Zhivago wrote:
What happened is that the Coyne campaign misused labour members' data for his campaign. Obviously they didn't give their consent for their private data to be used for this. Probably contrary to the law on data protection - hence the suspension for bringing the union into disrepute. Not rocket science.
If it's not rocket science, then you can surely provide links to where these allegations are spelled out in detail. All we have so far are these, deniable, allegations from you.
You're really incapable of doing your own research? Pathetic.
It's taken you how many posts to come up with this? And still, there is absolutely zero indication that this is the issue on which Unite have suspended Coyne!
Got anything remotely relevant?
Stones of granite wrote:
If it's not rocket science, then you can surely provide links to where these allegations are spelled out in detail. All we have so far are these, deniable, allegations from you.
You're really incapable of doing your own research? Pathetic.
It's taken you how many posts to come up with this? And still, there is absolutely zero indication that this is the issue on which Unite have suspended Coyne!
Got anything remotely relevant?
So search "Gerard Coyne" on Twitter then. You'll see that this is why he's been suspended. It's all over the twittersphere.
You are criticising unite for having a confidential disciplinary procedure.
You make lurid banana republic claims based on the fact that they suspended him... After all votes were in.
You are a joke. Haven't got a clue about politics. I think you should be better informed before mouthing off. It's pathetic.
Stones of granite wrote:
If it's not rocket science, then you can surely provide links to where these allegations are spelled out in detail. All we have so far are these, deniable, allegations from you.
Coyne does have history of course, it's not that long back he was disciplined for speaking at a Labour event, and one can see why McCluskey might feel a Union man speaking at a Labour party event would be worrisome, and indeed by McCluskey would think a Union official speaking to a group at any major political party would be beyond the pale
No different than any other organisation disciplining staff who breach communications policy.
What rot.
Speaking at a Labour event organised by Clive Lewis would by all accounts by fine, but one organised Tristram Hunt isn't? And you've got to ask, why even wouldn't you want people to go to an event organised by John Redwood to discuss union values and Unite's aims? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Unite staff speak all the time at events attended by other Union people and members of the PLP and it's rarely if ever an issue, or at least they wouldn't be able to evidence that approval was sought and gained for all public speaking events 'cause it's just what normally happens. Maybe if they went off to speak at BNP event you'd want a word, but it's just worryingly parochial to think Unite should only speak to the Corbyn side of the Labour Party
Digby wrote:
Coyne does have history of course, it's not that long back he was disciplined for speaking at a Labour event, and one can see why McCluskey might feel a Union man speaking at a Labour party event would be worrisome, and indeed by McCluskey would think a Union official speaking to a group at any major political party would be beyond the pale
No different than any other organisation disciplining staff who breach communications policy.
What rot.
Speaking at a Labour event organised by Clive Lewis would by all accounts by fine, but one organised Tristram Hunt isn't? And you've got to ask, why even wouldn't you want people to go to an event organised by John Redwood to discuss union values and Unite's aims? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Unite staff speak all the time at events attended by other Union people and members of the PLP and it's rarely if ever an issue, or at least they wouldn't be able to evidence that approval was sought and gained for all public speaking events 'cause it's just what normally happens. Maybe if they went off to speak at BNP event you'd want a word, but it's just worryingly parochial to think Unite should only speak to the Corbyn side of the Labour Party
Oh what a naive idiot you are. It makes no sense to allow your staff to collude with people hostile to the aims of your organisation.
Zhivago wrote:
No different than any other organisation disciplining staff who breach communications policy.
What rot.
Speaking at a Labour event organised by Clive Lewis would by all accounts by fine, but one organised Tristram Hunt isn't? And you've got to ask, why even wouldn't you want people to go to an event organised by John Redwood to discuss union values and Unite's aims? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Unite staff speak all the time at events attended by other Union people and members of the PLP and it's rarely if ever an issue, or at least they wouldn't be able to evidence that approval was sought and gained for all public speaking events 'cause it's just what normally happens. Maybe if they went off to speak at BNP event you'd want a word, but it's just worryingly parochial to think Unite should only speak to the Corbyn side of the Labour Party
Oh what a naive idiot you are. It makes no sense to allow your staff to collude with people hostile to the aims of your organisation.
Given the aims of Unite it doesn't seem credible to suggest an event organised by the Labour party, attended by dozens of the PLP MPs and attended by a good number of other Union officials could or even should be described as hostile, and even if it were then go and talk to them anyway. It's a dangerous sort of fantasy world is McCluskey living in if he thinks he can do business of behalf of Unite if he and all his staff only meet people who'd agree with Glorious Leader™
It's taken you how many posts to come up with this? And still, there is absolutely zero indication that this is the issue on which Unite have suspended Coyne!
Got anything remotely relevant?
So search "Gerard Coyne" on Twitter then. You'll see that this is why he's been suspended. It's all over the twittersphere.
You are criticising unite for having a confidential disciplinary procedure.
You make lurid banana republic claims based on the fact that they suspended him... After all votes were in.
You are a joke. Haven't got a clue about politics. I think you should be better informed before mouthing off. It's pathetic.
You really are a good little apparatchik, aren't you. Defending the Union line to the last man.
The truth is, that Unite have suspended an employee with giving grounds, and the best explanation is that one should search social media to find out those grounds.
This is what is pathetic. This and your defence of it.
Stones of granite wrote:
It's taken you how many posts to come up with this? And still, there is absolutely zero indication that this is the issue on which Unite have suspended Coyne!
Got anything remotely relevant?
So search "Gerard Coyne" on Twitter then. You'll see that this is why he's been suspended. It's all over the twittersphere.
You are criticising unite for having a confidential disciplinary procedure.
You make lurid banana republic claims based on the fact that they suspended him... After all votes were in.
You are a joke. Haven't got a clue about politics. I think you should be better informed before mouthing off. It's pathetic.
You really are a good little apparatchik, aren't you. Defending the Union line to the last man.
The truth is, that Unite have suspended an employee with giving grounds, and the best explanation is that one should search social media to find out those grounds.
This is what is pathetic. This and your defence of it.
No, what's pathetic is your defence of someone who seems to have broken the law and is under investigation by the ICO.
Zhivago wrote:
So search "Gerard Coyne" on Twitter then. You'll see that this is why he's been suspended. It's all over the twittersphere.
You are criticising unite for having a confidential disciplinary procedure.
You make lurid banana republic claims based on the fact that they suspended him... After all votes were in.
You are a joke. Haven't got a clue about politics. I think you should be better informed before mouthing off. It's pathetic.
You really are a good little apparatchik, aren't you. Defending the Union line to the last man.
The truth is, that Unite have suspended an employee with giving grounds, and the best explanation is that one should search social media to find out those grounds.
This is what is pathetic. This and your defence of it.
No, what's pathetic is your defence of someone who seems to have broken the law and is under investigation by the ICO.
Zhivago wrote:
So search "Gerard Coyne" on Twitter then. You'll see that this is why he's been suspended. It's all over the twittersphere.
You are criticising unite for having a confidential disciplinary procedure.
You make lurid banana republic claims based on the fact that they suspended him... After all votes were in.
You are a joke. Haven't got a clue about politics. I think you should be better informed before mouthing off. It's pathetic.
You really are a good little apparatchik, aren't you. Defending the Union line to the last man.
The truth is, that Unite have suspended an employee with giving grounds, and the best explanation is that one should search social media to find out those grounds.
This is what is pathetic. This and your defence of it.
No, what's pathetic is your defence of someone who seems to have broken the law and is under investigation by the ICO.
Now, your desperation has sunk to the point of making shit up. I haven't defended anyone. I want to know how Unite gets away with acting like a third world dictator by suspending people without declared grounds, who challenge them.
Stones of granite wrote:
You really are a good little apparatchik, aren't you. Defending the Union line to the last man.
The truth is, that Unite have suspended an employee with giving grounds, and the best explanation is that one should search social media to find out those grounds.
This is what is pathetic. This and your defence of it.
No, what's pathetic is your defence of someone who seems to have broken the law and is under investigation by the ICO.
Now, your desperation has sunk to the point of making shit up. I haven't defended anyone. I want to know how Unite gets away with acting like a third world dictator by suspending people without declared grounds, who challenge them.
You are the one defending the indefensible.
They gave the reason though 'bringing the union into disrepute'. You seem to expect them to allege the details in public before the investigation is completed.
