How Plaid Cymru Works - 20

This is the twentieth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 1:48pm
To: Nerys Evans
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Dear Nerys

As yet another month has now elapsed, I think it would be appropriate to remind you that you have still not answered my questions. This continued silence makes it perfectly clear that you have no constitutional basis for renewing the previous disciplinary action against me.

As our constitution does not allow you to proceed in the way you would like, I would repeat my offer for Elin's complaint against me and my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd to be properly investigated by a person of standing from outside the party. If the party leadership is remotely interested in justice or fairness, this is the course of action you would adopt. However any competent independent investigation will of course confirm that what these four members of the party said was not true; that I was completely justified in calling them liars; and that it was they who brought the party into disrepute by attempting to mislead the public about our policy on nuclear power.

If you are not prepared to conduct a proper investigation, then the only course of action is to let all these matters drop. Please let me know what you intend to do.

Best regards


From: Nerys Evans
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2014 6:59pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Dear Michael Haggett

As you are aware the MDSP has appointed a panel to investigate the complaint made by Elin Jones.

As outlined below, in order to deal with one complaint at a time, I have asked the MDSP, and they have agreed, to ------------------------------------------------------- until the process in relation to the complaint made by Elin Jones has concluded. The complaints that you made have been investigated and concluded.

This is a mater for the MDSP panel and I would recommend you take part in the disciplinary process.

Many thanks


From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2014, 1:32am
To: Nerys Evans
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Dear Nerys

It is patently obvious that you can't be bothered to answer my questions, but they will not go away because you refuse to answer them. However I would offer you this advice: when you're flustered and out of your depth, don't resort to telling lies. You are only making yourself look stupid and, because you are Deputy Chair of Plaid Cymru, making us as a party look stupid.

You say that the complaints I made against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd "have been investigated and concluded". If so, who was the Investigating Officer and where is his or her report?

If you had actually read the chain of emails you would see that the MDSP chose not to investigate my complaints. They were free to make that decision, of course, but it showed them for the two-faced hypocrites they are. However I only found out about this by accident as a result of my "freedom of information" request to Rhuanedd. No-one has ever answered my repeated questions about it directly. But the clear fact is that the MDSP were guilty of breaking our rules as a party by not telling me about their decision and, more importantly, failing to tell me the reasons for their decision as they are required to do under clause 3.5 of Standing Orders. I pointed this out in my email of 3 February, and suggest you take the trouble to read it, as it is now your responsibility to deal with it.

Because of this blatant wrongdoing the party leadership would, if it wanted to be seen as having any integrity or credibility, insist that this is put right by "re-starting" disciplinary processes against them as well. That is why it should be part of the proper, independent investigation that I have requested.


However as the party leadership seems determined to ignore our rules and go through with "re-starting" another one-sided disciplinary procedure against me, using a new Hearing Panel who have already shown their bias by appointing a blatantly prejudiced Investigating Officer, then you must accept the consequences of that decision. I would remind you (and through you Eli, who quoted clause 9.1 in her email of 7 April, but has ignored the crucial clause it contains) of what I said in my email of 9 February:

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the disciplinary process could be re-started. There would be a second Hearing Panel, which would appoint a second Investigating Officer, who would conduct a second investigation and produce a second report. That second report would be considered by the second Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a second hearing with a second verdict, which might be followed by a second appeal heard by a second set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.

If the second appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a third Hearing Panel, which would appoint a third Investigating Officer, who would conduct a third investigation and produce a third report. That third report would be considered by the third Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a third hearing with a third verdict, which might be followed by a third appeal heard by a third set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.

If the third appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a fourth Hearing Panel, which would appoint a fourth Investigating Officer, who would ...

Apart from how ridiculous you will look if your idea of justice includes making me subject to double, triple, quadruple or unlimited jeopardy, the point is this. Clause 9.1 does not say "until after the conclusion of the final appeal". It says "until after the conclusion of any appeal". The wording is precise and unambiguous. An appeal (whether it turns out to be the only one or not) has now been concluded, therefore I am perfectly free to make any public statement I wish.

Put bluntly, the price the MDSP must now pay for making a dog's breakfast of the disciplinary process first time round is that, even if you could "re-start" the disciplinary process, you could no longer rely on what you are doing being done behind closed doors shut away from the light of scrutiny. You would not be able to get away with the previous disregard for SOs or failure to act in a fair and even-handed way, because everybody who has an interest in Welsh politics would be laughing at you as you did it.

So please don't think that I am going to ignore this new Hearing Panel. Quite the opposite. I will take part in order to expose it for the farce that it is, and that means giving the those in positions of power in this party enough rope with which to tie yourselves up in even tighter knots than you are in right now ... and eventually hang yourselves.

The only concession I will make is that I won't publish this correspondence until after the European Elections, primarily because Jill Evans does not deserve to have the uphill struggle to keep her seat made any harder. This also gives you a window of opportunity to see sense before it is too late.


When politicians lie to the public, their lies should be exposed and condemned. This principle applies to all politicians, irrespective of party, and I applied this principle in my post entitled Rhun ap Iorwerth is lying about Wylfa B.

The only real question to be determined in this case is whether Rhun did or did not lie, because everything else hinges on it. There is no doubt about what Rhun said: I provided a link to the recording which anyone can listen to, as well as a transcript of the exchange. There is no doubt about what Plaid Cymru's policy is: I provided a link to the motion endorsed by conference which anyone can read. Anyone who does these things will see for themselves that Rhun was not telling the truth.

Therefore there can be no possible objection to me calling Rhun a liar. Telling blatant lies is what damages the public reputation of the party. Telling the truth is something that the party should welcome, even though it might be painful or embarrassing.

So choose your side carefully, because truth always wins in the end. It is bad enough for the leadership of Plaid Cymru to close ranks in a vain attempt to cover up Rhun's dishonesty; but by choosing to take action against me for telling the truth, you have already damaged the public reputation of the party and are set to damage it even more.

Best regards


Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

What I fail to understand is this, why do you feel the need to personally insult everybody you have dealings with during this process?

They invariably treat you with courtesy while you insult them. You come over as a petulant hysteric who's in a semi permanent state of anger. This does not reflect well on you & detracts from your case.

I suspect that had you made your criticisms but desisted from using hysterical & inflamotary language from the beginning that no complaint would have been made against you & you wouldn't be in your present predicament.

Anonymous said...

07:53, welcome to the real world!

Anonymous said...

Coming soon....Franz Kafka - "The Trial Continues". Seren £21.99.

"A must read new novel of low politics, high BBC expenses, Welsh plutonium devil worship, and an island's crazed dance around a nuclear Wicker Man. So good I bought sixteen copies!" ~ Dai Smith, W.Mail.

Anonymous said...

It's a pity about Nerys. Nice girl, rich family, but as you say totally out of her depth.

Paul S said...

Strange brew

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately these threads are repeatedly being used as platforms to anonymously insult people in the comments. Ian was insulted the other day and Nerys today. This is a side matter from the actual issue MH is discussing and seems unfair and unproductive, especially as it is impossible to tell who is making the jibes, whether they are from other parties and so on. I find it uncomfortable and nasty.

Anonymous said...

MH's use of language is often puerile, spiteful and nasty. He sets the tone for his blog. It's a cultural determined by himself.

MH said...

I see that 07:53 still wants to peddle the idea that I am "personally insulting everybody" involved in what has happened.

In the email in this post, what I did was advise Nerys not to tell lies in order to get herself out of a tight spot. I had repeatedly pointed out that the MDSP failed to follow the rules in dealing with my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd. She tried to make out that the matter had been investigated, and this was a lie. So why is it a "personal insult" to tell someone that it is best not to lie?

Similarly with Ian, in the last post I quoted a comment from last August in which he expressed the view that calling Rhun a liar was "clearly personal" rather than based on what Rhun said about Plaid's nuclear policy.

As I said, Ian is perfectly entitled to think this if he wants to. The point I made was that holding these views disqualified him from acting as an impartial investigating officer. He had clearly pre-judged the issue. So why is it a "personal insult" to point out his prejudice in this matter?

07:53's comments (for s/he has said much the same thing before) are just a smokescreen to drag the issue away from the fact that Rhun has been untruthful, and make it a matter of personality instead.


I take the point 11:41 makes, that many of the anonymous comments are insulting, both ways. I don't intend to censor comments (unless they are way over the top, that is). But I would say that it is never fair to bring someone's personal or family circumstances into the argument. Nerys's family background is not relevant. So please can I ask people to focus any criticisms or attacks only on what people do or say.

Anonymous said...

I think you are right to ask for comments to avoid off-point personal "digs". They are often sexist and blur the issue. I do think however there is room for (some) humour here given that Plaids' leadership are so "po faced as to invite satire. A little "aware" humanity is not a sign of weakness. Only the deeply uncertain hold themselves rigid. And I am sure their skins are WELL hardened by now. Or should be.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's a matter of being po faced. Rather it's a matter of applying professional standards while conducting an official procedure. That’s why the tone of the various Plaid officials comes over as being official & unadorned.
This obviously contrasts sharply with MH’s hysterical, frothing at the mouth use of language, and the contrast is in truth unintentionally (by both parties) very amusing.

Anonymous said...

Yes MH, but you can't desist from other sexist digs, she's flustered, she's out of her depth, she's making herself look stupid.
You just can't resist the temptation to insult and belittle.
I assume that you're very young, but you really need to grow out of this sort of thing. God forbid that you end up being one of those awful workplace bullies who always belittle others in an attempt to indirectly imply that they themselves are superior.

Anonymous said...

The tone of the Plaid Cymru officials is one of ignoring every point Michael makes. There is no engagement, just "we are going to do whatever the hell we like, so be a good boy and shut up about it".

Anonymous said...

A tone can't ignore anything - you're not being logical.

MH doesn't get answers because he's asking all sorts of questions that aren't relevant to the complaint lodged against him - attempted electoral sabbotage.

& Anon 14:19 you are correct, he comes over as a petulant, self centred bully. God knows why he wants to publish correspondence that reflect so poorly on him.

Anonymous said...

I'm being totally logical. You say Michael is asking all sorts of irrelevant questions, but the question he asked Nerys is very definitely relevant, and Nerys fobbed it off with a lie.

And to put you straight, the correspondence he's published is showing up the disgraceful way he has been treated. Even Plaid Cymru realized that the first verdict was unjust, and it was therefore overturned. Why didn't they leave it at that?

Anonymous said...

“ It's only because of their
stupidity that they're able to
be so sure of themselves." -
Franz Kafka , The Trial

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that the Kafka comparison is laughably stupid.

MH faces discaplinary measures for an obvious act of electoral sabbotage.

Throughout the process he's been obstructive, insulting & incredibly self righteous. He's demanded the right to dictate the terms of the process, he's issued instructions to all & sundry, & he fires irrelevant questions in all directions & demands answers to them.

The protagonist of The Trial didn't wallow in a sea of arrogance. To the contrary. This guy does.

Anonymous said...

OK, so you dont like Joseph about Alice?

"When I use a word (a policy?) ,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean,neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice,"whether you can make words mean so many different things?"
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "who is to be master, that's all."

And THAT'S what this is all about. Through the glass.

Anonymous said...

And by the way, the last people who said, "You cannot be right AGAINST the Party" found themselves murdered by it. NOT that I am suggesting Leanne's coming round with an Ice Pick! Maybe a sharp wack with a love spoon! Just joking.

Post a Comment