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

sun_tzu said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

They weren’t exonerated sun. Everyone knows that.
 
Untied said:
They weren’t exonerated sun. Everyone knows that.
Click to expand...


They were and this is a matter of public record

https://labourlist.org/2020/07/labo...s-substantial-damages-in-panorama-libel-case/


Below is the full text of the apology issued to the former Labour staffers today.

The Labour Party has today issued an unreserved apology to the former members of staff who contributed to a BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism within the Labour Party in July 2019.

Before the broadcast of the programme, the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about these Whistleblowers.

We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service that the Whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party as members and as staff. We appreciate their valuable contribution at all levels of the party.

We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and lying. We would like to apologise unreservedly for the distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication. We have agreed to pay them damages.

Under the leadership of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, we are committed to tackling antisemitism within the Labour Party. Antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years. It has caused unacceptable and unimaginable levels of grief and distress for many in the Jewish community, as well as members of staff.

If we are to restore the trust of the Jewish community, we must demonstrate a change of leadership. That means being open, transparent and respecting the right of whistleblowers.
Click to expand...
 
sun_tzu said:
They were and this is a matter of public record

https://labourlist.org/2020/07/labo...s-substantial-damages-in-panorama-libel-case/
Click to expand...

The last X number of pages in this thread basically boil down to the fact that you don't understand the legal system.

To be exonerated means to be cleared of a legal charge.

e.g -

"Labour would likely have been exonerated had they followed legal advice rather than choosing to settle."

The claimant in a case, by definition, can't be exonerated. Spouting irrelevant legal terms (or quasi-legal language you got from an American courtroom drama like 'in open court', 'a matter of public record') won't magic up a legal basis to your opinions surrounding this libel case.
 
Untied said:


Suing Jewish organisations to fight anti-semitism.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Voice_for_Labour
The organisation has been described as controversial[32] and the Jewish Labour Movement has called its views an "extreme fringe".[33] Jewish Leadership Council chairman Jonathan Goldstein has said that JVL is "not representative of our community".[34] Board of Deputies of British Jews President Marie van der Zyl has referred to JVL as "a tiny organisation whose odious views are representative of no-one but themselves."[35] Jon Lansman, founder of Momentum, stated that JVL "is an organisation which is not just tiny but has no real connection with the Jewish community at all"
Click to expand...
 
Raven said:
Wrong type of Jews in your eyes then?
Click to expand...
Not at all...but if an organisation regardless of its religious affiliation or indeed any other affiliation has broken the law they should imo opinion be sued ... you know like when labour made false and defamatory statements about the whistleblowers... or like when "sources close to formby" released lots of private information without consent or you know like labour is setting aside millions waiting to be sued for all the antisemitic shit corbyns leadership oversaw

Clearly from the quote above though a large number of jewish organisations have a disagreement with that particular corbyn mouthpiece set up in 2017
 
Has sun-tzu admitted yet that under Formby the process was actually sped up and more cases processed than any prior period? Something Ware himself has accepted.

He's so obsessed i wouldn't be at all surprised if he was the individual that raised 50% of all cases in 2019. The one where loads of people weren't even Labour members but proved useful to bump the numbers and then anger Watson.
 
Raven said:
As many people in this thread have already told you, you know nothing about the law. I think it's best that you avoid commenting on things you know nothing about.

The whistleblowers, such as Sam Matthews were actively hindering antisemitism cases to make the Labour party look bad and then followed it up by going on Panorama to perpetuate more lies. The legal advice was that the libel suits had no real traction and could easily have been won but our very own Blair in disguise has decided it best to appease these wreckers.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like you have just repeated the libel. Not sure that's a wise place to be.
 
People really need to stop with the bollocks interpretation of libel laws :lol:
 
nickm said:
Tell that to the site owner.
Click to expand...

You'll have to expand your thought process there I'm afraid because it sounds like you're suggesting they agree with you but i don't know on what grounds you think that.

I'm not saying no one should consider libel if that was your take. I'm saying people are mistakenly calling things libel that aren't especially not in the context applied.
 
nickm said:
Sounds to me like you have just repeated the libel. Not sure that's a wise place to be.
Click to expand...

Given that a legal judgement was never reached in the libel case, is it not libellous to label the alleged libel libel? By insinuating that Raven is a libeller, you yourself could be liable for libel!
 
nickm said:
Sounds to me like you have just repeated the libel. Not sure that's a wise place to be.
Click to expand...
I was going to reply but it seems what I was going to say has already been said. Its called having a discussion, stop trying to muzzle people.
 
0_Screenshot-2020-07-29-at-110450.png

Wonder what wiley and corbyn have in common?
 
Last edited:
It ain't libel if its true though...

Also nice to see the cotbyistas staying true to form

Supporters of Mr Corbyn have flocked to a ‘Go Fund Me’ page which has raised over £250,000 to finance any court battle with Mr Ware.

But the administrators of the page, set up by a supporter of the Labour leader named Carole Morgan, were forced to hide the comments of donors after many left antisemitic remarks about “Zionist” power, Israel – and one was signed off with the name ‘Adolf Hitler’.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you agree such people are not welcome in uk politics
 
sun_tzu said:
It ain't libel if its true though...
Click to expand...

I think you'd have a hard time proving that assertion to be demonstrably true and the burden would fall on you to do so. Luckily it's a public entity so it's fair game for opinions as long as they're not malicious.

More importantly I'd think long and hard about discounting the voices of a Jewish group just because you don't like their political affiliations given that's the very subject often of your own complaints.
 
sun_tzu said:
It ain't libel if its true though...

Also nice to see the cotbyistas staying true to form



I'm sure you agree such people are not welcome in uk politics
Click to expand...

Comments about zionism and Israel are not by definition anti-semitic, despite that being the desired outcome of many weaponising anti-semitism.

The allegedly anti-semitic comments:

"Commenting on the campaign, one supporter said: 'We love Jeremy Corbyn and he is all we got! Him being seen and propagated by reich wing media and portrayed like he can be the next Shitler is absurd beyond belief! I met Jeremy Corbyn is a very lovely and full of compassion for others! I am proud to make donations to this honourable person.'

Another person commented: 'Corbyn supports PALESTINE. Like all in the civilized world.' "

The one "signed off by the name Adolf Hitler" was just someone leaving a £5 donation with the name Hitler. I have no idea why someone would do that. Maybe it was Guido blogger looking for something to write about.
 
Raven said:
I was going to reply but it seems what I was going to say has already been said. Its called having a discussion, stop trying to muzzle people.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless you did actually repeat the words - and even named one individual -that the whistleblowers ere suing over. Corbyn himself is being sued for similar by Ware. Just adding some facts to your discussion.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
You'll have to expand your thought process there I'm afraid because it sounds like you're suggesting they agree with you but i don't know on what grounds you think that.
Click to expand...

Point is you can think what you like about whether my interpretation of libel is bollocks (it’s not) but it’s site owners who also are liable for what gets said on their platforms. So don’t ask me, ask them. Ware seems very litigious, that’s all
 
golden_blunder said:
No, he’s right. The site owner could potentially be held responsible for anything that is deemed libellous on here. So can the posters who may post that type of post.
Click to expand...

Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m also aware that there’s more chance of Corbyn becoming the next PM than there is of John Ware taking action against the comments made so far on this forum.
 
BobbyManc said:
Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m also aware that there’s more chance of Corbyn becoming the next PM than there is of John Ware taking action against the comments made so far on this forum.
Click to expand...
Whilst you are probably correct, I’m sure that the site owner doesn’t want to receive anymore letters thanks very much. He’s received enough over the years.
 
nickm said:
Point is you can think what you like about whether my interpretation of libel is bollocks (it’s not) but it’s site owners who also are liable for what gets said on their platforms. So don’t ask me, ask them. Ware seems very litigious, that’s all
Click to expand...

They're not the ones raising the accusation. Feel free to educate us if you so wish. You're clearly just using it to censor though. Statements on public matters against public persons are very rarely libellous, Labour settling doesn't automatically make them libellous either.

I look forward to the never ending accusations of libel on here going forward :lol:
 
Smores said:
They're not the ones raising the accusation. Feel free to educate us if you so wish. You're clearly just using it to censor though. Statements on public matters against public persons are very rarely libellous, Labour settling doesn't automatically make them libellous either.

I look forward to the never ending accusations of libel on here going forward :lol:
Click to expand...
When it comes to libel there simply won’t be any chances taken on here and I’d ask posters to respect that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.