minutes not reflecting the reality, does not mean this incident never happened.

Now call me old Mrs Cynical, but the process I’m describing in this blog, went so well for the bullies on Weaver Vale  CLP executive, it was almost as if it had been engineered.

Stage One:  Remove the secretary and replace with your own candidate

The July CLP executive meeting had been shambolic, disrupted by a group that were unhappy that Weaver Vale had elected a Labour MP.  Men (and women) behaving badly   The Secretary had finally found his excuse to resign, which was fortunate as it allowed a temporary secretary to be appointed (when I say appointed, pushed into the job by the Runcorn delegates is closer to what happened).  This was Jamie Bramwell.  A Runcorn branch member, friend of the Runcorn faction, but more significantly, he was at this time a Unite delegate to the National Executive Committee (NEC).  The NEC are the Labour Party’s senior governing body.

Stage Two:  Send Out Inaccurate Minutes and Ignore any Request for Amendments

The September meeting was due and the minutes from the July meeting had gone out.

It’s standard procedure in every organisation that I have ever been involved with, for  minutes once written to be sent to the chair for agreement, before being distributed to members.  Not in this case.  The temporary secretary had written up the minutes and sent them out without any consultation with the chair.  They were completely one sided,  only reflecting what the Runcorn delegates wanted to them to.   Both the chair and I had  emailed Jamie Bramwell a week before the meeting and asked for amendments.  But as is standard practice now in the Labour party, our emails were ignored (email no. 3 at the end of this blog).

The first item on the agenda was to agree the minutes.  I objected to them as did the chair.   As the meeting started, unhappy with the way it was heading, I switched on my tablet and recorded what was being said.    Audio of minutes

The secretary could not offer a good reason why any amendments should not have been included, just that he didn’t see any bullying.  Nor would he offer some compromise form of words.  Instead the secretary refused point blank to include any reference to the shouting and bullying that had taken place, by obfuscating and blathering about non relevant points:-

“NEC position on other CLPs going into special measures

We all made contributions …….  I did not, there seems some ….. having a dig …. Ask the executive”.

The Runcorn branch delegates did not contest my view point that the minutes were one sided.  Nor did they contest that the incident took place.

It was now obvious that the Runcorn branches were going to try and airbrush from the minutes  (some might say doctor)  the way they had behaved at the July meeting.

The Secretary continued blathering  “I never seen any victimisation, bullying or harassment ……. you need to report it …….as we all do in the labour movement …….I can’t put it in if I didn’t see it….. I had no complaints until I sent out the minutes.”   He seem to think that I should have reported to him the bullying and harassment.  I had done what I considered the more appropriate action and reported it to Anna Hutchinson at the North West Regional Office (for her to ignore).   He says he saw a member leave but saw no nastiness.  That member ran from the meeting in tears, followed by the a member of his branch to ensure he was alright and this was witnessed by several members waiting outside of the meeting, including the MP Mike Amesbury.

Eight minutes into the audio Bill Moores a Unite delegate and close ally of the Runcorn contingent confirms that the meeting had been chaotic with everyone shouting at everybody else (I only partially agree with him here, the shouting was mainly by Dave Cargill and the Runcorn delegates at the Chair, the youth delegate and myself).  This as it turns out was not a very helpful intervention for his co-conspirators as, in my opinion it confirms the bullying and aggressive behaviour that had occurred at the  previous meeting.  Despite knowing and commenting that the previous meeting had been aggressive and unpleasant, Mr Moores went on to vote with the Runcorn delegates not to include any reference in the minutes.

The secretary was being deliberately obstructive, would not listen to my points and was not acting in a professional and impartial way.   I felt like the secretary and some in the meeting were trying to provoke another rowdy meeting.  I was not going to help enable this.

Stage Three:  Agree One sided Minutes and Cover Up the Bullying

Time was ticking on and the chair to bring this to a conclusion asked for a vote on the minutes, without any inclusions or amendments.  Of course this was carried, but I asked for a recorded vote, as three of the executive, voted not to accept, the partial and inaccurate minutes.  If the vote was recorded I do not know, as shortly after the meeting and following a series of petty actions, both the chair and myself resigned from the party.

The minutes purport to show  that Weaver Vale ran a chaotic campaign, which is what the Runcorn branches want them to reflect.  Why I couldn’t possibly say.  I and many others in the CLP and Momentum would say that we ran a great campaign, given that it was a snap election allowing no time for planning, and without any help from the Regional Office.  Unfortunately, once again as in 2015, some members were deliberately obstructive as they did not want the candidate we had.

At  the  July meeting the Chair was told he should be ashamed of running such a chaotic campaign and if  he had any integrity would resign.  It says on the first page of  the Labour Party Joke (rule) Book, Chapter 1 Clause 1 paragraph 3 that

The Party shall bring together members and supporters ……… and promote the election of Labour Party representatives at all levels of the democratic process.


That’s exactly what we did in Weaver Vale in the teeth of opposition from some in our own CLP!  

Influence Counts – It’s Not What you Know, it’s Who

Jamie Bramwell was at this time a member of  the NEC.  His position should have placed on him the duty to have shown at least some impartiality, not take a one sided approach.  I believe that this audio shows his unwillingness to listen to my and the chairs points, or even to meet us half way.    The previous meeting had been unpleasant and I had written to Anna Hutchinson the next day to make a formal complaint as did the Chair and the delegate who ran from the meeting in tears and who later resigned from the party.  Jamie Bramwell says he did not see any bullying.  Other exec delegates did see it, but chose to overlook the unacceptable aggression and hostility shown towards other members.   Most of these were not present at the September exec.

The minutes not reflecting the reality, does not mean this incident never happened.  It just means that the unpleasant and unacceptable behaviour has not been recorded officially and has been covered up, by the perpetrators.



Dear Anna,

I wrote to you during the general election campaign about the behaviour of some of the members of the Runcorn East BLP.   I have just attended Weaver Vale’s first CLP executive and general meeting since the election,  Once again the behaviour of certain Runcorn East members falls far short of the standard expected of labour members.   I am now formally requesting that the behaviour of certain delegates is looked into by the Regional Office.

During the election campaign, there was cause to remove (names redacted) from their roles as admin on the Weaver Vale Facebook page.  I emailed you at the time with the details.   Briefly, they turned up uninvited on the Sunday evening, aggressive and demanding to know why this decision had taken.  I emailed you at the time, but I am happy to forward this to you again.

Tonight’s meeting was probably one of the most disgraceful meetings I have attended as a delegate to Weaver Vale CLP.  Far from celebrating a successful campaign, the Runcorn East delegates came to the meeting hostile and were solely intent on making trouble.  Their manner was rude, aggressive, accusing the chair and others of running a confused and chaotic campaign.  Allegations were made about actions by the the chair (who is also Mike Amesbury’s agent), which he had no knowledge of, including a breach of the Data Protection Act.  This CLP had no part in what happened with members details and appears to be linked to Steve Rotherham’s Metro Mayoral campaign.   Other allegations were made about communication and when asked where their information had come from, they could not or would not answer.  During their berating of the chair, one of them turned in my direction and shouted that I was part of all this.

(Name redacted) accused me of laughing when she told us of her sister in law’s death from cancer.  This relates to the Sunday evening when she and Lauren Cassidy came uninvited to my home.  I deny that this happened in the way Sandra suggests as I can remember it well.  She had given a character assassination of another member of the Runcorn East Branch (name redacted), who she clearly did not want to have any part in the campaign.  During the conversation (name redacted) said that her sister in law had died, at which point I got up from the couch and walked into the kitchen saying “yes well, we’ve all got problems” a reference to the fact that I was also experiencing personal difficulties.   To twist the events and to publicly accuse me of this at a meeting I find deeply offensive.   To make reference to this at a meeting and to make slanderous comments about another Labour member is wholy unacceptable and tantamount to bullying.

(Name redacted) was similarly aggressive in his tone and manner accusing the chair of making autonomous decisions and not consulting with the general management committee.  I tried to point out that the chair made decisions in his role as the candidates agent with the intention of getting him elected.  Given that it was a snap election and it was almost two weeks into the campaign before we had a candidate decisions were taken by the candidate and agent to move the campaign on quickly.   (name redacted) refused to listen, got up from his seat stabbing his finger in my direction and shouting aggressively that he knew all about being an agent.  He then walked to the back of the meeting.  I did shout back in an attempt to make myself heard, but he continued to shout over me.

Prior to this there was disagreement about who the delegates to the executive meeting from the Runcorn East branch.  This again relates to the incident when (names redacted) turned up to my home.  They were adamant that (name redacted) could not be part of tonight’ executive meeting because he had resigned during the election campaign.   He  resigned as a result of what he called actions by some of the branch members (we have a copy of the original letter from (redacted)).   (Name redacted) as agent spoke to (redacted), smoothed things over with him and he rescinded the resignation.  His own Branch secretary who was also copied into his letter made no attempt to talk to him to find out why he felt like this, and has not had any communication with him to date.  Even when the secretary tried to explain to them that (redacted)  had changed his mind, all they did was sent insulting e-mails to the secretary.   Having (redacted) back on board considerably enhanced our campaign.   Runcorn East want the resignation to stand and at a meeting have removed him as a delegate.  (redacted) left the meeting, upset over the way he was being shouted at and spoken about and went home.   Why they are so hostile to (redacted) I don’t understand, but their behaviour towards him at the meeting and at other times is not how we as a party should  to be treating our younger members.   During this time (redacted) who had resigned at the beginning of the campaign (without any doubts or retraction) refused to leave the meeting saying if (redacted) was staying then so was she.  (Redacted) clearly had no place at the executive meeting and had no reason even to turn up to it, except to be difficult.

The behaviour tonight from the mentioned delegates was hostile, unpleasant and threatening to individuals, including the chair.  They refused to keep to the agenda.  They appeared intent on criticising the campaign, making allegations and shouting abuse when challenged.

When I wrote my original email, you said that if I wanted their behaviour to be investigated, you would do this.  The party takes bullying seriously and rightly so.   After tonight’s debacle, I would like you to look into the behaviour of the named delegates from Runcorn East to the CLP.


Jeanette Fletcher

Treasurer Weaver Vale CLP



Hi-ya Jamie,

I’m sorry to have to say this, but I do not accept that the executive minutes are a true and accurate reflection of the meeting.

1. No reference to DC shouting and bullying behaviour which was directed particularly at the Chair is recorded. Nor any reference to my point that the chair was acting as Mike Amesbury’s agent, or that I was not allowed to finish my point due to being shouted down by DC.   The continual attacks at the chair and unfounded allegations the Runcorn delegates should be recorded.

2. No reference to the victimisation of (name redacted) by DC, SC and LC when trying to establish if he was in fact a delegate. The Runcorn delegates refused to listen or accept what the chair was saying. There is no mention of the refusal of LC to leave the meeting, as she had resigned her position as campaign coordinator on the selection of Mike Amesbury as candidate, or of her statement that if (name redacted) was staying then so was she. Both eventually left, (redacted) in distress, again no mention of this point. No discussion on the position of (redacted), who had previously resigned from his position as youth delegate, but had been brought back on board by the Chair discussing his difficulties or that the Runcorn East secretary had not discussed this with (redacted).

3. The meeting did not agree that the campaign was chaotic. The reasons for some difficulties were explained by the chair and others, that we ran the campaign after a snap election, without any planning or preparation, returned a Labour MP and with increased turnout in all parts of the constituency had presented challenges. The campaign was not perfect, but it was not chaotic. This point will not be accepted by the Runcorn delegates.

4. The data protection issues that were raised were nothing to do with the CLP. Access to members data was given by NWRO to (name redacted, member of Halton CLP), but the chair or the secretary had no input into this arrangement. This was put to the meeting by the Chair. To infer that the Chair (who was acting throughout the campaign as Agent to Mike Amesbury, not strictly as CLP Chair) has presided over a breach of data protection is both unfounded, unfair and deeply insulting.

5. No reflection that (redacted) tried to calm the meeting.

These minutes do not reflect any of this, but that is hardly a surprise given that the Runcorn delegates continually shouted down any other speaker, hurled unfounded allegations, refused to let others speak and tried to intimidate the meeting, making discussion difficult if not impossible. These minutes are nothing more than a blatant and unfounded attack on the Chair.

As a reflection of how members conducted themselves and of the issues covered, I do not accept these minutes. They are selective, partial and totally unacceptable.






Secretary : Jamie Bramwell

Chair : Ian Fletcher Treasurer : Jeanette Fletcher


Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting held on Friday, 14th July, held at 7.00 pm at Frodsham Community Centre, Fluin Lane, Frodsham, WA6 7QN.

1. Present :

Ian Fletcher, Sandra Cassidy, Peter Lloyd-Jones, Jamie Bramwell, Colin Hughes, Una Long, Bill Moores, Margaret Moores, Dave Cargill, Martha Lloyd-Jones, Paul Dolan, Diane Schofield, Jeanette Fletcher and Barrie Davidson.

2. Chairs introduction and apologies for absence :

Chair gave explanation of his role in the election and noted long-serving secretary Mike Garvey had resigned.

Sandra Cassidy proposed that in the absence of a CLP secretary, Jamie Bramwell could act as interim secretary. Agreement from the room with no objections.

Resolved: JB to act as interim secretary of the CLP.

Questions from the floor asking for clarity on resignation of secretary. Chair’s responded there were a “number of reasons”, that the secretary felt his “work was not respected” and it had been “on the cards since 2015”. Commented that MG had threatened to resign several times.

3. Campaigning:

Discussion took place on various issues following the recent election victory for the CLP and Mike Amesbury.

SC: Raised she had been removed from Facebook page and unfounded accusations of lack of activity. Also raised that non-resident cllrs had been invited to meeting by other non-resident cllrs, under instruction to do so.

MLJ: Agreed campaign was chaotic, incidents such as double/triple leafleting of same areas and PLJ had been ‘sacked’ for campaign organising role.

PLJ: Raised issue of three campaign coordinators all covering same area. Told he would have position revoked at one stage. Raised concerns that secretary had resigned due to the direction the chair was taking the CLP.

DC: Raised data protection concerns.

PD: Pressed for process to move campaign issues forward and listen to them in full.

Resolved: that a panel be set up to address campaign issues raised.

Meeting concluded at 7.30 pm with no further business being discussed due to time contraints.

Jamie Bramwell

Interim CLP Secretary

The Legalese tripe the CLP had concocted did its job. 

Warning.  This blog contains truths some in the Labour Party may find uncomfortable

On 7th December 2017, just after I received my letter confirming that I had been expelled from the Labour Party, I submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR).  A SAR is a legal entitlement for an individual to find out what data an organisation keeps on you.  The Party had a statutory time limit of 40 days to respond.

After 90 days and despite several reminders that the Party had not let me have my data, for which they had made a £10 charge,  I asked the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to intervene.  The Party were ordered by the ICO to supply my information.

The SAR came, in mid April, 2018.   I knew from various administrative errors (known commonly as cock ups) by the Compliance Unit (CU) and from information I had received from friends that my SAR was incomplete.

I asked for Jane Shaw (of the Compliance Unit) to confirm that this was the case.  I’m still waiting for her response.  I then contacted a solicitor who wrote to the Party asking them confirm the SAR was complete or otherwise.  Several  letters were ignored and the solicitor was never contacted by the Party.  This is significant because of what happened just before my appeal hearing. 

In July, I was notified that the date for my appeal hearing was 2pm on 3rd August.  The pack that came contained an agenda, a letter explaining the format of the meeting and the “evidence” that the CLP had submitted.  This amounted to 9 screen shots from facebook.   On both the agenda and the letter it stated “no new evidence was to be submitted”.  I worked on my rebuttal for the hearing.

Nine days before the hearing, I received a new pack of “evidence”.   This included

  • A statement from the CLP executive, written in semi-legalese, obviously somebody with legal training had had a hand in writing it and pulling it together.    It laid out the areas the CLP did not want to have discussed, including my complaints against three members of the CLP executive, for bullying.  It was clearly trying to direct the scope of the panel.
  • 43 new screenshots of my social media comments.
  • A statement from the CLP Secretary.
  • The allegations of racism against Asians, Chinese and Israel had been changed to racism and antisemitism.

I challenged this new information with Jane Shaw, who was her usual (non) co-operative self and told me, that it was all in accordance with the rule book and if I had wanted information from the CLP, I should have requested a separate SAR to them.   Jane Shaw  knew that this was the position with SARs.    She did not tell me that a separate SAR was necessary.   My first request to ensure I receive ALL all of my data goes back to 29th January, followed up in April and the first solicitor’s letter is dated 1st May.   It appears, she did not want me to know of the existence of other data and deliberately kept quiet.   In response to my concerns that the appeals process was entirely one sided.  This was dated 24th July.

As  Governance Officer my role is not only to administer appeals against the rejection of membership, such as yours, until they have been reported to the NEC Disputes Panel and referred to a regional office for the hearing to be arranged, but also to provide local party units, individual members and others with advice regarding the Party’s rules and procedures.  Yes, I gave an opinion regarding the posts shown to me, but I had no part in the decision making process that led to the rejection of your membership and from what you say, the evidence provided in support of that decision does not include the posts about which I expressed an opinion.  There therefore seems to be nothing to suggest collusion by me in the CLP’s

Jane Shaw gave an opinion to the CLP on the data being submitted, but could (or should that be would?) not tell me that I needed to submit a separate SAR to the CLP.

The late notification in effect meant that  I did not have a lot of time to rethink my defence and I felt I would be going into the hearing with one hand tied behind my back.

Once again I ask advice from the ICO.   The ICO needed time (about six weeks) to assess my request for clarification  so I formally asked for the hearing to be suspended until the status of the new data had been clarified.  The Chair of the panel, Mick Whelan, ASLEF delegate to the NEC, refused my request, without any explanation why.  I’ve emailed  him for answers to several questions including the refusal to suspend  the hearing, he has never had the decency to reply.

I did not attend the hearing.  It was a kangaroo court, designed to set members up to fail.  I assume that the CLP secretary did attend.

Before I felt forced to resign because of the hostility to both my husband and myself  by the CLP executive,  I had made a complaint against three of the CLP executive for bullying.  They are three are members of one family.  On the executive is another family member, and their supporters and friends.  A clear conflict of interest exists on the executive.  This was never considered by the panel.   So in that respect, the  legalese tripe the CLP had concocted did it’s job.  The panel in its wisdom, dismissed the “historical” evidence.    The reasons for rejecting my appeal were screenshots of my criticism of Halton councillors and this blog (which the CLP apparently are not happy with), actions I have taken in response to the inaction of the Labour Party at every stage.

Any disciplinary procedure worth taking part in, would never allow conflicts of interest such as this.  Jane Shaw, the Compliance Unit and the Labour Party see nothing wrong with it.   Nor does she see anything wrong in giving the CLP the benefit of her opinion, but she never saw fit to even advise me of the correct procedure, when I asked for it.

The decision to find against me, I think was a foregone conclusion and the fact that I was not present made no difference whatsoever.











Men (and women) behaving badly

It was just after the snap general election of June 2017.   Weaver Vale Labour had just ousted a useless Tory and succeeded in returning a Labour MP to Parliament for the first time in eight years.  Cause for a bit of celebration you would think.   For most of the CLP that was the case, but not for a few.

The following month (July), Weaver Vale held it’s first CLP meeting since the election but the atmosphere at the executive meeting held prior to the full general meeting was not a happy, celebratory one.  Quite the opposite.

First, there was a row about who was or was not a delegate to the executive.  I won’t go into the details here, but the upshot was that the campaign coordinator who had walked away from her role saying she wanted nothing more to do with the campaign, but still expected to retain her CLP role, left the meeting.  Another delegate had already left the meeting in tears after being subjected to a tirade of abuse.

They then turned their venom onto the CLP chair (who was also the Parliamentary agent and had helped to plan and run the successful campaign) and myself.

The chair was shouted at over and over again by the Runcorn delegates one in particular claiming that he “was a disgrace, should be ashamed of himself, and if he had any decency would resign”.  Err, we had just WON the election and with a decent majority, not LOST it.   I was shouted at and accused of something so unpleasant I would rather not repeat it (another false allegation) and that I was no better  (no better than what or who wasn’t clear)  and that it was only the swing to Corbyn that enabled us to return a Labour MP.   For examples of how these same members did their best to upset the campaign see here Putting the Record Straight

It could be construed that these individuals didn’t want a Labour MP, even though it says is the Labour Rule Book that members are obliged –

….to promote the election of Labour Party representatives at all level of the democratic process

The team that knocked on doors, canvassed by telephone, leafleted, held fundraising events, hosted guest MPs and celebraties and ran a highly successful social media campaign, had just turned a 806 Tory majority into an almost 4,000 majority for Labour.  But the Runcorn side were acting like we had just suffered the most miserable and humiliating defeat.  Go figure (actually I have a theory).

Even though the chair tried to bring some order to the meeting, these delegates were not having any of it and the meeting was continually disrupted, until it finally descended into chaos.  That the meeting was disrupted was confirmed by one of these delegates at the next meeting in September and I have an audio recording of him saying the meeting was chaos with everybody shouting – actually, I take issue with that, a few were shouting the rest of the delegates were trying to be heard.

This event has subsequently been omitted from the history of Weaver Vale and you will not find any of this reflected in the minutes.  Minutes were posted to delegates, without any consultation with the chair, a courtesy and standard practice in every organisation I have known.   Despite emails to the temporary secretary (a Runcorn delegate and member of the NEC) asking for amendments, they were refused.   More about how this atrocious incident was air brushed from Weaver Vale history soon.

I have attended many meetings in my time as a civil servant, and as a Labour party member, even when the remains of Militant were still attending meetings, but I was shocked and appalled by the outburst and continued aggression.  This was obviously all staged to make delegates feel intimidated,  but mostly to catch the chair off his guard.   This time I made a formal complaint to Anna Hutchinson the Regional Director.   I’m still waiting for a reasonable response.

For some idea of just how unpleasant the meeting was, that same individual gives a vastly toned down demonstration on the video below (this was in public, not behind closed doors).  Note the jabbing finger and the body language to the the lady protester.

This video was taken shortly after a council meeting where the tolls of a local controversial bridge had been discussed.