The documented interference in cases was to escalate the disciplinary responsesKeir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
The documented interference in cases was to escalate the disciplinary responsesWhat do you make of the only two unlawful remarks they found being denials that it's a problem. Bit strange that the denial of a problem is proof of the problem no?
Corbyn Statement
Will be interesting to see how that sits with Starmer - wonder if he might call on all MP's to publicly accept the findings?
No.
p44 of the report
Remember when Tom Watson wanted all cases on his desk? What this report does show is what a fecking chancer he was in using the issue to try and gain political position.
Ian Austin's relevancy on a general election outcome was minimal I would guess, however it still doesn't explain your prior statement.
How does someone being against anti-semitism (the broad population are), and for having that view that they're directly responsible for covid deaths? As you're struggling to explain the logic, are you saying that if you're anti-Semitic then you're not responsible for covid deaths? Or is it simply down to voting pattern = covid deaths?
https://labour.org.uk/ehrc-report/?...il&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-bdd465acc3-190529473
Right tone from starmer on this -
those who think its exaggerated are part of the problem and they shouldnt be anywhere near the labour party
Right tone from starmer on this -
those who think its exaggerated are part of the problem and they shouldnt be anywhere near the labour party
Good response from Starmer. I may consider rejoining the party.
If you expect me to keep replying to you deliberately misrepresenting what I said then you are going to be disappointed.
hes going to look into corbys statement about saying the problem was exaggerated ... interesting
The overwhelming majority of cases of interference cited are escalations not obstructions.
I don't think anyone is misrepresenting you, I think you've represented yourself quite clearly, and confirmed that your point was merely an emotional outburst and lacked any form of logic or substantiation. As you were.
The media seem very intent to try turn this onto Corbyn don't they and then wonder why people think it's also a political attack
Corbyn and his followers will never admit they're wrong, that's why their populist politics is so dangerous.
Big questions about the complicity or incompetence of the media too.
Big questions about the complicity or incompetence of the media too.
I think you're going to look back on all this in a few years time and regret your stance, mate. The ECHR just found the Labour Party under Corbyn broke equalities law on many occasions, with illegal harassment and discrimination.
Those of us who had enough under Corbyn's leadership and left the party (after many years of membership) did not take that decision lightly. Trust me.
Question, the lack of formal policies and training etc which have resulted in those ECHR rulings. Were they present under previous leaderships and would EHCR have found the same failings?
Quoted the wrong poster
ahh yes. Resort to a patronising tone when your own failings are pointed out.
strange question as one of the major issues is how the LOTO interfered with the process ... so Id say yes if the leaders office had interfered in the same way then the findings would have been the same - but equally given there wasnt previous complaints then most probably no previous LOTO would have acted in the same way
As I understand it, some of the issues around complaints policy and training were longstanding. As a former member of the party, I can say anti-semitism really became far more of an issue once Corbyn and his supporters took over the party. It became a cultural thing to talk of 'conspiracies', and Israel became a topic of 'discussion' out of all proportion. I think that's reflected in the findings that the leader's office interfered repeatedly in the complaints process, even to dismiss a case against Corbyn himself without due process.
No one has yet responded to my point that the only two ‘unlawful’ instances of antisemitism are two prominent denials of its existence.
Denial of the problem is proof of the problem.
It is 100% true. The ‘unlawful’ remarks are the ones made by Livingstone and some no name councillor, where the antisemitic trope they are guilty of is denying its existence.
Even the 'expressed support for Hitler' findings?
It's not a strange question if people are looking to lay the blame for former issues on to a specific leader as if elements were regressed. Under Blair, Brown, Ed the training was still inadequate, the policies were inadequate. Formby went further in fixing the issue than any of those.
As you'll know if you've read it then the interference question is an issue due to a lack of formal policy on when they can interfere or not. Again that wasn't there prior to Corbyn. Watson thought he could interfere as did other MPs, heck they're even calling for Starmer to interfere now!
Now hard left culture and if the party did enough to prevent antisemitism is a different matter. the EHRC doesn't look at that only the institutional processes and internal leadership.
Last edited:
You are simply incorrect, I'm afraid. Please read page 31 of the report in full.
direct quote from the report
you know the whole antisemitic trope thing that you did earlier yourself ... at least he didnt blame them for covid I guess
P28
Appendix 2 (P108 - P111) sets out in detail the decisions taken in respect of bromley and livingstone
though it really need to be seen in this context
P25
It's like watching a Republican climate denier explaining the last 35 years of temperature data.
The report seems quite fair if you consider it is looking at the organisation as a whole. There were a lot of failings in the disciplinary process.
It's frustrating as a former Corbyn supporter that one of the main failings was interference, regardless of which direction that interference pushed things, and pretty much every Corbyn critic I can think of was saying repeatedly that Corbyn should be interfering in these cases to speed them up, else he's a bad leader. I doubt any of these critics will remember their former positions with too much clarity, and they formed the majority of vocal Corbyn critics.
Hopefully we can implement the recommendations and get on with it quietly.
Whataboutism time: I'm still going to be pissed off until there is a similar investigating into the Tories, as I just can't imagine how they would come out of it any better thinking (back to racist MPs being sneakily unsuspended before important votes which seem pretty open and shut to me). The advantage the Tories have is that every single one of them is scum, so no one internally is going to report them except for Warsi who no one ever really listens to. And everyone seems to have forgotten the promise of an inquiry that all the leadership hopefuls gave last year.
Side note: interesting how well Williamson came out of it, despite pretty much everyone on both sides agreeing he's a jew-baiting prick.
Now looking forward to the transphobia report in 4 years :|
It's frustrating as a former Corbyn supporter that one of the main failings was interference, regardless of which direction that interference pushed things, and pretty much every Corbyn critic I can think of was saying repeatedly that Corbyn should be interfering in these cases to speed them up, else he's a bad leader. I doubt any of these critics will remember their former positions with too much clarity, and they formed the majority of vocal Corbyn critics.
Hopefully we can implement the recommendations and get on with it quietly.
Whataboutism time: I'm still going to be pissed off until there is a similar investigating into the Tories, as I just can't imagine how they would come out of it any better thinking (back to racist MPs being sneakily unsuspended before important votes which seem pretty open and shut to me). The advantage the Tories have is that every single one of them is scum, so no one internally is going to report them except for Warsi who no one ever really listens to. And everyone seems to have forgotten the promise of an inquiry that all the leadership hopefuls gave last year.
Side note: interesting how well Williamson came out of it, despite pretty much everyone on both sides agreeing he's a jew-baiting prick.
Now looking forward to the transphobia report in 4 years :|
Also amusing that people are now asking Kier if he will expel Corbyn and his allies, despite such interference from the leaders office being the main thing that Labour did wrong in this report.
The reasoning is pretty transparent. Iain Austin just said on Sky News that we could have avoided all of this if Corbyn had just stood down, not sure you're supposed to say that bit out loud Iain.
Anyway i'm glad the report is out as you say it gives Labour a platform to put in place what is actually needed. Starmer is in charge now so presumably the anti-semites have all melted or something and we can carry on without pretending a leader is representative of a minority that cause complaints.
I hope so anyway because if we're looking to woo back those who abandoned Labour for Brexit or this Scum Tory party then there's going to be a flood of xenophobes and racists with anti-Muslim/anti-black social media posts. I assume the centrists are fine if they lend their vote.
Kier did say that those saying that the reports of antisemitism were exaggerated are part of the problem and shouldn't be anywhere near Labour as well as the fact that the reports was robust and its findings had to be accepted
and corbyns statement did say that it was exaggerated and that he didn't accept all the findings
When pressed on this starmer has said he will look into the statement
I get the feeling Starmer does not want the fight but if he does then he will ask for Corbyn to retract the statement and to accept the report in full - gut feel he will try to avoid the fight (though id like to see him tackle it head on)
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/corby...olitical-opponents-over-ehrc-verdict-1.508022
The report is probably fair enough in terms of its criticism of the various failings of the party as a whole, but the report, or at least, the headline media coverage of it, is laying the behaviour of the whole lot, including the actions of clearly anti-Corbyn actors, at the leadership's door. Misattributation of the blame is not in the best interests of the Jewish community, it's just politically convenient for people who oppose the left.
@Shamwow has covered some of my concerns above. Interference to clear people who were guilty to avoid press attention, or to prevent investigations of the leader or his allies should rightly be criticised. Interference to expedite cases that weren't progressing (often because incompetent or unmotivated anti-Corbyn party officials were sitting on them) shouldn't be criticised because, at the time, this is exactly what Jewish groups, including those who requested this report, were asking the leadership to do. There's also a clear attempt to roll all interference by LOTO into one and imply it was all self-serving and negative, when the evidence shows most interferences were to ask for tougher sanctions or faster resolution, again, as was requested by Jewish organisations.
As others have also pointed out above, a lack of training for caseworkers clearly didn't start in 2015. It was a pre-existing issue which only started to be addressed under Corbyn's leadership. If anything, that particular failure falls at the door of previous Labour leaders, and Formby's predecessor.
Ultimately, the report doesn't deliver the knockout blows the likes of sun wanted against Corbyn, so they've had to spin it to make it more damaging. It also fails to provide true accountability for any of it, which should be a big disappointment for those who claim to care about tackling antisemitism. The only good thing that comes out of this is hopefully a roadmap forwards, where there's an open, capable and accountable disciplinary process which no leader can influence for better or worse.
@Shamwow has covered some of my concerns above. Interference to clear people who were guilty to avoid press attention, or to prevent investigations of the leader or his allies should rightly be criticised. Interference to expedite cases that weren't progressing (often because incompetent or unmotivated anti-Corbyn party officials were sitting on them) shouldn't be criticised because, at the time, this is exactly what Jewish groups, including those who requested this report, were asking the leadership to do. There's also a clear attempt to roll all interference by LOTO into one and imply it was all self-serving and negative, when the evidence shows most interferences were to ask for tougher sanctions or faster resolution, again, as was requested by Jewish organisations.
As others have also pointed out above, a lack of training for caseworkers clearly didn't start in 2015. It was a pre-existing issue which only started to be addressed under Corbyn's leadership. If anything, that particular failure falls at the door of previous Labour leaders, and Formby's predecessor.
Ultimately, the report doesn't deliver the knockout blows the likes of sun wanted against Corbyn, so they've had to spin it to make it more damaging. It also fails to provide true accountability for any of it, which should be a big disappointment for those who claim to care about tackling antisemitism. The only good thing that comes out of this is hopefully a roadmap forwards, where there's an open, capable and accountable disciplinary process which no leader can influence for better or worse.
That's a bit presumptuous. I'm more interested in what should be happening now rather than hypotheticals. Apologies, implement EHRC recommendations, sort out the endemic Transphobia in the party - including removing the whip from Rosie Duffield - and push for the Tories to be investigated for their rampant racism and covering up of it as well.
If that's the case, why has Corbyn rejected the findings of the report?
He probably doesn't accept the part about interference as that is what everyone including Jewish groups was telling him he had to do at the time.
For the reasons outlined in the rest of my post. Misattributation of blame and incoherent criticism.
Edit - as Shamwow says above. Also, he says he doesn't support all of the findings, not that he rejects the whole lot. Please try to find the nuance.
Last edited:
I don't think he said that did he? There is only the one statement from him I assume?
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/corby...olitical-opponents-over-ehrc-verdict-1.508022
I think Starmer is going to be pressed on this... will be interesting to see how it plays out
Last edited:
They certainly didn't tell him his office should interfere in the complaints process to block any investigation of complaints about Corbyn himself.