Post by anony 003 on Dec 5, 2016 7:10:55 GMT
There's a huge amount of controversy surrounding Ann Black.
To make it clear, I suspect Ann fits the description of Angel more than the Demon some condemn her as. From what I can see, she is a highly transparent, highly accountable, precise mind on the NEC. There are clearly many people who share my view as she earned more votes than anyone in the NEC elections earlier this year.
I've yet to see a place where her actions have not been legitimised by her comments, although the extent of the purge she was part of and the timing of it, was clearly antidemocratic.
However, this is a thread where those with greivances against her can air them, and she can respond as soon as she pleases.
One core thing that should be noted is that Ann is not the NEC, but a single, outnumbered Corbynite on it. She has, according to most sources, frequently voted against the most abusive measures supported by the NEC. There are a lot of NEC members who need to face accountability far more than Ann does, if she does at all.
===
The first question i would put to Ann, is how does she legitimise the rush to exclude hundreds or thousands of members who had been left untouched until the prospect of a leadership election arrived?
I wonder about her role here.
As i understand it, she was the central and perhaps only Corbynite member of the NEC disciplinary / disputes subcomittee and could have simply refused to ramp up the authorisation of suspensions of members at the accelerated rate that occurred, or refuse to do so under the absurd violations of natural justice which occurred, where the exact nature peoples alleged violations were not even notified to them, and in some cases, notified to the media first.
===
Ann is able to respond here, or on her own blog at www.annblack.co.uk/ On this blog, which appears to take the form of "NEC updates" she states:-
"Light at the End of the Tunnel?
General secretary Iain McNicol gave an organisational update. Most suspensions during the leadership contest had now been lifted and the others were being progressed. I have succeeded in getting auto-exclusions reviewed where evidence of support for other parties was flimsy, and hope that these will also be resolved soon. I covered the main areas of concern in my October report at
www.annblack.co.uk/nec-meetings-october-2016
and I promise that these will not be forgotten. The recommendations on disciplinary and complaints procedures in Shami Chakrabarti’s report would also be taken forward."
Ann notes some important facts at that october link:-
"Nearly 1000 members had been suspended by NEC panels, about 600 were excluded, and several hundred new members were rejected. "
These are lower figures than other sources have claimed. While ive no doubt many of these suspensions and expulsions were violations of natural justice, where is the evidence Ann is underestimating things here?
===
"what constitutes “abuse”;"
"active searching on social media as opposed to responding to complaints;"
"I also believe that members should be sent the information passed to the NEC with their letter of suspension, to speed up appeals,"
" and there must be adequate staffing to deal with appeals in a timely manner."
"five years automatic exclusion with no appeal is disproportionate for social media comments alone."
These four comments address the worst elements of the purge.
I'd like her to address the alleged retroactivity of "abuse" claims. I have written to her on this issue.
===
"I am happy to continue taking up individual issues."
This comment proves Ann is still aware that there are probably severe greivances out there and is listening for them.
===
"The Panel also considered reports on Brighton and Hove, Wallasey and Gorton and, with most members including Jeremy Corbyn present, endorsed all the recommendations without dissent, though naturally hoped that difficulties could be resolved as soon as possible. There will be updates in January."
Its unclear which recommendations were suggested here. The party staff have led vicious campaigns of misinformation against members in Wallassey and Brighton. This needs further clarification. What recommendations were suggested. And by who? Whoever is controlling the party response to Wallassey and Brighton has a lot to answer for. And similar behaviour can be expected in Louise Ellman's constituency after she started to claim abuse when she started to become very unpopular locally.
Steven
To make it clear, I suspect Ann fits the description of Angel more than the Demon some condemn her as. From what I can see, she is a highly transparent, highly accountable, precise mind on the NEC. There are clearly many people who share my view as she earned more votes than anyone in the NEC elections earlier this year.
I've yet to see a place where her actions have not been legitimised by her comments, although the extent of the purge she was part of and the timing of it, was clearly antidemocratic.
However, this is a thread where those with greivances against her can air them, and she can respond as soon as she pleases.
One core thing that should be noted is that Ann is not the NEC, but a single, outnumbered Corbynite on it. She has, according to most sources, frequently voted against the most abusive measures supported by the NEC. There are a lot of NEC members who need to face accountability far more than Ann does, if she does at all.
===
The first question i would put to Ann, is how does she legitimise the rush to exclude hundreds or thousands of members who had been left untouched until the prospect of a leadership election arrived?
I wonder about her role here.
As i understand it, she was the central and perhaps only Corbynite member of the NEC disciplinary / disputes subcomittee and could have simply refused to ramp up the authorisation of suspensions of members at the accelerated rate that occurred, or refuse to do so under the absurd violations of natural justice which occurred, where the exact nature peoples alleged violations were not even notified to them, and in some cases, notified to the media first.
===
Ann is able to respond here, or on her own blog at www.annblack.co.uk/ On this blog, which appears to take the form of "NEC updates" she states:-
"Light at the End of the Tunnel?
General secretary Iain McNicol gave an organisational update. Most suspensions during the leadership contest had now been lifted and the others were being progressed. I have succeeded in getting auto-exclusions reviewed where evidence of support for other parties was flimsy, and hope that these will also be resolved soon. I covered the main areas of concern in my October report at
www.annblack.co.uk/nec-meetings-october-2016
and I promise that these will not be forgotten. The recommendations on disciplinary and complaints procedures in Shami Chakrabarti’s report would also be taken forward."
Ann notes some important facts at that october link:-
"Nearly 1000 members had been suspended by NEC panels, about 600 were excluded, and several hundred new members were rejected. "
These are lower figures than other sources have claimed. While ive no doubt many of these suspensions and expulsions were violations of natural justice, where is the evidence Ann is underestimating things here?
===
"what constitutes “abuse”;"
"active searching on social media as opposed to responding to complaints;"
"I also believe that members should be sent the information passed to the NEC with their letter of suspension, to speed up appeals,"
" and there must be adequate staffing to deal with appeals in a timely manner."
"five years automatic exclusion with no appeal is disproportionate for social media comments alone."
These four comments address the worst elements of the purge.
I'd like her to address the alleged retroactivity of "abuse" claims. I have written to her on this issue.
===
"I am happy to continue taking up individual issues."
This comment proves Ann is still aware that there are probably severe greivances out there and is listening for them.
===
"The Panel also considered reports on Brighton and Hove, Wallasey and Gorton and, with most members including Jeremy Corbyn present, endorsed all the recommendations without dissent, though naturally hoped that difficulties could be resolved as soon as possible. There will be updates in January."
Its unclear which recommendations were suggested here. The party staff have led vicious campaigns of misinformation against members in Wallassey and Brighton. This needs further clarification. What recommendations were suggested. And by who? Whoever is controlling the party response to Wallassey and Brighton has a lot to answer for. And similar behaviour can be expected in Louise Ellman's constituency after she started to claim abuse when she started to become very unpopular locally.
Steven