Popular Post bickster Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted October 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, darrenm said: The whole media narrative is about Corbyn. You mean the bloke that was asked not to say anything yesterday as it was meant to be a day for the victims of Labour antisemitism to have their voice and their space. Asked not just by the Leader of his Party but by MANY of his calleagues and allies on the left. Didn't stop him taking the headlines away from the victims though did it? Corbyn is the reason all the headlines are about Corbyn, no-one else. He wanted to be the headlines because that took the narrative away from the report and the victims 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 8 minutes ago, bickster said: You mean the bloke that was asked not to say anything yesterday as it was meant to be a day for the victims of Labour antisemitism to have their voice and their space. Asked not just by the Leader of his Party but by MANY of his calleagues and allies on the left. Didn't stop him taking the headlines away from the victims though did it? Corbyn is the reason all the headlines are about Corbyn, no-one else. He wanted to be the headlines because that took the narrative away from the report and the victims Fair point. It would have been a bit bizarre for him not to release a statement though when the report was about the Labour Party and antisemitism during his tenure. And that still doesn't answer the question of why no journalists besides Oborne have said "hold on, this guy who was in the Panorama documentary attacking Corbyn, who was given a 3 figure settlement by Starmer, wasn't a lot of this stuff his job?" I'd recommend reading the article, it's well researched and presented. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, darrenm said: who was given a 3 figure settlement by Starmer Ah great, repeating of the Uncle Len line. McLusky started this nonsense. It was nonsense the moment he said it and hasn't stopped being nonsense at any time since and its based on the idea that Labours Legal advice said they would win the case in court. No solicitor would ever say that but not only that, Len McLusky is hardly what you'd call a legal expert, Starmer on the other hand, QC, former DPP might just have an inkling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 32 minutes ago, bickster said: Corbyn is the reason all the headlines are about Corbyn, no-one else. He wanted to be the headlines because that took the narrative away from the report and the victims. I bet he thinks he is the victim here, all he had to do was stfu for 1 day. Such a useless bloke on almost every level and the quicker he disappears from the public eye the better. He is like a midas touch person in reverse. Kinda works as he has the "I'm Sad"' thing in his interviews nailed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2020 (edited) Saw an article just now where apparantly it is being weighed up if simply agreeing with the statement that AS in Labour has been overstated is AS in itself. It's absolute madness and smacks of closing down any discussion of what actually happened the last 4 years. Corbyn was suspended for saying in his response to the EHRC report that while he accepted its recommendations, the problem of antisemitism in Labour had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons” by opponents and the media. One issue yet to be determined is whether simply agreeing with, or repeating this, statement would amount to an offence, or if it would need to be a stronger message, for example, arguing that the claims of antisemitism in Labour more generally were a political plot. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/30/labour-to-investigate-complaints-of-antisemitic-messages-after-ehrc-report Edited October 30, 2020 by Jareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 33 minutes ago, bickster said: Ah great, repeating of the Uncle Len line. McLusky started this nonsense. It was nonsense the moment he said it and hasn't stopped being nonsense at any time since and its based on the idea that Labours Legal advice said they would win the case in court. No solicitor would ever say that but not only that, Len McLusky is hardly what you'd call a legal expert, Starmer on the other hand, QC, former DPP might just have an inkling I've seen it quoted quite a few places and no-ones disputed it as far as I'm aware. Are you saying it's not true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, darrenm said: I've seen it quoted quite a few places and no-ones disputed it as far as I'm aware. Are you saying it's not true? Just to repeat. No solicitor would ever say that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, bickster said: Just to repeat. No solicitor would ever say that I agree - it should have been allowed to proceed - in fact what this whole sorry episode needs is some legal scrutiny in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jareth said: I agree - it should have been allowed to proceed - in fact what this whole sorry episode needs is some legal scrutiny in a court of law. You realise the EHCR is the body that enforces equilty laws in this country? That is legal scrutiny Think about this, if any other employer had been taken to court by its employees and the employees had won and recieved a full apology and compensation, the Unions would be absolutely shouting it as a victory as much as they could. Here, something else is happening. One union in particular is saying that the party of the working people should contest the action being taken by its former employees for defamation. Some kind of wierd role reversal is going on there, the union supporting the employer. Its beyond messed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, bickster said: You realise the EHCR is the body that enforces equilty laws in this country? That is legal scrutiny With absolutely no power to compel anyone to cooperate. The findings were incomplete - why was there no submission from Labour of what happened 2016-2018? Because Labour's lawyers under Starmer decided not to submit the 'Labour Leaks' report. And if we for once look at the EHCR ruling rather than the headline reaction - who of all the hundreds of thousands of members were found to be guilty of AS harrassment? Two suspended or former 'agents' of Labour. Was Labour found to be institutionally racist as was the claim upon the EHCR being involved? No. Was Labour from 2018 found to be vastly improving the complaints process? Yes. So was AS in Labour overstated? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jareth said: So was AS in Labour overstated? definitely no, like I said, here is rife with them In fact I'm having an argument right now with someone I was at Uni with about whether "The Mural" was antisemtic, even Corbyn said it was... eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2020 1 minute ago, bickster said: definitely no, like I said, here is rife with them In fact I'm having an argument right now with someone I was at Uni with about whether "The Mural" was antisemtic, even Corbyn said it was... eventually. The mural I agree with you - it is AS. Corbyn's excuse was as I think you put it before typical of a guy with a blind spot. But in my view it's a case of two things being true - Corbyn having a blind spot and then the huge overblowing by folks of AS for political gain. I can understand why that Jewish guy on Newsnight was so incensed - AS was hijacked and used as a political factional weapon - but only because it was there in some capacity and all that was needed was to amplify it in order to bring down the last Labour leadership. What's most frustrating is the current attempt to write off what actually happened at Labour HQ the last 24 months, those who stirred it up and worked against a Labour win need to be exposed and thrown out of the party - throw Corbyn out too if he ever actually says or does something illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 35 minutes ago, bickster said: Think about this, if any other employer had been taken to court by its employees and the employees had won and recieved a full apology and compensation, the Unions would be absolutely shouting it as a victory as much as they could. Here, something else is happening. One union in particular is saying that the party of the working people should contest the action being taken by its former employees for defamation. Some kind of wierd role reversal is going on there, the union supporting the employer. Its beyond messed up This is a bizarre interpretation of the role of unions, which is absolutely not to be happy and clap about literally any dispute between an employee and an employer. Quite apart from anything else, unions are also large employers themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2020 The rate of anti-Semitism as a percentage of membership in the Labour party was figured as 0.002%. If that's 'rife', humanity is ****. Painfully obviously a tool to sweep away a problem for the powers that be it's absurd. And we've completely lost the plot that that sentence is anti-Semitic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Chindie said: The rate of anti-Semitism as a percentage of membership in the Labour party was figured as 0.002% Do the maths, thats 11 members. We have considerably more than that in 2 CLPs in Liverpool. That percentage is another nonsensical figure that gets thrown about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2020 Just now, Chindie said: The rate of anti-Semitism as a percentage of membership in the Labour party was figured as 0.002%. If that's 'rife', humanity is ****. Painfully obviously a tool to sweep away a problem for the powers that be it's absurd. And we've completely lost the plot that that sentence is anti-Semitic. TBF to @bickster he said 'here' was rife with them, and I believe that. But overall, it's a tiny percentage of the membership as you say, and the EHCR was only able to identify x2 'agents' of Labour of being guilty of harrassment. That they ruled Labour was neither institutionally racist, nor complacent at improving its complaints systems, and that, was entirely ignored by all media outlets - well it all smacks of a lot of folks attempting to shut down any scrutiny of how we got here. Labour has a huge problem in that there are some very guilty saboteurs now attempting to move on and say 'nothing to see here' - it's only going to achieve the opposite reaction from what is a considerable number of people who supported the Corbyn project - including a number of Jewish people. It's not clean cut and it will drag on for years. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Jareth said: Saw an article just now where apparantly it is being weighed up if simply agreeing with the statement that AS in Labour has been overstated is AS in itself. It's absolute madness and smacks of closing down any discussion of what actually happened the last 4 years. Corbyn was suspended for saying in his response to the EHRC report that while he accepted its recommendations, the problem of antisemitism in Labour had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons” by opponents and the media. One issue yet to be determined is whether simply agreeing with, or repeating this, statement would amount to an offence, or if it would need to be a stronger message, for example, arguing that the claims of antisemitism in Labour more generally were a political plot. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/30/labour-to-investigate-complaints-of-antisemitic-messages-after-ehrc-report I think you find it wasn't just that line but this line also... Quote While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.” that got him suspended and from your very link Quote The report does not lay blame directly with Corbyn but the EHRC’s lead investigator, Alasdair Henderson, said the failure of leadership must ultimately stop with him. “As the leader of the party at the time, and given the extent of the failings we found in the political interference within the leader of the opposition’s office, Jeremy Corbyn is ultimately accountable and responsible for what happened at that time,” Henderson said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Jareth said: Saw an article just now where apparantly it is being weighed up if simply agreeing with the statement that AS in Labour has been overstated is AS in itself. It's absolute madness and smacks of closing down any discussion of what actually happened the last 4 years. Corbyn was suspended for saying in his response to the EHRC report that while he accepted its recommendations, the problem of antisemitism in Labour had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons” by opponents and the media. One issue yet to be determined is whether simply agreeing with, or repeating this, statement would amount to an offence, or if it would need to be a stronger message, for example, arguing that the claims of antisemitism in Labour more generally were a political plot. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/30/labour-to-investigate-complaints-of-antisemitic-messages-after-ehrc-report Just on the highlighted bit - it was (to me) a bit more than that - he said that there was a problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, but it was no wider than the problem in society as a whole and that the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated. Which is bonkers logic. The people hurt, were hurt by the antisemitism, not by the media (or anyone else) malignly or otherwise saying the problem was bigger than he personally believed to to be. It's total deflection and failure to accept the truth (again) or any even small level of responsibility because of a sense of moral superiority - it actually demonstrates the failing and the reason for all the problems. "I'm Jeremy, I'm good, therefore I cannot be found guilty of anything". Further, the leader's office directly interfered in to an investigation into his own comments about that mural, basically bringing an end to the complaint, without investigating it. That is not anyone else's fault but Corbyn and the people he appointed and/or was directly responsible for. Not malcontents, not the tories, not the media. Him. And another thing - this alleged contradiction between people calling for the leader (him) to get involved and sort the mess out (at the time) and "but the leader is not meant to interfere - there's no conflict at all. If a leader introduced more independence, more rigour, more thoroughness, more attention focus, more staffing etc. to a failing process or department that is not in contradiction with not interfering in individual complaints. That's what should happen from leaders with failing systems or complaints departments. Sort out the department is not the same as "start making guilty decisions yourself". As others have said above, he should have kept stum yesterday, should have been having a long hard think about what the report actually concluded and his role in those damning conclusions. And then, if really necessary he could have later spoken about what he accepted, where he and his appointees had not done enough/made errors, and where he felt blame or responsibility lay elsewhere, or the report didn't completely correctly tally with what he knew. He made it all about him, handing the tories a period out of the spotlight that will last longer than it should do. **** messiah complex that one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 30, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2020 1 hour ago, bickster said: the union supporting the employer Well, the thing is, Uncle Len said on TV ages ago, that there was no AS in Labour and it was all made up to attack Catweazle. He ought to be one of the ones holding his head in shame/worrying about what action would be taken against him - so could there be an ulterior motive, there, perhaps? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 30, 2020 @bickster @blandy - the guy winds you up, I don't deny there are personality traits he possesses which rub people up the wrong way. But all I want to see is a fair trial of the guy - there is an EHRC conclusion laying no blame at Corbyn's feet - yet the lead investigator contradicts his own reports findings by laying blame on Corbyn. Which is it? Corbyn says everything right in his lengthy statement other than he doesn't accept some of the findings and says AS in Labour has been overstated - is that entirely wrong given Labour chose not to submit any evidence outlining how we got to the point when the LOTO office was taking over a complaints process from party saboteurs? And the fact that AS was quite simply used as a weapon against Labour under him? Whatever anyone's fondness of Corbyn is, he is neither lying or misstating what happened. In a united party then yes of course he should take one for the team - only trouble is the team took him down - why on earth should he stay silent when folks are trying to censor recent history? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts