Man who made complaint against former Edinburgh Council leader Cammy Day speaks out
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
A man who complained about former Edinburgh council leader Cammy Day has slammed the Labour party, after he was allowed to rejoin.
The man claimed that he was being sexually harassed in 2022. The Labour party allegedly told him his complaint would have to go through a formal process to progress, which he declined, reports the Daily Record.
Now the man, who is being kept anonymous, had criticised the decision to allow Day back into the party. This comes after it was alleged that he bombarded Ukrainian refugees with inappropriate messages.
The man said: 'If a senior leader in the Labour Party can act in a sexually inappropriate manner with impunity, what message does that send to victims of sexual harassment?
Sign up for Edinburgh Live newsletters for more headlines straight to your inbox
"Scottish Labour have given the green light to misconduct by re-admitting Cammy Day and have sent an unequivocal message to victims about whose side they are really on.
'I believe this will significantly undermine the whole system and processes that are meant to protect victims of sexual harassment; and decrease the likelihood of victims coming forward in future. Shame on them.'
Join Edinburgh Live's Whatsapp Community here and get the latest news sent straight to your messages.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'The Labour Party takes all complaints seriously.
"They are fully investigated in line with our rules and procedures and any appropriate action is taken.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer urged to do just one thing every day to fix the Nuked Blood scandal
As millions see a viral video of Labour's broken promises to nuclear veterans, the PM is being asked every day to do the one thing that would fix it Keir Starmer was already gacing a £5bn lawsuit and police investigation over a cover-up of human experiments on British troops. Now a video of Labour's broken promises to survivors has gone viral, with 2 million people seeing proof of Cabinet ministers demanding compensation schemes they've failed to come up with in office. And after 327 days of Downing Street ignoring requests to resolve what has become known as the Nuked Blood scandal, campaigners have vowed to repost the clips every day until they get a sit-down with the PM. Starmer risks further humiliation in the months to come, with publication of an estimated 750,000 classified documents packed with juicy details of what really happened to 40,000 troops ordered to take part in nuclear weapons trials over more than a decade. Alan Owen, founder of campaign group LABRATS, said: "Keir was the first party leader to sit down with members of the nuclear community and we believed him when he said 'your campaign is our campaign'. But after almost a year in government we are no nearer the truth or justice. Veterans are dying every week, and families are suffering chronic illness and psychological harm. "We can start to fix that if we can show him our evidence of an official cover-up of biological experiments with radiation. It is fairer to the taxpayer to resolve it now, rather than wait for a judge's order. All we want is for him to look us in the eye and hear what we have to tell him." The Ministry of Defence has denied for seven decades that troops were deliberately put in harm's way during the Cold War race to create nuclear weapons. But in 2022 the Mirror uncovered a memo detailing the blood tests of Group Captain Terry Gledhill, conducted before, during and after he led a squadron of planes through the mushroom clouds to gather samples. It led to more than 30 separate orders for blood tests, covering thousands of men in all three armed forces, plus Commonwealth troops and indigenous people, between 1952 and 1967. Most were locked on a top secret database, codenamed Merlin, at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is about to be declassified and published following cross-party pressure from parliament and the Mirror. A partial release has already revealed hundreds of named servicemen called up for testing, confirmation that thousands were involved, and analysis of the results by weapons scientists. Yet veterans who remember giving blood and urine specimens have found their medical records are missing, denying them accurate diagnosis for the high rates of cancers and blood disorders they report, as well as blocking war pensions and compensation. In Opposition, Labour bigwigs who now hold influential government roles said "it shames us as a country" that nuclear veterans did not have justice, and demanded financial compensation from the Tories. Deputy Leader Angela Rayner sent campaigners a video she had scripted herself, calling for the Tories to "set up an appropriate financial compensation programme for veterans and their descendants". Defence Secretary John Healey told the Labour Party Conference that the lack of a scheme "shames us, it shames us as a country". And Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard told the Mirror's News Agenda podcast that it was "really dumb" for the Tories not to have paid out already. Peter Stefanovic, lawyer and CEO of the Campaign for Social Justice, edited the clips together and has been sharing them on social media, gathering more than 2m views in just a few weeks. He said: "They all backed compensation for our nuclear test veterans while in Opposition, and Keir Starmer himself told them 'the country owes you a huge debt of honour. Your campaign is our campaign'. I will repost my film every single day until the PM agrees to meet with them to discuss how his government will honour the commitment his party made to these national heroes." LABRATS asked the PM for a meeting within days of his taking office, but has had no response for 327 days. The Mirror has also asked Mr Healey for a meeting, but none has been arranged. The Met Police are assessing a 500-page dossier of evidence about allegations of criminal misconduct in public office, while lawyers are preparing to issue a legal claim for the missing medical records that is predicted to lead to a 10-figure payout. Last month, the MoD admitted the monitoring "may have been" conducted without proper medical supervision.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Fewer than half of young men believe abortion should be legal, poll finds
Fewer than half of young men believe abortion should be legal, far less than the general population, a shocking new poll has found. Just 46 per cent of 18 to 36-year-old men believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 71 per cent among the general population. Amid concerns about the rise of the manosphere - a growing online community of hypermasculine influencers - the Ipsos poll showed a stark drop in support for abortion in those aged under 36. Eight in 10 55 to 75-year-old men support abortion being legal in all or most cases, while three-quarters of 35 to 54-year-olds do. And, among those aged 18 to 36, more than a third of men think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, the poll found. Labour MP Stella Creasy, a prominent campaigner in parliament for abortion access, told The Independent: 'Those [who are] complacent that abortion access is supported in this country don't understand the culture war is chipping away at all women's rights, including healthcare.' The polling comes before MPs vote this week on decriminalising abortion through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Currently, abortions can legally be carried out within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales. They must be approved by two doctors, with the health professionals agreeing continuing with the pregnancy would be riskier for the physical or mental health of the woman than having an abortion. While this is what the law stipulates, in reality, abortions can be given, whatever the person's reasoning. But an amendment tabled by Ms Creasy would see abortion enshrined as a human right, as has been done in Northern Ireland. 'The only way we can stop women being targeted in this way and ensure they have safe and legal access is to designate abortion a human right as we have in Northern Ireland, and only new clause 20 to the policing bill will do that,' she added. A rival amendment tabled by Labour's Tonia Antoniazzi - which would mean women can no longer be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy in England and Wales - is seen as more likely to get the backing of MPs. Ms Antoniazzi told The Independent the poll should serve as 'a reminder to male MPs for the vote on Tuesday that they can't just leave this work to women'. She urged colleagues to back her amendment and added: 'This is one poll. It's important to recognise that this poll, just like every other on abortion, shows that the country as a whole remains staunchly pro-choice.' But she said the findings were a 'clear example of the fact that women's hard-won rights can never be taken for granted'. It 'underscores why we must always keep fighting to preserve and advance them, as we do,' she added. It came as a row broke out in the final days before Tuesday's votes, with supporters of Ms Creasy's amendment accusing backers of Ms Antoniazzi of a campaign to get MPs to withdraw their support. Ms Creasy fears Ms Antoniazzi's amendment does not go far enough in enshrining and protecting the right to abortion, but the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) said it has 'profound concerns' about the drafting of Ms Creasy's amendment. It called on MPs to withdraw their support for Ms Creasy's proposal and refuse to support it. Ahead of the votes, Ipsos found broad support for abortion access except among young men. The pollster also found that around half of voters think the current 24-week time limit for abortions is 'about right', with a quarter saying it is too late and just 4 per cent saying it is too early. Nigel Farage said last month that it is 'ludicrous we allow abortion up to 24 weeks' and that the law is 'totally out of date'. And, asked about illegal abortions, just over half of voters said the person who performed an abortion should face a penalty, compared with under a third who think the woman having the abortion should. Ipsos Pollster Kate Duxbury at Ipsos said: "While the majority of Britons support legal abortion, with seven in ten in favour, our polling reveals a significant fault line: less than half of young men aged 16-34 agree. 'This divergence, coupled with the fact that around half of Britons think the current 24-week limit is 'about right', highlights the complexities facing policymakers as they consider decriminalisation. It's clear that public opinion is far from monolithic, demanding a nuanced approach to this sensitive issue."
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves's tax dilemma is about to get ugly
For close watchers of Britain's economy, last week was dominated by the Government's spending review, stuffed full of numbers of dubious validity, and the political theatre surrounding its delivery in the House of Commons. The event had about it a distinct air of unreality. We all know that the real event will be the budget in Autumn, when the Rachel Reeves will have to confront whatever depressing new economic and financial forecasts are given to her by the Office for Budget Responsibility and to grapple with the horrible reality of surging public debt. Of course, she could react by redefining her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing. After all, this is a well-trodden path. But if she wishes to maintain a shred of fiscal credibility, she will be forced to announce spending cuts or tax increases – or both. Bearing in mind the politics within the Labour Party and public opinion in the country, we are expecting higher taxes. And it is going to be ugly. At least last week the Chancellor could take comfort from the fact that the financial markets were, as expected, unfazed by the spending review. This does not imply that they are unworried by the huge amount of public debt. Quite the opposite. It is simply that there was nothing in the review that was surprising. They know that the big questions about the economy and fiscal policy remain exactly the same as they were beforehand.
