Dear Georgina,

although you are a lawyer you do not seem to have grasped the point about Natural Justice.  It is now nearly a week since I was traduced by the General Secretary yet I still do not know what the specific charges are against me.  You will need to inform me of the exact complaints so that I have the opportunity to answer them.

However I suspect you know as well as I do that these charges are fabricated and are just further harassment of my website, following on from your ill-fated trade-mark legal action.  I note that at the Executive meeting during the discussion to set up a disciplinary panel for me (which incidentally you have yet to inform me of) the General Secretary complained about a specific story on my website, namely your secret Christmas valuation of Hayes Court.

I do object to Judy Box being appointed to this panel - she was part of the last panel which disciplined me and resulted ultimately in my expulsion from the union, which was rescinded and ruled unlawful by the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal.  She has also been the cause of several articles on my website (e.g. her 'Bed Blockers' outburst at conference).  Therefore she is anything but an impartial party in any matter to do with me.  

I confess I could not quite get my head around your paragraph
     "there is a growing belief among members that the union supplied members' email addresses to you
      without their consent.  The notion that underlies this belief brings the union into disrepute.  It is an untrue           notion.  It is therefore important that the union takes steps to set the record straight as promptly as possible.               Accordingly, I hereby put you on notice that any failure by you to cooperate with this investigation and assist in              setting the record straight will be regarded as conduct which itself tends to bring the union into disrepute."
I take it to be a threat that my 'perceived' failure to cooperate with your fabricated witch hunt brings the union into disrepute because there is a 'notion underlying a belief' that the union officially supplied email addresses to me. I do not agree that any failure to co-operate of itself brings the union into disrepute. However I will fully cooperate.  If you would kindly tell me which email addresses it is alleged I have stolen then I will endeavour to explain to you precisely how I obtained them.

In fact, as I have already reported to the union, I did receive email addresses officially from Amicus.  I understand the officer responsible for sending them to me was one Christian Matheson.   I never did receive an explanation of why they were sent but I added them to my opt-out mailing list nonetheless.  So the notion you describe as 'untrue' and 'bringing the union into disrepute' is actually true - one of your officials did indeed send me member's email addresses (albeit probably through incompetence, which actually increases the disrepute I would imagine).  You will find this leak fully documented in my article 'Union Dirty Tricks' here and here although I carefully did not refer to one email address you provided, in order to avoid that person any problems as Mother of Chapel. 

You will also recall that I offered to cooperate with your previous leak investigation into the three officials whom you have now sacked.  My offer to make the original leaked documents available to a mutually agreed third party for inspection, in order to establish the innocence of the three officers, was rejected outright by you. No doubt you will be able to justify your decision at three Employment Tribunals in the near future. 

Lastly and on the subject of Data Protection I still have not received the 'enquiry agent' report you personally commissioned into my financial standing and which you have promised to send me in response to my Data Protection Act subject access request.  

David Beaumont.




> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: NEC meeting
> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:28:25 -0000
> From: "Hirsch, Georgina"
> <Georgina.Hirsch@amicustheunion.org>
> To: <david@johmar.com>
>
> Dear Mr. Beaumont
> At the NEC meeting on Wednesday the General Secretary did not allege,
> as you claim, that you had 'stolen email addresses'. You appear to
> have been misinformed. The General Secretary does not know how you
> obtained the email addresses. For this very reason, the NEC mandated
> him to conduct an investigation into the complaints that have been
> made to the union about your possession and use of email addresses
> belonging to union members without their consent.
> In this connection, and contrary to your assertions that you 'have not
> obtained any addresses illegitimately', I make the following
> preliminary observations:
> (1)   You do not even allege that you obtained the email addresses in
> question from the union members to whom those addresses relate with
> their consent.  On this basis alone, there is good reason to think
> that you have obtained details of their email addresses
> illegitimately.
> (2)   There are, as matters stand, reasonable grounds to
> suspect that in obtaining, possessing and using the email addresses in
> question, you have committed, abetted or involved yourself in one or 
> more of the following unlawful activities:
>                       (i)     a criminal offence contrary to section 55(1) of the Data
> Protection Act 1998 ("DPA 1998");
>                       (ii)    the processing of personal data in
> contravention of the data protection principles in the DPA 1998 and
> therefore unlawfully, such as to warrant an application to the
> Information Commissioner under section 42 of the Act;
>                       (iii)   contravening the requirements of
> Regulation 22 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC
> Directive) Regulations 2003 by transmitting unsolicited communications
> for the purposes of direct marketing by means of electronic mail
> without the prior consent of recipients, such as to warrant a request
> to the Information Commissioner under Regulation 32 that he exercise
> his enforcement functions;
>                       (iv)    using the email addresses in breach of
> the duty of confidentiality you owe to the individuals to whom those
> email addresses relate, having regard to the fact you did not obtain
> the information consisting in the email addresses from those
> individuals or with their consent; and/or
>                       (v)     using the email addresses inconsistently
> with the relevant individuals' right to respect for and reasonable
> expectation of privacy.  
> (3)   On these grounds, unless you agree voluntarily to cooperate with
> the union's investigation into these matters by informing us how you
> obtained these email addresses and disclosing the identity of any
> individuals who provided you with this information or assisted you in
> obtaining it, we and/or the individual union members whose email
> addresses have been obtained and used without their consent will have
> no option but to pursue one or more of the following legal remedies:
>                       (i)     making a complaint to the Information Commissioner under the DPA
> 1998 and the 2003 Privacy Regulations;
>                       (ii)    making an application to the court that
> it exercise its jurisdiction under the case of Norwich Pharmacal v
> Customs & Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 to require you to
> disclose the information we seek from you; and/or
>                       (iii)   making an application to the court for
> pre-action disclosure in possible proceedings for breach of 
> confidence and/or privacy.
> I would therefore be grateful if you would inform the union without
> further delay (a) how you obtained the email addresses of union
> members who neither provided you with this information themselves nor
> consented to it being provided to you, (b) the identity of any
> individual, in particular any union employee, who provided you with
> any of the addresses or assisted you in any way in obtaining them, and
> (c) of what exactly any such individual did in this regard.
> Finally, the union understands that there is a growing belief among
> members that the union supplied members' email addresses to you
> without their consent.  The notion that underlies this belief brings
> the union into disrepute.  It is an untrue notion.  It is therefore
> important that the union takes steps to set the record straight as
> promptly as possible. Accordingly, I hereby put you on notice that any
> failure by you to cooperate with this investigation and assist in
> setting the record straight will be regarded as conduct which itself
> tends to bring the union into disrepute.
> I look forward to your prompt and full response.
> Your sincerely
>
> Georgina Hirsch
> Director of Legal Services
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david@johmar.com [mailto:david@johmar.com]
> Sent: 22 March 2006 23:30
> To: 'Hirsch, Georgina'
> Cc: 'Derek.Simpson@amicustheunion.org'
> Subject: RE: [Maybe spied on] Untrue allegations against me
> at the NEC meeting.
>
> Thank you in advance for a copy of the enquiry agent report about me.
>
> I don't really see what business it is of the union's how I
> maintain my email distribution list, provided I have not
> stolen any addresses from the union.  However I can tell you
> the list does not contain only amicus members, it also
> contains journalists, ex amicus members, members of other
> unions and academics.  It is an 'opt-out' list which is
> perfectly reasonable for a non commercial operation like
> amicus.cc.  I do honour all opt-out requests. Every mailing
> invites recipients to opt-out and tells them how to do it.  I
> have not obtained any addresses illegitimately or had them
> 'leaked' to me from the union or in any way 'hacked' them
> from the union.
>
> If you would have the courtesy to forward me any individual
> complaints you may have then I will be pleased to investigate
> and respond in detail.  As a lawyer you will be aware that it
> is a fundamental principle of natural justice that an accused
> person is shown the complaints against him/her.
>
> Similarly please would you tell me exactly what was alleged
> about me at the NEC meeting today.
>
> David Beaumont   
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hirsch, Georgina [mailto:Georgina.Hirsch@amicustheunion.org]
> > Sent: 22 March 2006 20:22
> > To: david@johmar.com
> > Subject: Re: [Maybe spam] Untrue allegations against me at the NEC
> > meeting.
> >
> > I will arrange for the enquiry agent report to be sent to you.
> >
> > On the question of the e-mail addresses  we have had
> complaints that
> > you have e-mailed people who did not give you or your website their
> > e-mail. Therefore there is a legitimate question of how you
> obtained
> > them. Please answer this .
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Sent from my Blackberry so please excuse typos + brevity.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: david@johmar.com <david@johmar.com>
> > To: Hirsch, Georgina <Georgina.Hirsch@amicustheunion.org>
> > CC: Simpson, Derek <Derek.Simpson@amicustheunion.org>
> > Sent: Wed Mar 22 20:12:23 2006
> > Subject: [Maybe spam] Untrue allegations against me at the NEC
> > meeting.
> >
> > I understand that today the General Secretary made
> allegations to the
> > National Executive meeting about me 'stealing email addresses' from
> > the union.
> >
> > That is an extremely serious and untrue allegation, please
> inform me
> > exactly what was said and withdraw it immediately.
> > I have a long list of email contacts, I have not obtained any
> > illegally and every mass email I send gives the option for the
> > recipient to have their address removed from the list.
> >
> > In the interests of justice and to avoid prejudicing any witch hunt
> > you might intend, it would have been better for you to have
> put your
> > allegations to me for correction and comment before
> distributing them
> > to the NEC.
> > Please do so before distributing any other defamatory
> allegations in
> > future.
> >
> >
> > I look forward to a full explanation and apology. At the minimum I
> > expect to be told exactly what was said and if I do not receive a
> > public apology I reserve my rights to commence legal
> proceedings about
> > it.
> >
> > Lastly I recently made a request under the data protection act for
> > information you hold about me.  I was expecting to see the
> report of
> > the "enquiry agent" you instructed on 5 September 2005 to
> look into my
> > "financial status".  I have not yet received it, please would you
> > confirm that you are refusing to disclose it so that I may
> make take
> > up the matter with the DPR.
> >
> > David Beaumont.
> >
>