WPUK meet with Dawn Butler. Names released to Pink News

Slight tangent, but on the subject of FOI requests - not knowing much about how these work, or for that matter whether the information would actually be available to request (or might not have been recorded in the first place) - I've wondered before whether an FOI request could be made to discover just how much of the "increase in women committing rape" that was reported recently was actually due to TIMs. Anybody know more about this? It would certainly be interesting.

JJ said her first legal letter re. AWS was ignored too. Labour were quick to act on the complaints against JJ and Venice Allan - but have ignored the complaints made by them.

It was reported in the Mail (so make of that what you will!) that Jeremy Corbyn was 'paralysed with indecision' about the self ID issue.

Certainly been shelved until after the May elections.

Did she report it to Labour or the Information Commissioner?

Although the new regulations will be tougher, there is already legislation banning organisations and their representatives from using personal data they hold (e..g Labour members' records) for non-approved purposes, publishing people's personal data without their consent etc. Publishing data stating that people are Labour Party members is an even worse offence because that is classed as sensitive personal data under the Data Protection Act (the current legislation).

I complained but have had no response at all. Dh also complained and was told that they were investigating....

I believe JJ did, but it got ignored. when the new regs come in, and they have data on people who are not even labour/lib dems - which should not be held, there is more likehood of them stopping this utter nonsense.

Did anything ever happen re: the previous data issues (e.g. the Labour Against Transphobia lists, the alleged misuse of Labour Party membership records, the 'pretty little contact data' threats etc)?

Did anyone whose information was misused complain to either the Labour Party or the Information Commissioner?

I am on a blacklist block list published by Lily Madigan. I’ve been waiting for over two weeks for a response from Labour. Clearly the Labour Party is out of control and beyond decency

New data regulations come in soon...they cannot hold data they do not need. They cannot hold data without permission and they cannot hold data that can do harm.

Agree on the totalitarianism point.

I'm also on LM's block list. I'm not a Labour member though - but I do think there's something wrong with Labour Party officials being able to collate lists like this.

If they're using their name, and their official Party status, on social media, there needs to be some standards. LM and mates at the moment are acting like Mao's Gang of Four.

Wasn't it ruled in a US court recently (or at least challenged in court) that for Donald Trump to block US citizens was unconstitutional? I'm sure I read something about that. It's the same standard.

I think if they actually had a full list of names they'd have published it. I hope so, because if Butler/Labour HQ did give them a list then they need to be investigated for breeching data protection rules.

It's seeming more and more like a US-style flood of lawsuits is going to be needed to stop this shit.

I am stunned. Wtf has happened to the Labour Party? It is as though they are so certain of their position as the good guys that anyone who disagrees with them on anything is evil and must be crushed. This is totalitarianism.
I am on a blacklist block list published by Lily Madigan. I’ve been waiting for over two weeks for a response from Labour. Clearly the Labour Party is out of control and beyond decency. Goodness knows who I will vote for now.

No, you're right of course, anyone could do it. I'm tempted to do it myself, but would appreciate tips from anyone who has on how to frame it.

Has anyone here ever asked for this kind of information? I can't think that I've ever seen anyone here or in the blogosphere refer to having gone down this route. I'd need to refine it to: which ministers, which govt/shadow departments, which trans advocacy groups to start off, I'd think.

You needn't be in the WPUK to submit a FOI request! It's an interesting thought.

Hmm.

If I were in WPUK, my riposte (other than taking her office to task for the leaking, which I am sure they will) would be to think about a FOI to see which of the well-known trans advocacy organisations have been meeting with Dawn and other shadow ministers.

That would be enlightening, I think, and has the advantage of occupying the moral high ground of being above board and transparent (unlike leaking).

I've never actually done one - would this work? Would she/they have to release the info?

I'm skint, but if anyone other than me ever wants to send a solicitor's letter to PN telling them that they are out of order calling any of these women "anti-trans", I'd bung in a fiver to help pay the solicitor costs.

Thanks GoodyMog, I missed that in my skim through the article. So PN are either telling porkies about having the names or have chosen not to publish them.

It seems like a fairly reasonable article to me. Is this just because I'm new?

Whether or not is reasonable is irrelevant. A shadow minister shoud not be issuing a list of names of persons she met with to a third party or allowing her office to issue such a list.

Imagine if she were the Shadow Environment Secretary and she meets with a group who are opposed to building on an area of greenbelt and she then releases the names to say some one like Shelter who support the development
Shelter can then pass them on to whoever they like. Doesn't matter how reasonable any one is- the information should not be released.

Its not it's

PN is fairly aggressive in it's opposition to what this group stands for.

To hand them an 'enemies of...' list and for them to wave it around in a mccarthyist manner is purely to intimidate or try to scare those on the list (as the inevitable bile and death threats will ensue).

It seems like a fairly reasonable article to me. Is this just because I'm new?

WPUK also reference the list being leaked though. Pretty sure they'll be aware of what else has been done with that list, but not specifically mentioned in their statement.

Either they do the have a list and are guessing (own agenda) or someone needs there backside kicked for handing this over to them. It is not in the public interest and there is no justification to do so beyond malice.

If the list is circulated or published there is a risk of violence or intimidation to these people.

They need to start by looking at who had access to the diaries or invitation list, and who was there on the day (staff and attendees).

@BetsyM00 in the article it says, "A list of invitees said to have attended, obtained by PinkNews, includes activists and party members who have been outspoken opponents of plans to reform gender recognition laws."

So not just Linda Bellos. Unless PinkNews are lying of course.

Thanks for the link Betsy. I'm not sure why they (Pink
News) have called it a trans inclusion meeting, as I assume they were discussing the protection of Women's safe spaces.

This is the Pink News article:
www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/31/labour-trans-women-shortlists-jeremy-corbyn-meeting-dawn-butler/

The only person named is Linda Bellos. And this is no great secret since Corbyn named her on the Marr show, and she has been open about seeking a meeting ever since.

No other names are mentioned. Am I missing something?

And WPUK are being less than forthcoming about the content of the meeting.

This is absolutely disgusting. The nasty bastard. How the hell can they really believe that they are the good guys on 'the right side of history'?

I hope.action is taken in this. But well, it is the Labour party.