10/12/2019 by Ian
Dear Louise Regan,
I am in receipt of your letter dated 10 December 2019.
However I am somewhat at a loss to know what public activity in the name of PSC I am supposed to ‘stop’. Because although I support PSC and have done for many years, I have not to my knowledge engaged in any activity ‘in its name’ recently, if ever. I hold no elected position in PSC and would not presume to speak on its behalf.
You refer to ‘allegations’ without specifying what they are.
But circumstances make clear that your ‘allegation’ is that I put a motion in favour of the right to appeal against the denial of membership of Peter Gregson, of Labour Against Zionist Islamophobic racism, to the PSC AGM. This motion was submitted completely constitutionally by myself and another PSC comrade on 26 November, in time for the normal deadline.
The only objective of LAZIR is the dissaffiliation of the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel from the Labour Party. This is completely compatible with the aims and objectives of PSC and support for it is not proscribed.
I therefore take it that you oppose these objectives and support the affiliation of these Zionists to the Labour Party. That makes you a de-facto political agent of these Zionist bodies.
It’s perfectly obvious that the purpose of this suspension is to rig the January 2020 AGM and to stop this motion, which is completely in tune with PSC’s constitution, from being debated.
It is crystal clear that in denying the right of the conference to hear Peter’ Gregson’s appeal, the PSC executive is in breach of clause 4.5 of the PSC Constitution and is denying the PSC AGM the right to an informed ratification (or not) of its actions regarding Peter Gregson’s membership.
Therefore your suspension of me is an act of conference rigging and a direct attack on not only myself but of the right of PSC’s AGM to exercise its constitutional right of informed ratification of the Executive’s actions. The suspension itself is a corrupt act and the ‘investigation’ just a charade whose purpose is to defend the ‘right’ of the PSC Executive to behave in an unconstitutional and likely unlawful manner.
Therefore the ‘investigation’ is itself unconstitutional and a corrupt act. Any co-operation with this fraudulent ‘investigation’ would therefore involve complicity in a major breach of the constitution by the PSC Executive, which would itself be a breach of the constitution. Just by agreeing to ‘conduct’ this phoney ‘investigation’ you yourself are in breach of the PSC constitution and an abuse of office, which ought to render you, not me, liable to expulsion from PSC.
As I do not want to be complicit in such a corrupt breach of the constitution, I will not be cooperating in any way with this corrupt ‘investigation’. Anyone else who ‘cooperates’ or participates in this fraudulent ‘investigation’ in any way at all is likewise in breach of the PSC constitution and actively involved in AGM-rigging.
Any further attempts to contact me regarding this will not be replied to in a spirit of cooperation, but will be cited and published as further evidence of your corruption and AGM-rigging activities.
I note that your pretence of acting impartially is a fraud. I have it on good authority that you are a member of Socialist Action, which is a bureaucratic Stalinist cult around a renegade ex-Trotskyist known as John Ross.
Being ‘investigated’ by a member of such an outfit is like being ‘investigated’ by a body controlled by the thug Gerry Healy, the cult leader and rapist who abused the membership of the Workers Revolutionary Party for many years. If you think I will give any credence to the capacity of such a cult to ‘investigate’ anyone you are totally deluded.
Yours for socialism, not bureaucratic gangsterism
——– Original message ——–From: Louise Regan Date: 10/12/2019 11:22 (GMT+00:00)Subject: PSC
Dear Mr Donovan
Following receipt of concerns raised regarding your conduct as a member of PSC I have been appointed as the investigating officer.
Following a preliminary investigation and in consultation with the Executive Committee a decision has been made to suspend your membership pending the outcome of the investigation.
The branch secretary and chair will be notified of this decision and you are therefore requested to cease any further activity in the name of PSC.
I will be in contact with you in the next few days to detail the process and to allow you to respond to the allegations that have been made.
Appendix: Motion submitted 26 November 2019
Motion on Peter Gregson and Membership Appeals This AGM notes that article 4.5 of the PSC constitution states
:“Admission to, and where necessary termination of, membership – along with the issuing of invitations to sponsors – shall be the responsibility of the Executive Committee, to be ratified at the following AGM.”
This means that the constitutional position is that someone who applies to join PSC, and is refused membership by the executive, has the right to appeal to the AGM against refusal of membership.
There can be no debate about this: this is subject to ratification and therefore appeal at the AGM if the wording of the constitution means anything. If the AGM is denied the right to hear an appeal against such a decision, it is being denied the right to an informed ratification of the actions of the Executive.
We also note that Peter Gregson, of Labour Against Zionist Islamophobic Racism, was refused membership of PSC in July by a decision of the PSC executive. When brother Gregson informed the executive of an intention to appeal this to the AGM, Ben Jamal replied:
“The provisions of 4.6 in relation to appeals is … only relevant to those who have successfully been admitted to membership of PSC and subsequently had their membership terminated or suspended. As your case has been dealt with under clause 4.5 you are not entitled to appeal this decision to the AGM.
This AGM notes that if it is not able to hear the appeal of someone refused membership, it is unable to make an informed ratification of this issue as clause 4.5 of the constitution stipulates.
This AGM therefore resolves to hear the appeal of Peter Gregson, and notes that this is a clarifying precedent.
Proposed: Ian Donovan (London)
Seconded: Jenifer Flintoft (Portsmouth/South Downs)