Chindie Posted July 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, bickster said: Yes, indeed. There is also no need to have an NDA to cover people making data breaches which has also been put forward as a reason for needing them. So remind us again why the Labour Party need NDAs? Why did I sign an NDA when I left my last job? It's a common thing. There's no point in this conversation anymore of there? It's just screaming CORBYYYYYNNNN! into the ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, blandy said: That's wrong. Let's take this sequentially. People work for Labour. People decide to leave Labour. Labour (and their Lawyers) draw up NDAs preventing the employees from talking to the media about (almost) any aspect of their time working for Labour. It's true that in the possible future event of a Police or other authority inquiry, the obligation to co-operate with such an inquiry would maybe override aspects of the NDA. But, at the time of issue there was no legal investigation or inquiry. The NDAs (as I've quoted) specifically forbid the employees from mentioning or discussing any aspect, which would including anti-semitism or sexism, or harrqassment or bullying or internal investigations into those, to the media or other parties. Telling the media about it breaches (the lawyers claim) the NDA. Telling the current investigation by the Racisim authority about it (the lawyers say) would not. so when you say it becomes moot - it doesn't. The intent to "gag" employees from talking to "unauthorised parties"is clear. It's not just general stuff, it's basically everything [any incident, conversation or information concerning any officer, employee, member, supporter, fundraiser of or donor to the employer which has come to his knowledge]. Let's be condescending. I disagree with this. You don't. There's no point going round and round. It's extremely common for NDAs to be required when leaving a role, especially when there's a settlement involved as is the case with some of these complainants. There is nothing sinister, or hypocritical about this. We'll have to agree to disagree. Neither is going to accept we're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, Chindie said: Why did I sign an NDA when I left my last job? It's a common thing I have no idea, only you can answer that. What would they have done if you hadn't? DId they pay you off for signing it? I competely understand the need for NDAs for things like Intellectual Property etc but I suspect even that is already covered by law anyway NDAs are essentially a scare tactic I'm sorry you don't see the hypocrisy in campaigning against NDAs when using the very same tool yourself. I also doubt the Labour Party have anything that would legitimately be covered by an NDA. People who work for a political party are highly unlikely to walk out, straight into a job with an opposition party. (the odd spin doctor aside I guess) and what secrets does a political party have that shouldn't already be in the public domain? Shhh next week we're going to campaign of low income? Don't tell anyone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, bickster said: I have no idea, only you can answer that. What would they have done if you hadn't? DId they pay you off for signing it? I competely understand the need for NDAs for things like Intellectual Property etc but I suspect even that is already covered by law anyway NDAs are essentially a scare tactic I'm sorry you don't see the hypocrisy in campaigning against NDAs when using the very same tool yourself. I also doubt the Labour Party have anything that would legitimately be covered by an NDA. People who work for a political party are highly unlikely to walk out, straight into a job with an opposition party. (the odd spin doctor aside I guess) and what secrets does a political party have that shouldn't already be in the public domain? Shhh next week we're going to campaign of low income? Don't tell anyone And I'm sorry you can't see the difference between 2 applications of a common legal tool, one of which is dodgy and one of which is common practice for people leaving roles with sensitive knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 4 hours ago, blandy said: Unfortunately for that argument, the NDA section 5.12 shows it to be wholly incorrect. It's really simple. The NDA doesn't prevent whistleblowing. It does aim to prevent the kind of thing which has happened, ie people disclosing information to outside parties who have no role in a whistleblowing procedure, which in this case appears to be MPs and other party figures hostile to the current leadership, selected journos who can be relied on to amplify it, and so on. What has gone on here is not whistleblowing, despite the constant repetition of the term in order to frame perceptions, but the pursuit of a vendetta for political reasons - I should think the vendetta is obvious to just about everyone by now. It didn't prevent this disclosure, but to seek to make a point out of saying it was wrong to try to prevent this kind of thing, is spurious, and the people who are trying to make a meal out of this are simply making a cynical political play. No organisation gives a free hand to current or ex-employees to relay anything they like to whoever they like, and for things like access to personal and confidential information about individuals, it is in my experience always made clear to employees that they are required to respect the confidence of the information they are entrusted with. The obligation to respect the confidentiality of information doesn't end with the job - it's a basic expectation of professional conduct, and a core requirement of jobs dealing with HR, complaints processes and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 19 minutes ago, peterms said: No organisation gives a free hand to current or ex-employees to relay anything they like to whoever they like, and for things like access to personal and confidential information about individuals, it is in my experience always made clear to employees that they are required to respect the confidence of the information they are entrusted with. The obligation to respect the confidentiality of information doesn't end with the job - it's a basic expectation of professional conduct, and a core requirement of jobs dealing with HR, complaints processes and so on. In respect of personal information this would be illegal anyway, the NDA is an irrelevance. NDAs should only be about intellectual property, sensitive business information, etc. As we're talking about a political party not a business, what are they protecting with NDAs that isn't in the public domain? You'd imagine they have less legitimate need for NDAs than any company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 38 minutes ago, bickster said: In respect of personal information this would be illegal anyway, the NDA is an irrelevance. NDAs should only be about intellectual property, sensitive business information, etc. As we're talking about a political party not a business, what are they protecting with NDAs that isn't in the public domain? You'd imagine they have less legitimate need for NDAs than any company You think the release of emails between staff about dealing with complaints is illegal? I wouldn't have thought so, but it's something which I doubt any HR person would see as proper and professional behaviour, especially when it's not whistleblowing about wrong behaviour but rather an attempt to smear, discredit and undermine. NDAs don't seem like a very effective tool for preventing that, it would be more effective to recruit people with integrity and professionalism in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, peterms said: You think the release of emails between staff about dealing with complaints is illegal? It is, the emails contain personally identifiable information (names, email addresses etc) and this is a data breach under the GDPR and DPA18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, bickster said: It is, the emails contain personally identifiable information (names, email addresses etc) and this is a data breach under the GDPR and DPA18 OK, thanks, I confess that failing to get up to speed with the detail of GDPR is one of my several failings, happy to accept your advice on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 Just now, peterms said: OK, thanks, I confess that failing to get up to speed with the detail of GDPR is one of my several failings, happy to accept your advice on this. I've been on enough mind numbing courses oin the GDPR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, bickster said: I've been on enough mind numbing courses oin the GDPR Well that's good, because you'll be aware that there's a formal request from Tony for access to his file. Though he seems to be asking for rather wider access to everyone's info... 8 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I'd love to read the notes mods have on us all 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 12 hours ago, magnkarl said: Well, it appears that Jenny Formby's been taken with her pants down to say the least. Sending out emails saying "I've deleted all traces of this conversation" in regards to the Jackie Walker case when she tried to overrule or influence what the investigations team had found. Where did you get that from? Aee you suggesting she destroyed evidence? It's not true, is it? Like a lot of the stuff we are told on this subject. See Formby's letter, linked here. And on the point about her intervention in the Walker case, I gather she asked for it to be speeded up. Your comment claims she improperly sought to affect the outcome. Do you have something to back up this rather serious claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 She's talking crap on one aspect at least. If an email has been leaked that contains email addresses, that is a data breach in itself (for which the Labour Party is liable to prosecution) and if those emails do not contain peoples personal information then they''d have no content. Anything said about anyone in an email and that person can be identified from it is personal data. If they weren't talking about anyone, what was the purposeof the email? (Sorry I haven't seen Panorama or the emails). It sounds like individual email addresses are added in the to: & cc: fields, this is particularly stupid, especially when discussing sensitive personal data. It actually sounds like she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about in that regard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 12, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2019 13 hours ago, peterms said: What has gone on here is not whistleblowing, despite the constant repetition of the term in order to frame perceptions, but the pursuit of a vendetta for political reasons That’s the Corbynite view, certainly. Ignore the complaints, attack and discount the individuals making the complaints. It’s a kind of mentality and world view that leads to and encourages the type of behaviour which is being complained about and witnessed more widely. A mentality which attacks and labels any critic and any criticism as motivated by agendas, by plots, by disloyalty to “the cause”, to ”the leader”. Paranoid searching for quislings and the enemy within. Dreams of a one party state, belief that only they are pure. It leads to appalling behaviour, bullying and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 12, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2019 9 hours ago, peterms said: Where did you get that from? Aee you suggesting she destroyed evidence? The BBC has an e mail from her in which she says she seems to have done that, yes. Quote The email, sent on 5 May last year, said: "The NCC cannot be allowed to continue in the way that they are at the moment, and I will also be challenging the panel for the Jackie Walker case." "I’ve permanently deleted all trace of the email. Too many eyes all on my Labour address. Please use my Unite address." https://labourlist.org/2019/07/is-labour-antisemitic-bbc-panorama-on-political-interference-leaked-emails-ex-staff/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 42 minutes ago, blandy said: Ignore the complaints, attack and discount the individuals making the complaints. It's simply a fact that complaints have not been ignored, but rather dealt with more quickly under Formby than under her predecessor. Why pretend otherwise? It's also claimed that departing staff members destroyed files relating to complaints, presumably to add to the narrative that complaints weren't being dealt with. The people who I've seen being criticised are those who seek to exploit and manipulate the situation, not complainants - for example Margaret Hodge, who was all over the media talking about the hundreds of complaints she has made, when in fact most of those weren't related to Labour members, but she was trying to create an impression of an avalanche of cases. And of course today's example, Watson, who is being criticised for calling in the media for information he has previously been offered, seeking to create the impression that it's being kept from him. Shabby, dishonest, manipulative and undermining behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 9 hours ago, peterms said: Where did you get that from? Aee you suggesting she destroyed evidence? It's not true, is it? Like a lot of the stuff we are told on this subject. See Formby's letter, linked here. And on the point about her intervention in the Walker case, I gather she asked for it to be speeded up. Your comment claims she improperly sought to affect the outcome. Do you have something to back up this rather serious claim? What do you think Labour are gagging their whole ex investigations department for? GDPR? Furthermore it's even worse that she's asking discussion on a disciplinary case be sent to an email address which is housed in another company or group's name and server. Labour and unite have nothing to do with eachother's disciplinary cases. She's now trying to pull out the victim card by hiding behind treatment, but that doesn't really condone what BBC have found her to have done way before said treatment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 41 minutes ago, blandy said: The BBC has an e mail from her in which she says she seems to have done that, yes. https://labourlist.org/2019/07/is-labour-antisemitic-bbc-panorama-on-political-interference-leaked-emails-ex-staff/ You might have quoted the next sentence, which explained that she had deleted emails from her account because of concerns that a staff member who had access to her account was a political opponent. The subsequent leaks of emails show that her concerns were valid. But I gather the emails will still exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, magnkarl said: What do you think Labour are gagging their whole ex investigations department for? GDPR? Furthermore it's even worse that she's asking discussion on a disciplinary case be sent to an email address which is housed in another company or group's name and server. Labour and unite have nothing to do with eachother's disciplinary cases. She's now trying to pull out the victim card by hiding behind treatment, but that doesn't really condone what BBC have found her to have done way before said treatment. I gather NDAs have been in use by Labour for more than ten years and are not confined to the investigations department. You are trying to present them as a recent tactic aimed at silencing a sprecific group of staff. Why are you doing that? It's not appropriate to have internal staffing or disciplinary emails sent to an email address external to the organisation (obviously unless addressed to an external involved party). The solution to the problem of having an untrustworthy staff member would be to remove their access, or remove them. She's not "hiding behind treatment". She is specifically criticising Watson for his conduct towards her at a time when she is receiving treatment, which is very different from the impression given by the phrase you use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 12, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2019 32 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Furthermore it's even worse that she's asking discussion on a disciplinary case be sent to an email address which is housed in another company or group's name and server. Yep, definite breach. It also shows the lack of separation between the two entities 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts