And leaked all over the internet.
The new fella has got some work to do!
Printable View
And leaked all over the internet.
The new fella has got some work to do!
It's an internal report which whilst failing to adequately focus on the antisemitism claims, trawled through various social media in an attempt to damn party officials and whistleblowers to try to undermine the legal action being taken against the party and indeed the EHRC report. It's also aimed at making it look like poor Jezza never had a chance, own party working against the poor fellow.
Leaked to people like Squealer Jones, grifter Jon oops Rachael Swindon and highly antisemitic Dorset Eye.
Sadly for Labour, this strategy is a bit of a faux pas. Given it was leaked unredacted, it means details of complainants are contained, a breach of GDPR. Labour could well now face legal action from individuals and ICO action as well. Given that could bankrupt the party, seems Corbynistas attempting a scorched earth policy - Jezza can't have it, no-one can.
Imagine this will get move to Politics forum.
Interesting intervention from Andy Burnham, who has (since losing to Corbyn in 2015) become probably my favourite politician. Good honest guy who knows his own faults.
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/st...24188454076421
Just take that in for a second... 'Always felt like the Party machine opposed my pro-public NHS & social care policies between 2010 & 2015'. I always assumed Burnham upped sticks and ran for Mayor of Manchester because he was sick of Corbyn, looks like it was the other people he was sick of.
Sounds like the Labour party has been infiltrated, don't forget Blair and Osborne wanted to join forces not so long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Unfortunately virtually all of the decent Labour politicians were marginalised during the Corbyn era. Starmer has a lot of work to do but has started by getting rid of the dross and bringing some decent talent back into the fold. He's now got to sort out those who have ruined the Party in HQ. He's got 4 years to get the Party's act together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
4 years isn't enough to turn it around, if the party doesn't go bust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
People are underestimating this deliberate attempt to destroy the party by Momentum. Unredacted report has been leaked, link tweeted by many including Leanne Wood. The unredacted version contains personal details of people having made complaints, whistleblowers. The scale of the GDPR violations are massive - and that is worse is that several of those subjects put in SARs ( Subject Access Requests ) to be informed as to the data the party held on them. The report apparently reveals the party did not give full responses to those SARs.
Worse than that, what else does it say? The party of the workers, who back whistleblowers in public now shit all over them in private when they want scores settled.
The financial penalties could and should bankrupt the party. If they don't, the reputational damage will make Labour unelectable for a long time.
EDIT: Even without all the Momentum / Corbynista caused trouble, Starmer's shadow cabinet is overwhelmingly, if not all, Remainers. That won't go down well with the so called Red Wall.
Do agree, Andy Burnham was a decent sort would have made a better leader than Corbyn , party got hijacked thanks to the Ed , which I also liked up until that magical moment when leadership rules got thrown in the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
You aren't half beginning to sound like that Ronnie Bird.Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
You aren't half sounding like an apologist unable to grasp the seriousness of what Momentum have done here.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Failing to secure personal data is a major offence... complainants being named is ****ing serious, christ, an American neo-Nazi site has already hosted / linked to the unredacted report...
Yet your priority is claiming I'm someone else... interesting.
Labour are already being sued by whistleblowers. This on top? You remain in denial all you like...
Think it should be said that the names listed have now gone from party, however Starmer needs to ensure party can work together as a broad church if wanting to win next election and need to do it quickly. Labour's first problem is that no one wants to invest in party that can't work together as it would most likely fall apart under scrutiny.
Tell it like it is, weren't you the one saying national crisis is not the time to ask political parties tough questions even if it's in the national interest to do so? Shouldn't we all band together and think what we can do to support labour party or stay quiet?
Brilliant post , I do dislike these personal jibe replies ,they've vacuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
And again, even without legal action, ICO action, the party won't unite. Corbynistas don't want a "broad church" because centrists ae EVVVVVIIIILLLLL despite the public voting for them in Blair's time. It's full on civil war, this report - written by a Momentum member unable to edit exif data - was designed purely to divide and undermine Starmer.
And the worst bit? Some Corbynistas believe this is the EHRC report and exonerates Labour on antisemitism!
He is saying he was undermined by the 'party machine' in 2010 and 2015 for being too far to the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I agree he would have been a better leader.
Which is interesting, given he came a distant second to Corbyn in the leadership election, clearly people felt he was too far to the right...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
EDIT: And to be fair, shadow cabinet meetings would be interesting what with Shami having threatened to sue Burnham..
Er, all I did was say that you sound like another poster on here, I'm not sure how you can make so many assumptions about me from that one observation which was nothing to do with the Labout party or its personnel.Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
Well, my fault for making an assumption due to your silence on the actual topic matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
People seem to underestimate the problems this leak has caused. Lawsuits alone could cripple Labour.
Is this the huge report that the Party was going to send to the Anti-emetism Investigation because rhey thought it would exhonerate them?
I think I read in th papers the other day that the Labour Party's lawyers had told them not to send it as it would do more harm than good.
It seems whoever leaked it intended exactly that. Like turkeys voting for christmas.
This internal ( thus not independent ) report explicitly states that the antisemitism claims were not smears. That instantly kills any defence to any EHRC findings - this report appears to claim that people working against Corbyn meant antisemitism wasn't being dealt with. So yeah, sending it to EHRC would damage Labour badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
In leaking it, they've now triggered legal action, ICO complaints for revealing personal details of whistleblowers.
It's a scorched earth policy. Corbynistas ousted, want to kill the party in revenge.
Shocking really. The party could do with Burnham back on the front bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
The membership didn't choose him to be leader, could be for a number of different reasons. This report isn't about the membership or really about the PLP (although some notable mentions). How much of the report have you read?Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
It is the correct decision not to send, that doesn't mean it shouldn't see the light of day though.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Who leaked it?Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
Not all. It is 860 pages after all. Very foolish of them to have revealed details of whistleblowers given ICO fines are unlimited in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Most of the report seems to be crap tbh. Ooooh, people don't like others in an organisation and bitch on social media about them? Meh.
What's important are the report revealing antisemitism claims weren't a smear, finger pointing at other factions isn't meaningful when the point is that cases weren't dealt with plus the data breaches.
The first two points would influence any EHRC determination if the report had been submitted, the latter means Labour are in deep shit legally.
I agree it was the right decision but doing it this way will do more harm. I can only think that that is what the leaker intended, because now the investigation has it anyway! Why else do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
The exact person or faction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
We know who wrote the document, it's in the document exif data, we know which faction he's high up in if that's what you're asking?
Unredacted or redacted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
I'm sure you'd be ecstatic if you made a complaint at work about the conduct of others onl for company to then publicly reveal a report into it revealing your personal details...
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearcey3
Don't always agree with him but he could well have won in 2017.
Having said that I doubt if there would have been an election in 2017 if he had been in charge because the opinion polls would probably have been much tighter.
We would instead probably have been looking at an election this year (but not May obviously)and the political dynamic of the country would have been entirely different.
Aye there's the rubQuote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
redacted where necessary obviously. The theme is the important thing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
You have posted a pretty detailed account as to how this reached the public sphere, was just wondering if it was theory or fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
Who did write it?Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
Well, I agree that it isn't meaningful for the actual investigation but it is an interesting take for anybody who has followed politics over the past few years. For example, an official bragging about slowing down a suspension because doing so will hurt the leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
Well, that's fine but it wasn't redacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
The theme is nothing more than mounting a defence of Corbyn, undermining Starmer. The report would weaken any defence by Labour to EHRC investigation and the data breaches can be up to 4% of global turnoever or £20m, whichever is highest.
Since you wanted to know who leaked it, there's a simple test. Who does it benefit?
Simple answer is Momentum and Corbyn. All those nasty people allegedly plotting against him, why he couldn't do anything about antisemitism due to that... as the report was written by a Momentum higher-up and leaked to Novara, Canary, Owen Jones, Rachael "Jon" Swindon, it's pretty clear which faction leaked it.
As I said elsewhere, it's a scorched earth policy which due to ****wittery will cost them dearly in both individual lawsuits, ICO fines and reputational damage - Labour can never claim to back the rights of whistleblowers after this.
Ah, is that the one where it's clear Karie Murphy was being quoted which people have misread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Right wingers have infiltrated the Labour party, they have worked against Labour to ensure that the Conservatives have won the last few elections.
These right wingers are supporters of a foreign power and they want a Government in place that would be sympathetic to this foreign power.
What foreign power would that be? I'm sure if you'd evidence then you'd name said foreign power.Quote:
Originally Posted by trampie09
I disagree with your claim of infiltration; Momentum infiltrated taking party further left after all.
Any election these days is won in the center not the extremes. Labour ignoring that means the emptiest vessels will continue shouting loudest... and losing elections.
Momentum bad, everyone else good. You surely can't be this naive?Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
Starmer has a lot on his hands.
So, when labour isn't bankrupt and the lawsuits don't happen will you still be on the same username?
Happy to concede that one after a bit more research, certainly presented in a disingenuous way.Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
It's Israel, some right wing Labour Jewish mps have been actively working against brother Corbyn, right wing quislings are doing a number on Labour, wasn't Miliband Jewish ?, isn't Starmer married to a Jew and aren't his children Jewish ?, Labour anti semitic oh aye...do me a favour.Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
Oh and I'm Plaid, I don't vote for a Unionist party.
Labour was a left wing party not a right wing party, if a person is left wing and Labour is not left wing then there is no point in voting for them and as regards elections being won in the centre, the Conservatives are right wing, zero hour contracts, food banks, looking after the well off etc etc.