Labour broke equalities law over anti-Semitism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I think the Rawnsley 'explanation' is bullshit and I am sorry you are promoting it.

There have clearly been examples of antisemitism in the Labour Party - in line with that in wider society and other parties - although the EHRC report adds very little to what was previously in the public domain. The two main case studies (one is Ken Livingston) are very thin, and many of the examples given are where an antisemtitic intent is assumed without evidence! However, whilst thin (and with no allegations about Corbyn himself) there are some appalling examples derived from the 70 case files that were examined (58 put forward by the Jewish Labour Movement and the Camapign Against Antisemitism and 12 by the Labour Party).

It implies a definition of antisemitism that allows it to denounce anyone who claims that political enemies used the crisis for factional purposes (they did) or that the press exaggerated the prevalence of allegations (they did) which is very different from convictions. The report did though dissect the way allegations were managed and investigated - and made a series of recommendations that almost anyone could support. Corbyn supported the recommendations. He refused to accept every line in the EHRC report (quite rightly) and put out a statement that generally accepted the report whilst repeating again his view that the crisis had been manipulated and that it had been reported in a way that gave the public (and the Jewish communities) an impression of case numbers that was 1000x the reality.

What Corbyn said on publication of the report was to my mind fair and reasonable. The way Starmer characterised it was false and dishonest. Starmer (not Corbyn) has acted to escalate the issue and has lost any control he had. He is now being pushed to suspend another 20-30 leading figures, including half of the Campaign Group of MPs. Interestingly he has directly intervened in the internal party process, contrary to his own claims (but subsequently came clean on TV), and doing exactly what the EHRC denounced in their report.

Several years ago Clive Lewis (before he stepped down from the leadership contest) made a very powerful speech in which he argued it was possible (because it was true) for there to be both incidents of antisemitism in the party and for those incidents to be misused and misrepresented for factional purposes. That's where I am today after reading the report and acres of reaction from all sides over recent days.

I hope the process recommendations are implemented quickly and that there is clarity and fairness for people who feel they are victims, but also for those who are accused (frequently falsely over recent years - with a minority of the accused being sanctioned). I also hope that the rising number of incidents of antisemitism in the UK get more attention that anti-zionist tweets by obscure Labour councillors! The real victims of this crisis are not the main protagonists but the victims in the UK who don't have a united and effective anti racist party to stand with them, and the victims in Gaza, the West Bank and the refugee camps who have had their voices silenced and their repression 'normalised'!

---

Jon,

The key question for me is whether the Rawnsley description of events is true. If he spent the night before "clearing" what he was going to say with Corbyn and he still couldn't stay in line with a new leader then I am afraid it fits my impression of his frailties. The Rawnsley view that many who would consider to be in his camp think Corbyn's exposure on this is not the hill to die on resonates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Jon,

The key question for me is whether the Rawnsley description of events is true. If he spent the night before "clearing" what he was going to say with Corbyn and he still couldn't stay in line with a new leader then I am afraid it fits my impression of his frailties. The Rawnsley view that many who would consider to be in his camp think Corbyn's exposure on this is not the hill to die on resonates.

---

Corbyn has many frailties and was a mixed bag as a party leader. As a party manager - albeit in a very hostile PLP and press environment - he was very poor. He wasn't interested in the job as it is. He wanted ideas, campaigns, collective action. He is modest and principled, but also a pacifist in all his relationships. He dithered and then capitulated to many of the attacks on him and the values he represents. He thought that would buy him space and time, but it did neither. The latest batch of opinion pieces attacking Corbyn imply that it is ego or vanity that produced his response. I don't believe that. I think it was a limited push back against false allegations and press reporting whilst accepting most of the report and (I think) all of the recommendations.

There are several incompatible versions of what was agreed between Starmer and Corbyn the evening before the report was published and the press conference. I don't know the truth but based on personalities and recent record I am much more inclined to accept the Corbyn version than Starmers (direct or via the likes of Rawnsley). I thought Starmer would at least be straight and honest as party leader - even if dull and conservative. I don't think he has been. He repeatedly misrepresented Corbyn's statement on national TV and his latest lie was that he didn't make the call about Corbyn's suspension but left it to David Evans. He later admitted his involvement. Neither should have been involved if Labour is accepting the report recommendations!

I didn't vote for Starmer but I did believe his 10 Point pitch at the leadership hustings - now I don't trust him an inch.

This is one where we will have to agree to disagree.

Missed chance in last election as Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team , Abbot as a Chancellor , Livingstone in charge of inequalities , Richard Burgon Media Expert , Len of the Unite in overall charge of everyone else ,see where i'm going there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Missed chance in last election as Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team , Abbot as a Chancellor , Livingstone in charge of inequalities , Richard Burgon Media Expert , Len of the Unite in overall charge of everyone else ,see where i'm going there

---

I can categorically tell you that nobody can ever see where you're going with your posts.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...r-disciplinary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

I can categorically tell you that nobody can ever see where you're going with your posts.

---

I can categorically tell you Labour were trounced in the last election by a buffoon and been found guilty of 23 counts so of course you understand the thrust of my posts .

Nice and easy for you to some up my views :

Labour had a dreadful leader .
The party was highjacked .
Electorate disliked the party .
He oversaw a period of antisemitism within his party .
He surrounded himself dreadful people.
He list to a fool and handed an 80 seat majority to an awful PM.
Lost seats and supporters .
Seats fell that had never voted Tory in thier history.
Lost all of Scotland.
It list many MP'S through resignation and disgust of its behaviours

What a waste of a tragic waste of a decent party and its history ,a half decent leader and front bench would have beaten the Tories .

Enjoy new not so left new Labour , that hopefully will rise and deliver better values. ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

I can categorically tell you Labour were trounced in the last election by a buffoon and been found guilty of 23 counts so of course you understand the thrust of my posts .

Nice and easy for you to some up my views :

Labour had a dreadful leader .
The party was highjacked .
Electorate disliked the party .
He oversaw a period of antisemitism within his party .
He surrounded himself dreadful people.
He list to a fool and handed an 80 seat majority to an awful PM.
Lost seats and supporters .
Seats fell that had never voted Tory in thier history.
Lost all of Scotland.
It list many MP'S through resignation and disgust of its behaviours

What a waste of a tragic waste of a decent party and its history ,a half decent leader and front bench would have beaten the Tories .

Enjoy new not so left new Labour , that hopefully will rise and deliver better values. ?

---

You said "Missed chance in last election as Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team". I assume you thought you were being clever and funny but the last election took place before we'd even heard of Covid 19 you ****ing idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

You said "Missed chance in last election as Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team". I assume you thought you were being clever and funny but the last election took place before we'd even heard of Covid 19 you ****ing idiot.

---

That was replying to a different post and a light hearted quote , however note you didn't comment on anything on the list.

One knows when one is beaten so best you stay away from the ( new ) Labour project as it will be (thank god) a centralist left party we can vote for, hopefully for you Corbyn and his lot will form some form of party that appeals to your narrow nasty comment world .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

That was replying to a different post and a light hearted quote , however note you didn't comment on anything on the list.

One knows when one is beaten so best you stay away from the ( new ) Labour project as it will be (thank god) a centralist left party we can vote for, hopefully for you Corbyn and his lot will form some form of party that appeals to your narrow nasty comment world .

---

:hehe: :hehe: :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Missed chance in last election as Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team , Abbot as a Chancellor , Livingstone in charge of inequalities , Richard Burgon Media Expert , Len of the Unite in overall charge of everyone else ,see where i'm going there

---

Which post in this thread was this the light hearted response to out of interest? Isn't it easier to reply to the "Reply with Quote" option if you got confused?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Which post in this thread was this the light hearted response to out of interest? Isn't it easier to reply to the "Reply with Quote" option if you got confused?

---

So you cant see the humour in the post ? all of these folks surely you wouldn't considered for a government post even if JC had won .

Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team
Abbot as a Chancellor
Livingstone in charge of inequalities
Richard Burgon Media Expert
Len of the Unite in overall charge of everyone else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

So you cant see the humour in the post ? all of these folks surely you wouldn't considered for a government post even if JC had won .

Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team
Abbot as a Chancellor
Livingstone in charge of inequalities
Richard Burgon Media Expert
Len of the Unite in overall charge of everyone else

---

What I couldn't see was the different post you were replying to to try and make sense of your humorous riposte. Perhaps you can point it out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

So you cant see the humour in the post ? all of these folks surely you wouldn't considered for a government post even if JC had won .

Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team
Abbot as a Chancellor
Livingstone in charge of inequalities
Richard Burgon Media Expert
Len of the Unite in overall charge of everyone else

---

Learn. To. Read.

"Which post in this thread was this the light hearted response to out of interest? "

Cyril asked which post were you responding to - not asking you to explain your shite attempt at humour.

Edit: Sorry, Cyril. You beat me to the punch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Learn. To. Read.

"Which post in this thread was this the light hearted response to out of interest? "

Cyril asked which post were you responding to - not asking you to explain your shite attempt at humour.

Edit: Sorry, Cyril. You beat me to the punch.

---

neither of you will win this debate , shame on you both making light of anti-Semitism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

neither of you will win this debate , shame on you both making light of anti-Semitism

---

What debate? All you've done is spout incomprehensible nonsense (not just on this subject but in general).

Labour bad! Heisenberg bad! Even though he's clearly backed the decision to suspend Corbyn in light of the enquiry into anti-Semitism, he's making light of anti-Semitism!

PM Gluey to see if you can tag him in if you want someone else to through unsubstantiated accusations around, he's the f**king champ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

What debate? All you've done is spout incomprehensible nonsense (not just on this subject but in general).

Labour bad! Heisenberg bad! Even though he's clearly backed the decision to suspend Corbyn in light of the enquiry into anti-Semitism, he's making light of anti-Semitism!

PM Gluey to see if you can tag him in if you want someone else to through unsubstantiated accusations around, he's the f**king champ.

---

Such bitterness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Such bitterness

---

What am I bitter about? If you can answer that question, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

I don't foresee a proper response though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

What am I bitter about? If you can answer that question, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

I don't foresee a proper response though.

---

As you point out it is either deliberately wilful or a complete lack of comprehension.

Many will remember that there used to be a poster on here called HebertHuw whose style, approach and dubious morality became a similar source of ridicule. Perhaps he changed his name?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

As you point out it is either deliberately wilful or a complete lack of comprehension.

Many will remember that there used to be a poster on here called HebertHuw whose style, approach and dubious morality became a similar source of ridicule. Perhaps he changed his name?

---

Come to think of it I got told that the reason HerbertHuw disappeared was that someone sussed that he used the HH capitals in his name because they stood for Heil Hitler. Never heard from him again, at least under that name!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Come to think of it I got told that the reason HerbertHuw disappeared was that someone sussed that he used the HH capitals in his name because they stood for Heil Hitler. Never heard from him again, at least under that name!

---

1488 posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

1488 posts?

---

He was aiming for 1946 but didn't quite make it!

For anyone who is interested in the investigation and report - a viewpoint that didn't get press coverage:

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...e-ehrc-report/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

For anyone who is interested in the investigation and report - a viewpoint that didn't get press coverage:

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...e-ehrc-report/

---

Thanks Jon, a very good read and, in my opinion, very enlightening. Maybe Starmer should have considered the thrust of this argument before his rush to judgement.

Several posters on here (who I respect and usually agree with) along with most politicians and commentators have suggested that the EHRC should not be questioned (its' make-up. the way it decides what to investigate and what not, its' methodology.... and more). And that in the case of the Labour Antisemitism report the right response by Jeremy Corbyn etc is to accept it lock, stock and barrel, apologise again as frequently and publicly as possible, and then shut up about anything that might offend the Board of Deputies, the JLM or the Labour Friends Of Israel (or the Israeli Embassy) - because otherwise it would be evidence of blindspots or that 'they don't get it' or even more 'proof' of guilt.

Interesting (to me at least) that the latest EHRC report - into gender pay discrimination at the BBC - has also been criticised for its skewed focus and flawed methodology. In this case it cleared the BBC of any wrongdoing, despite years of evidence to the contrary - evidence which (like in another recent investigation) seems to have been discounted if it contradicted the core assumptions informing the investigation. I hope Carrie Gracie and other critics aren't denounced for failing to fully accept the conclusions of the agency or its message:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...discrimination

Carrie Gracie has described an investigation into pay discrimination at the BBC as a “whitewash”, after it cleared the broadcaster of wrongdoing.

The former BBC China editor won substantial back pay in 2018 after going public with details of how she was out-earned by equivalent male journalists at the broadcaster. She said the methodology used by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its investigation was baffling and said women could not rely on a regulator but should instead “stay strong, calm, united and justice will prevail”.

The independent inquiry followed years of disputes between BBC bosses and women who claimed to be illegally underpaid compared with male colleges, with hundreds of female employees receiving pay rises or back pay.

While many BBC pay cases were settled through internal processes, some women were forced to take lengthy legal action. Earlier this year, the BBC presenter Samira Ahmed won a £700,000 employment tribunal case against the corporation after the BBC was unable to explain why she was paid less than her male counterpart Jeremy Vine for doing equivalent work.

Despite this, the EHRC concluded its 18-month investigation by saying it had found no evidence of unequal pay, having carried out in-depth re-examinations of just 10 pay complaints against the BBC.

And....

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/11/11/not...ticising-ehrc/

Harriet Harman, who was interim Labour leader after Ed Miliband’s resignation, chairs a parliamentary committee that has issued a report on racism against black people that is highly critical of a weak EHRC it describes as inadequate, unfit for purpose – and even so ‘scared of its own shadow’ that it scarcely dare gainsay the government’s agenda.

Former party leader Jeremy Corbyn was suspended by Labour’s hierarchy for making a comment on the level of antisemitism, despite the EHRC report making clear his right to do so is legally protected.

Labour members have been ordered not to debate or vote on motions about either the suspension or the fitness of the EHRC.

So will Starmer now take action against Corbyn’s predecessor for chairing a committee that has heavily criticised the EHRC?

Or is it actually perfectly valid and acceptable to point out the weaknesses in a clearly flawed organisation, or the facts in its report?

In which case, lack of action against Harriet Harman would seem to support conclusion that the action against Jeremy Corbyn and Labour members is as politically driven as many have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Several posters on here (who I respect and usually agree with) along with most politicians and commentators have suggested that the EHRC should not be questioned (its' make-up. the way it decides what to investigate and what not, its' methodology.... and more). And that in the case of the Labour Antisemitism report the right response by Jeremy Corbyn etc is to accept it lock, stock and barrel, apologise again as frequently and publicly as possible, and then shut up about anything that might offend the Board of Deputies, the JLM or the Labour Friends Of Israel (or the Israeli Embassy) - because otherwise it would be evidence of blindspots or that 'they don't get it' or even more 'proof' of guilt.

Interesting (to me at least) that the latest EHRC report - into gender pay discrimination at the BBC - has also been criticised for its skewed focus and flawed methodology. In this case it cleared the BBC of any wrongdoing, despite years of evidence to the contrary - evidence which (like in another recent investigation) seems to have been discounted if it contradicted the core assumptions informing the investigation. I hope Carrie Gracie and other critics aren't denounced for failing to fully accept the conclusions of the agency or its message:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...discrimination

Carrie Gracie has described an investigation into pay discrimination at the BBC as a “whitewash”, after it cleared the broadcaster of wrongdoing.

The former BBC China editor won substantial back pay in 2018 after going public with details of how she was out-earned by equivalent male journalists at the broadcaster. She said the methodology used by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its investigation was baffling and said women could not rely on a regulator but should instead “stay strong, calm, united and justice will prevail”.

The independent inquiry followed years of disputes between BBC bosses and women who claimed to be illegally underpaid compared with male colleges, with hundreds of female employees receiving pay rises or back pay.

While many BBC pay cases were settled through internal processes, some women were forced to take lengthy legal action. Earlier this year, the BBC presenter Samira Ahmed won a £700,000 employment tribunal case against the corporation after the BBC was unable to explain why she was paid less than her male counterpart Jeremy Vine for doing equivalent work.

Despite this, the EHRC concluded its 18-month investigation by saying it had found no evidence of unequal pay, having carried out in-depth re-examinations of just 10 pay complaints against the BBC.

---

Jon,

I know you feel passionately about this but try to avoid a complaint I have about less respected posters of putting words into the mouths of others they did not utter.

Several posters on here (who I respect and usually agree with) along with most politicians and commentators have suggested that the EHRC should not be questioned (its' make-up. the way it decides what to investigate and what not, its' methodology.... and more).


I did question Corbyn's response and his willingness to accept responsibility for what happened under his tenure. Probably not as floridly as the suggestion that people wanted him to don sackcloth and ashes and parade through the streets of London.

I believe you were complimentary of the research and findings of the EHRC report, if not its conclusions. That body seems to have been less thorough in its narrow focus on the BBC investigation.

I believe this was an avoidable outcome which, given the multitude of siren warnings about the wider political impact could have been avoided with stronger Leadership. When you look at where we ended up, for all Lavery and Trickett's revisionism today, the proof is in the pudding for me!

Cyril - OK I put a few words in mouths, but I thought at the time it was a fair interpretation of the views of several posters (you included - but others too across the spectrum) who argued here and on the main board that the report should be accepted in full and it was no time to qualify any acceptance of the recommendations. Posters who also agreed that Starmer was right to sack Long-Bailey and suspend Corbyn - both decisions which I thought were cynical, unprincipled and unjustified.

Pearcey questioned the make up and motivation of the EHRC and why they chose not to investigate Tory Islamophobia. You suggested he was indulging in whataboutery. I think he was pointing out the inherent weakness and bias of the EHRC which came through in their report. The BBC and Racism reports reinforce that for me.

I did agree that the report detailed many process failures (many predated Corbyn, some continued under him) and made a series of mostly uncontentious recommendations that I think anyone should be able to support. They concluded that there was political interference from Corbyn's office (vigorously disputed), that the Labour Party was guilty of harassment (because several of the people who made antisemitic comments held official positions - eg as councillor) and the Labour Party was guility of discrimination because the EHRC concluded that the process failures will have disproportionately disadvantaged Jewish complainants (without any evidence). They added nothing to my understanding of what actually took place in the past 5 years or longer - looking at just 70 case files and failing to apply a clear definition of antisemitism which allowed them to imply intent. They did at least acknowledge that the accused were also disadvantaged by process failures, but failed to point out that Jewish members were also disproportionately accused!

We won't agree on this - but apologies for the words in mouth.

Corbyn reinstated and now Margaret Hodge is reported to be about to leave the party;-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mitism-remarks

What a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Corbyn reinstated and now Margaret Hodge is reported to be about to leave the party;-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mitism-remarks

What a mess.

---

He was suspended for speaking about the report when told not to, has since taken a step back from his previous position so has been reinstated. I think some of these MPs took the suspension to mean they finally 'won' and that it happened because of anything written in the report or just because they didn't like him, it doesn't work like that.

Unless the public infighting stops labour will struggle.

Hodge and Corbyn are both too old and stuck in their ways for this game, neither should run at the next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

He was suspended for speaking about the report when told not to, has since taken a step back from his previous position so has been reinstated. I think some of these MPs took the suspension to mean they finally 'won' and that it happened because of anything written in the report or just because they didn't like him, it doesn't work like that.

Unless the public infighting stops labour will struggle.

Hodge and Corbyn are both too old and stuck in their ways for this game, neither should run at the next election.

---

Can't argue with that - Starmer has not restored the party whip to Corbyn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54986916