What is a no fault suspension?
A No Fault Suspension, NFS (now renamed ‘Suspension Pending Investigation’!) is used as part of the Green Party disciplinary process.
It is supposed to be used temporarily whilst an investigation is made into a complaint against a member. As the original name implies, ‘no fault’ means that the member who has been complained about should not be assumed to be at fault.
Whatever these suspensions are called, they are supposed to be used sparingly and only for the most egregious allegations.
The process is the punishment
Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) is the Party body who decides whether a member should be placed on an NFS.
Any reader paying attention will have noticed that several of the exiles featured on this site have been subjected to an NFS and a majority of them are gender critical.
Whilst a member is on suspension, they are denied party membership and are not supposed to engage with any other party member – a tad difficult and extreme overreach when fellow members are your friends and / or colleagues.
These suspensions are also supposed to be of a short duration whilst an investigation is conducted into the validity of a complaint. In reality, these suspensions might as well be called GPRC expulsions. Not only do these suspensions often go on for several months, in some cases they go on for years, as demonstrated by the cases of Alison Teal, Robbie Spence, Dawn Furness, Liz Reason etc.
Since GPRC has become dominated by gender ideologists, the use of no-fault suspensions has markedly increased, as has their duration.
GPRC and DC
The NFS is imposed by GPRC, however the complaint is dealt with by the Disciplinary Committee (DC). This allows both bodies to push the responsibility for the chronic delays in resolving the NFS onto one another. DC will declare that they have no say over how many NFS are imposed, and that they are overwhelmed by too many cases, while GPRC will claim that is not their problem, they must impose the NFS when they regard it necessary, and it is up to DC to hear the case promptly.
The result is that the member on an NFS is caught in limbo between GPRC and DC, both of which are dominated by gender ideologues. It is unsurprising, then, that the majority of NFS appear to be imposed for asserting gender critical opinions which are deemed to be ‘unsafe’ or ‘harmful’. Consequently those gender critical members are left powerless and in the dark about what is happening, with no idea about how long they will be subject to the NFS. It is an extremely effective way to silence them.
Under the guise of ‘confidentiality’, the complaints system is shrouded in secrecy, and the rules around what those subjected to a complaint can reveal are vague. The effect is that people on an NFS self-censor, for fear of attracting further complaints or falling foul of the unwritten rules.
Secrecy
When an NFS is imposed, the local party, and any committees that the member in question sits on, are informed. They are told that the member must not engage with the committee or local party.
The members who are currently being targeted with NFS tend to be quite active in the party, (hence the attention that they draw), and so the imposition of the NFS can blast a hole in the committee or local party as the member has to immediately stop all activity, and no-one knows how long that may be for. In some cases it may be two years before the complaint is even looked at.
The clauses around confidentiality mean that the local party or committee is not allowed to openly discuss the NFS or give an explanation as to why an active member has suddenly withdrawn. Other members are left on edge, uncertain about whether they can have any engagement at all with the suspended member.
There have been minor attempts to improve the transparency of NFS, so latterly, respondents are given a record of what the NFS has been imposed for, though as this is often cut and pasted from the reasons the complainant gave on the complaint form, it is not usually very helpful.
In addition, respondents are invited to submit suggestions of what they can do to mitigate the need for the NFS. This is a relatively new feature, and as yet there is little evidence to demonstrate that it has improved the system. GPRC can chose to ignore or dismiss the mitigation offered, and entering into a behavioural agreement implies an acceptance to a certain degree that the member has done something wrong. After all, if that were not the case, why would they offer to mitigate for their behaviour?
Not fit for purpose
It is quite clear that the use of No Fault Suspensions and the current disciplinary process are not fit for purpose. Members subjected to the NFS are obviously inclined to be upset about being suspended, even if the process were as efficient and transparent as it could possibly be. Whilst there are certainly problems with the process, the ideological capture of the committees in charge, and the resulting skewed application of suspensions, is a major fault that urgently needs addressing.
Many of the exiles are accused of ‘bringing the party into disrepute’ but it is those disciplinary bodies and the members they are comprised of who are bringing the party into disrepute. Future court action against the Green Party will demonstrate this and ordinary members membership fees will be used to defend the indefensible.