Aardvark

I'm with Anthony on this. I am confused about the personal morality of people who see someone publicly bullied and then don't condemn the bullies. IMHO JW has not behaved impeccably, but that is an internal party matter. As C_steam says, if he's broken the rules then he must be disciplined.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

mrabody

Hang on yourself Anthony. It is a question whether he is a victim of the "Party". The evidence suggests that he is a victim of a party employee who has since left the party.

If you are going to get on your sanctimonious high horse and lecture me try to at least read what I was saying. I said nothing about whether John was causing damage to the party or not. I was commenting that John is professing to be outraged about the release of the video on youtube, and may be instigating legal action against the party, yet he still intends to carry on as both a branch chairman and PPC as if nothing has happened. I'm sorry but if I was as thoroughly outraged and embarrassed as John professes to be I cannot see why I would even want to remain in those positions where I would be forced to work with the people who had treated me so badly. And if his threatened legal action takes place, relations between him and the party will be so badly wrecked that he wouldn't be able to accomplish anything anyway.

What crime are we talking about? Do you mean the violation of the DPA? If Clive Page is correct and only Christopher Gill and Annabelle Fuller had the video, and if, as appears likely it was released by Annabelle Fuller of her own initiative, do you really think that UKIP is going to get prosecuted? Really? When steps were clearly taken to restrict the number of people who had access to the data? I'm sorry but no organization can completely protect itself against a rogue employee. There may be a DPA case against Annabelle Fuller, but it would appear there is no case against UKIP.




I am not discouraging anyone from reporting anything. John is entitled to report the video posting which appears to have been made in violation of the DPA. But the very public manner in which he has allowed this to be played out would certainly suggest that he isn't interested in a quiet resolution but that he is looking to put the hurt on UKIP, or possibly, put the squeeze on UKIP.

Has it occurred to you that my so-called "crusade" against him is perhaps an entirely logical response to his prior behaviour on this forum. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason why the party leadership has responded rather slowly to the video episode is because they don't trust him or don't trust his motives any more? Has it occurred to you that perhaps many of us feel towards John West as you so clearly feel towards the current UKIP leadership. A lot of UKIP members are sick of internicene fighting, and after the problems we appear to have had with some of the previous batch of MEPs are more than a little suspicious of anyone who appears a little to eager to get themselves elected to the Brussels Parliament.

Do you realize just what a sanctimonious prat you are to anyone who disagrees with you?

C_steam

Different people react in different ways to adversity. Maybe for JW, he is so committed to the idea of getting out of the EU that he truly believes UKIP is the only vehicle which remotely has a chance of doing so - therefore he wants to stay on board since, no matter how outraged he feels about his treatment, the option of not being in UKIP and therefore staying in the EU is far worse.

Or perhaps he feels the party is basically decent and wants to use this business as an opportunity to clean out those he feels have wronged him?


And I'll disagree (again) about the key word is 'since'. At the time of the issue she was a party employee (your words) and accordingly the responsibility of the party as is the case for all employees engaged on the business of their employer. Whilst it is conceivable she acted as a maverick, the employer should have systems and management in place to prevent actions, and where these fail and where the acts are illegal, the party should pursue with the utmost vigour. To say 'shes left' and wash hands of the whole affair is basically weak management.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

eublues

John West was wronged by whoever put the video on You Tube - whether this is a matter for the law I don't know or much care. Ironically, he comes over quite well in the video - it's Clive Page who behaves in an odd fashion in the circumstances.

Separate from John West having reason to be aggrieved (I think he does), the Suchorzewski-like manner of his public declarations makes me less than enthusiastic in my support.

Aardvark

The video was controlled by the party It will be interesting to see if a prosecution takes place, but the party must demonstrate not that only 2 people had access to the data, but that it had rules in place at the time for control of data.

A lot of employment contracts now contain data handling terms.

The problem is that we have to separate out John's behaviour on the forum and the party's behaviour towards him in an unrelated matter. The party holds data on me. They can't put it in the public domain just because they don't like my behaviour on the forum. It's a non sequitur.

The best bet is to try to minimise damage and see of they can get away with the minimum of training from the Information Commissioner - an inconvenient slap on the wrist for the secretary and a warning for the party as a whole.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

mrabody

I'm sorry but what evidence is there that the "party" has done some dirty tricks as opposed to an individual. It appears that the individual in question has left the party.

And, as I've already mentioned, if he wanted the matter dealt with "properly" there were simpler ways to go about it than airing all that dirty laundry on this forum. If you are wondering why the party leadership appear to dragging their feet at issuing an apology maybe stop to consider how this matter could have been solved. Egos and reputations are now involved they are clouding everyones' judgement in this matter.

Rather than publicizing this matter on the forum, ensuring that it became known to a much wider audience, John West could have quietly contacted the party leadership and let them know about the offending video. If no action was forthcoming he could then have warned them that he would be seeking legal advice unless the person responsible was disciplined and an apology was forthcoming. But no, he insisted on putting the video on this forum and whining about how dastardly it was for it to have been published.

The fact is, John West and his ally in this, Greg Lance Watkins have done far more to disseminate this video to a wider audience than anyone else. He has handled the matter in precisely such as manner as to generally inflame everyone's passions rather than cool them.

I cannot see how any action against the party under the DPA will succeed. Surely John West's legal advisors know this, so why all the bluster about it.

This is an incredibly stupid matter that could have been dealt with easily and quickly. Unfortunately it has been blown up into an existential crisis (at least in the minds of most it seems most of the moderators on this forum) due many factors, not least of all John West's own behaviour.

mrabody

Right, you make it sounds so simple. Why don't you design a system that is foolproof against the acts of a rogue employee if you are so smart. It's impossible. The fact is, in the end it all comes down to trust. Yes you can take precautions by doing background checks on potential employees and having data protection systems in place. You can have your employees read and sign statements about data protection. I think it was probably clear to all involved that this was sensitive information - it was apparently only in the possession of two people, one of whom appears to have put it on youtube.

Annabelle appears to have been punished with the loss of her job. According to my sources it was a very well-paid job, and it may be she will have difficulty finding one that pays as well. Perhaps by allowing her to resign she has been allowed to preserve a little piece of her reputation and will have a slightly easier time finding other employment.

You all have a lot of sympathy for John West despite the fact that his behaviour has been pretty questionable (I make an exception for Aardvark who has repeatedly pointed out that John West has behaved badly). Why not show a little sympathy for Annabelle who appears also to have behaved badly and has suffered the consequences. But no, Annabelle is close to the party leadership whom you hate, and so rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt or according her a little sympathy you all scream that the party must pursue her WITH THE UTMOST VIGOUR.

That spells H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y in my book, but then I've come to expect it from you and your ilk.

Aardvark

The party cannot refuse responsibility by saying 'rogue employee' and walk away. That would not be accepted as a defence under H&SW legislation. It's about having procedures in place. If they were there and were not followed then that is different to having no prodedures.

I'll bet the party isn't ISO1000 accredited.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Henry IX

Do you realise (note the British spelling, please!) just how ill-qualified you are to be anywhere near public office??

Your fanatical defence of the indefensible on these pages betrays a staggering lack of judgement or understanding as to what people expect from a political party. I’ll laugh when all this toadying turns sour and you end up looking stupid!

C_steam

It isn't simple and nowhere did I state as much.

Actually, if you read the thread properly, you'll find i wrote "Whilst it is conceivable she acted as a maverick, the employer should have systems and management in place to prevent actions, and where these fail and where the acts are illegal, the party should pursue with the utmost vigour. To say 'shes left' and wash hands of the whole affair is basically weak management. "

Quite simply, the party has not followed up on this whole thing well at all. If what fuller did was illegal, then the party should follow up - by not doing so they risk looking like they condone the issue. And if JW's acts were malicious against the party, he should be subject to disciplinary.

You go on and on about me supporting JW - I don't - but what i am saying is that if JW has brought the party into disrepute, then the party should deal with it. The fact it didn't, straight away, has led to this whole mess. And the party looks weak because of it.

So lets be clear.
Point 1 - why hasn't UKIP put JW to a disciplinary? Deal with him.
Point 2 - when the video was posted, fuller was an employee. Deal with her also.

Anything less is just weak and makes the party look complicit.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.