Why did Starmer settle out of court Give a grovelling apology and pay out six figure sum?

Ramblingrose22

Grandad - what is "the above situation"?

Surely challenges will continue to be made by both sides about the allegations in the leaked report regardless of whether Keir Starmer took action to suspend those allegedly undermining Jeremy Corbyn.

Which of the current employment regulations was flouted when Keir Starmer did not suspend the employees cited in the leaked report?

How many of these remain employees of the Labour Party now and of those, how many are in the same roles as before?

Ramblingrose22 the legislation in regards to the handling of workplace grievance and disciplinary procedures was first laid out in the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, much of that statute was encompassed and strengthened under the Equality Act 2010.

I do not believe that there is any reliable information in regards to how many employees cited in the leaked report are still in employment with the Labour party. The release of such information could well be in itself a breach of the Data Protection Act.

Ramblingrose22, when Keir became leader those 'employees' were no longer employed by the Labour Party. Nor were they any longer in the Party. You cannot suspend either from your employment or your Party people no longer in it.

I don't understand the suggestion that disclosing the full names of people alleged to have undermined the antisemitism complaints process in the leaked report, which has led to the Labour Party having to make large payouts, can be in the public interest
Ramblingrose22 you are confusing two events. The payout (which was a choice by Starmer not something the LP had to do) was to do with a Panorama programme when employees and ex employees described a lack of thoroughness in the investigations into anti-semitism by the LP.
The leaked report was compiled to be presented to the Equality Commissions enquiry. When it became widely believed that it would not be presented it was leaked. The people named in this report actually worked against the party they were employed by and so undermined the democratic process in this country which relies on an effective opposition party and this makes it in the public interest to know who did this. The fact that some of the incidents in the report happened as long ago as 2015 indicates a real lack of committment to reveal its contents officially.

Grandad - you have suggested that Keir Starmer flouted current employment regulations but have failed to reply to my question - which ones? So how do we know that he flouted any? You should be careful about accusing people of flouting the law when you cannot even say which law!

You cannot tell me how many of the named staff in the leaked report whom you accused of misconduct are still Labour Party employees. This is important because they may have left and you can't suspend staff who have left.

There is normally a process for reporting allegations of misconduct to the employer so that immediate action can be taken. Did those who knew the names of the staff who were allegedly guilty of misconduct even follow this process?

The Forde Inquiry will hopefully answer this question, but on the face of it, they put the names in the report that was leaked in the hope that the EHRC would see their report and believe it. When it was decided that the report would not be sent to the EHRC someone decided to leak it instead without a thought about the consequences.

You allege that Keir Starmer never protested about the handling of anti-semitism complaints whilst in the Shadow Cabinet. How do you know this? He might have had private conversations with Jeremy Corbyn and others in the Shadow Cabinet where he raised these concerns? You have absolutely no proof that he had no concerns about this.

The only thing I do agree with you about is that there are factions in the Labour Party who disagree with each other. The leaking of the leaked report and its contents show this.

Please do us all a favour and desist from making false and derogatory claims against Keir Starmer or anyone else in the Labour Party that you happen to disagree with which you cannot substantiate.

Just to clarify, my information about former employees comes from the Panorama programme where it was made clear they no longer worked there. There may of course be others still employed but I have no way of knowing that, nor should I.

Devorgilla

Ramblingrose22, when Keir became leader those 'employees' were no longer employed by the Labour Party. Nor were they any longer in the Party. You cannot suspend either from your employment or your Party people no longer in it.

There are two groups involved in the anti-semitism allegations within the Labour party Central Office. The first were those involved in the BBC Panorama investigation and it was those that Starmer apologised to and made a financial settlement with in the last week.

The second grouping are those cited for misconduct in the leaked report and that situation is still ongoing. A number of those were certainly still in employment with the Labour Party when the report was first leaked and it was that grouping that Starmer refused to suspend from their employment.

The NEC voted overwhelmingly that they should be suspended but Starmer refused to comply with that ballot sighting that it was a direct employment issue and therefore beyond the realms of the National Executive Committee.

Ramblingrose22, in regard to your post @22:12 today, I have not alleged that Kier Starmer flouted the law in regards to employees cited for misconduct in the leaked report.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 lays out the procedure that an employer must adopt if an organisation wishes to take up disciplinary action against an employee. In the case of the Central Office staff, Starmer decided that no action was necessary at the time they were cited in the leaked report.

No action, no breach of legislation. Simple as that.

Thanks to those who have provided further clarification. The posts were not visible to me whilst I was composing my last one.

Grandad - you have referred only to primary legislation. Regulations are made under a statutory instrument (SI). Which SI is involved here - the year and the number, please? Then I need the specific clause(s) that Keir Starmer has allegedly flouted.

I don't know the remit of the Labour Party NEC. Someone I know who is a Labour Party member says he is not able to see the minutes of any NEC meetings or records of their decisions so where did you find this information?

You are trying to paint a picture of Keir Starmer as a law-flouting and cowardly person whilst providing no evidence to back it up. It's fine to have an opinion, but don't present it as an objective fact.

Why should we believe you?

Trisher - thanks for your explanation.

Where I disagree with you is where you have said "The people named in this report actually worked against the party they were employed by and so undermined the democratic process in this country which relies on an effective opposition party and this makes it in the public interest to know who did this."

The leaked report makes allegations against certain people named in that report. None of us (including you) can know yet whether these allegations are accurate. Without knowing that, it is too early to say that they actually undermined the democratic process.

As I see it, the leaking of the report could do more to undermine the democratic process if the allegations are found to be inaccurate as they could end up depleting Labour Party funds through legal costs. Then the Labour Party will be unable to properly fund their campaigns in the next set of local government elections. That is not good for democracy.

As the EHRC and the Forde Inquiry will have access to all the relevant emails and decision making processes etc anything alleged on here about who did or didn't do what and when can only be speculation at this point in time.

I believe that there were attempts by some to destroy evidence of email etc needed by the inquiries.

Hopefully they were recovered.

Ramblingrose22, in regard to your post @23:21 yesterday, Labour’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) met for an online meeting on the 23rd of April and appointed a four-person panel to investigate the leaked internal report which described a “hyper-factional” environment among party employees hostile to Jeremy Corbyn.

The unredacted report, which was leaked a month earlier reignited the row in the party over Labour’s handling of antisemitism cases and led to calls for party members and employees named in that report to be suspended.

It was decided that Martin Forde QC would chair the investigation, which will cover both the contents of the report, and the circumstances of its release.

A spokesperson stated that Forde would be supported by three experts in “the law and the Labour party structures”, and would examine “the circumstances, contents and release of an internal report”.

“The NEC has agreed that the investigation should endeavour to deliver its report by the middle of July,” the spokesperson said.

The report included hundreds of private WhatsApp messages from named staff members, many of them expressing hostility towards Corbyn and his close allies and bemoaning Labour’s better-than-expected performance at the 2017 general election.

Link to full Guardian report can be found here:-
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/01/labour-appoints-panel-to-investigate-leaked-report-on-staff

I am not aware if the full minutes of National Executive Committee Meetings are made available to the public, but a statement of all matters discussed at any meeting is made available by way of the General Secretaries office I believe.

In regard to me giving you further information on statutory instruments surrounding employment disciplinary and grievence issues, I have already in this thread given you that information.

However, once again, the two main parliamentary acts in regard to the above are:-
The Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Equality Act 2010.

I am working in the office today, so will join the debate again later if it is still live.

I am genuinely interested in knowing how the Equality Act is involved.

The issue of whether the three candidates for leadership had raised concerns about anti semitism with Corbyn prior to the last election was raised at the Hustings I attended. Keir Starmer stated that he had raised concerns with Mr Corbyn. He also made clear he remained concerns about the growth of anti semitism within the LP during Mr C's leadership.

Mr Corbyn spent his life fighting all forms of racism including anti semitism Jenny Formby took over from Ian MC nicol for left a back log and she dealt with that.

There are rumours that those wanting to claim millions altogether in compensation have said that if Jeremy Corbyn goes they won't claim. That is blackmail and they think they can get away with that too.

Video discussing some of the WA messages
Top people in Labour not wanting Labour to win. One said the result 2017 is the exact opposite of what I have been working two years to achieve.

twitter.com/Williamscott747/status/1287680690063015936?s=20

twitter !

Anniebach

twitter !

Do you have a problem with twitter, Ab.

It's no different from other forums...

Can find all sorts of interesting things on it, not just rubbish...

Thanks for that video Grany.
I do agree that one of the most shocking things about this is that thousands of people worked as volunteers for the party all over the country, whilst these people sat in their offices, on high salaries and undermined all their work.
Ramblingrose22
I might perhaps agree that the leaking was unnecessary had I any belief that Starmer intended to deal with those accused and the culture which produced them. Unfortunately he has proved unable to tackle the matter, preferring instead to pretend he is being fair and unbiased, whilst steadily and unwaveringly always choosing to make judgements in favour of the right wing elements of the PLP who are the real concealed culprits. The people named in this report were responsible for the actions, the opinions they expressed and the culture they felt able to act under came from others.

Trisher - so you are suggesting that it is OK for the report to have been leaked because -

1. you know for sure that the people named are "guilty" as charged of the allegations within it. How? Do you have access to all the emails, Whatsapp messages and all the internal communications within Labour Party HQ relating to this? I doubt it!

2. it was "OK" for those who leaked the report to break the law (eg data protection law) in order to "prove" that Jeremy Corbyn was undermined from within, and

3. it doesn't matter if the Labour Party bankrupts itself paying out legal costs and ceases to exist. Do you seriously imagine that that would be a great advance for democracy - no Labour Party able to campaign in future elections bringing about a one-party state in the UK for the foreseeable future, with that party being the Tories?

Incredible!

I am very busy today so may be unable to place any further posts on this thread.

I cannot understand how people sitting in an office 'threw' the 2017 election. I certainly wasn't contacted by anyone in the Labour Office telling me not to vote Labour because of JC. In my experience it is people on the ground, knocking on doors that make the biggest difference. I campaigned in that election door to door for a Labour government but, at the end of the day, it is where people decide to put their X that determines the result.
JC was elected as the previous leader and given time to establish himself even by those who preferred someone else. KS, unlike JC , has had his leadership start in difficult times with the coronavirus, shadow of Brexit 'no deal', a massive majority for the Tories and a Parliament that is somewhat curtailed in its normal functioning. People should afford KS the same courtesy that many of us afforded JC.

I thought it was the Russians!?

Devorgilla

I cannot understand how people sitting in an office 'threw' the 2017 election. I certainly wasn't contacted by anyone in the Labour Office telling me not to vote Labour because of JC. In my experience it is people on the ground, knocking on doors that make the biggest difference. I campaigned in that election door to door for a Labour government but, at the end of the day, it is where people decide to put their X that determines the result.
JC was elected as the previous leader and given time to establish himself even by those who preferred someone else. KS, unlike JC , has had his leadership start in difficult times with the coronavirus, shadow of Brexit 'no deal', a massive majority for the Tories and a Parliament that is somewhat curtailed in its normal functioning. People should afford KS the same courtesy that many of us afforded JC.

Absolutely. I supported JC throughout his tenure in office, despite my misgivings that grew with each month.

I was unable to campaign in 2019, but did so in 2017, and like you people without fail cited JC as the reason that they could not vote Labour.

Devorgrilla well one of the things you do is make sure there is no extra funding given to marginal seats where with just a little more support the Labour candidate might win. You also fail to combat or oppose any negative press the party leader is subjected to.
It should be remembered that in 2017 the Tories needed the DUP to form a government and Labour did so much better than predicted.

Ramblingrose22 I have addressed the Data Protection act- in the public interest.
The accusations are widely supported by the tweets etc. The LP could have forestalled the leaking by presenting the report as was intended. They didn't.
I don't see any point in having a LP which is substantially Toryism under another title. Nor I think do the British electorate. The numbers of people voting fell substantially after Tony Blair changed the party and only rose again when Corbyn became leader.

I think the report speaks for itself. It makes it very clear that some individuals actively worked against a Labour victory and delighted in doing so. Some also made vile, racist, misogynistic comments and wished harm to others in the party. How ironic, considering their expressed concern about antisemitism in the party. How disgusting that there appears to have been a subculture where they felt this was acceptable.