Attacks on Chakrabarti’s integrity show some people will stop at nothing to drag a good person down
The infographic – I got it from Twitter – makes a very good point, don’t you think?
Remember when ‘stylists’ for George Osborne and Samantha Cameron (of all people – she isn’t even an MP) were named to receive honours? The media mentioned it briefly and then went back to bashing Jeremy Corbyn or whatever.
But the same reporters and commentators just won’t let Shami Chakrabarti go.
It’s as though they’ve got some kind of hidden agenda – perhaps something to do with her finding that there isn’t any deep-seated vein of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party?
Are these people suggesting that – I don’t know – Jeremy Corbyn paid her off to hide rampant anti-Semitism in Labour, that he has been promoting?
Why would she?
Consider her record. Here is somebody whose integrity is indisputable – certainly when considered next to that of some of the people challenging her.
Yet suddenly, because there’s a chance to smear Jeremy Corbyn, her integrity is called into question – not once, but continually, over a period of more than a month, by now.
Let’s all take a good look at the people levelling these accusations at Ms Chakrabarti and Mr Corbyn.
The running theme behind attacks on the Labour leader is that “the accusers are the abusers”. So, looking at the accusers in this instance, let us ask ourselves:
What are they trying to hide?
Shami Chakrabarti has denied that any discussion about her becoming a Labour peer took place before she carried out the inquiry into anti-Semitism in the party.
When her elevation to the House of Lords was announced in David Cameron’s resignation honours last month, it was met with criticism that the move undermined the independence of her inquiry, which reported in June.
“Jeremy Corbyn is not a corrupt man and I am not a corrupt woman,” the human rights campaigner the Andrew Marr Show. “I stand by the report. There was nothing remotely transactional about it.”
She said the move towards her becoming a peer only came about following Cameron’s resignation in the wake of June’s Brexit vote.
Chakrabarti, who joined the Labour Party after being asked to carry out her inquiry, defended the independence of the process: “I did my report into racism and anti-Semitism with no inducements, no offers, no threats, no interference.”
Source: Chakrabarti: No discussion of peerage before anti-Semitism report | LabourList
ADVERT
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I think she was silly to have accepted an honour in the first place, however well deserved, especially as she is so young and nowhere near retirement. Such a thing was obviously going to end up querying her independence. Silly girl. She should have steered clear of such a thing until much older or when leaving public life.
What does age have to do with it? The Upper House isn’t only for people who are about to kick the bucket, you know.
I dont like chakrabarti. But I do not like the attacks on her. Like corbyn they are politically induced at this time.
A peerage gives so one the power to influence politics, in the Corbyn/Shakrobarti wing of politics a one for a retired hairdresser doesn’t, and Shaklrobarti was carrying out a report into acorbyns wing of the Labour Party to see if his kind of supporters were racist, she found they weren’t and is offered a peerage,so there’s more to I than that
No. She carried out an investigation into whether there was reason to be concerned about institutionalised racism in the Labour Party.
After she reported back that there wasn’t, Corbyn suggested her for a peerage in Cameron’s retirement honours list.
It is all entirely above-board.
Do you have any evidence at all that she carried out a poor job or that the peerage was in payment for a whitewash? I haven’t seen any.