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.