. In that under the UK fairness at work act (now encompassed under the Equalities Act) every employer must have a laid out grievance and discipline the procedure.

The vehicle for the above within the IPSA is a theParliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which is an officer of theBritish House of Commons being the office in charge of regulatingMPs conduct and propriety. Therefore MPs have an employer who sets their salaries and standards, and within that a vehicle for disciplinary action against them and a body to which to apply their grievances. In short, they are employed.

Debbie Abrahams was also a shadow minister who received an enhanced salary by way of the "short money" paid to her from that account within the office of the Leader of the Oppositions Office. That office also has a grievance and disaplinary procedure as was demonstrated when it was announced that an investigation had been set up into Debbie Abrahams "employment issues" Therefore she had a second employer.

Also, I have never stated that I am directly employed in employment law. I am employed in industrial safety, which often encumpases sections of employment law by way of the Health & Safety' at Work Act.

In regard to Hamas and Russia Primrose you have made your views clear as have I, as would be in any debate.

Anniebatch, you comment again on others views, but have still not answered the question several of us have asked on "how three members of a panel of 39 can control that panel when each member has an equal voting status.

Come on Anniebach, tell us????

None of them should be on RT, I agree. I didn't realise David Davis had appeared - do you have a link?
I found David Davies - an MP representing Monmouth but not David Davis.

My reply was to your comment about RT dj