The Morning Star have launched a disciplinary procedure, even though I don’t work for them. Not a smear at all, mind you.

I’ve just received a breathtaking letter signed by the head of the Morning Star’s management committee, Bob Oram. I don’t have a scan to hand but it’s some pretty spectacular stuff, all under the scary heading of “Investigation into Matters under our Disciplinary Procedure”.

Apparently on Friday – just hours after Zoe Stavri published my account of how the Morning Star’s senior staff threatened to sack me for covering domestic violence allegations involving a senior union official – the Morning Star decided to stage a further disciplinary procedure against me while acknowledging that I no longer actually work for them:

Gross breach of trust and confidence
Bringing the Morning Star into disrepute

I recognise that you are in your final day of employment and will not be available for interview but I wanted to give you this opportunity to offer explanation or comment on the allegations.”

As the documents I published last week show, the disciplinary procedure over my attempts to cover the Hedley allegations ended with my being given a final written warning with any further perceived breaches resulting in an immediate summary dismissal. So even if you go by the screwball logic Mr Oram’s employing here, their disciplinary procedure demands that they should have sacked me on the spot on Friday rather than drafting this tawdry little threat. There’s no reason – even a stupid reason – for them to carry out this little jig unless the intent is to then publish whatever their kangaroo court comes up with as the clumsiest smear tactic imaginable.

Incidentally, who is Bob Oram? Well, this is how he describes himself on Twitter:

Chair Morning Star Management Committee. Member Cuba Solidarity Executive. Works for, and proud member of campaigning and organising transport union RMT

No conflict of interest there, then!

And no, I have no intention of legitimising this nonsense with a response. I only wish they’d turn their attention instead to the paper’s longstanding policy of suppressing favoured figures’ “personal controversy” even where there are allegations of violence against women.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s