The new issue of Liberator casts more light on this episode:
Liberator understands that the original cause of the row was that Greaves wanted to criticise Ryan Coetzee, the party's strategy director in the two years up to the general election.
This was rejected not because of the argument made ... but because Coetzee was a staff member and the site had decided that party employees should not be criticised no wonder how powerful.
Whether Coetzee himself ever claimed this privilege is unknown. ...
The dispute then snowballed. Greaves sent an angry response to this piece not being run. LDV demanded an apology, he refused and was banned and there matters rest.Given the oblique way that Lib Dem Voice sometimes chooses to reply to its critics, I wonder whether this post was in part aimed at Tony. Who knows?
Lib Dem Voice's policy is a matter for Lib Dem voice, though perhaps this is one that should have been made clearer to readers.
And given that blog's large readership and semi-official standing, I question whether such a blanket ban is wise or will help our party find a way out of the deep hole in which it now finds itself in.
You can subscribe to Liberator via its website.
I don't think there is anything liberal about allowing staff members to be bullied on our pages. There are appropriate mechanisms for dealing with complaints.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I will not stand for anybody sending abusive emails to members of my team.
All Lord Greaves needs to do is to give an assurance that his communications with us will comply with the Morrissey rules on conduct - e.g. no bullying, harassment or intimidation - and he will be able to take part in the site again. You would think that anyone in the Liberal Democrat parliamentary parties should be able to agree to that.
It's a bit of a red herring to suggest that this one rather small episode is impeding #libdemfightback.
*applause and whistling for Caron*
ReplyDeleteBut, Caron Lindsay, you are melding Helena Morrisey's advice on how the Liberal Democrat Party handles incorrect behaviour with how the party treats internal disagreements. Have a look at Tim Farron's words: http://www.libdems.org.uk/tim_farron_writes_we_have_changed_our_rules_and_codes_of_conduct_at_every_level
ReplyDelete"Helena Morrissey will be back later this year to look at how we are putting her recommendations into practice, so that we continue to hold ourselves to a high standard."
That was a year ago, so Helena or her mates have examined some Lib Dems for yonks.
As someone who as also fallen foul of LDV's ridiculous 'bullying staff' rule when criticising corporate management.
ReplyDeleteWhat it shows is LDV's lack of understanding of power. The fuckwitted Ryan Coetzee was General Election Director of Strategy and paid in excess of £100,000 a year. Tim Gordon remains CEO of the party on a no doubt similarly eye watering salary and there are a number of other senior people in the party with executive responsibility such as the useless Tom Smithard - in charge of the party's worthless polling operation - who if we follow Caron's ridiculous ruling cannot be brought to account by party members on the semi offical website.
These people are still employed by the party from our member subs and have so far failed to acknowledge any resonsibility for the calamity they were in charge of. They need to go and we need to be able to say so.
Dan,
DeleteGiven LDV's requirement for courtesy, one that I support as a concept, you may just have demonstrated why they might have a problem with your approach...
There's an unfortunate typo in the first sentence of the Liberator quote. Before the word "understands" there should be the important three letters "mis".
ReplyDeletePaul Walter demonstrates why so many people react badly to the sort of patronising, obtuse and unhelpful remarks that constitute far too much Lib Dem Voice editorial correspondence.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he can explain why Tony Greves is facing serious accusations by him and his colleagues? Unless he does, many will think the accusations are false.
I found Paul's comment to be good humoured, especially given the context.
ReplyDeleteHard to know where to go with explanation, when the previous explanation has been dismissed as a "serious accusation" that must be assumed to be false.