Accusation is guilt in the Guardian/Observer version of Labour’s fight against anti-Semitism

Jennie Formby: Her reforms of the complaints process regarding anti-Semitism seem to be making matters worse.

You’d have to be weak-minded in the extreme to disapprove of Labour’s refusal to suspend members accused of anti-Semitism in this Observer story.

Weak mind enough, that is, to believe that an accusation makes a person guilty; no evidence needed.

That is what Michael Savage and Toby Helm wanted you to believe, of course, when they wrote: “Members of Labour’s high command opposed recommendations to suspend several party activists accused of antisemitism, according to internal emails seen by the Observer.”

The implication is clear; that these Labour leaders were wrong to make decisions based on the evidence – that they should have responded in knee-jerk manner and suspended (or indeed expelled) anybody who has been accused.

These people are really revelling in the witch-hunt, aren’t they?

“The correspondence, dating from March to May last year, covers a period immediately after leader Jeremy Corbyn vowed to be a ‘militant opponent of antisemitism’ and to have ‘zero tolerance for antisemites’,” they wrote, implying that this must be a lie as long as his officers consider the evidence.

Worse still is the knot in which Labour tied itself with its response.

A “party source” is quoted as saying the advice on which these decisions were made was part of the old system that current general secretary Jennie Formby has overhauled – implying that the new system doesn’t pay attention to the evidence?

Sadly, that is what my own first-hand experience of the new system suggests; when I attended my own disciplinary hearing all the evidence I had assembled was ignored in favour of a claim that someone (unnamed) had complained that my articles had “upset” them.

No evidence was provided to prove that such a person even exists – therefore they don’t. If a hearing is said to be quasi-judicial, it should respect the law, and the law does not accept anonymous evidence; a defendant must always know the identity of their accuser.

So the claim on which I was expelled from Labour has no weight at all. If this is indicative of Labour’s new way of handling anti-Semitism accusations, then they must all be similarly suspect.

And that isn’t the worst of it!

The “party source” is quoted as saying the suggestion that party advisors said some people accused of anti-Semitism should not be suspended because the evidence doesn’t support it was “deeply unfair”.

The “source” added that staff were “working in good faith to apply the party rule book to individual cases.”

“Apply the party rule book”?

I was expelled for breaking the new rule on anti-Semitism – Rule 2.1.8 – but there’s just one problem:

When I wrote the articles that formed the basis of Labour’s case against me, that rule was not in force; the articles appeared in late 2016 and early 2017 but it did not appear in the rule book until 2018.

And Labour’s rules cannot be applied retrospectively.

Yes, there can be no doubt. Whichever way you look at it, Labour’s process of dealing with allegations of anti-Semitism is nonsense – in practice, if not in theory.

The only thing that could be worse would be making Tom Watson a part of the process.

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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

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!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


5 thoughts on “Accusation is guilt in the Guardian/Observer version of Labour’s fight against anti-Semitism

  1. Jon Lisle-Summers

    It’s a general rule of Common Law that legislation cannot be applied retrospectively. Even in today’s twisted version of the law, the rule still applies.

  2. Roger Charlesworth

    1. Where does Israel figure in Labour’s manifesto?
    2. What does Israel have to do with a UK Labour MP?
    3. Should not the concern of a Labour MP, indeed ANY MP, be the views and principles of the electorate that voted for them and put them there?
    4. Consequently is it not then a conflict of interest for a Labour MP, indeed ANY MP, to designate a foreign power as their essential concern?
    5. In view of the human rights violations of Israel is it not then totally anti-Labour to be an LFOI?
    6. Should not then anyone with membership of LFOI be suspended from the Labour Party or required to withdraw membership?

    1. Zippi

      My thoughts exactly! Why are members of our Party concerning themselves with matters concerning another country, seemingly, over and above those pertaining to their own electorate and constituents?

Comments are closed.