If that any of that was true you might think that yes, unfortunately you have managed to show even less understanding of the situation than ol' Sunny seeing as the party hasn't paid out to John Ware.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
If that any of that was true you might think that yes, unfortunately you have managed to show even less understanding of the situation than ol' Sunny seeing as the party hasn't paid out to John Ware.
https://www.5rb.com/news/statements-in-open-court-for-labour-party-whistleblowers-and-john-ware/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tleblowers-pay-damages-panorama-a9631681.html
you gonna admit your wrong or do a corbyn and double down on your mistake?
I'm gonna do something you've never done and admit I'm wrong, even if it is unfortunately going to make a far-right guido supporter like yourself very happy.
Apologies @Don't Kill Bill
no- I was hoping like corbyn you would double down as it would be funnier in the long run
I was hoping that you'd admit being a far right guido supporter was wrong but you doubled down on it and no one laughed.
And the party pays him out against the advice of its own lawyers. Some important context you missed out there, that renders your following point redundant.
That is what I should have said but I went with the dumb thing.
Starmer/the current leadership (under new management as they proudly proclaimed) chose to settle.
Because of the above ^ I wouldn't apologise too heartily, but fair enough.
Not really. Not getting to the point where this sort of thing is happening is the smart move. Any reasonable person can understand this. JC was the leader of the labour party for Christ sake. Its was his job to not end up in this kind of a mess with the media.
I know you won't see it but to almost everyone else its obvious. The press is against Labour for the most part. Once you add the BBC to the list how are you going to get elected?
I said he was useless but this level of incompetence is special. Still people defend him because they were wrong and can't bring themselves to admit it.
Starmer is doing a better job at PMQ's and at dealing with this seeping wound. He has been left a mountain to climb but at least he is giving himself a chance.
1. So the job of political parties is to acquiesce to the media agenda? Political parties can't sue for libel so it's an entirely asymmetric relationship.
2. Conversely the BBC will never be supportive of a transformative, somewhat socialist government, so by your own standards you are just accepting that all we can choose between is different shades of the neoliberal consensus.
3. Just from a cynical, political perspective… how? The timing of the settlement yesterday meant that Labour anti-semitism was above the Russia report on the news agenda. Is that good politics?
1. Set the agenda instead of complaining about the reporting of it.
2. That complaint about the BBC runs both ways and always has but how many times have Labour ended up being sued by a Panorama program maker for defamation following a sanctioned attack campaign about a BBC reporter and his report? Also, When the BBC ends up being defunded because of this type of shit do you think that will provide a better platform for the public to understand a left wing party because I doubt that very much? Complaining about the BBC is stupidity of the highest order for the Labour party.
3. Get it out of the way so it doesn't distract latter in the election cycle. Make it a dead issue as quickly as possible because its hurting Labour. You know manage the media to get your message out rather than falling into every pot hole in the admittedly uneven road.
No way is that real.
Well done for putting words into his mouth there. He does not say that at all. He says nothing about scrutinising the opposition more than the govt.
Again, you miss the meaning of what he says. What he means it the BBC has all kinds of editorial, compliance, fact checking and legal checks in place, that he is bound to. Labour made libellous allegations about his professionalism and ethics and he rightly took them to the cleaners for it, as would have anyone. That kind of ill judged sloppiness was all par for the course for Corbyn's Labour of course.
He is absolutely right. Whatever your view of the mainstream media, if the likes of the Canary etc had to pay for the kind of checks that articles routinely have to undergo at major media organisations, they'd go bust in an instant.
His professional integrity was called into question and the authors of the libel were taught that you can't go around making shite up about stuff you don't like. Good.
Righting wrongs daily isn't enough to end the Jezbollah tentacles still clinging on to the honourable party.
He says it's particularly important to scrutinise political parties, especially the opposition. Reading between the lines of what he's said and what the BBC does (supports the government of the day), it's not a stretch to conclude that he's accidentally said the quiet part
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html
Ah yes the stringent journalistic standards of The Sun, wait no The Mail, wait no The Times, wait no The Telegraph, wait no… who? Genuinely who?
Well not really. Because the real losers are members of the Labour Party, who's dues have gone in payouts to people who we know from their own email in the leaked report were complicit in actively undermining the leadership in 2016. The only definite winner from this is Mark Lewis, which is I guess the law in this country functioning as intended.
My bad.
It’s an impressive volte-face from ‘Corbyn is an evil Trotskyist he’ll purge everyone’ to ‘purges are absolutely good and essential’. The irony being, if Corbyn was even half as ‘bad’ as the media depicted him, he’d have ruthlessly cemented the membership’s control of the party.
might have won 2017 if he had
He should have done, the sooner the party splits and members and voters have a choice the better.
Yeah probably August / September when the EHRC report drops and we kick out the racists as they will need a new platform ... sooner the better
This report better be good. I mean, saying you’ve primed it would probably be an understatement....
if it gets the party in a position to kick out the antisemites and move forwards then yeah its gonna be good
It may be coincidental that a few days after receiving the draft report they elected to stop fighting the case going through the courts and pay damages... it may be coincidence that since the draft report landed there are stories floating about regarding senior people having the whip removed - or it may be indicative that the report has some serious conclusions / recommendations and the party is using this 4-6 week window to put its house in order before it becomes public
The EHRC, doubts about its independence and impartiality aside, is not going to deliver the kind of document that weeks of digesting Guido Fawkes' verbal diarrhoea has led you to anticipate. There is not going to be 'Corbyn is an anti-Semite' scrawled in red crayon on every page, contrary to your wishes.
Simply proof that his leadership structure endorded illegal discrimination that he should have stopped should be enough to see him kicked out thanks
Evidently there are already far too many in or around labour who are unable to recognise anti Semitism. In fact it is bizarre to me that the kind of antennae they have developed for detecting the fine shades of bigotry you see in other areas, is missing when it comes to Jews. A clear judgement of institutional racism would be enough and I hope trigger some much needed reflection on this. (But I expect the real reaction will be more like a bunch of climate deniers reactions to the latest IPCC report.) We will see.
Seems the leaked internal report won't wash as a cover up either...
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...port-was-deliberately-misleading-leak-reveals
I hope the enquiry properly identifies these "sources close to formby" so that they can personally be held liable for the seemingly inevitable legal claims
It's not a stretch to conclude that you are making stuff up. He is saying in effect that Parties most likely to form the government deserve the most scrutiny. That is so obviously the case that it take a special talent to twist that into evidence of bias against Labour. The same thing would apply to the Tories if Labour was in power.
You miss out the key bit, the comparison with the likes of The Canary. But your selection betrays your own bias (again). Why not choose organisations that are the real peers of the BBC - Reuters, or AP, or Sky News? And the article you cite specifically says that the finding was that the BBC made an error but did not set out to deliberately mislead, which is the exact opposite of what you are saying that Ware did.
I didn’t say bias against Labour. I said bias against the opposition in favour of the government/establishment. Which anyone who has followed the BBC’s output through Iraq, Brexit, Coronavirus, etc knows is 100% the case. The job is to scrutinise the opposition not the government.
Because he’s defending the “mainstream media” and you are also off your rocker if you think that the AP and Reuters are more mainstream than the highest circulated papers in the UK.
Also, on the Ware documentary, and whether he deliberately set out to mislead. The Panorama documentary featured two “victims” of antisemitism, both unnamed. Both appeared in the Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby, one working for the Israeli embassy, one sitting alongside Joan Ryan as a representative of the Israeli embassy talks about donating 1 million to the the cause of Labour Friends or Israel. But I’m sure he had good reason for not naming them in his documentary. Like it definitely wasn’t deliberate.
Labour warning of cash crisis over this.
Really this is looking like a clusterfeck of incompetence from Corbyns old team. The damage the extreme Left has done to labour during their time running the party - reputationally, financially, electorially - is extraordinary.
Exaggerate much?
*pretends to be shocked*
Labour was flush with cash and members under Corbyn. They are probably haemorrhaging members right now, but we don't know because curiously the Party has stopped announcing membership figures. They would quite possibly be in government right now if it weren't for the centre-right faction of the party. And somehow a report that leaked after Corbyn ceased being leader, and the message sent by Starmer that he will settle any and all claims regardless of their merit is Corbyn's fault?
It’s clear, as the evidence in this article shows, that Ware’s “journalistic integrity” is non existent. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/labo...5mUdizzqv_sngvqjhQK8CV18NCPoaLhyBCO8Adg67sn4c
Yeah there’s so much wrong with it but the selective quoting of emails from the likes of Formby and Milne to strip them completely of their actual meaning is the most damning. Quite simply, any claim to credibility or impartiality evaporates once you start doing that. That alone would be damning but as the article points out there’s plenty more evidence against it.
Funny because the advice to formby at the time was that was exactly what happened in the report that "sources close to formy" then leaked
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...port-was-deliberately-misleading-leak-reveals
“Those looking to take legal action against [the] party for the leaked report have long argued that the messages have been edited to create a misleading and damaging impression. What this email suggests is that this is exactly what Labour knew it was doing"
Last edited:
And those same people created a secret office and fund to inappropriately funnel Labour Party funds to the safe seats of factional allies. Let’s just say they are *allegedly* a bunch of odious liars and it’s hilarious that they are basing *their* defence on a leaked email
I'm not sure who all the 32 are...at least 7 of them are the ones who were completely exonerated on open court last week
Though its gonna be hard to keep up with the lawsuits once the ehrc report is published... as I say i hope the individuals who leaked the report can be identified and held personally accountable for the semingky inevitable millions thats going to be due... if only "sources close to formby" can be identified ...
You’re wrong again, quelle surprise. The advice was not ‘at the time’ but two days after it was already leaked. Gardiner had no issue until then. How convenient.
It also makes an incorrect claim about the access of the WhatsApp data as that was included in the emails by an individual and there was no breach in Labour accessing it. If I upload all my WhatsApp messages to my work email like an idiot they’d be perfectly entitled to look at them.
As for out of context, unlike Labour’s Panorama emails, we cannot know for sure unless the proper context is released of all communications. But a lot of it seems indefensible e.g. the issues of these same “whistleblowers” taking no action and sitting on egregious reports of anti-Semitism, and how Formby once in charge of the process did indeed deal with matters more swiftly and on a far more comprehensive basis. Inconvenient facts for you, but they never seem to matter to you anyway.