Max Evidence 21 EERO on Letter ToEditor questions toPB 8May'13
From: wgprc-bounces@lists.greenparty.org.uk On Behalf Of John Evans
Sent: 08 May 2013 13:31
To: chris (Simpson)
Cc: Chyba; Wales Green Party Council
Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
Dear Chris,
I feel I must put in my two penneth here. If only in the pursuit of clarity.
Looking at your paragraph below.
*"What I would NOT do is to pick one of the items on the agenda, and start
of with a complete fabrication as the first sentence. You have been
attending WGPC meetings where this conference was agreed; and you have had
the agenda papers and minutes of all the meetings even when you were unable
to attend. The idea of a special conference was initially to discuss a
change of party name. After that, various items were added along the way.
To put "main purpose - a rule-change to allow long-serving officers to stay
on and on and on" is completely wrong and frankly preposterous."*
You accuse the editor of using a complete fabrication and go on to say that
the idea of the special conference was, initially to discuss a change of party name.
I have to disagree with you there.
I take the following,from my notes of WGPC meeting that followed the AGM, in
November 2012. Just before closing the meeting Ann Were proposed holding "a
special conference on May 18th 2013 to amend the constitution regarding rule
6 viii, the 5 year rule and membership questions" and ended by Ann stating "This meeting must be quorate".
I put it to you and the other members of the council, that because rule 6
viii is such a contentious issue within the council, that when the special
conference was announced to the membership, the main purpose of the meeting
was changed to hide this.
In response to your statement below.
*"Finally, when there is a ballot to select a Euro list, surely Max you can
see that having a prejudicial article about one of the five candidates is just not on."*
The "prejudicial article" you speak about was in a section Letters to the editor.
Are we not a party that promotes free speech?
I am totally against people writing things like this and putting them in the
public domain under the guise of anonymity (Indeed, I think this is a
cowardly approach). I put this to the editor before publication and asked
him not to publish while allowing the writer anonymity. When printed it did
carry "name and address supplied", this is still anonymous to the reader.
The editor, quite rightly gave the candidate the right to reply, before publication.
As far as the article being prejudicial to the candidate. If these
allegations are true, is it not the right of the voting members to know
this. If they are not true, the candidate was given the opportunity to put
their side forward in the newsletter and chose not to do so.
As individuals or council officers, we should not attack the editor for
including articles or letters we do not agree with. We do of course have the
opportunity to write an article or letter to be included in the next
publication, where we can voice our disagreement with the writer.
This all smacks of censorship. I ask again. Are we not a party of free speech?
The article may not even be prejudicial to the candidate, it could even work
in their favour, as said by Ann Were in her e-mail above.
Looking through the nomination papers this morning, I find that the
candidate in question did not answer Q.4 on the nomination paper.
*Q.4. *YOU ARE INVITED TO DECLARE ANYTHING WHICH YOU CONSIDER LIKELY TO BE, OR MAY IN LAW BE PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR POSITION AS A CANDIDATE OR WOULD BRING THE PARTY INTO DISREPUTE.* *The purpose of this question is to put the onus on you to openly declare anything in your past or present which might reasonably be expected to be seriously damaging to your position as a candidate and to the reputation of the Party. *
It goes on to say.
*We would expect you to declare something which would be likely to be damaging on account of being kept quiet now and only disclosed under pressure later.*
I must point out, the candidates do not have to answer this or any other
question on the nomination form, but surely it is in their interest to
answer all questions on the form and it is suggested on the form that they
do this. The nomination forms for all candidates are available for reading on the members website.
Due to the publication of this letter to the editor, I ask, should not WGPC now be asking questions of the candidate?
Are we not a party that prides itself on transparency?
Regards
John Evans.
On 6 May 2013 20:39, chris <christopher_s#####> wrote:
> Dear Max,
> I have finally got around to reading the newsletter today. I have
> to ask you Max, what are you trying to do in your role as editor? Are
> you a mole trying to destroy Wales Green Party?
> If I were editor, the first item (Special Conference) would be the
> main item with a summary of all the items on the agenda, an attempt to
> build the day up as an attractive event and an appeal for as many
> members as possible to attend.
> What I would NOT do is to pick one of the items on the agenda, and
> start of with a complete fabrication as the first sentence. You have
> been attending WGPC meetings where this conference was agreed; and you
> have had the agenda papers and minutes of all the meetings even when
> you were unable to attend. The idea of a special conference was
> initially to discuss a change of party name. After that, various items
were added along the way.
> To put "main purpose - a rule-change to allow long-serving officers to
> stay on and on and on" is completely wrong and frankly preposterous.
> Secondly, if I were the editor, I would not be using the newsletter
> to argue for one side of a motion which is going to be discussed at
> the conference. It would be clear to me that it would be a total
> misuse of my position as editor - something which does not seem to have
occurred to you.
>
> In the past, I have pointed out to you the history of why the same
> people have been filling WGPC posts for many years - it is the
> shortage of applicants to fill the posts, NOT an attempt by a clique
> to hang on to power. Look at how many of the posts have been contested
> over the last 10 years - virtually none. Look at how you ended up with
> two portfolios at the last AGM - campaigns coordinator and newsletter
> editor. Was that the action of a clique trying to keep out new
> blood??? How many people have volunteered to take on deputy treasurer?
> - nobody yet. If the members of Wales area do not put themselves
> forward to fill WGPC posts, then the small number of activists have to
> keep putting their names forward to keep the show on the road. What is
> so hard to understand about that Max? Why do you have to believe in
> the conspiracy theory explanation rather than the straightforward
historical facts??
>
> I went to my first WGPC meeting in 1983 as Aberystwyth GP rep & I
> am still going 30 years later as Ceredigion GP rep. Am I a
> power-hungry old stager? No. The reason is simple - nobody else in
> Ceredigion wants to drive off to places like Swansea, Cardiff &
> Newport to a Saturday meeting; and there is no other feasible way of
> attending. Every Ceredigion GP AGM votes me in as the WGPC
> representative; and all the members are glad that someone like me is
willing to put myself out to attend on their behalf.
>
> Finally, when there is a ballot to select a Euro list, surely Max
> you can see that having a prejudicial article about one of the five
> candidates is just not on. I have to agree that the job description
> does not say that the editor has to be impartial. I guess when we were
> drawing up the JDs in 2004, we sort of assumed it was so obvious that
> an editor should be impartial that we did not bother to put it as a
> specific bullet point in the newsletter JD. Well Max, you have just
> shown us all that we DO have to put the most obvious things in a job
> description, because otherwise someone will come along in the future
> and make a complete pigs ear of the job - as you have shown us with
> the last two issues. (Unless you really are a mole; in which case you
> have made a cracking good start to your job.)
>
> Yours,
> Chris S
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Wallis"
> To: "JOHN MATTHEWS"
> Cc: <wgprc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:57 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
>
> Dear John,
> I note you do not want to be associated with the Members Newsletter.
> Could you clarify if you making a proposal to the WGPC in accordance
> with rule and due process?
> Or are you offering your resignation?
> The latter course would rectify your non-compliance with the 5-year
> rule and your failure to inform the ERO that you had served more than
> the 5 continuous years when you accepted nomination at last year's AGM.
>
> Could you also declare if you feel you have 'interest' in any contents
> of the Newsletter in relation to your current candidacy for the
> Euro-list and explain where it's unfair or prejudicial?
>
> Regards / Max
>
> -----wgprc-bounces@lists.**greenparty.org.uk wrote: -----
> To: Owen Clarke,"wgprc@lists.greenparty.org.uk "
> From: JOHN MATTHEWS
> Sent by: wgprc-bounces@lists.**greenparty.org.uk
> Date: 06/05/2013 10:01
> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
>
> I have just read this so called members newsletter from M Wallis as
> editor. I no longer want to be associated with this publication and
> call on wales council which has overall responsibility fro this
> publication to immediately remove the editor and put out an apology to the
members.
> John Matthews
> Wales green party council member
>
> ______________________________**__
> From: Owen Clarke
> To: wgprc@lists.greenparty.org.uk
> Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 17:30
> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
>
>
> I would suggest contacting Phillip Sainty, who was the Green World
> editor for many years and has possibly thought about this question.
> The present Green World Editorial Board have been elected into
> position with no background knowledge.
>
> All the best
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> On 02/05/13 13:46, Christopher Were wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to know who would be held legally responsible in the event
>> of libel lawsuit [perhaps not necessary in this case, but for future
>> reference]. Would it be Wales Green Party Council, or the Member's
>> Newsletter editor, or the person who wrote the initial piece?
>> Chris ---
>> Christopher Were
>>
>> On 2013-05-02 12:28, ann were wrote:
>>
>> Dear Max,
>>> Like John I would not wish to censor any publication. However, I
>>> think you need to be aware of the possible implications of your actions.
>>
>>> If the author of this piece is not a GP member it should not be
>> included, as non GP members have no business interfering in the
>> selection of GP candidates. The fact that this person does not wish
>> to be named suggests that he or she may have something to hide.
>>
>>> In the event that the inclusion of this piece results in a complaint to
>> the European Elections Tribunal, you should be able to justify your
actions. The added attention given to Pippa could work both in her favour or
>> to her detriment. A case could be made for either.
>>
>>> If you do decided to include it, you should also include the full response given by
>> Pippa to Anne Greagsby last July during the Leadership election. I
>> have copied it below for your convenience.
>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>> Answer to the Thales question given on 3rd July to Anne
>>
>>> The world is not a perfect place, and we have to work with reality, not some
>>> precious fantasy that there even exists a squeaky clean world. Toucan design
>> man-machine interfaces - the main business was in catering and hospital
>>> equipment. Keeping good quality jobs in the valleys community of Abertillery
>>> was something I was proud to do. In my time the company made one replacement
>>> keyboard for Thales. You might think it would have been better to let a
>>> nuclear establishment carry on with faulty equipment, but as Toucan was the
>>> only company with the expertise to do the job, we erred on the side of
>>> safety. Yes, between a rock and a hard place - but life is full of hard
>>> decisions and no time to prevaricate. Would we have been right to allow
>>> unsafe equipment in a reactor environment ? Of course not.
>>
>>> Answer to Encrypta question
>>>
>>> I worked for Encrypta Electronics, which was set up in the recession of
>>
>>> 1984. It was a Newport -based company which employed 25 people, had
>>>
>> a profit sharing scheme and a turnover of about £2M. The business
>>>
>> manufactured and sold electronic devices which were to be fitted to
>>>
>> the backs of lorries for the avoidance of 'shrinkage'(stuff falling
>>>
>> off the backs of lorries). Customers were Marks and Spencer, Mothercare and similar.
>>
>>> Over time we brought out a miniaturised version which was used on ballot
>>
>>> boxes in Spain. A request from AWRE to the sales dept resulted in them
>>
>>> having one of these on trial. It did not stand up to the conditions
>>
>>> (whatever they were) . The story ended there, and I left the company soon afterwards.
>>>
>>> Ann Were.
>>>
__ From: John Evans
To: Max Wallis <WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk> [2]> Cc: Chyba [3]>;Wales Green Party Council[4]
> Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 23:50
>> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates Dear
>> Max, Before I try to answer your questions, I would like to make
>> clear, I would not want or try to be a censor of the Members
>> Newsletter or any other publication, so the following is a personal
>> view. You state that the contribution does not come from another
>> candidate, however, the person writing is not identified. How am I,
>> in my position as WGP EERO and also a member, or the wider
>> membership, to know that this does not come from a rival candidate. I
>> am a strong believer, that if you attack someone, you should not hide
>> behind anonymity, but have the courage of your convictions and stand
>> up and be counted. To attack someone in the media, which this is and
>> not identify yourself, is a cowardly act. If the writer has proof to
>> back up their allegations, surely, they have nothing to fear by
>> identifying themselves. You have quite rightly, offered Pippa the
>> right to reply. In my opinion, Pippa or anyone faced with attack in
>> the media by someone hiding behind anonymity would be foolish to
>> reply. The media itself over a number of years, has reported on the
>> danger of attacks like this that are also anonymous and the damage it
>> does to people, wrecked careers, wrecked families and even premature
>> deaths. I would urge you as editor of the Members Newsletter, before
>> you publish this contribution, to ask the writer to identify
>> themselves or remain silent. If the writer has the courage of their
>> convictions and is willing to be identified, I would ask you, to
>> again give Pippa the opportunity to reply before you publish. Even if
>> this pushes your publication date back. If you do publish the
>> contribution without the contributor identifying themselves, I
>> demand, this e-mail in its entirety be published alongside it.
>> Regards John Evans Member of GPEW, WGPC, WGPC EERO Originally this
>> e-mail was to be directed to yourself only. I now feel, I must share
>> it with the rest of WGPC and will copy them in. I will also include
>> the Chair of my Local Party, Andy Chyba. Regarding your request for a
>> formal set of descriptions of the candidates for the Euro list
>> nominees. If I had received your request before last weekend, I would
>> have been able to oblige. However, the candidates nomination forms
>> will be on the members website by Thursday, when all members will
>> have the opportunity to read them. You could include a link to the
>> correct section of the website in the newsletter Regards John. On 29
April 2013 16:39, Max Wallis <WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk
<mailto:WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk> [5]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear John, I plan to put the contribution below in
>>>>>
>>>> the Members Newsletter and would check it doesn't breach any
>>>> election
>> rules. It doesn't come from a rival candidate. I assume it's not
>> answered in Pippa's declaration form, as she would have said so. My
>> own questions at a Cardiff UNA meeting last Nov. were also on her
>> company involvement in military supplies, but not the same; nor did
>> she then say they were 'untruths'. I heard via Andy Chyba about the
>> Euro-list nominees, but can you give me a formal set of descriptions
>> for them suitable for the Newsletter, to be sent out in 2-3 days?
>> Thanks / Max Max Wallis 07714 163254 ---contribution to Members
>> Newsletter---- The Green Party tries to ensure our candidates for
>> public office have no skeletons that might come out later. Can I pose
>> questions on Pippa Bartalotti's explanations given during the GP
>> leadership campaign, for her responsibility as director of Toucan
>> Systems of Abertillery in supplying Thales military weapons company
>> (UK's second largest defence electronics supplier)?**** She wrote of
>> "one replacement keyboard for Thales... a nuclear establishment...
>> equipment in a reactor environment". That doesn't ring true - one
>> keyboard for an nuclear weapons company!**** Another company,
>> Encrypta Electronics had AB Electronics of Abercynon as their major
>> subcontractor, who in recent years assisted Thales in equiping the
>> new Warthog tanks for use in Afghanistan. Pippa was director/manager
>> and also part owner of Encrypta, and described it as:**** "I worked
>> for Encrypta Electronics, a Newport-based company which manufactured
>> and sold electronic devices which were to be fitted to the backs of
>> lorries... a miniaturised version was used on ballot boxes... AWRE (had)
one of these on trial...
>> I left the company soon afterwards".**** AWRE, the UK's atomic
>> weapons
>> (research) establishment, say they engaged Encrypta as consultant on
>> security tags and seals for atomic weapons. If this was for the
>> nuclear weapons control treaty, could she be up-front and proud of
>> it?**** How does Pippa describe the sale of half or more of the
>> family company Encrypta, then it going bankrupt in 2003, but the
>> security locks business continuing under new ownership (Unisto)?****
>>
Sent: 08 May 2013 13:31
To: chris (Simpson)
Cc: Chyba; Wales Green Party Council
Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
Dear Chris,
I feel I must put in my two penneth here. If only in the pursuit of clarity.
Looking at your paragraph below.
*"What I would NOT do is to pick one of the items on the agenda, and start
of with a complete fabrication as the first sentence. You have been
attending WGPC meetings where this conference was agreed; and you have had
the agenda papers and minutes of all the meetings even when you were unable
to attend. The idea of a special conference was initially to discuss a
change of party name. After that, various items were added along the way.
To put "main purpose - a rule-change to allow long-serving officers to stay
on and on and on" is completely wrong and frankly preposterous."*
You accuse the editor of using a complete fabrication and go on to say that
the idea of the special conference was, initially to discuss a change of party name.
I have to disagree with you there.
I take the following,from my notes of WGPC meeting that followed the AGM, in
November 2012. Just before closing the meeting Ann Were proposed holding "a
special conference on May 18th 2013 to amend the constitution regarding rule
6 viii, the 5 year rule and membership questions" and ended by Ann stating "This meeting must be quorate".
I put it to you and the other members of the council, that because rule 6
viii is such a contentious issue within the council, that when the special
conference was announced to the membership, the main purpose of the meeting
was changed to hide this.
In response to your statement below.
*"Finally, when there is a ballot to select a Euro list, surely Max you can
see that having a prejudicial article about one of the five candidates is just not on."*
The "prejudicial article" you speak about was in a section Letters to the editor.
Are we not a party that promotes free speech?
I am totally against people writing things like this and putting them in the
public domain under the guise of anonymity (Indeed, I think this is a
cowardly approach). I put this to the editor before publication and asked
him not to publish while allowing the writer anonymity. When printed it did
carry "name and address supplied", this is still anonymous to the reader.
The editor, quite rightly gave the candidate the right to reply, before publication.
As far as the article being prejudicial to the candidate. If these
allegations are true, is it not the right of the voting members to know
this. If they are not true, the candidate was given the opportunity to put
their side forward in the newsletter and chose not to do so.
As individuals or council officers, we should not attack the editor for
including articles or letters we do not agree with. We do of course have the
opportunity to write an article or letter to be included in the next
publication, where we can voice our disagreement with the writer.
This all smacks of censorship. I ask again. Are we not a party of free speech?
The article may not even be prejudicial to the candidate, it could even work
in their favour, as said by Ann Were in her e-mail above.
Looking through the nomination papers this morning, I find that the
candidate in question did not answer Q.4 on the nomination paper.
*Q.4. *YOU ARE INVITED TO DECLARE ANYTHING WHICH YOU CONSIDER LIKELY TO BE, OR MAY IN LAW BE PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR POSITION AS A CANDIDATE OR WOULD BRING THE PARTY INTO DISREPUTE.* *The purpose of this question is to put the onus on you to openly declare anything in your past or present which might reasonably be expected to be seriously damaging to your position as a candidate and to the reputation of the Party. *
It goes on to say.
*We would expect you to declare something which would be likely to be damaging on account of being kept quiet now and only disclosed under pressure later.*
I must point out, the candidates do not have to answer this or any other
question on the nomination form, but surely it is in their interest to
answer all questions on the form and it is suggested on the form that they
do this. The nomination forms for all candidates are available for reading on the members website.
Due to the publication of this letter to the editor, I ask, should not WGPC now be asking questions of the candidate?
Are we not a party that prides itself on transparency?
Regards
John Evans.
On 6 May 2013 20:39, chris <christopher_s#####> wrote:
> Dear Max,
> I have finally got around to reading the newsletter today. I have
> to ask you Max, what are you trying to do in your role as editor? Are
> you a mole trying to destroy Wales Green Party?
> If I were editor, the first item (Special Conference) would be the
> main item with a summary of all the items on the agenda, an attempt to
> build the day up as an attractive event and an appeal for as many
> members as possible to attend.
> What I would NOT do is to pick one of the items on the agenda, and
> start of with a complete fabrication as the first sentence. You have
> been attending WGPC meetings where this conference was agreed; and you
> have had the agenda papers and minutes of all the meetings even when
> you were unable to attend. The idea of a special conference was
> initially to discuss a change of party name. After that, various items
were added along the way.
> To put "main purpose - a rule-change to allow long-serving officers to
> stay on and on and on" is completely wrong and frankly preposterous.
> Secondly, if I were the editor, I would not be using the newsletter
> to argue for one side of a motion which is going to be discussed at
> the conference. It would be clear to me that it would be a total
> misuse of my position as editor - something which does not seem to have
occurred to you.
>
> In the past, I have pointed out to you the history of why the same
> people have been filling WGPC posts for many years - it is the
> shortage of applicants to fill the posts, NOT an attempt by a clique
> to hang on to power. Look at how many of the posts have been contested
> over the last 10 years - virtually none. Look at how you ended up with
> two portfolios at the last AGM - campaigns coordinator and newsletter
> editor. Was that the action of a clique trying to keep out new
> blood??? How many people have volunteered to take on deputy treasurer?
> - nobody yet. If the members of Wales area do not put themselves
> forward to fill WGPC posts, then the small number of activists have to
> keep putting their names forward to keep the show on the road. What is
> so hard to understand about that Max? Why do you have to believe in
> the conspiracy theory explanation rather than the straightforward
historical facts??
>
> I went to my first WGPC meeting in 1983 as Aberystwyth GP rep & I
> am still going 30 years later as Ceredigion GP rep. Am I a
> power-hungry old stager? No. The reason is simple - nobody else in
> Ceredigion wants to drive off to places like Swansea, Cardiff &
> Newport to a Saturday meeting; and there is no other feasible way of
> attending. Every Ceredigion GP AGM votes me in as the WGPC
> representative; and all the members are glad that someone like me is
willing to put myself out to attend on their behalf.
>
> Finally, when there is a ballot to select a Euro list, surely Max
> you can see that having a prejudicial article about one of the five
> candidates is just not on. I have to agree that the job description
> does not say that the editor has to be impartial. I guess when we were
> drawing up the JDs in 2004, we sort of assumed it was so obvious that
> an editor should be impartial that we did not bother to put it as a
> specific bullet point in the newsletter JD. Well Max, you have just
> shown us all that we DO have to put the most obvious things in a job
> description, because otherwise someone will come along in the future
> and make a complete pigs ear of the job - as you have shown us with
> the last two issues. (Unless you really are a mole; in which case you
> have made a cracking good start to your job.)
>
> Yours,
> Chris S
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Wallis"
> To: "JOHN MATTHEWS"
> Cc: <wgprc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:57 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
>
> Dear John,
> I note you do not want to be associated with the Members Newsletter.
> Could you clarify if you making a proposal to the WGPC in accordance
> with rule and due process?
> Or are you offering your resignation?
> The latter course would rectify your non-compliance with the 5-year
> rule and your failure to inform the ERO that you had served more than
> the 5 continuous years when you accepted nomination at last year's AGM.
>
> Could you also declare if you feel you have 'interest' in any contents
> of the Newsletter in relation to your current candidacy for the
> Euro-list and explain where it's unfair or prejudicial?
>
> Regards / Max
>
> -----wgprc-bounces@lists.**greenparty.org.uk wrote: -----
> To: Owen Clarke,"wgprc@lists.greenparty.org.uk "
> From: JOHN MATTHEWS
> Sent by: wgprc-bounces@lists.**greenparty.org.uk
> Date: 06/05/2013 10:01
> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
>
> I have just read this so called members newsletter from M Wallis as
> editor. I no longer want to be associated with this publication and
> call on wales council which has overall responsibility fro this
> publication to immediately remove the editor and put out an apology to the
members.
> John Matthews
> Wales green party council member
>
> ______________________________**__
> From: Owen Clarke
> To: wgprc@lists.greenparty.org.uk
> Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 17:30
> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates
>
>
> I would suggest contacting Phillip Sainty, who was the Green World
> editor for many years and has possibly thought about this question.
> The present Green World Editorial Board have been elected into
> position with no background knowledge.
>
> All the best
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> On 02/05/13 13:46, Christopher Were wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to know who would be held legally responsible in the event
>> of libel lawsuit [perhaps not necessary in this case, but for future
>> reference]. Would it be Wales Green Party Council, or the Member's
>> Newsletter editor, or the person who wrote the initial piece?
>> Chris ---
>> Christopher Were
>>
>> On 2013-05-02 12:28, ann were wrote:
>>
>> Dear Max,
>>> Like John I would not wish to censor any publication. However, I
>>> think you need to be aware of the possible implications of your actions.
>>
>>> If the author of this piece is not a GP member it should not be
>> included, as non GP members have no business interfering in the
>> selection of GP candidates. The fact that this person does not wish
>> to be named suggests that he or she may have something to hide.
>>
>>> In the event that the inclusion of this piece results in a complaint to
>> the European Elections Tribunal, you should be able to justify your
actions. The added attention given to Pippa could work both in her favour or
>> to her detriment. A case could be made for either.
>>
>>> If you do decided to include it, you should also include the full response given by
>> Pippa to Anne Greagsby last July during the Leadership election. I
>> have copied it below for your convenience.
>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>> Answer to the Thales question given on 3rd July to Anne
>>
>>> The world is not a perfect place, and we have to work with reality, not some
>>> precious fantasy that there even exists a squeaky clean world. Toucan design
>> man-machine interfaces - the main business was in catering and hospital
>>> equipment. Keeping good quality jobs in the valleys community of Abertillery
>>> was something I was proud to do. In my time the company made one replacement
>>> keyboard for Thales. You might think it would have been better to let a
>>> nuclear establishment carry on with faulty equipment, but as Toucan was the
>>> only company with the expertise to do the job, we erred on the side of
>>> safety. Yes, between a rock and a hard place - but life is full of hard
>>> decisions and no time to prevaricate. Would we have been right to allow
>>> unsafe equipment in a reactor environment ? Of course not.
>>
>>> Answer to Encrypta question
>>>
>>> I worked for Encrypta Electronics, which was set up in the recession of
>>
>>> 1984. It was a Newport -based company which employed 25 people, had
>>>
>> a profit sharing scheme and a turnover of about £2M. The business
>>>
>> manufactured and sold electronic devices which were to be fitted to
>>>
>> the backs of lorries for the avoidance of 'shrinkage'(stuff falling
>>>
>> off the backs of lorries). Customers were Marks and Spencer, Mothercare and similar.
>>
>>> Over time we brought out a miniaturised version which was used on ballot
>>
>>> boxes in Spain. A request from AWRE to the sales dept resulted in them
>>
>>> having one of these on trial. It did not stand up to the conditions
>>
>>> (whatever they were) . The story ended there, and I left the company soon afterwards.
>>>
>>> Ann Were.
>>>
__ From: John Evans
To: Max Wallis <WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk> [2]> Cc: Chyba [3]>;Wales Green Party Council[4]
> Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 23:50
>> Subject: Re: [WGPC] Members Newsletter - Euro-list candidates Dear
>> Max, Before I try to answer your questions, I would like to make
>> clear, I would not want or try to be a censor of the Members
>> Newsletter or any other publication, so the following is a personal
>> view. You state that the contribution does not come from another
>> candidate, however, the person writing is not identified. How am I,
>> in my position as WGP EERO and also a member, or the wider
>> membership, to know that this does not come from a rival candidate. I
>> am a strong believer, that if you attack someone, you should not hide
>> behind anonymity, but have the courage of your convictions and stand
>> up and be counted. To attack someone in the media, which this is and
>> not identify yourself, is a cowardly act. If the writer has proof to
>> back up their allegations, surely, they have nothing to fear by
>> identifying themselves. You have quite rightly, offered Pippa the
>> right to reply. In my opinion, Pippa or anyone faced with attack in
>> the media by someone hiding behind anonymity would be foolish to
>> reply. The media itself over a number of years, has reported on the
>> danger of attacks like this that are also anonymous and the damage it
>> does to people, wrecked careers, wrecked families and even premature
>> deaths. I would urge you as editor of the Members Newsletter, before
>> you publish this contribution, to ask the writer to identify
>> themselves or remain silent. If the writer has the courage of their
>> convictions and is willing to be identified, I would ask you, to
>> again give Pippa the opportunity to reply before you publish. Even if
>> this pushes your publication date back. If you do publish the
>> contribution without the contributor identifying themselves, I
>> demand, this e-mail in its entirety be published alongside it.
>> Regards John Evans Member of GPEW, WGPC, WGPC EERO Originally this
>> e-mail was to be directed to yourself only. I now feel, I must share
>> it with the rest of WGPC and will copy them in. I will also include
>> the Chair of my Local Party, Andy Chyba. Regarding your request for a
>> formal set of descriptions of the candidates for the Euro list
>> nominees. If I had received your request before last weekend, I would
>> have been able to oblige. However, the candidates nomination forms
>> will be on the members website by Thursday, when all members will
>> have the opportunity to read them. You could include a link to the
>> correct section of the website in the newsletter Regards John. On 29
April 2013 16:39, Max Wallis <WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk
<mailto:WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk> [5]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear John, I plan to put the contribution below in
>>>>>
>>>> the Members Newsletter and would check it doesn't breach any
>>>> election
>> rules. It doesn't come from a rival candidate. I assume it's not
>> answered in Pippa's declaration form, as she would have said so. My
>> own questions at a Cardiff UNA meeting last Nov. were also on her
>> company involvement in military supplies, but not the same; nor did
>> she then say they were 'untruths'. I heard via Andy Chyba about the
>> Euro-list nominees, but can you give me a formal set of descriptions
>> for them suitable for the Newsletter, to be sent out in 2-3 days?
>> Thanks / Max Max Wallis 07714 163254 ---contribution to Members
>> Newsletter---- The Green Party tries to ensure our candidates for
>> public office have no skeletons that might come out later. Can I pose
>> questions on Pippa Bartalotti's explanations given during the GP
>> leadership campaign, for her responsibility as director of Toucan
>> Systems of Abertillery in supplying Thales military weapons company
>> (UK's second largest defence electronics supplier)?**** She wrote of
>> "one replacement keyboard for Thales... a nuclear establishment...
>> equipment in a reactor environment". That doesn't ring true - one
>> keyboard for an nuclear weapons company!**** Another company,
>> Encrypta Electronics had AB Electronics of Abercynon as their major
>> subcontractor, who in recent years assisted Thales in equiping the
>> new Warthog tanks for use in Afghanistan. Pippa was director/manager
>> and also part owner of Encrypta, and described it as:**** "I worked
>> for Encrypta Electronics, a Newport-based company which manufactured
>> and sold electronic devices which were to be fitted to the backs of
>> lorries... a miniaturised version was used on ballot boxes... AWRE (had)
one of these on trial...
>> I left the company soon afterwards".**** AWRE, the UK's atomic
>> weapons
>> (research) establishment, say they engaged Encrypta as consultant on
>> security tags and seals for atomic weapons. If this was for the
>> nuclear weapons control treaty, could she be up-front and proud of
>> it?**** How does Pippa describe the sale of half or more of the
>> family company Encrypta, then it going bankrupt in 2003, but the
>> security locks business continuing under new ownership (Unisto)?****
>>
No comments:
Post a Comment