‘Don’t sue whistleblowers’, Labour is warned. Fine – we haven’t heard of any yet https://voxpoliticalonline.com/…/dont-sue-whistleblowers-l…/

I say this as someone who’s personal data has in all probability ended up with the editors of the MSM and the BBC.

I expect Mike Amesbury as my MP to speak up and demand that the Labour party prosecute these individuals. They have deliberately breached the trust given to them by the party.

The disgruntled ex staff, with a political axe to grind, have signed a non disclosure agreement. That’s a standard requirement for all employees who see personal and private information. It’s for a purpose, to protect individuals. If this bunch chose to ignore it, then they should be prosecuted. They chose to sign the agreement and they are willfully ignoring it.

They have also broken the terms of the General Data Protection Requirements (that’s the law for those who don’t know). These same individuals when working for the Labour party would not comply with GDPR and let me have me my data. I am entitled under GDPR, to know what the party officials are saying about me, what information they are storing and for what purpose. Labour party officers obstructed me in my request to see my data and even after the intervention of the Information Commissioner Office only part of my personal data was sent to me. But sending it out to the Daily Fail is ok?

By allowing these ex staff to get away with this gross breach of GDPR, the Labour party will be abdicating it responsibility for protecting members sensitive information and for upholding truth and decency.

And the law.

A letter in support of my application to rejoin the Labour party.

This letter was sent to Jane Shaw of the Labour Compliance Unit in January 2018 by Frodsham and Helsby Branch Labour Party. It supports my assertion that certain members of Weaver Vale CLP have deliberately mislead the wider CLP membership, the North West Regional Office, Compliance Unit and the Information Commissioners Office as part of a personal vendetta.

This was as a direct consequence of my helping to run the successful campaign to elect Weaver Vale’s MP. This was in the teeth of opposition from Runcorn East Branch members. Who did not want Mike Amesbury as the candidate.

Jane Shaw
Ref. Jeanette Fletcher A687170
Dear Colleague

I write on behalf of the Frodsham, Helsby and District branch whose members are extremely dismayed that the application by Jeanette Fletcher to re-join the Party has been disallowed by the Weaver Vale CLP Executive.
Jeanette over many years has given unstinting service to the branch, Party and the wider Labour movement in roles including, CLP treasurer, member of both Mike Amesbury’s and David Keane’s campaign co-ordinating teams and as chair of the CLP fundraising committee. Within the branch she has acted in an exemplary manner, promoting equality and the Party at every opportunity.
It is therefore astounding to both the activists and wider branch membership that serious complaints have been made in respect of Jeanette’s conduct. Unfortunately it would appear to the branch that the complaints are fuelled by what only can be described as a personal vendetta against Jeanette.
The branch wishes to voice its unequivocal support for Jeanette in her appeal against the claims made against her.
Yours Fraternally
Bob Rixham
Branch Secretary

Addendum to my Open Letter to the Secretary of Weaver Vale CLP

I recently posted an open letter to the secretary of Weaver Vale CLP. Following that, I’ve been asked if I can support my assertion that the CLP have failed to supply me with all the data they hold on me.

I have two Information Commissioner Office judgments in my favour, for the Party’s failure to fully disclose the information I an entitled to see under General Data Protection Requirements. Despite refusing to give me all the information I need to defend myself, the party had expected that I should attend a disciplinary hearing, without knowing the full extent of what has been said against me.

I declined their offer of a kangaroo court.

Extracts From ICO Letter

One of the judgments is against the national party. The second one against the CLP. A letter has been sent from the Information Commissioners Office to the CLP reminding the secretary of his obligations under General Data Protection Requirements. This is not the first time I had asked the ICO to intervene with the CLP to obtain missing information.

Here are two extracts from the ICO’s last letter to me dated 7th March, 2019.

“given that we have already provided the view that the CLP failed to comply with the GDPR in its response to your SAR”.

“I have provided guidance to the CLP and advised it of the action it should take in response to your SAR. Following the letter I have written to the CLP today reminding it of its obligations and advising it to respond to you within the next 14 days, we do not intend to take any further action at this stage. In the event that it fails to respond further, or it responds and you consider additional information remains withheld, you will now need to consider taking action as an individual through the courts”.

How do I know information is missing?

How do I know information is missing? Firstly, some documents from the national party that I have been allowed to see give a partial story. What I presume is the response to the CLP has been redacted. Secondly, I have emails sent to the National Party by a CLP executive member. These emails, with the responses, should have been included in the CLP SAR. Thirdly, CLP members, with a sense of decency have sent information to me, which again should have been disclosed officially as part of the SAR. The ICO has informed the secretary that he should assume that I have not seen this information and disclose it. The ICO stated in a letter to me in December 2018

“it is worth noting that the right of access afforded under Article 15 of the GDPR entitles an individual to receive a full copy (subject to any exemptions) of the personal data a controller holds about them.”

This means that even if I have obtained data from another source, the data controller must supply with a complete set of data and must not assume I have already seen it.

Finally, an email I referred to in my open letter containing the screen shots sent by (allegedly) a member from Halton CLP, which the secretary has confirmed to the ICO was sent to him is also missing. As this was the excuse used by the CLP to initiate the campaign against me, it’s vital that I know where originated, from whom and and why?

This is just the missing data that I know about. There could be more but how can I trust that I will get this now?