Top Tweets for #IStandWithRupertLowe

An independent review conducted by a leading KC, qualified in the appropriate area of law, at Blackstone Chambers has raised serious concerns about the integrity, fairness, and independence of the investigation carried out by Reform UK into allegations against me. Commissioned by law firm Irwin Mitchell LLP on my behalf, the review assessed the procedural conduct of the Party’s internal ‘investigation’. My lawyer's interpretation is as follows: Lack of Proper Set-Up: The investigation was not governed by any formal terms of reference, despite a prior commitment to provide them. The appointed KC investigator had not been selected for any specific expertise in workplace harassment investigations. Improper Handling of Complainant Evidence: The investigator conducted lengthy telephone interviews with complainants and personally drafted formal witness statements on their behalf - an approach more typical of a lawyer preparing a statement for their client in litigation rather than independent fact-finding. This method created a risk of perceived bias and blurred the lines between investigator and the complainants. Relevant excerpt: “The KC could, and in my view should, have either proceeded on the basis of the complaints which had already been submitted or invited the complainants to set out their own complaints in writing in detail and obtained any further relevant information in a recorded interview, which could have been transcribed if necessary. That evidence – rather than the witness statements produced by her – ought to have been analysed and assessed in her investigation report.” Breach of Confidentiality: Although the investigator had been led to believe the process would remain confidential and informal, the final report was released to the media without notice - contrary to expectations set for Mr. Lowe and others involved. No Right of Reply: This pre-emptive release not only breached Mr. Lowe’s expectations but also potentially compromised the privacy and rights of staff members named or involved in the report. The review stresses that, had publication been deemed necessary, the Party should have re-engaged the investigator to consider fairness to all parties. At a minimum, a “Maxwellisation” process should have been undertaken - giving Mr. Lowe and any staff members named in the report a chance to respond to any criticisms before publication. The failure to do so disregarded both due process and the duty of care owed to staff. Procedural Unfairness: The final report was completed and submitted to the Party before the deadline given to Mr. Lowe to respond to the allegations had expired. Despite being told he had until 26 March to provide a response, the report was completed on 24 March and publicly disseminated shortly thereafter. Questions of Independence: The review identified troubling signs that the investigator may have acted under instructions from the Party, rather than exercising full independent judgment. The Party appears to have been given access to investigation materials mid-process and may have influenced the timing and scope of the final report. Rupert Lowe: I welcome the conclusions of this independent review. It confirms what I have said throughout - that the process was fundamentally flawed, unfair, and influenced by political motivations. In sixty seven years, I have never seen such vile and unprofessional behaviour. Including, but not limited to, publicly shaming my staff without even giving them the opportunity to respond to the false and damaging allegations. Reform has proven itself not only unfit to govern, but unfit to sit in the House of Commons. To handle such a basic process in a hideously unprofessional and malicious manner is simply unacceptable. This report has been sent to the relevant Parliamentary authorities, and my own legal teams. I asked reasonable questions of Farage, after months of pushing behind the scenes. My punishment for bruising his ego? A concerted smear campaign to ruin my name and reputation. Nigel Farage must never be Prime Minister. ENDS Full report: https://t.co/5SzbmCPovN

The allegations from the two women attached to Rupert Lowe's office by parliament amount to them accusing Lowe and his team for not being sensitive enough towards them either before or during their respective disciplinary procedures for wrongdoing. The first woman worked in the parliamentary office, and had drafted her own contract and the contracts of others for their term there. The first woman had drafted herself a more favourable contract which included only 3 months probation, and an unfavourable contract (6 months probation) for other woman in the office. Secondly, she had accessed Lowe's emails and discussed private information contained therein with someone else. Her complaint against Lowe/office is that she felt that they didn't appreciate the work she had done and "began to feel she could not please in any way whatsoever". The second woman worked at Lowe's constituency office. She was also accused of having committed a data breach, though the matter is presented in an unclear manner in the report. Something about her accessing a case involving her own family, but it is claimed that the case was closed when she had accessed it, but this doesn't explain why it can't have been a data breach. The second woman informs us that she took responsibility for this data breach as she had "factually accessed the material", and expected that this would provide her with a clean slate so she would be able to keep her job. Her allegation against Lowe/office is that she was "under constant pressure and criticism" and "had a sense of inconsistency in respect of what was being levelled against her as opposed to conduct tolerated and accepted in others in the office". She also alleges that Lowe's office staff had called her "wierd" in a Whatsapp group, something of which Lowe was unaware. What all of this amounts to, in the King's Council's opinion, is "credible evidence" of a potential breach of the Equality Act 2010. Important to note that the KC's report (who is herself a woman), is written in such a style as to suggest that Lowe is already guilty of these allegations, whereas the accusers are spoken of in glowing terms, and given particularly generous consideration and sympathy throughout, whilst Lowe is treated as a villain and his responses are given curt treatment. Personally, I think this is a storm in a teacup. It sounds like they were not suitable for his working environment, have been particularly sensitive to criticism, and both had admitted their own wrongdoing (data breaches) they had been accused of in the KC's report.

I’ve been told that the Reform investigation is going to be released, prior to a deadline given to my lawyer - the Reform investigation has not spoken to me, nor my team. So here is my report on the unfounded claims of ‘bullying’ in my office. I’ve gone through the ‘evidence’ that has finally arrived from the Reform investigation, so let’s take a look… One of the primary complaints? To give you an idea of the veracity of the allegations… Following a conversation about a standard constituent issue, an email with contact details one of the complainants was expecting was forwarded to her from a colleague with ‘no subject line or context’. She felt this was ‘an incident of rudeness and undermining.’ Apparently, the ‘unspoken subtext’ of the blank email was ‘look what you have done’. The other complainant talks of ‘micro-managing’, from a colleague who raised legitimate issues about her work maybe two or three times in six months - not even working from the same geographical location. Both complainants only raised these allegations once the disciplinary process had started against them, for multiple serious offences. But let’s first look at the timeline of how this Reform investigation was launched. I gave the Daily Mail interview on the 25th of February, Farage’s team was made aware of that interview on the 26th. These complaints were raised/escalated within Reform the day after, on the 27th. Their complaints were submitted to the independent parliamentary body on the 28th of January, and the 2nd of February. Why did it take almost a month for these to be raised/escalated within Reform? The day after the Reform leadership were made aware of my interview? On the following day after these complaints, I received the poorly worded letter from Anderson. The Reform investigation was then launched. All a coincidence, is it? How these complaints were brought forward within Reform immediately after my mildly critical comments of the leadership? I have no faith that this investigation has been conducted in a fair manner. Would you? Farage admitted in his own words, through a BBC investigation, that he didn’t allow the investigation to even start before I was removed because I had ‘damaged the party’ with the Daily Mail interview. From the outset, this was evidently not a fair process designed to find the truth. I am not a Reform MP. My staff are not Reform staff. This has nothing to do with Reform. I will not put my staff through such a disgustingly biased process to satisfy Farage’s ego. We will deal with the relevant Parliamentary process, if any complaints are ever brought forward. Reform is shamefully attacking my innocent staff to smear my name. This is not right. It’s unprecedented in modern British politics. Extensive evidence of this is being presented to the Parliamentary authorities, and my own legal teams. Both of these complainants admitted to serious offences, and both only raised any issues once the disciplinary process had started. Both then went on to admit other serious offences. I treat taxpayer money with respect - that means staff who commit such unacceptable actions must be held accountable with disciplinary action. There is no evidence of any bullying, because there was none. No bullying, no aggressive behaviour, no violent threats. There are outright lies, unsurprisingly. These have gone unchallenged, and accepted as fact, even with zero evidence by the Reform investigation. The statement published by Reform was designed to make it look like I was accused, and guilty, of all of these things. That is simply false, and incredibly libellous. There will be more news on this soon. But let’s look at some of their claims…. One of the individual’s primary complaints was that she was forwarded an email, she was expecting, with information from a colleague, on the 8th of January, with no greeting following a separate conversation about the case. She felt the unspoken subtext of the blank email was “look what you have done”. This was apparently an incident of ‘rudeness and undermining’. Another incident of ‘rudeness’ was on the 15th of January, when she asked somebody to move information from WhatsApp to an email. A colleague said to her “easier if you do it”, as it was her responsibility. She said it was an ‘insult to her intelligence’ that she was asked not to disclose confidential information to individuals outside of the office. She complained that more experienced members of the team conducted regular reviews of her casework with constituents and ‘brought up issues’. Yes. My team checks work, particularly of an individual who had just started employment and was evidently struggling. This was a standard part of her training. Part of her evidence was imagining what was said between two other colleagues. 'I can only wonder at what’ they ‘might have been exchanging.’ This is not evidence. This individual was allowed to change her sacking for gross misconduct to a resignation, as I was concerned about her and did not want to cause further damage to her reputation as she was also removed from her previous job prior to working for me over gross misconduct. When the disciplinary process began, she told the constituency manager, for the first time, that she had a condition which impacted her ability to understand instructions. We were all entirely unaware of any specific issue. Again, she only raised once the disciplinary process started - we have undeniable evidence to prove this. After her suspension, her father came to my constituency office. He refused to leave, becoming extremely irate and aggressive with my team. This was reported to Great Yarmouth police. The other individual involved began her statement complaining that all staff in Westminster were treated equally on pay - she wanted more than everybody else. Despite errors in her work, she took great exception with having sensitive and important issues double checked to ensure that there were no further mistakes. Apparently there were other messages to prove that she was stressed, but she has ‘deleted’ them. There was a ‘brusque’ phone call with a colleague, that she was unhappy with. She was also upset that she wasn’t given the entire Christmas break off without using any holiday. Employees were allowed to work from home, but I expected the email account to be monitored and actioned. That was apparently unpleasant. This is when she became openly annoyed. She refers to ‘the constant and unbearable and unnecessary micro management’. She was upset that colleagues were ‘critical’. She did not like being ‘chased’. ‘Micro managing’ is a huge complaint from her, towards somebody who spoke directly about an issue with her work maybe two or three times between July - January. Yes. We have high standards in the office, and I expect taxpayer money to be spent effectively and wisely. I make no apologies for that, in fact I am proud of the work that my team has done. If errors are made, as there were, then I expect that to be highlighted and corrected. She was not unbearably micro-managed. Maybe on ten or so occasions in six months, she was asked by the team to double check that an important issue had been resolved. The colleagues she accuses were not even working in the same geographical location is her. They perhaps met her six or seven times? Both statements are filled with hearsay, and outright lies based on zero evidence. Supposed conversations from months ago are detailed in precise quotes. These conversations never happened. The Reform investigation has accepted everything they’ve said as fact, with zero credible evidence to back up their wild claims. Mildly inappropriate comments made by one member of casework staff in a private WhatsApp conversation with another member of staff, who has gone on to maliciously leak selected out of context parts, does not constitute bullying. I had no awareness of these conversations, and to be frank both employees shouldn’t have been spending so much work time gossiping online. In these conversations, one of the complainants even repeatedly mocks the other complainant over her dress for the Christmas party, which I organised/funded and calls her ‘weird’. She also refers to a different colleague as a ‘coward’, ’pratts’ and ‘pathetic’. If anyone is doing any bullying, it’s one of the complainants herself. There is no evidence of any unpleasant behaviour from those she is insulting and accusing. Parliamentary HR advice was followed at every step of the way, as the BBC Political Editor has seen and confirmed. This is from Chris Mason and Laura Kuenssberg: “The BBC has also seen evidence of lengthy and detailed exchanges between Lowe's offices and Parliament's human resources team over the alleged conduct and subsequent departures of two members of staff.” A statement from my entire current team: “These two women have vexatiously complained in an attempt to smear Rupert, and the entire team. And we are a team. We work together well. The only issues raised within the office have been from these two individuals, who only did so after they committed serious offences. This whole ordeal has been difficult on all of us. We don’t want any of this - we just want to get on with our jobs, and support Rupert who has been a fantastic boss. There has never been any bullying - we will all go on the record to say so, and have done so already.” I have heard nothing from the relevant body in Parliament, nor have my team. Of course, I will cooperate fully with that investigation, if it ever comes. This is not bullying. There was no bullying. There never has been any bullying. Using such claims to damage me through my staff is shameful, and I will be urging Parliament to take action alongside my own legal teams. They have put my team through hell in an attempt to smear my reputation. This is not how politics should operate. It is dark, dirty and simply not the British way of doing things. Anyone involved in Reform should be aware that when it becomes politically convenient for them to do so - they will use any means to get to you, including innocent staff. My team has been more effective than anyone in Westminster at uncovering waste, revealing important data and supporting my work. I am incredibly proud of what they have achieved. Reform’s leadership have proven themselves to be deceitful cowards.