It's a bold view, I'll give you that.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
So just to be clear you think that it’s likely that the Youth Officer of the Jewish Labour Movement who has written publicly about antisemitism, who has a public twitter where she publicly states she is Jewish, would only be named on neonazi sites (unspecified ones, ‘apparently’) AFTER her name appears in a leaked Labour Party document listing her as making a complaint (there are no contact details in the document, just her name).
Can I sell you a bridge?
She says she's seen screenshots of the site referencing this report.
It's funny you think I'm the one on dodgy ground here, not you, accusing a young jewish woman of lying about antisemitic threats. I'm sure you'd be doing the same if this was a woman reporting sexual abuse, or a person of colour reporting racial abuse.
But it's fine, because she's got different politics to you. And Labour centrists are the only dangerously factional ones...
But okay, I'll buy your bridge - let's say she is lying and we disregard any neonazis potentially targeting her, because she's involved in jewish politics already. Does this make the unredacted release of all the other jewish complainants okay as well? I don't mean legally - apparently there's a whole load of lawsuits already coming Labour's way because of that - I mean ethically. To me, it seems pretty bad and deeply insensitive, particularly in a report that goes out of the way to stress there is in fact a problem with antisemitism within Labour. Again, I feel like substituting the word "jewish" with "female" in a case where people had received rape threats is instructive, and you'd feel more at home thinking it's a particularly shitty thing to do to let anyone with access to a computer view them.
I said I think she's lying about her name being on neo-nazi websites because of this document. I stand by that. She's presented absolutely no evidence of that, which given that she could share the screenshots easily is pretty suspicious. The Panorama documentary coupled with this document shows that people will lie about these things. Sam Matthews appeared prominently in that documentary as a 'whistleblower' on anti-Semitism when this document shows him to have repeatedly obstructed and sat on cases for factional reasons.
Let's just say it's not surprising that her, you and others on the centre/right of the party are quickly trying to change the narrative to "the real scandal is that this document is unredacted". I thought they wanted the whistleblowers who broke GDPR and NDAs to report anti-semitism to be protected?
It's also pretty contradictory of the report to state there was a real problem with anti-semitism but also that 50% of the cases were poorly reported by one individual.
@Untied - I understand the worry that, in a world where news that vindicates the left is perrenially underreported in the media, there is a worry that some factions will pivot to try to centre 'the story' on how the document was leaked rather than its content. However, the publication of this document in this form will have put people in danger and failing to acknowledge that because it's politically inconvenient is deeply hypocritical, given that prioritising factionalism above the protection of victims of racism is exactly what we're outraged at these party staffers for doing.
In a way, it's sort of a microcosm of the whole anti-Semitism debate. It's possible and correct to accept and abhor the existence of anti-Semitism in the party whilst also being aware that the issue is being cynically weaponised against the left. You may feel that concerns about the way the document was leaked are also being cynically weaponised against the left, but that doesn't mean that the concerns themselves aren't valid.
This is probably why I'll never get anywhere in politics, but especially in the current climate where everyone seems to be getting more embedded into groups and deciding what their opinion on something is depending on what 'side' they're on (and this is something I've certainly been guilty of), I think it's important to retain that nuance.
In a way, it's sort of a microcosm of the whole anti-Semitism debate. It's possible and correct to accept and abhor the existence of anti-Semitism in the party whilst also being aware that the issue is being cynically weaponised against the left. You may feel that concerns about the way the document was leaked are also being cynically weaponised against the left, but that doesn't mean that the concerns themselves aren't valid.
This is probably why I'll never get anywhere in politics, but especially in the current climate where everyone seems to be getting more embedded into groups and deciding what their opinion on something is depending on what 'side' they're on (and this is something I've certainly been guilty of), I think it's important to retain that nuance.
The main thing that occurs to me about this report is that this is a big FU to Kier Starmer. Any hope of party unity is out the window now, I don't see any way to make that possible for the next few years. Look online and you can see the betrayal narrative evolving by the hour. According to many now, Labour's right is responsible for both the loss in 2017 and the failings of the party on anti-semitism. Ghouls like Chris Williamson, despite being slammed in the report, are using it to justify their claim that they were falsely targeted and that anti-semitism claims were indeed being overinflated for political ends.
No doubt the right of the party will push back, because even though McNicol looks to have acted like a total bastard, the report itself isn't really as convincing as the cherry picked lines that people are sharing makes out. As Stephen Bush neatly puts it in the New Statesman, the executive summary writes a cheque that the report itself can't cash. It also puts it square at odds with many points in the submission that JLM made to the EHRC, which is yet another whole argument by itself.
Then of course there's the data breach angle, which speaking as someone very interested in privacy issues, is a big issue, larger than some people seem to realise. Assembling the entire report with unredacted complainants' & whistleblowers' details in it was incredibly bad practice in the first place. The fact that it was leaked shows either that a senior official leaked it, or that unredacted copies of the report were shared widely within the organisation among junior staff. In either case, poor practice was followed by a deliberate breach of sensitive personal data for political gain. I assume the ICO will now investigate.
While Starmer has commissioned an investigation, the damage is done. Not only will this keep anti-semitism in the party high in the public eye for months if not years, as the EHRC, internal and (probable) ICO investigations rake over the details, there's the political fallout itself. If the investigation disagrees with this report, it'll be called a whitewash and he'll be hated as a pro-right "Blairite" or whatever. If it backs the leaked report, and in doing so dismisses the whistleblowers highlighted by the JLM, it'll be called a whitewash by not just the right of the party, but my many of the Jewish community and he'll be painted as anti-semitic the same way Corbyn ended up being. Someone felt that deflecting the heat presumably heading their way from the EHRC investigation was worth dumping a world of shit on Starmer for. If he can come through this with the party intact he's one hell of a politician.
No doubt the right of the party will push back, because even though McNicol looks to have acted like a total bastard, the report itself isn't really as convincing as the cherry picked lines that people are sharing makes out. As Stephen Bush neatly puts it in the New Statesman, the executive summary writes a cheque that the report itself can't cash. It also puts it square at odds with many points in the submission that JLM made to the EHRC, which is yet another whole argument by itself.
Then of course there's the data breach angle, which speaking as someone very interested in privacy issues, is a big issue, larger than some people seem to realise. Assembling the entire report with unredacted complainants' & whistleblowers' details in it was incredibly bad practice in the first place. The fact that it was leaked shows either that a senior official leaked it, or that unredacted copies of the report were shared widely within the organisation among junior staff. In either case, poor practice was followed by a deliberate breach of sensitive personal data for political gain. I assume the ICO will now investigate.
While Starmer has commissioned an investigation, the damage is done. Not only will this keep anti-semitism in the party high in the public eye for months if not years, as the EHRC, internal and (probable) ICO investigations rake over the details, there's the political fallout itself. If the investigation disagrees with this report, it'll be called a whitewash and he'll be hated as a pro-right "Blairite" or whatever. If it backs the leaked report, and in doing so dismisses the whistleblowers highlighted by the JLM, it'll be called a whitewash by not just the right of the party, but my many of the Jewish community and he'll be painted as anti-semitic the same way Corbyn ended up being. Someone felt that deflecting the heat presumably heading their way from the EHRC investigation was worth dumping a world of shit on Starmer for. If he can come through this with the party intact he's one hell of a politician.
Please point out where I've said this. I'll save you the bother actually - I didn't, I posted something in support of this being part of the investigation, as announced. It's really not that hard just to say "okay, maybe the unredacted leaking isn't good," but you're so desperate for attack lines on Starmer that you can't even say that and quickly resorted to saying the victim's lying because she doesn't share the same politics as you.
The Labour party is an utter shit show.
From what i've read so far it seems;
From what i've read so far it seems;
- All sorts of reports of discrimination went unacted upon in some cases.
- Senior people in the party were working to ensure they lost the 2017 election.
In the period until spring 2018, the Labour Party’s investigation shows that Labour HQ and GLU failed to:
● develop any consistent system of logging and recording complaints;
● develop any consistent system of logging and recording disciplinary investigations, or tracking their progress;
● develop any consistent system, process or training for investigating and progressing cases;
● develop any general guidance or training for staff on decision-making regarding complaints;
● develop any specific guidance or training for staff on decision-making regarding antisemitism complaints;
● develop any detailed or coherent guidelines for investigating complaints based on social media conduct, including how to identify Labour members from social media accounts and how to treat different forms of social media activity;
● recommend or enact any reforms to the ineffective NEC and NCC disciplinary procedures, to bring in new systems suitable for a mass member party of 500,000 people or more, and capable of dealing with a much enlarged caseload;
● implement the Macpherson principle of logging and investigating complaints of racism as racism
-----------------------------------------------
These are serious failings.
● develop any consistent system of logging and recording complaints;
● develop any consistent system of logging and recording disciplinary investigations, or tracking their progress;
● develop any consistent system, process or training for investigating and progressing cases;
● develop any general guidance or training for staff on decision-making regarding complaints;
● develop any specific guidance or training for staff on decision-making regarding antisemitism complaints;
● develop any detailed or coherent guidelines for investigating complaints based on social media conduct, including how to identify Labour members from social media accounts and how to treat different forms of social media activity;
● recommend or enact any reforms to the ineffective NEC and NCC disciplinary procedures, to bring in new systems suitable for a mass member party of 500,000 people or more, and capable of dealing with a much enlarged caseload;
● implement the Macpherson principle of logging and investigating complaints of racism as racism
-----------------------------------------------
These are serious failings.
Tory governance until 2030 and beyond, what a prospect!
At what point is UK the declared a one party state?
At what point is UK the declared a one party state?
1997-2015 and 2020-
So true.
The one thing you have to rate the tories for is their ability to put their snakery aside at election time. They hate each others guts but they'll work to win an election.
This era of Tories will remain in power for longer than the Thatcher/Major era.
Great name for slogans.
Keir cares.
The Keir to the throne.
People working on his campaign can be called Starm Troopers.
Keir cares.
The Keir to the throne.
People working on his campaign can be called Starm Troopers.
Think that is true of right-wing politics in general. I've always felt this, they can put their differences aside and just focus on winning.
They're ruthless with leaders too, if they're not doing well they're out. Be interesting to see if Patel lasts long when/if Boris gets back to full strength.
The biggest issue with this hasn't even been mentioned yet.
We have a labour party where the general secretary was sending out letters asking for donations to help win an election while the same guy was working to stop labour winning.
Its fraud.
This could actually be the end of the party.
by the way, the guy who did that, is now a lord.
We have a labour party where the general secretary was sending out letters asking for donations to help win an election while the same guy was working to stop labour winning.
Its fraud.
This could actually be the end of the party.
by the way, the guy who did that, is now a lord.
If it is the end of the party it's going out with a whimper, it's not even on the front page of the BBC website.
Does it say that Labour has more of a problem with anti-semitism than society in general? Because if it doesn't, then that's not what it's saying at all, is it.
All the report criticised the leadership for was a weak system for dealing with accusations of anti-semitism. And when they desperately tried to improve it, they were deliberately sabotaged by another faction in order to undermine Corbyn.
I'll give you an extract:
So yes, it says literally what I said it did.
"Desperately tried to improve it" - can you then explain why Pete Willsman is mentioned precisely 0 times in this report? And if your answer is "it's an ongoing case", (got to protect the identity of people with ongoing complaints against them over young jewish members, after all) then explain why, given his initial outburst was in July 2018, with a further one in May 2019 - both after Formby had taken over - this case is still ongoing? Given that they have desperately tried to improve it, and the people you say stopped the problem being dealt with left almost 2 years ago.
Probably worth reading the report itself, its miles away from what you've suggested there, or at least from what I've read so far. Its basically a bunch of WhatsApp messages from staffers bitching and moaning about Corbyn and co. Some hope Corbyn will lose and talk about what will happen if he does, others are just nasty comments about people in the party. Not great, but there's no evidence, or even really much suggestion, of them doing anything to make it happen.
Doesn't it say that they actually worked to get the Libdem candidate elected instead of the labour one?
Didn't they also refuse to divert funds to areas where it was needed most while spending lot more on the safe seats?
Yes, it says what you said. But my question was whether it stated, or even suggested, that Labour's problem with antisemitism was notably worse than anti-semitism in society at large.
Well, Willsman's case is actually a difficult one to prove. Give me a quote of what Willsman said that was anti-semitic. The report makes it crystal clear that improvements were sought and ultimately made to the process, attempts to sabotage it notwithstanding.
Labour has suspended a controversial member of its ruling national executive committee (NEC) after he was recorded claiming that an Israeli agent had infiltrated the party.
Pete Willsman, an ally of Jeremy Corbyn, also said the Jewish state was behind some of the antisemitism allegations – which he described as “total lies” – that have engulfed the party.
In a recording first disclosed by the radio station LBC, Willsman said: “It’s almost certain who is behind all this antisemitism against Jeremy: almost certainly, it was the Israeli embassy.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ssy-labour-antisemitism-claims-peter-willsman
They were specifically working against the leadership to force a worse result. Its in black and whie.
From refusing to give relevant data to siphoning funding away from intended use (which itself would lead to criminal charges if you were the employee of 99% of businesses in this country), they actively worked against a labour win.
And that is why, the bloke doing it was committing corporate fraud when he personally (he signed the letters) asked for funding to help labour win the election.
Don't get confused with factional nonsense and politics. The labour party operates under the same laws every business in this country does. If you ask for money to do one thing, and do the opposite, you end up in court.
including GDPR (multiple breaches in the leaked report)
and lets not forget that the EHRC are still going to be investigating the antisemitism claims - lets just remind ourselves that the only 2 political party's to ever warrant the formal investigation are labour and the BNP - and a formal investigation is only triggered when the informal investigation saw enough evidence in that in thae balance of probability the law had been broken
Thats for sure 2 laws that Labour operate under and most certainly seem to have broken multiple times
So, the bold part? Ever heard of Shai Masot? https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/the-incredible-disappearance-of-shai-masot/
Worth adding to this that the only reason the Tories aren't being investigated is because the ECHR stated that they are waiting for the internal investigation that the Tories keep delaying before making a decision. I know you practically have an orgasm every time you compare the BNP to Labour so don't want to piss on your chips too much.
Can't see any comment about the Lib Dems in the 2017 general election, could be something somewhere else I haven't seen. At one point someone quips that he hopes the lib dems win, but it was clearly a joke and was not in any way someone working to get a Lib Dem candidate elected.
They spent money on defending seats when the leaders office wanted to attack the Tories. But Labour's private polling told them they were going to lose the election heavily at that point, I don't see how anyone could blame them for acting on it.
What can I say, I've read the 2017 GE section myself and it simply does not support this claim. All it shows is that they didn't like Corbyn and co and bitched about them a lot. There is no evidence they actually did anything to harm Labour's chances. It doesn't even show something as mild as not working very hard, never mind something as substantial as active sabotage.
Regards the spending, as I put above, they spent money on defending seats when Labour's private polling told them they were facing a landslide loss. It would be incredible to conclude that was about them trying to lose the election.
God this thread is so depressingly predictable. There's about as much integrity in the membership as the Labour HQ it seems.
Why does Andy Burnham think they did act on this stuff? I haven't read the 900 page report (not that you have either).
So you just don't agree with the report? Okay, fine. We'll leave it to the EHRC to take a position with all the available evidence.
Did this guy also force the 68 rabbis to complain about Labour, as Willsman says "the embassy" did?
I’m only talking about the 2017 general election section, which is all I’ve read so far.
True EHRC will likley get involved there as well... and to be fair Im comparing the cancerous antisemetic scum membership of labour to the BNP - being a member myself I hope starmer goes purgetastic and rids the party of them for good and fully engages and supports the EHRC's work
No, I'm saying that the report does not insinuate that Labour's problem with antisemitism is worse than society at large.
Most likely not, but what's antisemitic about that?
What were you expecting ?
These leaks have just shown us what we already knew, that Labour are facing the same long term crisis as every other Western ''Social Democratic'' party. Had Sanders won in 2016 or 2020 we would of seen something similar, the left leadership of the PSOE faced a coup attempt by the right wing of their party, SPD been in decline for years now losing it's youth vote to the greens and French left has broken off into a million different pieces(Which possibly isn't a bad thing).
This in fighting isn't going to go away while there's rise inequality, global warming, rising nationalist far right, etc. For all the noise that comes with this party fighting, the argument is essentially about coming up with an answer to the 08 crash and the crisis that followed it.
There won't be any coming together anything soon.
Does it say anything about antisemitism in general society? And how would you measure such a thing anyway?
The accusation that a large collection of “Trump-loving” Jewish British citizens’ complaints about antisemitism are driven not by a genuine concern with the problem but instead are being made at the behest of a nefarious foreign (and coincidentally Jewish) state is quite blatantly antisemitic.
No. But it would seem to me that such a baseline would be the only way of knowing whether there really is a greater problem in a specific party.
How would you measure it? Really? All I keep hearing is that antisemitism is on the rise in Europe. Someone is measuring it somewhere clearly.
This paragraph in the report would suggest that there may be a significant portion of complaints made which are not "driven by a genuine concern with the problem":
"half of all antisemitism complaints the Party receives come from one individual complainant. Although this individual’s complaints are mostly of a low quality, the complainant emails the party continuously and is sometimes abusive to both Labour supporters and staff, every complaint this person submits is fully investigated."
And if you think that Israel doesn't regularly take action to protect its interests then you surprise me 2cents.