Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Untied said:
Are you going to engage with the issue that we literally have leaked emails from one of the people who is getting a payout showing that what they said in the documentary was false… or are we just going to pretend that this politically motivated court settlement is the end of the matter?
Click to expand...
I think he is going to pretend that this is the end of the matter. If he doesn't look for the evidence then it isn't there.
 
sun_tzu said:
No I think its only the start of the prosecutions coming labour and corbyns way over antisemitism
I reject the ascertain that this is a politically motivated court decision - unless you have evidence as to the courts corruption which i agree would be a bigger issue (I asume you have evidence as you have just published the allegations?)
I also reject as do labour that there was deliberate misrepresentation in the panorama documentary - though if you wish to repeat those allegations please do so knowing that you will probably be committing libel on this board yourself so feel free to tag his lawyers into your allegations and you might want to give the owner of the cafe the heads up as well
Click to expand...
Wow. The lack of understanding in this post is off the scale.
 
sun_tzu said:
No I think its only the start of the prosecutions coming labour and corbyns way over antisemitism
I reject the ascertain that this is a politically motivated court decision - unless you have evidence as to the courts corruption which i agree would be a bigger issue (I asume you have evidence as you have just published the allegations?)
I also reject as do labour that there was deliberate misrepresentation in the panorama documentary - though if you wish to repeat those allegations please do so knowing that you will probably be committing libel on this board yourself so feel free to tag his lawyers into your allegations and you might want to give the owner of the cafe the heads up as well
Click to expand...

As others have responded – it's a politically motivated decision to settle. I'm not making any allegations concerning the integrity of the court.

And I haven't repeated the settled, but allegedly libellous claims. But it does strike me as ridiculous that an individual who gave an interview to The JC claiming Corbyn was the greatest enabler of anti-semitism since the Second World War, has received a payout from the Labour Party for 'libelling' him as a disaffected staffer with an axe to grind.
 
Last edited:
Shamwow said:


Thread follows ending with

Click to expand...


Wasn’t there an instance in the report where the complaints committee actually sat on one complaint that was later deemed serious enough to warrant counter-terrorism police involvement and an arrest was made of the accused? Scandalous stuff, there is unarguable evidence that factions hostile to Corbyn deliberately corrupted the complaints process to undermine his leadership. The stuff about Livingstone is a clear example of that. Corbyn’s office repeatedly pressed for action, repeatedly ignored.
 
BobbyManc said:
Wasn’t there an instance in the report where the complaints committee actually sat on one complaint that was later deemed serious enough to warrant counter-terrorism police involvement and an arrest was made of the accused? Scandalous stuff, there is unarguable evidence that factions hostile to Corbyn deliberately corrupted the complaints process to undermine his leadership. The stuff about Livingstone is a clear example of that. Corbyn’s office repeatedly pressed for action, repeatedly ignored.
Click to expand...

Yep. And we've just rewarded him nicely for his work. I thought Starmer was meant to make the party less antisemitic, not more?
 
EwanI Ted said:


Corbyn makes statement.





Now faces a libel case himself. Weird.
Click to expand...


Really cannot comprehend what is possibly libellous in that statement, but British libel laws are wild, and probably some of the most oppressive in the developed world.

Which kind of makes it annoying that Corbyn didn’t repeatedly take the UK press to court for libel. But never mind.
 
EwanI Ted said:
Corbyn makes statement.

Now faces a libel case himself.
Click to expand...
more 4d chess from corbyn...
perhaps he just loves court cases... here is another he looks like loosing
A High Court judge has made preliminary findings in a defamation fight featuring former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Corbyn has been sued by a political blogger.

Richard Millett has complained about things Mr Corbyn said in a BBC television interview with broadcaster Andrew Marr nearly two years ago.

He says Mr Corbyn defamed him by accusing him of being “disruptive and abusive” at a 2013 meeting featuring a Palestinian speaker.

Mr Corbyn disputes Mr Millett’s claims and denies defaming him.

Mr Justice Saini, who oversaw a preliminary hearing in June, on Friday made preliminary legal decisions about the meaning of words Mr Corbyn used and whether he was stating facts or expressing opinion.

Lawyers representing Mr Millett argued that the allegations were “factual”, lawyers representing Mr Corbyn argued that the “words conveyed a statement of opinion”.

The judge concluded that Mr Corbyn was making “factual” allegations “as to Mr Millett’s behaviour”.

Lawyers representing Mr Millett argued that to accuse someone of being “disruptive and abusive to the degree in issue” must have “caused him to have been defamed”.

Lawyers representing Mr Corbyn disagreed and argued what had been said did not lower Mr Millett in the “estimation of right thinking people”.


The judge concluded that the “words complained of” referred to Mr Millett and “bore a meaning defamatory of Mr Millett”.

He said what had been said suggested “conduct falling below the standards expected of citizens in modern British society”.
Click to expand...

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...ings-after-jeremy-corbyn-sued-for-defamation/
 
Last edited:
Untied said:
Really cannot comprehend what is possibly libellous in that statement, but British libel laws are wild, and probably some of the most oppressive in the developed world.

Which kind of makes it annoying that Corbyn didn’t repeatedly take the UK press to court for libel. But never mind.
Click to expand...

I assume he was advised against it because of the optics. If he'd launched a libel case over even the most obvious lie, we'd have wall to wall coverage, column inches etc. comparing it to Stalin murdering journalists.
 
sun_tzu said:
more 4d chess from corbyn...
perhaps he just loves court cases... here is another he looks like loosing


https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...ings-after-jeremy-corbyn-sued-for-defamation/
Click to expand...

Don't you think it's kind of wild, and indicative of a broken justice system, that someone is suing Corbyn for saying they were being 'disruptive and abusive' meanwhile no one faced any legal action for putting his photo on a target and shooting it, and sharing the footage. Or printing front page stories claiming he was a Czech informant. Or interviewing with The Jewish Chronicle and stating Corbyn had done more to enable anti-semitism than anyone else since WW2. Or lying about Corbyn calling the death of Bin Laden a tragedy. Or printing that he danced on Remembrance Sunday whilst walking to the cenotaph. Or printing that he was an apologist for terror.

I think they've ruled forums are more like discussion and so = slander, not libel, but let's be honest, Jez'bollah is far more slanderous/libellous than 'disruptive and abusive'. Oh well.

Oh and does anyone remember when an anonymous general briefed The Times that if Corbyn was elected there would be a coup. Yeah that was cool.
 
Untied said:
Don't you think it's kind of wild, and indicative of a broken justice system, that someone is suing Corbyn for saying they were being 'disruptive and abusive' meanwhile no one faced any legal action for putting his photo on a target and shooting it, and sharing the footage. Or printing front page stories claiming he was a Czech informant. Or interviewing with The Jewish Chronicle and stating Corbyn had done more to enable anti-semitism than anyone else since WW2. Or lying about Corbyn calling the death of Bin Laden a tragedy. Or printing that he danced on Remembrance Sunday whilst walking to the cenotaph. Or printing that he was an apologist for terror.

I think they've ruled forums are more like discussion and so = slander, not libel, but let's be honest, Jez'bollah is far more slanderous/libellous than 'disruptive and abusive'. Oh well.

Oh and does anyone remember when an anonymous general briefed The Times that if Corbyn was elected there would be a coup. Yeah that was cool.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how successful this guy will be anyway as he has boasted on his own blog about being disruptive and being removed from the kind of meetings that Corbyn was talking about. Including pissing off Wes Streeting, famous anti-Israel Corbynite, so much that Wes Threatened to have him removed.
 
The shit people believe. On the day that evidence of routine misinformation campaigns are swirling around.

I despair.
 


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
 
BobbyManc said:


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
Click to expand...


Nah she just is stupid. We've seen enough evidence of that.
 
BobbyManc said:


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
Click to expand...

In fairness, the idea of Sir Keith doing politics does seem a little bit of a stretch.
 
BobbyManc said:


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
Click to expand...


Kuenssberg often actually is quite stupid (announcing postal vote results before polling closed, breathlessly reporting every text Dominic Cummings sends her, etc) but because it’s a stupidity that serves the right powers she never feels any consequences for it
 
Untied said:
Kuenssberg often actually is quite stupid (announcing postal vote results before polling closed, breathlessly reporting every text Dominic Cummings sends her, etc) but because it’s a stupidity that serves the right powers she never feels any consequences for it
Click to expand...

But it's not stupid, is it, because she knows there will be no consequences yet her words have the desired effect. Mentioning the postal vote was clearly calculated. If there was ever any chance of her suffering for this kind of stuff I guarantee it would stop instantly. If you can get away with repeating the lie that a Labour supporter punched a Tory staffer, then any need to do due diligence or worry about overtly spinning a story in favour of Cummings and co goes out the window.
 
Untied said:
Really cannot comprehend what is possibly libellous in that statement,
Click to expand...
Mr ware gave an interview on this

Speaking to Times Radio on Wednesday evening, Mr Ware said: "There have been a couple of statements - one from Mr McCluskey, and the other from Jeremy Corbyn - which seem to me to come dangerously close to suggesting, actually, what the Labour Party said about the whistleblowers and about me was true but for the fact that Keir Starmer decided to make a political settlement.

"In other words a settlement based on politics rather than the strength of our case.

"I am advised that is defamatory, I am advised that I could continue with this (legal action) against Mr Corbyn personally.

"I am thinking about that. I don't particularly wish to continue litigating against members of the Labour Party but there's a principle at stake here.

"I'll think about that carefully."
Click to expand...
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/jere...ticising-labour-antisemitism-apology-12034070
 
Smores said:
Hope he does to be honest. It's only proper that Corbyn gets to defend these accusations rather than Labour settle it because they want it to go away. That outcome is far more defaming of Corbyn than the original claims against Ware because he's been deemed guilty without any court judgement.
Click to expand...
I hope he defends it as well
Because considering the labour party admits to fabricating evidence he will have to go up against the labour party in court as well I assume...should see him leaving the party for good i think and hopefully draw a line under the whole corban era and antisemitism
 
sun_tzu said:
I hope he defends it as well
Because considering the labour party admits to fabricating evidence he will have to go up against the labour party in court as well I assume...should see him leaving the party for good i think and hopefully draw a line under the whole corban era and antisemitism
Click to expand...

Wait are you seriously saying all the incriminating materials against the whistle-blowers were fabricated?

I'm glad anti-semtisim will stop when Corbyn leaves just like it only started when he became leader :lol:
 
Smores said:
Wait are you seriously saying all the incriminating materials against the whistle-blowers were fabricated?

I'm glad anti-semtisim will stop when Corbyn leaves just like it only started when he became leader :lol:
Click to expand...
Well the chap suing him isn't a whistle blower... its the documentary maker... and labour admitted making factually false and defamatory statements against him... so that would be the context of the case and yeah I'd love to see him fight that

Lawyers for Labour said they accepted that allegations made in press release issued by the party that Mr Ware had “invented quotes, flouted journalistic ethics” and had “knowingly promoted falsehoods, including by misrepresentations of fact and, by fabricating facts” were defamatory of the experienced journalist.

“All these allegations are false and the Labour Party unreservedly withdraws these allegations and is profoundly sorry for the distress caused by their publication and republication,” said the statement.

“ The Defendant is here today to set the record straight and to apologise unreservedly to Mr Ware for the distress and embarrassment that the publication of the false allegations have caused him and for the damage that has been caused to his reputation. “
Click to expand...

So Labour say we withdrew the allegations because they are not true and were defamatory

If the case (as I understand it) is that by continuing to not acknowledge this and claim the decision was political and not based on the facts (as agreed by both parties) then corbyn really has to prove that Labour are wrong in what they said - thats going to be an interesting case

And I see a legal fund / (settlement fund) has already been started

 
Last edited:


Good thread here. Where are all the ‘cancel culture’ hysterics now it’s a journalist threatening to sue a politician for criticism?
 
sun_tzu said:
I hope he defends it as well
Because considering the labour party admits to fabricating evidence he will have to go up against the labour party in court as well I assume...should see him leaving the party for good i think and hopefully draw a line under the whole corban era and antisemitism
Click to expand...

Why are you so keen for Corbyn to face libel charges, when as I pointed out earlier, he has clearly been libelled more than anyone involved in this?

Literally one of the people who got a payout from the Labour Party did an interview with The JC saying he’s done more to enable antisemitism than anyone post WW2, which is cut and dry libel.
 
Smores said:
Wait are you seriously saying all the incriminating materials against the whistle-blowers were fabricated?

I'm glad anti-semtisim will stop when Corbyn leaves just like it only started when he became leader :lol:
Click to expand...

The leaked report was so damning and it’s evidence so clear about the factional weaponising of the complaints process against Corbyn, that the only course of action for those who see mostly moderate left-wing politics as the root of all evil is to pretend it doesn’t exist or it’s ‘fake news’.
 
BobbyManc said:


Good thread here. Where are all the ‘cancel culture’ hysterics now it’s a journalist threatening to sue a politician for criticism?
Click to expand...


Corbyn's a lefty and people love cancelling lefties. It doesn't count as cancelling in such cases - see the complete lack of caring at Lloyd Russel Moyle having to step down from the cabinet due to the amount of serious abuse he was receiving, or Dawn Butler's now closed office being repeatedly vandalised and her staff threatened - both of which happened recently.
 
Shamwow said:
Corbyn's a lefty and people love cancelling lefties. It doesn't count as cancelling in such cases - see the complete lack of caring at Lloyd Russel Moyle having to step down from the cabinet due to the amount of serious abuse he was receiving, or Dawn Butler's now closed office being repeatedly vandalised and her staff threatened - both of which happened recently.
Click to expand...

The lack of attention given to Dawn Butler’s case is very disturbing and epitomises the state of our media. Abuse against MPs is barely newsworthy if they’re Black, left-wing and a woman it appears. But we already knew the media actively encourages it in Diane Abbott’s case anyway, so I wouldn’t expect anything less.
 
BobbyManc said:
The lack of attention given to Dawn Butler’s case is very disturbing and epitomises the state of our media. Abuse against MPs is barely newsworthy if they’re Black, left-wing and a woman it appears. But we already knew the media actively encourages it in Diane Abbott’s case anyway, so I wouldn’t expect anything less.
Click to expand...

We should be putting statues of Abbott up with all that she has achieved, instead we put statues of Nazis up whilst claiming that we aren't a racist country.
 
BobbyManc said:
The leaked report was so damning and it’s evidence so clear about the factional weaponising of the complaints process against Corbyn, that the only course of action for those who see mostly moderate left-wing politics as the root of all evil is to pretend it doesn’t exist or it’s ‘fake news’.
Click to expand...

This report... well John Ware does cover that extensivley in his article here

https://www.thejc.com/comment/opini...now-they-face-the-legal-consequences-1.501782

The Corbynites have lied with impunity - now they face the legal consequences
John Ware explains why he sued the Labour Party - and why his case is merely the first of several against alt-Left sites and individuals who lie


A year ago, the Labour Party declared all-out war on the BBC. Why?

I was the reporter on a Panorama programme in which seven former Labour staffers blew the whistle about antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party. They explained how they felt a growing factionalism had created a safe space for antisemitic views inside the party.

Labour responded by accusing me of having flouted journalistic ethics. I had, Labour alleged, knowingly promoted falsehoods and invented quotes. I had misrepresented and fabricated facts.

It was, the party claimed, all part of my “deliberate and malicious” attempt “to mislead the public.”

It didn’t stop there. The party accused the whistle-blowers of being motivated by “disaffection” with Corbyn and the Labour Left; they had “personal and political axes to grind” as opposed to actually believing what they told me about the toxic climate they said had enveloped the party under the Leader’s office.

These were remarkably stupid things for the official opposition to say in public. It is the BBC’s job to subject any political party to careful scrutiny - but it is particularly important for the BBC to examine the actions of the party that aspires to be the next government.

Most politicians recognise that such criticism is an essential part of a democratic society. How did Labour react? By imputing a malign, dishonest, conspiratorial motive to BBC programme makers.

Labour claimed that I knew that Corbyn’s office was committed to dealing with antisemitism and was getting the job done. The party claimed that I maliciously tried to convince the public of the opposite of what I knew to be a simple truth.

You don’t need much experience of television to know that the BBC’s editorial processes simply don’t allow for such mammoth corruption of the editorial process, especially a programme that examines such an incendiary subject as the relationship between the leader of the Opposition and antisemitism. Every line of my commentary was trawled over by the editor, lawyers and the BBC’s editorial compliance panjandrums. The whistle-blowers were also extensively cross examined.

But playing the man and not the ball is now the weapon of choice for killing off dispassionate debate.

In my case, Labour’s defamatory blast triggered a year-long fusillade of falsehoods from a stream of Left wing bloggers, media “activists”, Labour’s “people powered” Momentum faction, and alt-Left outlets – all of whom share a conviction that the mainstream media is fundamentally dishonest.

There is, of course, dishonesty in the mainstream media. But whatever their faults, journalists working in the mainstream generally respect basic standards of accuracy and fairness. The ‘alternative media’ – both Left & Right – do not.

When you’re on the receiving end of unrelenting invective (and many have had it much worse than me) there comes a point when you have a choice: do you turn a cheek and continue to let these people mouth off lies that impact on your reputation and your livelihood? Or, do you do something about it?

I chose the latter course. As a result, today, in open court the Labour Party has “unreservedly withdrawn” the allegations against me and the whistle-blowers, paid “substantial damages” and expressed their “profound regret.”

There’s an unwritten code that says we journalists should never sue because however offensive or defamatory criticism of our journalism may be, we hold free speech sacrosanct.

It was a rule with which for decades I agreed. I no longer do.

With identity politics and social media dominating public discourse, Journalism has changed. On much of the internet, basic standards of accuracy and fairness have disappeared. I feel passionately that we need to try and hold internet media and political “activists” to account when they fail to apply the same standards they demand from the mainstream media.

That is why my proceedings against Labour are only the first of several I have begun against alternative media outlets and individuals. I make no apology for this and fully intend to prove my claims in court. To this day, pro-Corbyn conspiracy theorists persist in repeating their falsehoods. They are convinced of the righteousness of their efforts to destroy the BBC’s Panorama for giving a voice to the people who felt they had been victims of antisemitism and to the party officials who felt they had been frustrated in their attempts to deal with this in a climate that had become increasingly hostile to them since Corbyn won his leadership election for the 2nd time in 2016.

The zealotry of this mission has led some of these activists to think that unlike a network broadcaster or a newspaper, using a blog or twitter to brand someone a “rogue journalist” or a “liar” or fundamentally dishonest is somehow OK. Reasoned argument is OK. But attributing a malign motive out of frustration and anger is not OK and I hope the success of my proceedings against them will encourage them to think before they blog.

Some of the wildest criticism against Panorama came from the then Chair of Momentum Jon Lansman who accused me and my BBC colleagues of having “flouted basic journalistic standards from beginning to end.”

Let’s see how Mr Lansman’s own “journalistic standards” measure up. On the morning of transmission, Momentum disseminated a video which said that a 2015 Panorama I had made about Corbyn “ made claims that were later disproven” and also that the BBC “were forced to pay damages and issue a public apology” over another Panorama investigation in 2006, this time into the London based charity Interpal.

In the latter case, Momentum quoted the assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Miqdaad Versi, referring to my “appalling journalism.” This was immediately adopted by several pro-Corbyn media outlets as well as a publicised letter from Momentum to the BBC Director General Lord Hall.

I sent a polite text to Mr Lansman to say that none of Momentum’s claims were true and that had I been offered a right of reply I would have explained why. Mr Corbyn never pressed ahead with his 2015 complaint because in our response, the BBC had shown how disingenuous his complaint was.

As for the “damages” for which Momentum blamed me, they had nothing to do with my “appalling journalism” on Interpal; they were entirely related to the way a picture had been edited which unintentionally captured the face of a third party at an Interpal dinner, but who did not work for Interpal.

Nor had the BBC had to “apologise” for my journalism, either then or at any time in the 26 years I was with the
Corporation.

No-one from Momentum had approached me before committing this nonsense to video. I told Mr Lansman I had no objection to criticism of my programmes provided that criticism was not based on the false and misleading presentation of facts” and asked him to re-edit the video. He ignored my request, the video remains available on the internet today.

Imagine the explosion had the BBC - about to accuse a senior Labour activist like Mr Lansman of wrongdoing - not him offered a right of reply, or refused to include his reply when he’d asked to be given that right? Rightly, there would be hell to pay, not just within the BBC but also from the broadcast regulator Ofcom.

As for the perils of defamation, Mr Lansman seems to have been clueless. In a tweet before transmission, he opined that the whistle-blowers may have “deliberately resisted” measures to combat racism and moreover cynically delayed investigating antisemitic cases in order to “undermine Jeremy’s leadership.

They have no credibility on this subject.”
He even suggested that senior Labour staffers had engaged in a long term plot to undermine Corbyn by deliberately consulting his office by email on antisemitism cases in order to establish a documentary chain that could later be used to smear Corbyn by alleging that his office had interfered in complaints.

This magnificent conspiracy theory has been adopted by the recently leaked Momentum-authored report which seeks to blame Sam Matthews and the other Panorama whistle-blowers for the antisemitism crisis whilst crediting the officials who replaced them - they were appointed by Corbyn’s Secretary General Jennie Formby - for successfully getting a grip on the crisis.

This theory appears to have been based on the following unsupported hypothesis:
“We do not know why Matthews did this, we have not asked him, nor have we asked any other witness. So we cannot say for (anything like) certain but maybe he was conspiring to do something calculating that when subsequently investigated it would look bad on those people he had emailed – assuming, that is, that the people he emailed responded in a certain way”

This is from the “if-the-following-five-things-happen-then-we-might-be-right” school of conspiracy journalism. Those who bought into the theory seem to have had no awareness of just how ridiculous, reckless and defamatory this degree of speculation is. There is not the remotest chance of any such idea getting past a broadcaster or mainstream newspaper lawyer. And yet it’s there in the leaked Momentum report in several places with the status of an official Labour Party document.

The only smidgeon of truth in this pile of rubbish is that from mid-March 2018, Matthews and the assistant General Secretary Emilie Oldknow did refer antisemitism cases to Corbyn’s office for approval. But this had nothing to do with trying to discredit him. Rather, they had wearied of trying to second guess both Corbyn’s office and hostile NEC members on precisely where the bar lay on anti-Semitism, most especially its more contemporary mutation adopted by sections of the Left where anti-Zionism had increasingly morphed into antisemitism.

It’s an example of why I’ve referred to the “Soviet levels of paranoia” within parts of the Corbyn faction.

Like the Labour Party, Mr Lansman has also had to apologise to the whistle-blowers - but he’s got off very lightly. Although Mr Lansman leads a comfortable life, I understand the party paid his legal costs.

The witless bias spewed out after transmission by Mr Lansman, Momentum and the Labour Party has become ingrained in the alt-left Twittersphere; it has libelled the whistle-blowers as a bunch of calculating plotters, and me as an Islamophobe; a supporter of the far right; a thoroughly dishonest journalist who’s been disciplined by the BBC who’ve also had to pay out damages for my Islamophobic journalism.

More recently, an “investigative website that exposes rogue journalists” in all seriousness asked if I had used “what appears to be a woman of British Muslim-heritage to voice” the Labour Party’s 16 written responses in the programme in order to “give the impression that Labour is more sympathetic to Muslims than Jews.” I don’t know what a “British Muslim heritage voice” sounds like, and I don’t recall ever thinking there was something distinct or noticeable about her accent; I didn’t chose her (she came from a voice over agency) and it never occurred to me to ask about her faith anyway.

The pro-Corbyn alt-Left outlets, notably Skwawkbox and The Canary, have also piled in with multiple attempts to discredit the programme. Both sites have dismissed antisemitism complaints as a smear concocted to damage Corbyn, silence his support for Palestinians and prevent the success of his socialist project. This is blatant nonsense: most Jewish members of Labour are strong supporters of Palestinian rights and are highly critical of the right-wing drift of Israeli politics. They just don’t think that the world’s only Jewish state should be “disappeared” or compared to Nazi Germany – an execrable, infantile comparison which The Canary Editor Kerry Anne Mendoza has made.

Both outlets have also defended activists suspended or expelled from the Labour Party for antisemitism. Ms Mendoza has employed writers who have promoted antisemitic views. She says: “The Canary strives to report the news accurately, responsibly and with humanity.” Really? She has branded the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland an “utter prick” because he (accurately) predicted that by sticking with Corbyn Labour risked a hard Brexit and five more years of Boris Johnson; she has described the Observer’s Nick Cohen as a “rancid hate goblin.”

But then shock and hype at the expense of truth and context – the very criticism The Canary makes of the mainstream media - was, until recently, the basis of its ruthless “race to the bottom” market-led business model. Until “pressure from political Zionists” caused “our advertising revenue” to be “under fire”, writers were paid on the basis of “clickbait”: how often their articles get clicked. The incentive to hype was high because it generates advertising revenue.

An investigation by the Jewish charity Community Security Trust found that the largest spikes in online conversation suggesting antisemitism within Labour had been overblown or fabricated had been significantly influenced by articles “from alt-left media sources and partisan websites such as The Canary”

Then there were the more mainstream journalists who should have known better – such as Owen Jones, the Guardian columnist. He wrote that Panorama was “one of the most tawdry pieces of journalism I have ever seen produced by a broadcaster claiming impartiality.” Yet Jones swallowed whole Labour’s misleading claim that Panorama’s whistle-blowers had “kicked out” a pro-Corbyn supporter for “expressing their love for the (American rock band) Foo Fighters” adding “This is not a joke.”

I can reveal that the joke is on Jones. A Corbyn supporter whose Facebook included support for Foo Fighters was indeed refused membership – but not because of her support for the band. It was because her twitter account was judged to be grossly Islamophobic.

Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee approved Matthews’ recommendation that she be refused membership. Unfortunately, the letter sent to her mistakenly cited her innocent FB account – not her offensive twitter account. This was not the fault of the “disaffected” Matthews, I am told, but of a clerical error at a Labour office in Newcastle from where suspension letters were dispatched.

To both Panorama privately and then later to the public, Corbyn’s office cited the Foo Fighters as “evidence” of how the “factionally” motivated Matthews and his colleagues had indiscriminately targeted Corbyn supporters when they were vetting the avalanche of new members who wanted to vote in the 2016 leadership election. That, claimed the Corbynistas, created a backlog of antisemitism cases for which Corbyn had been unfairly blamed.

The trouble is, the Foo Fighters story is not true. So the question is: why did Corbyn’s office include it in their attack on Panorama? After the story first appeared in the Guardian in August 2016, both the then Head of NEC Disputes and Labour’s press office were informed of the facts – so why was the erroneous story repeated three years later? They know the answer. I don’t.

Today’s legal settlements are unlikely to silence a group of other critics of Panorama, like the media academic Dr Justin Schlosberg, who continues to assert that I actively set out to deceive the audience and tries to discredit the programme as an “assault to democracy” for its supposed lack of impartiality and accuracy.

As journalism seeps into the jungle of the “activist” fringe and further away from the mainstream where it is at least governed by clearly defined codes, there is indeed a cost to democracy. It is broadcasters like the BBC that are trying to hold the line on standards, not the self-appointed “media activists” who make up their own rules and whose self-righteousness leaves them with dangerously little self-doubt.

If we want fair and truthful journalism to prevail over deceitful propaganda on the internet, we must hold their authors to account. If we continue to let them get away with it, truth will not be the only casualty. Democracy itself will be wounded — perhaps fatally.
Click to expand...
 
sun_tzu said:
This report... well John Ware does cover that extensivley in his article here

https://www.thejc.com/comment/opini...now-they-face-the-legal-consequences-1.501782

The Corbynites have lied with impunity - now they face the legal consequences
John Ware explains why he sued the Labour Party - and why his case is merely the first of several against alt-Left sites and individuals who lie
Click to expand...

We have very different definitions of ‘extensively’. The salient parts of the leaked report are not addressed whatsoever, it’s a very partisan effort from Ware, naturally. There is also further undisputed evidence of correspondence involving Matthews not included in the leaked report which strongly suggests he was acting with factional intent in his decisions.
 
BobbyManc said:
We have very different definitions of ‘extensively’. The salient parts of the leaked report are not addressed whatsoever, it’s a very partisan effort from Ware, naturally. There is also further undisputed evidence of correspondence involving Matthews not included in the leaked report which strongly suggests he was acting with factional intent in his decisions.
Click to expand...
well Im sure the legal case being brought by Ian McNicol and 31 other people regarding that report will be extensive enough for even you?

Mr Lewis said the report had been “mischaracterised, misquoted “ and was “very factional”.

And he revealed: “There are 32 people who have instructed me to take action.

"Their actions are in respect to data breaches misuse of private information, libels — It's like an exam question for a libel lawyer to look through them and see how many claims you can find.”

He added: “Lord McNicol is one of the people who is taking action who has been named in the report.

“There are many other people who are named in the report, they come under different categories: people who work for the party, people who were in the party in in political positions.”

Mr Lewis said of the former Labour general secretary: “McNicol is named in the report and is blamed for things that simply didn't happen. It’s a mischaracterisation of a report which is being taken on.”
Click to expand...
https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...ing-the-party-over-leaked-antisemitism-report

And wait till the EHRC report drops - potentially a huge amount of legal cases to come from that as well
 
Thanks to Sun Tzu I now finally understand the whole 'you made me vote for Brexit' thing.

So, I guess some good has come from this discussion.
 
Untied said:
This John Ware article is hilarious. He's off his rocker.
Click to expand...

I prefer this one in the JC where he admits to not knowing quite a lot and then admits things actually improved under Formby. I mean the tone of that Panaroma was definitely that things have improved right?

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/panor...acts-that-novara-media-won-t-publish-1.499827

Read that and go back and read his recent defences. He may have not deliberately misled (although he sounds biased) and it was wrong for Labour to accuse as such but the programme itself definitely did mislead. The fact he's currently defending some of the whisteblowers shows he's more bothered about defending his prized journalism than any truth in my opinion.
 
John Ware said:
It is the BBC’s job to subject any political party to careful scrutiny - but it is particularly important for the BBC to examine the actions of the party that aspires to be the next government.
Click to expand...
Probably unintentionally admitting that he sees the BBC's job as to scrutinise the opposition more than the government.

John Ware said:
You don’t need much experience of television to know that the BBC’s editorial processes simply don’t allow for such mammoth corruption of the editorial process, especially a programme that examines such an incendiary subject as the relationship between the leader of the Opposition and antisemitism. Every line of my commentary was trawled over by the editor, lawyers and the BBC’s editorial compliance panjandrums. The whistle-blowers were also extensively cross examined.
Click to expand...

My documentary on anti-semitism for the BBC couldn't have been misleading because the BBC would never allow a documentary on that topic to be misleading. Really begging the question here.

And anyone with any experience of consuming BBC journalism over the last few years will know that the editorial processes are, let's put this kindly, not up to scratch. Something something shoot to kill.

John Ware said:
But playing the man and not the ball is now the weapon of choice for killing off dispassionate debate.
Click to expand...

Yes. The issue has been *checks notes* Corbyn playing the man not the ball.

John Ware said:
There is, of course, dishonesty in the mainstream media. But whatever their faults, journalists working in the mainstream generally respect basic standards of accuracy and fairness. The ‘alternative media’ – both Left & Right – do not.
Click to expand...

:lol:

John Ware said:
It is broadcasters like the BBC that are trying to hold the line on standards, not the self-appointed “media activists” who make up their own rules and whose self-righteousness leaves them with dangerously little self-doubt.
Click to expand...

His whole piece is basically that he's angry that people on Twitter no longer treat 'BBC journalist' as a respectable job.

John Ware said:
If we want fair and truthful journalism to prevail over deceitful propaganda on the internet, we must hold their authors to account.
Click to expand...

Holding the authors of journalism to account by taking those who disagree with it to court for libel.


Anyway. John Ware ladies and gentlemen.
 
sun_tzu said:
This report... well John Ware does cover that extensivley in his article here

https://www.thejc.com/comment/opini...now-they-face-the-legal-consequences-1.501782

The Corbynites have lied with impunity - now they face the legal consequences
John Ware explains why he sued the Labour Party - and why his case is merely the first of several against alt-Left sites and individuals who lie
Click to expand...

You would think when your leader gets the party sued by a BBC journalist and the party pays him out because it can't mount a defense of the things they have said about him that a normal person might take stock and re-evaluate. But no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.