RE: MSF rule 56 (Inspection of books) - Bob Braddock

From: david@johmar.com [mailto:david@johmar.com]

Sent: 10 July 2003 10:56

To: stephen.pinder@eadsolicitors.co.uk

Subject: Re: Amicus - MSF Section Mr R Braddock

I refer to your letter of 8th July. Thanks for bringing the contents of my private email to my attention. I did not mean to say that Mr Braddock is corrupt and I am sorry that Mr Braddock has drawn this conclusion. I agree the wording is not ideal and being a private email, not intended for publication, perhaps I did not word it as well as I could have done. In context, it was meant to say that if a lay member were to stretch the loss-of-earnings claims to the point of effectively drawing a salary from the union, this would be in my opinion be a corrupt practice. The point of my email as a whole after all is to be able to inspect the union's records to establish this very point and of course Mr Braddock is innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore I am happy to comply fully with your and your client's stated remedies, without reservation: I have immediately sent a further email to each person to whom I sent the original email confirming that this section is withdrawn and have also sent an apology to Mr Braddock for that section and for any upset which may have been caused.

Yours sincerely

David Beaumont

OurRef.SJP/JIG/P58124-1

Please ask for Stephen.J.Pinder

Your Ref.

Dear Mr Beaumont,

Re: Amicus - MSF Section - Mr R Braddock

Thank you for your recent e-mail. I have spoken to Mr Braddock, and whilst he is pleased with the response he is concerned as to whether or not notice of your apology will come to the attention of all of those who may have seen your original e-mail. You will appreciate that the contents of the e-mail could have been sent on by 3rd parties, copied, read etc. We know that you have a website which contains your views regarding the operation of the MSF Section of Amicus. Mr Braddock has instructed me to confirm that this matter will not be pursued if the facts concerning your apology are published on your website and left there for a period of say 7 days. I understand that the website is known as, www.amicus.cc. Please confirm your agreement concerning this matter and forward to me a proposed text for the web based communication.

Yours sincerely

Stephen.J.Pinder

E.A.D

Doc Ref. 416587520

125-131 Picton Road

Liverpool L15 4LG

-----Original Message-----

From: david@johmar.com [mailto:david@johmar.com]

Sent: 22 July 2003 13:26

To: stephen.pinder@eadsolicitors.co.uk

Subject: Re: Amicus - MSF Section Mr R Braddock

I reply to your letter of 16th July 2003. The email that your client has complained about was a private email request sent to the appropriate officer of the union as required by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 and by union rule 56 (Inspection of Books). There is no connection between this matter and the anti-corruption web site www.amicus.cc. The email was not mailshotted and has never been published on www.amicus.cc.

I believe I have already fully complied as far as practicable with all your suggested remedies, and in a very timely fashion.  Your clients escalating request for me to publish a new apology on the website is unreasonable and, in my opinion, mischievous. Moreover it is problematic to formulate a suitable text because of this lack of connection between the web site and my email.

Nevertheless I am keen to resolve this matter without litigation, please send me your suggested text, confirming that publication of said text for 7 days on www.amicus.cc will finally conclude the matter, and I will willingly consider it.

29th July 2003

Dear Mr Beaumont,

Re: Amicus - MSF Section - Mr R Braddock

Thank you for your e-mail communication dated 22 July 2003. I enclose the suggested text for the website and I hope that this will not be a matter of dispute. As we have agreed the text should be placed onto the website for a period of seven days, and if that happens my client will not pursue this matter any further. By return please confirm the date when the text will first appear on the website so that this can be verified.

My client has also asked me to point out that in reaching this agreement he is hoping to draw a line under this matter, but if the allegations are ever repeated my client has instructed me to commence proceedings in the High Court without notice to you seeking damages and an injunction to prevent any further publication. We hope that this will not be necessary.

 Yours sincerely

Stephen.J.Pinder

                  TEXT FOR MR BEAUMONTS WEBSITE

On 6 June 2003 I sent an e-mail to Amicus and I stated that :-

" I believe that Mr Braddock is effectively drawing a salary from the union which is in my opinion corrupt and a breach of his high position ". Solicitors representing Mr Braddock wrote to me and alleged that these statements were untrue. I then agreed to withdraw this allegation and I apologised to Mr Braddock for any upset which may have been caused by my original statement. I have also agreed to include this text on my website.

From: david@johmar.com
Sent: 31 July 2003 16:56
To: stephen.pinder@eadsolicitors.co.uk
Subject: Re: Amicus - MSF Section Mr R Braddock

Dear Mr Pinder

I reply to your letter of 29th July.  I have considered your suggested text and do not believe it is appropriate for www.amicus.cc . I remind you that there is currently no connection between this matter and the web site.   Moreover as your suggested text is worded and without the original email, it is out of context and may be confused with the loss of earnings figures for NEC members published by the union itself and by the Certification Office and made available on amicus.cc, figures which are clearly not in dispute.

Please note that www.amicus.cc is not my personal web site, it is an anti-corruption web site.  I do have a personal web site, www.johmar.com, and would consider publishing the text there for 7 days, I imagine this would be acceptable if your client's concern is to be able to point people at a public apology, please advise.

However I do believe I can fully meet your clients stated concern, namely whether notice of my retraction will come to the attention of all of those who may have seen my original e-mail, using the web site amicus.cc.  I am willing to publish in entirety my retraction email, attached, on www.amicus.cc.  As this includes the original inspection of books request, it is clear that anyone who may have seen the original email and visits the web site will recognise that email and see the retraction.  This is, I take it, your client's genuine aim.    Please would you inform me by return if this is acceptable and if not in which way(s) it fails to meet your clients expressed concern, and I will make every effort to meet such failing(s).    

David Beaumont

From: Stephen Pinder [stephen.pinder@eadsolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 01 August 2003 15:12
To: 'david@johmar.com'
Subject: RE: Amicus - MSF Section Mr R Braddock

Having spoken to Mr. Braddock we will opt for the full entry on
www.amicus.cc from 4th August for 7 days. This appears to make more sense
and will avoid any confusion. It is the final option referred to in your
e-mail below.
SJP
EAD

g) Spare Generals Secretary Lyons' input

Notes: 1) The inspection of books request has still not been fufilled some 2 months after it was made despite the 28 days specified by law.
2) Mr Pinder is the union's solicitor of choice, having acted against David Beaumont in his appeal against expulsion, in the Certification Officer case about election rigging in the Leonie Cooper election and against Jim Mortimer ex General Secretary of the Labour party in his attempt to inspect the books of the union.

This web site receives no funding whatsoever, we have no legal insurance and rely on care and on the free advice of others. Thank you very much.