Look at the state of this:
Way to make a hash of it, BBC!
How can Chris Williamson have lost his appeal if the High Court ruled his suspension was unlawful? It doesn’t make sense, does it?
The fact of the matter is this:
Chris Williamson won his appeal against being re-suspended on a charge for which he had already been through the Labour Party’s disciplinary procedure.
This means Labour may not apply disciplinary measures against him over the speech in which he said the party had been “too apologetic” when accusations had been levelled against it.
However: the court said Mr Williamson must go through the party’s disciplinary procedure with regard to a second suspension, on different charges.
At a hearing last month, his barrister Aileen McColgan told the judge, Mr Justice Pepperall, that these further allegations “for the most part concern the claimant’s measured and reasonable exercise of freedom of expression … or are premised on the idea of ‘guilt by association'”.
She added: “It appears from the timing … that the purpose of the decision to raise these allegations now, and to impose a second suspension on the claimant, is to seek to ensure that he will remain suspended even if this claim is successful and that he will therefore remain disqualified from selection in the forthcoming general election.”
It appears she was right, as this is exactly what has happened.
That is a fact that should shame those in the Labour Party who raised the second set of charges. Personally, I consider them to be nothing more than dirty victimisation.
Now the focus will be on Labour’s disciplinary procedure. Has the party cleaned up its act or with the NEC tell the judging panel to find against him no matter what, as happened to This Writer?
Whatever happens, Labour can only hope to cover itself with more shame. Remember: the judgement is that the party was wrong to re-suspend him on the original charge and the court heard that the second suspension was only – spitefully – to ensure that he could not be a candidate in a snap general election.
Source: MP Chris Williamson loses anti-Semitism suspension appeal – BBC News
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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:
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 https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
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:
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:
What are the BBC playing at? It’s either very sloppy journalism or it’s biased reporting. Which is it beeb?
It was a matter of procedure wasn’t it? https://labourlist.org/2019/10/why-chris-williamson-remains-suspended-from-the-labour-party/ So he’s wasted a huge amount of other people’s money on a procedural point.
Or are the court wrong?
He’s proven nothing and your own misreporting proves your bias
No, the court was right.
Labour was wrong to impose a second suspension – remember, he had already been re-suspended – in order to ensure that he remained suspended after the court found for him.
That is victimisation.
I am biased – in favour of justice.
What does your bias favour, I wonder?