-
my understanding is that the changes introduce a new complaints system, to cover all cases about protected characteristics. all NEC decisions on these complaints will be reviewed by a member of the new independent review board and the NCC’s role will be done by the new independent complaints board. the boards will consist of 4 specialist lawyers, 4 human rights experts, and 4 party members. these will be vetted/appointed by the general secretary (who is themself a democratically-elected - but obviously political - appointee). however, as you say, as far as I understand it the EHRC themselves were happy with that arrangement.
individuals' (and presumably momentum's) take on that then comes down to whether you think this is an appropriate arrangement, and I expect that would be largely guided by whether you think the EHRC is beyond reproach.
You are reading a single comment by @cozzzzzzzz and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
cozzzzzzzz
Stonehedge
Dramatic_Hammer
Just trying to get my head around that.
The EHRC report says this:
So they did indeed say that the GSO is a political organ.
However, what I can't find is any suggestion that the GSO would have any possible means to interfere in the independent complaint process. There is also no mention that I can find of the new independent complaint process being accountable to the GSO or what that would actually mean.
In other words, imho, it sounds like a bullshit objection. The whole complaint process is monitored by the EHRC...thats the true accountability in play. Is there even a mechanism to have a process/panel within an organisation that has literally no oversight?