How Plaid Cymru Works - 23

This is the twenty-third 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: Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 1:20pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Dear Rhuanedd

I received an email from Eli Jones on 20 June, informing me of the decision of the new Hearing Panel set up as a result of "re-starting" disciplinary proceedings against me in relation to Elin's complaint last year. I wish to register an appeal with you as Chief Executive on the same grounds as I did after the decision of the original Hearing Panel; but before I can give fuller details, I would like your help in clarifying the following matters.

In her email, Eli says that:

The Panel received no response from Mr Haggett, despite having taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery.

This is a mystery to me. Please could you find out when it was sent and provide me with a tracking number that might help determine what happened to it.

The second matter might be related. I have have not received a copy of Ian Titherington's report, nor the exact details of the case I was expected to answer, nor any prior disclosure of the evidence that would be presented against me. It may well be that these were included in the package that has gone astray, but I have no way of knowing this.

However, irrespective of exactly what was in the package and where it might have gone, I would like you to email me a copy of Ian's report and any other documentation which might have been included with it.

By doing these things you will clear up some of the question marks that currently exist, which will mean that the appeal can be based on hard information rather than "perhaps this / perhaps that" uncertainty.

Best regards


From: Jocelyn Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 9:16pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal

Dear Mr Haggett

As you'll be aware I have been asked by the Chief Executive to chair a panel to deal with your lodged appeal. It is our intention to conduct a hearing next Wednesday evening at 7pm at Ty Gwynfor. My preference would be to hold a paper hearing. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know by 5pm on Friday if this is acceptable.

Anything you wish the panel to consider will need to be with me by midday on Monday.

I'm copying this email to the Chief Executive so that it can circulated to the other panel members.

Best wishes

Jocelyn Davies

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014, 12:27pm
To: Jocelyn Davies
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Second Appeal

Dear Jocelyn

Thank you for your email of 25 June.

You start by saying "as you'll be aware", but this is not the case. Your email is in fact the first response I have received to my email to Rhuanedd. I would guess she is preparing a reply, but I have not received it yet. She might well be waiting for information from others before sending it.

The information I requested from her is needed to clarify matters in order for me to properly set out the grounds for my appeal. But I would also need other information, as was the case in the first appeal I made. I think it would be a good idea for you to read through the chain of correspondence below to make yourself familiar with what happened. Alun and Rhuanedd acted in a helpful and constructive way to establish a set of ground rules for the first appeal. The problems only arose by failing to stick to them, most notably in the handling of Chris Frank's evidence, which was neither disclosed beforehand nor recorded.

I'm not entirely sure what a "paper hearing" is, but if you mean that everything should be conducted in writing rather than needing a face-to-face hearing, I would not object in principle. In fact I would welcome it.

Because of the outstanding information, it is premature to be thinking of holding a hearing on the date you suggest. It would be better to wait until all parties have the information they need before setting a timetable.

Best regards


From: Jocelyn Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 5:58pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal

Dear Michael

Thank you for your email and I'm grateful that you're happy for the appeal to be conducted by way for a paper hearing, that is, by us viewing documentation.

I'm sorry if I was mistaken when I assumed that Rhuanedd Richards had informed you that an appeal panel had been set up and I would be chairing it. I based that on being copied in on an email she sent to you. I had that at 16.06 yesterday.

We intend to hold the hearing next Wednesday evening based on your lodged appeal. Obviously the appeal will not be a re-run of the hearing but addressing the grounds of your appeal only. From memory, that is procedural unfairness to you and the panel basing their decision on factual inaccuracies. I'd very much like to stick to the original timetable. If you meet the Monday deadline it would be very helpful.

As an appeal panel we can't be entering into dialogue about the substance of the complaint or your response to it.

I hope that helps


From: Jocelyn Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 6:49pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Fwd: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Here is the email I had yesterday.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 4:06pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Jocelyn Davies
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Dear Michael

Thank you for your email outlining your wish to register an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Panel.

You say in your previous email that you wish to do so on the same grounds as the appeal you made after the decision of the original Hearing Panel and therefore they will be noted as:

6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.

I can provide you with two tracking numbers for items of correspondence sent to you: BZ144209325GB and AD792767722GB

An Appeal Panel has been appointed and will be chaired by Jocelyn Davies who will contact you shortly. Any requests for further information should be made through Jocelyn.

Kind regards


Entering these tracking numbers on the Royal Mail website, I found that even though Eli had said in her email of 20 June that she had "taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery", this was in fact a complete lie.

I can prove beyond doubt that neither package was in fact delivered to me. If anyone wants to check this for themselves, please click the links below and you will see that both were returned to sender.

     Royal Mail Signed For – BZ144209325GB
     Special Delivery Guaranteed – AD792767722GB

Who on earth was Eli trying to fool, and what on earth made her think she could get away with such deception? The clear fact is that she and her colleagues went ahead with the hearing knowing that I had not received these packages. They must have known this at two stages: first, because it is silly to pay for a service which tracks delivery but not then use it to check whether and when the packages were in fact delivered; and second, when the packages were returned undelivered. It is exactly the same sort of behaviour as her trying to claim that there was no evidence that Rhun had lied, even though I had provided links to the evidence in my original post.

It is clear that their whole mentality is one of stopping at nothing to try and convict me of bringing Plaid Cymru into disrepute for telling the truth, not realizing that is it lies and deception like this which bring the party into disrepute.

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

You accuse Eli Jones of lying - which seems to be something of a habit with you, but the notification that your package was returned was made on June 26. Her email to you, informing you that a package had been sent was written six days earlier.

Where were the packages for six days Mr Haggett?

Anonymous said...

Letters fail to arrive, parcels fail to arrive, emails fair to arrive. And everybody lies.

Very unlucky our Mike is. Very unlucky.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone want anything to do with this group of nit-wits from Plaid Cymru?

Either get the party membership to demand their expulsion or seek to stop all memberships subs. That'll get rid of them pretty damn quick!

Anonymous said...

This is all very strange, MH. Royal Mail usually hangs on to an undelivered package for 18 days. But not in this case. Was this because the person receiving the mail refused to accept it?

Anonymous said...

It's very odd, nothing gets to him. I wonder if he sleeps under a bridge.

Anonymous said...

Well it's odd that he calls Eli Jones a liar on the basis that she said she'd sent him a package six days before the notification of it's return.

It's almost as if he gets some sort of kick from calling people liars.

Anonymous said...

Just when you think it can't get any does.

Plaid Cymru ...................the party of cock-ups on an industrial scale.

(By the way, 22:31/23:05/23:49/23:58 AND 00:10, the 26th June is the date on which MH made the archive copy. If you go to the RM website right NOW and enter the numbers manually, it shows TODAY'S date and time. Idiot.) .

Anonymous said...

Is MH lying about the email not getting to him? It's clear that a copy of the email got to Jocelyn Davies, but she was just sent a copy of an email sent to MH. If so he's probably lying about not recieving the packages. Perhaps he only opens what he wants to open.

Incidentally I often use recorded delivery with my job, but only check it out if a problem comes up. I don't think that I'm in particularly stupid.

Anonymous said...

You make the point rather well, why on earth would Eli Jones lie? She just wants the process over & done with, and she has no chance of getting away with it.

On the other hand you have every motivation for pretending not to receive emails, packages & letters so that you can drag things out, make Plaid seem stupid & have more stuff to feign indignation about.

Welsh not British said...

This whole thing has been a joke from start to finish and whether MH has avoided receiving the packages or not is beside the point because the panel claiming he has received them when it is so easy to check just highlights how easy it has been for MH to dodge everything they've thrown at him and/or win an appeal on technicalities.

'An artist painting a picture of an artist painting a picture of an......'

Anonymous said...

WnB, now you start to see why so many of us are happy to be B, irrespective of W or otherwise.

Makes you think, doesn't it.

Anonymous said...

@7:55- you ask why Eli would lie, and we can but speculate about why she did. But there's no escaping the fact that she DID lie. She said she had ensured the packages had been delivered, when in fact they had NOT been delivered.

But you are right about her not being able to get away with it, and she hasn't got away with it. She's been shown not to have told the truth, something which is highly embarrassing for her and for the leadership of Plaid Cymru.

Anonymous said...

Let's cut to the chase here:- MH have you changed address and not notified Plaid? Been away from home for an extended period? Failed to collect a letter or package from the sorting office?

Can you offer an explanation of why you are so difficult to contact?

Anonymous said...

Quite remarkable.

Plaid is a multi million pound organization which runs perfectly efficiently. But when it comes to contacting MH we're expected to believe that it can't e mail or use the postal service.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, posts being deleted presumably by the author. We'll try again.

Plaid Cymru is a multi million pound organization which seems to go about it's business efficiently.

Yet when it comes to contacting MH it can't use a letter box, it can't send an email and it can't send a parcel.

Is MH seriously asking us to believe that? Seriously?

Anonymous said...

"Runs perfectly efficiently"...............what, Plaid Cymru? Don't make me laff.

You can see that Plaid doesn't know how to use recorded delivery.

Anonymous said...

I think we need to re-think this matter of postal delivery.

E.mail of 20th June, '.................despite having taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery'.

I think we can say that this is correct, the delivery did indeed reach its destination but, for some as yet unknown reason, it was not left at this destination. Assumedly no-one was available or willing to accept the delivery.

As such, no-one has lied. But MH did not, for some reason or another, go on to collect this delivery from the sorting office. Why not?

Anonymous said...

Well that's the thing see - the only evidence of adminesterative inefficiency turns up here. There is no other evidence as far as I know. Letters are sent out and answered, wages are paid on time, contracts are signed, conferences are arranged and committees set up. Buy when it comes to dealing with MH it seems that parcels, letters and emails can't be posted.

Very, very strange.

Anonymous said...

@13:15/16- Nice try, but no cigar. The packages WEREN'T delivered, they were returned to sender.

And you claim that Plaid "sends out and answers" correspondence, but if you look back at the emails Michael has published, you can see that nearly all the questions he asks have been ignored.

Plaid have been well and truly caught with their pants down on this one, and that is why anonymous Plaid insiders like you are throwing all the mud you can at him.

Anonymous said...

Nobody is throwing mud, and I'm certainly no insider. But all this anministrative failure only happens in relation to MH. Nowhere else does it come up. Why?

BTW I'm Anon 13:16, & not 13:15. Two different Anons I fear.

Anonymous said...

Wake up 1414. If the recipient refuses to sign they are returned to the sender. If Royal Mail leave a card the recipient has nearly three weeks to collect the mail. And then it's returned.

Anonymous said...

The answer is that the Plaid Cymru leadership are trying to stitch Micheal up, but they can't do it according to the rules. Therefore they have to break the rules, tell lies, and resort to underhand tricks

Anonymous said...

I'm 13:15 and I rather stand by what I have written.

No-one has claimed 'delivery', just that the correspondence 'had reached its destination'.

Why such a fuss over 'delivery' when no-one has ever claimed such?

Anonymous said...

In order to be able to claim that somebody is lying. That's the raison d'etre of this blog nowdays.

Anonymous said...

The Postman always knocks twice! Unless he's from Plaid and then of course he decides the policy of whether to door knock soley on an individual constituency basis... Very much like Plaid's "flexible" nuclear policy decisions!

Post a Comment