Pat Finucane was shot dead in 1989. Isn’t that long enough ago that his surviving family deserve a little closure?
Isn’t it funny how highly sensitive and controversial issues like the deaths of 96 people at Hillsborough or the murder of Pat Finucane get kicked into the long grass when there’s a hint of political involvement?
No, not funny… convenient.
Finucane was a Northern Ireland solicitor who had become noted for representing republicans during the Troubles (although in fact he also represented loyalists).
In February 1989, while his family were enjoying Sunday lunch, loyalists burst into their home in north Belfast with a sledgehammer and shot him 14 times in front of his wife and three children.
Inquiries led by Sir John Stevens, a former Metropolitan Police commissioner, concluded that “the murder of Patrick Finucane could have been prevented” and that “there was collusion”.
In another inquiry, Judge Desmond de Silva found that “a series of positive actions by employees of the state actively furthered and facilitated his murder and … in the aftermath of the murder, there was a relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”.
According to Rory Cormac in his book Disrupt and Deny,
Fingers pointed towards the FRU,
[Force Research Unit, a covert military intelligence body responsible for handling British agents inside paramilitary organisations. The book says, “although it also recruited republican informants, [it] is alleged to have been involved in a number of murders, often through providing intelligence files and weapons to loyalist terrorists]
which had used Brian Nelson, the intelligence chief of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), as an informant at the height of the Troubles. Nelson used this relationship to provide loyalist terrorists with intelligence to help them target their victims, including a dossier on Finucane, and served 10 years in prison for conspiracy to commit murder.
Cormac added,
Some commentators have alleged collusion at the highest levels of government, almost forming a state policy.
But he stated:
This is highly unlikely. There was no policy of collusion. De Silva found no evidence suggesting that ministers tasked intelligence agencies with assisting terrorist groups in any way. Briefed only at the strategic level, ministers had no involvement in tactical aspects or knowledge of the actions of specific agents. Neither is there any evidence that ministers knew about the plan to kill Finucane. Instead, they were kept unaware of intelligence leaks from security forces to loyalist para-militaries.
That said, he continued:
British propaganda enabled collusion. Prior to his murder, MI5 had spread information referring to Finucane amongst the loyalist community. De Silva found that MI5 material “effectively involved fanning the rumours and speculation linking him to the IRA.” The aim was to discredit and unnerve him rather than to incite violence, but it ensured that loyalists associated Finucane with the activity of his clients and could also have legitimised him as a target.
His conclusion?
Whitehall, unwittingly or otherwise, did preside over a system conducive to collusion.
Having read that, This Writer finds it very easy to believe that the system – if you can call it that – was wide open to abuse. It would have been very easy for someone with a grudge against Finucane to ensure that someone with a grudge against republicans eliminated him.
So I tend to sympathise with his family members. If it had happened to one of my relatives, I’d want to know for sure exactly who was responsible.
And Brandon Lewis’s decision not to hold a public inquiry “at this time” sets alarm bells ringing – especially when one remembers that the UK’s government committed itself to holding an inquiry 20 years ago.
Lewis says other review processes must run their course first. Do those processes refer to events that took place after this 1989 murder, or before? If before, shouldn’t the Finucane inquiry take precedence?
And it adds veracity to John Finucane’s words in the BBC article:
The British government, at every opportunity, will continue to make the wrong decision, and will put all of their efforts into ensuring that the truth as to what happened with the murder of my father – the full truth – will not see the light of day.
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.
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!
Angela Rayner (here with her boss Keir Starmer): hypocrites – and very possibly anti-Semites without acknowledging it.
Note to Sienna Rodgers at LabourList: the headline on your report is wrong. It should have read Angela Rayner is a big ol’ hypocrite.
In the article, Rayner states that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party are not open to debate:
There’s no debating what the EHRC said.
LabourList also reported another statement she made to the Jewish Labour Movement’s conference – insultingly held on the International Day of Solidarity with Palestinians – that she and Keir Starmer attended rather than support the Palestine solidarity event:
If I have to suspend thousands and thousands of members, we will do that.
The two comments are mutually exclusive. The report clearly states that
We have concluded that the practice of political interference was unlawful… The Labour Party should… implement clear rules and guidance that prohibit and sanction political interference in the complaints process.
Her threat to suspend thousands – a warning that the leadership is planning to purge the party of anybody who dissents against its dictatorship – is itself political interference in the process, as it is an attempt to suppress complaints by members against the actions of the leadership of which she is a member. Therefore she is not only debating the legitimacy of the EHRC’s finding; she is ignoring it altogether.
Remember that this is all about the attack on Jeremy Corbyn by Keir Starmer, party general secretary David Evans, and others at the very top of the Labour leadership including Rayner herself, despite the fact that she once said this:
She is a hypocrite. She has revealed her true colours. She cannot be trusted. She should be ejected from her position of power.
This will be hard because the Labour Party leadership has a well-known track record of rejecting any complaints against its own members and friends, no matter how well-justified they may be.
But we have all seen this behaviour and we are talking about it:
Big from @AngelaRayner as she seems to back suspending ‘thousands and thousands of members’ for wanting to demonstrate support for Jeremy Corbyn having the whip returned.
This whole thing just shows the duplicity and shiftiness of those at the top of the Labour Party.
David Evans explicitly stated the disciplinary process against Corbyn is now over. What we now have is leaders doing the precise opposite of what the EHRC asks for, interfering. https://t.co/mK5JOtVyxZ
Yes, it's 'totally unacceptable' to say precisely what the EHRC report says you can say, and which you have the freedom of speech to say, and which is obviously and provably true, in case it upsets some right-wing bigots.
If this is what @AngelaRayner has said it is dishonest. CLPs are debating whether the whip should be reinstated to Jeremy Corbyn: that is about democratic procedure not antisemitism
Genuine Q: have any CLPs passed motions against EHRC report or that antisemitism isn't a problem? https://t.co/HryXTRFAWm
Could Rayner clarify what, if any, powers she has to suspend "thousands of members" and how her doing that conforms with the EHRC recommendation of an investigation and disciplinary process free of leadership intervention? https://t.co/0ekPF64aj3
Because they ain't listening to us, that's for sure. 😒
— MerryMichaelW 🎗 😷 #T & T #BlackLivesMatter #BDS (@MerryMichaelW) November 29, 2020
With one side of her mouth she spits vitriol at Corbyn for his comments in which he said the EHRC report should be implemented, & with the other she outright defies the EHRC report criticism of political interference in disciplinary cases, saying she'll personally suspend 1,000s! https://t.co/KTOd6IQtIE
“It is not legitimate for the leadership to influence, make recommendations or make decisions on complaints.. The Labour Party needs to restore confidence in the independence of its complaints process”—EHRC
"If I have to suspend thousands & thousands of members…”—Angela Rayner https://t.co/vYzG1G8urK
A disgraceful way of approaching political debate here from Angela Rayner. She is talking about conducting a purge, let's be clear about that: there is no other way to describe this. https://t.co/ff2BJAxw5c
The Labour leadership are now deliberately shitting all over the recommendations of the EHRC report that they've used as an excuse to attack and vilify Jeremy Corbyn (despite the fact he said the EHRC recommendations should be implemented!).
— CrémantCommunarde#ActivistLawyer ⚖️ 🌻 ✋ (@0Calamity) November 29, 2020
There isn't thousands and thousands of antisemites in the party, @AngelaRayner . Corbyn was allowed to comment on the EHRC. He was allowed back to the party. If you fancy to play "I'm the dictator's best mate" go for it. But you showing who you really are and ppl won't forget it https://t.co/HxdFMpammj
And organisations that formerly wanted Rayner’s support and endorsement are now rejecting her. To be honest, I don’t know if the following tweet was connected with what she said on LabourList, but I anticipate that this is the soft footfall that precedes a stampede:
What a massive let-down and huge sell-out @AngelaRayner turned out to be. Please remove your support from the LGBTQ+ community Angela. The oppressed stand with the oppressed, we don't stand with apartheid committing states, and we don't stand with traitors who ignore that.
Oh, and by the way, Labour is not completely irredeemable. Members across the UK did come out in support of Palestine, unlike their treacherous leader and deputy leader. Here’s a tweet from Wales:
Well done to all across Wales who have taken the time to express solidarity with the Palestinian people, who continue to live in dire, oppressive circumstances under a brutal, right-wing Israeli government. 👇✊#palestineday#EndApartheid#StopAnnexationhttps://t.co/F85HpIQeXE
Let’s remember that Rayner – and her vile boss Starmer – are saying that they are taking all this action against the good members of their own party because of hurt, harm and injury done to Jewish people in the UK.
What about the harm done to Jewish people who agree with the viewpoint Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking?
Genuine question @AngelaRayner@Keir_Starmer will you meet urgently with representatives of the many Jews who support Corbyn and think you are getting this disastrously wrong? If not, why not?
By the way THESE Jews feel you are injuring THEM. Don’t these Jews count Keir, Angela? https://t.co/HeU48hgIbo
That’s right. These Jews feel that Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking them. And Rayner, Starmer et al treat them as though they don’t even exist.
Isn’t that attitude a little… you know… anti-Semitic?
Finally, Labour’s deplorable leaders need to acknowledge that this confrontation between them and party members arose because the EHRC found that the leadership had been interfering in investigations of anti-Semitism complaints in order to make it seem that there were more anti-Semites in the party than was the case.
A court found only last week that the process of investigating accusations against This Writer – me, Mike Sivier – was perverted in order to produce a false finding against me.
Labour failed to follow its own investigation procedure. It did not adequately inform me of the nature of the allegations against me (in fact, the party changed those claims as it went on, in order to ‘fix’ the result), and a party officer leaked false claims about me – including a lie that I was a Holocaust denier – to The Sunday Times (which subsequently had to publish a lengthy correction).
And I’m not the only one who has suffered this treatment. The EHRC report found that, of the investigations it examined, no fewer than 60 per cent suffered from bias calculated to discriminate against the respondent – against the person accused of anti-Semitism.
Where are the apologies for lying and smearing us? I still receive abusive messages accusing me of anti-Semitism, even now. It may be that I will continue receiving them for the rest of my life. The Labour Party is to blame for that. Where is the contrition? Where is the apology for that?
Priti Patel and Boris Johnson: you’re probably sick of this image but I’ve now associated it firmly with the ongoing Patel bullying story. She and Johnson appear to be very firm buddies and he has joined demonstrated that he is happy to trash the ministerial code to keep her in his government.
Alex Allan was right to resign after Boris Johnson metaphorically spat in his face – and in the faces of every civil servant who has ever been abused by an ignorant, self-important MP.
The report on bullying allegations by the now-former government adviser on ministerial standards stated clearly that Priti Patel was guilty of bullying civil servants while a minister in three government departments.
Under current Parliamentary rules, this means she has broken the ministerial code and must resign.
But Johnson has abused his position as prime minister – and therefore the ultimate judge of whether the code has been broken or not. In the face of the evidence, he has ruled that she did not break the code and may continue as Home Secretary.
But the PM rejected his findings, saying he did not think Ms Patel was a bully and had “full confidence” in her.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that Johnson rejected the report. It seems he had been trying to rally support for Patel, on the quiet, for some time:
It … emerged that he had urged Tory MPs, in a WhatsApp message, to “form a square around the Prittster”.
That approach seems to have worked in the case of Tory nodding dog Matt Hancock – who of course says anything he’s told to say:
Naga – Should a minister be sacked if they break the ministerial code?
Matt Hancock – Patel is courteous & kind
Naga – Would you be comfortable to sit next to a minister who has been proven to have broken the ministerial code?
Another block in the “wall around the Prittster was Dehenna Davison, who the people of Bishop Auckland – in a moment of madness – seem to have elected as their first Conservative MP.
Her tweet is nothing but whataboutery and she deserved the put-down she received:
No, she is a bully. I recall Boris Johnson deciding to block John Bercow entering the House of Lords on the grounds of bullying. Patel broke the Ministerial Code…AGAIN – she must either resign or be sacked.
Patel herself has seized on part of the Allan report that said “no feedback was given to the home secretary of the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed”.
She has apologised for upsetting people in any way, saying it was “completely unintentional”.
It makes a nice story.
But Sir Philip Rutnam, who resigned as Permanent Secretary to the Home Office earlier this year, said the report was inaccurate on this point and that
Patel was advised not to “swear and shout” at staff last year.
In a statement issued by the FDA union, Sir Philip said: “I have a high regard for Sir Alex Allan and regret his resignation, but I was at no stage asked to contribute evidence to the Cabinet Office investigation which gave rise to his advice to the Prime Minister.
“The advice states that no feedback was given to the Home Secretary and that she was therefore unaware of issues that she might otherwise have addressed. This is not correct.
“As early as August 2019, the month after her appointment, she was advised that she must not shout and swear at staff. I advised her on a number of further occasions between September 2019 and February 2020 about the need to treat staff with respect, and to make changes to protect health, safety and wellbeing.”
So the report did not contain all the information but still found that Patel was a bully – and that was not enough for Boris Johnson to have her removed.
The only conclusion is that Boris Johnson does not care if his MPs mistreat the staff of their government departments.
This means civil servants are not safe in their work and may be subjected to abuse by Conservative MPs at any time – and now know that they may not rely on fair treatment from the Conservative government if this happens.
If any such abuse happens in the future, there’s only one course of action for them to take: the same course as Alex Allan.
Perhaps a mass exodus of expertise will teach Johnson the error of being a bully-supporting bonehead.
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.
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!
Has the Labour Party followed its own rules for investigating the complaint against Jeremy Corbyn?
After any party member is accused, they have to be given warning of the claim against them, with questions to answer in order to give their side, and two weeks to answer them.
Then the party has to investigate the validity of the complaint – a matter that can take several months.
Then the issue goes before a panel from the National Executive Committee.
As far as we know, Jeremy Corbyn still doesn’t know the accusation against him. How could he? Keir Starmer hasn’t been able to get it right in any of the many interviews about it in the two weeks and five days since it happened.
Starmer keeps saying silly things, such as that Corbyn had said anti-Semitism had been exaggerated. He didn’t; he said the extent of A/S in the Labour Party had been exaggerated by certain people for political reasons.
Starmer’s insistence on exaggerating what Corbyn did would suggest that he is one such person. Wouldn’t it?
I’ve already touched on the next point: nowhere near enough time has passed for a proper investigation, according to Labour’s rules, to be carried out.
So it seems any discussion by any NEC members today (November 17) can only take the form of a “show trial”. If he loses his party membership as a result, the party will be accused of holding a kangaroo court.
Mention of kangaroo courts brings This Writer to my own mistreatment by Labour and the fact that my case against the party, for breaching its contract with me by failing to mount a proper investigation and by passing false information about me to the newspapers, will return to court in a week.
The hearing at 2pm on November 24 will take place by telephone – but space is being made available at Bristol Civil Justice Centre for interested members of the public to attend and hear the verdict.
This hearing may take an unexpected path as the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its own report on the way Labour has handled accusations of anti-Semitism since the trial.
I think some of that report should have been included as evidence. I am concerned that the Labour leadership postponed its publication until after the trial took place – possibly in the belief that the verdict would be announced on the same day.
It wasn’t. I hope to bring the judge’s attention to Chapter Six of the report, which gives details of serious failures of the Labour complaint investigation process, and to another part that is pertinent to my case.
I also submitted a request for information to the EHRC, about whether it considered my own case. The organisation has promised to respond before the hearing on November 24.
(This means it will have replied within two weeks of receiving the request. Contrast that with Labour’s response when I sent the party a Subject Access Request: it took the party two years and two months to deliver only a partial response.)
If the verdict goes in my favour, then doubt will be cast on the relevance of Labour’s decision today. And I expect the verdict to go in my favour.
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.
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!
One man and his crony: Boris Johnson (right) and Priti Patel – who seems to be dressed up like a dog’s dinner for reasons unknown.
Here’s another crony of Boris Johnson who seems to get preferential treatment despite an ever-lengthening series of blunders: Priti Patel.
She was faced with serious allegations of bullying civil service staff at three different government departments in March, including claims from a former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.
The Cabinet Office launched an inquiry and said that it would be for Johnson – as prime minister – to decide whether to publicise its conclusions.
Well, that inquiry ended some time ago and Johnson has shown no sign of telling us what it decided.
Should we draw our own conclusions?
One person who thinks it would be better if we were just told is Lord Evans of Weardale, the former head of MI5 and now adviser on standards in public life. He said:
When you have got these allegations that have not really been put to bed then it’s easy to say they’ve just been brushed over and I don’t think that’s ideal for public trust and public standards.
The Cabinet Office has done some form of investigation. It has not been published so it is very difficult to know whether there was something here or whether there wasn’t.
And still the uncertainty drags on.
Meanwhile, Patel has legislated to remove our ability to move freely from the UK to other countries. She has tried to have asylum-seeking migrants sent to concentration camps on St Helena or Ascension Island. She allegedly encouraged attacks on “activist lawyers” who stand up for such asylum-seekers’ legal rights. The list of her lunacies lengthens every day.
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.
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!
Chris Williamson: he was dismissed from the Labour Party after political interference – in extremely bad faith – by right-wing Labour MPs, some of whom are now among Keir Starmer’s chief lieutenants. Shouldn’t THEY now be suspended and investigated?
I called it at the time.
Last year, Chris Williamson’s Labour Party membership was suspended amid false allegations of anti-Semitism. There was an investigation, the charge was upheld (wrongly, in my view) and he was punished for it with a formal warning.
Then a roll-call of the usual suspects – bad-faith Labour MPs acting on an agenda (in my opinion), along with that fake charity the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and others – demanded his re-suspension after the details were leaked to the press. They had their way and he was dismissed from the party.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report, published yesterday – ruling that there was no “institutional antisemitism” in the Labour Party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership – has condemned political interference of exactly this kind.
Referring to the Williamson case, the EHRC report points out that Williamson “successfully challenged the decision to reopen the complaint in the High Court. The court found that: ‘it is not … difficult to infer that the true reason for the decision in this case was that members were influenced by the ferocity of the outcry following the June decision … the NEC should decide cases fairly and impartially in accordance with the rules and evidence; and not be influenced by how its decisions are seen by others. Internal and press reaction to a decision are not of themselves proper grounds for reopening a case that was not otherwise procedurally unfair or obviously wrong.”
The EHRC does not make any recommendations that could lead to those responsible for the reopening of the Williamson case to be penalised.
But it does call for the current leadership to implement clear rules and guidance that prohibit and sanction political interference in the complaints process, and to acknowledge the effect that political interference has had on the handling of antisemitism complaints.
It occurs to This Writer that such an acknowledgement should include punishment of those responsible in the Chris Williamson fiasco – for bringing the party into disrepute in the way they did.
They are [shadow ministers in bold]: Tom Watson, Holly Lynch, Stella Creasy, Anna Turley, Rosie Duffield, Louise Ellman, Ruth Smeeth, Jenny Chapman, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Stephen Doughty, Karin Smyth, Baroness Thornton, Lord McNicol, Baroness Morgan of Huyton, Lord Turnberg, Gloria de Piero, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Yvette Cooper, Baroness Massey of Darwen, Baroness Kingsmill, Lord Soley, Madeleine Moon, Kate Green, Ruth Cadbury, Owen Smith, Seema Malhotra, Liz Kendall, Chris Matheson, Margaret Hodge, Stephen Kinnock, Jeff Smith, Chris Bryant, Wes Streeting, Julie Elliott, Lord Levy, Lord Knight of Weymouth, Lord Harris of Haringey, Ali McGovern, James Frith, Lucy Powell, Bridget Phillipson, Pat McFadden, Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall, Lord Triesman, Lord Dubs, Ian Murray, Darren Jones, Alex Sobel, Karen Buck, Neil Coyle, Lord Mandelson, Anna McMorrin, Chi Onwurah, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, Lord Willie Bach, Susan Elan Jones, Ged Killen, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, Lord Livermore, Kevin Barron, Dan Jarvis, Jess Phillips, Martin Whitfield, Rachel Reeves, Peter Kyle, Baroness Armstrong of Hilltop, Lord Young of Norwood Green, Ellie Reeves, Baroness Maggie Jones, Rushanara Ali, Debbie Abrahams, Daniel Zeichner, Lilian Greenwood, Graham Jones, Toby Perkins, Lord George Robertson, Baroness Mary Goudie, Barry Sheerman, Tonia Antoniazzi, Ian Lucas, Lord George Foulkes, Lord Wood of Anfield, Cat McKinnell, Ben Bradshaw, Lord Haskell, Lisa Nandy, Gareth Thomas, Lord Brooke, Sharon Hodgson, and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Will Starmer take appropriate action?
Or will he merely provide further proof of his own unfitness to be Labour leader?
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.
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!
Out in the dark: Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party membership has been suspended – illegally and undemocratically. Labour members are quitting in their thousands.
It doesn’t matter which way you cut it, Keir Starmer has sabotaged the Labour Party.
Overreacting after Jeremy Corbyn responded to the EHRC report on allegations of “institutional anti-Semitism” in the party, he has acted undemocratically and illegally – and seriously jeopardised Labour’s electability.
The report itself was entirely reasonable. It didn’t find the “institutional anti-Semitism” that was claimed, said it could only show two occasions when “agents” for whom the party was responsible displayed anti-Semitism, 23 cases when the leader’s office showed “political interference” in anti-Semitism complaints – often prejudiced against the accused, rather than against Jews, and 42 cases when the complaints process discriminated against the accused, rather than against Jews (out of 70 in both sets of cases).
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader at the time, responded by saying the report’s recommendations should be implemented immediately. He would; he had been trying to improve the system since he first became aware that it was a shambles, back in 2016 – with some success from 2018 when he was able to replace an unsympathetic general secretary with one who supported his leadership.
He also said the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons by opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.
And Keir Starmer, the current party leader, flipped his lid.
In his own response he said anybody who claimed complaints of anti-Semitism against Labour were “exaggerated” has “no place in the party”. Shortly afterwards, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party membership was suspended.
Starmer backed away from this act, leaving his new general secretary, David Evans, to justify it.
He could not. He provided no evidence that Corbyn had broken any Labour Party rules and could not show that Corbyn had said anything that was not – in fact – accurate.
The EHRC report corroborates Corbyn’s claims – and also shows that his right to make them is enshrined in law – in his human right to free speech.
And the decision is hypocritical. The report condemned political intervention in complaint cases – even to speed them up – but the decision to suspend Corbyn’s membership is a clear intervention by the office of the Leader Of The Opposition (LOTO).
I noted that Starmer has today tried to justify Corbyn’s suspension, telling the BBC’s Today programme ,”I made it clear the Labour Party I lead will not tolerate anti-Semitism, neither will it tolerate the argument that denies or minimises anti-Semitism in the Labour Party on the basis that it’s exaggerated or a factional row.”
This is only going to make it worse because it is a lie. Corbyn didn’t deny or minimise anti-Semitism on that basis. His claim that is was exaggerated is true, as shown by the EHRC report. And he didn’t say it was a factional row – just that “opponents” used to to cause problems – and again this is accurate.
I am not the only person clever enough to see this.
But you are unlikely to hear much in complaint from Labour Party members – because the party leadership has gagged them. Communications from Labour HQ have made it clear that anybody taking to the social media – or any other media – to criticise Starmer’s behaviour will face punishment themselves.
Starmer’s people even set up a dedicated fast-track complaints system to ensure that his supporters could report offenders quickly – again in contradiction of the EHRC report’s findings, which demanded a single, simple process for everyone.
I thought he said he accepted the report in its entirety and would implement its recommendations fully? It seems this was a lie.
The result? Labour Party members up and down the country have been cancelling their Direct Debits and quitting – despite the efforts of many more level heads to encourage them to stay and exert influence within the organisation, for sanity.
My own view was that, as Corbyn has not been expelled yet, and has himself appealed for people to sit tight until the situation can be resolved “amicably”, people who still enjoy the privilege of party membership – rather than having been thrown out under false pretences like myself – should stay and fight his corner for him.
It seems likely that Starmer will expel him eventually. Any other choice now will make him look weak.
But this will split the Labour Party.
People are leaving because Starmer has shown he is unfit to lead the party, let alone the country.
His decision to suspend Corbyn was undemocratic and illegal. He overrode party rules and the rule of law to do it. And he is a lawyer, remember.
How can any responsible voter allow such a man a chance to run a government and disregard the law there as well?
I can see us entering a period when Labour will be hindered either by a plethora of left-wing candidates standing in elections against it – splitting the Left vote and allowing the Conservatives in to more constituencies, or by a new left-wing party standing against it.
The latter would be This Writer’s preferred choice as it may drag Labour back towards its proper place in politics – in the same way that the existence of UKIP pulled the Conservative Party towards fascism and illegality.
Whatever the future holds, it seems clear that Starmer has sabotaged Labour’s electoral chances for the next few years, no matter what.
Was this what he wanted?
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.
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!
Keir Starmer: his response to the EHRC report on Labour anti-Semitism is a betrayal of party members and former party members who were falsely accused.
Keir Starmer: what a piece of work!
Responding to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report that found Labour was not guilty of “institutional anti-Semitism” – and to Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction to it, Starmer said that anybody who claimed complaints of anti-Semitism against Labour were “exaggerated” has “no place in the party”.
But the fact that complaints were exaggerated is recorded in the EHRC report.
It shows that the party was unfair to the respondent – the person complained about – in 42 of the 70 cases that it investigated.
This indicates that the extent of anti-Semitism in Labour was inflated by people making false accusations – and that Labour Party officers helped perpetuate this myth.
This Writer was among those who bore the brunt of this discrimination. I was expelled from the party under false pretences and had to go to court to point this out. The verdict in my case against the party for breach of contract will be announced on November 24.
In the meantime, I await an announcement of action against those party officers who used the complaints process to attack innocent members.
I fear I may be waiting for a long time.
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.
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!
The Labour Party discriminated against people who had been accused of anti-Semitism in a majority of its investigations, the Equality and Human Rights Commission found.
The report states: “Overall, we identified concerns about fairness to the respondent in 42 of the 70 sample files.” That’s 60 per cent of the cases the EHRC investigated.
Part 6 of the report covers “Serious failings in the antisemitism complaints handling system” – and This Writer can confirm the validity of its findings because I suffered many (if not all) of them while Labour was investigating – if we can call it that – a complaint against me.
To me, these findings indicate not only that the accusations against me were false but that the process of investigation was perverted in order to generate a false finding against me.
The report states that “the Labour Party has failed to publish a clear and comprehensive complaints or disciplinary policy or procedure” – now, in 2020 – despite the fact that “this failing was identified by the Chakrabarti report in 2016”.
It continues: “The Labour Party’s Rule Book has a high-level section on disciplinary measures by the National Executive Committee (NEC), and a more detailed appendix of procedural guidelines in disciplinary cases before the National Constitutional Committee (NCC). However, it does not include any procedural guidelines or information on antisemitism complaint handling. For example, there is no information on the different procedural stages of an antisemitism complaint.”
This is what I found when building my court case against the party for breach of contract (I said it had broken its own rules in the investigation against me): to find the procedures that should have been followed at the time of my investigation (but weren’t) I had to go to a document published online by the Huffington Post, in a report on how they were to be changed.
The EHRC report goes on to discuss a “lack of clear and fair process for respondents”. It states: “In 2017, the NEC Organisational Committee identified principles for disciplinary processes. This included that anyone accused of a disciplinary breach should be made aware of the nature of that breach in a ‘timely fashion’, and that NEC guidance notes should be drafted to ‘advise any persons under investigation of their rights and responsibilities’.”
I can assure you that this did not happen to me. The letter of suspension I received from Sam Matthews did not mention any rights that I may have had in the matter, and the only reference to the nature of the breach was the fact that the Campaign Against Antisemitism had published an article accusing me of anti-Semitism. I was never told the nature of the actual charges against me during the course of the investigation that took place between May 2017 and January 2018. When I finally got to see them in July that year – in the run-up to my hearing before the National Constitutional Committee – none of the claims in the CAA article were mentioned at all.
The report then goes into specifics:
“Our analysis of the complaint sample showed that:
• Some letters of administrative suspension failed to identify the underlying
allegations, or did so in a vague manner.
I have already demonstrated that this was true in my case.
• The system for explaining allegations to respondents and giving them an
opportunity to respond was not always effective.
After I was advised that my party membership had been suspended in May 2017, I received no contact from the Labour Party until October that year, when I was invited to an interview with an investigating officer (IO) at Transport House in Cardiff. I was not given any advance information about the allegations he was going to discuss and in the interview itself he did not explain what the allegations were. I was expected to respond “off the cuff”, rather than being given an opportunity to prepare a detailed defence with reference to the appropriate material.
• Some complaint files did not hold the identity of the complainant.
• Respondents were not told the identity of the complainant even when there
was no obvious reason to withhold their identity.
I have never learned the identity of the person who complained about me – despite several requests. Labour’s attitude was that it was of no concern to me.
• Respondents were not generally given an expected timeline for the
investigation
After attending the interview in October 2017, I was left in limbo again until December, or January the following year, when I was told informally that my case would be heard by the NEC at its next meeting. I received no official communication from Labour about it.
The next section discusses “inconsistent application of administrative suspensions” and states:
In our complaint sample we saw that:
• Suspension or removing a suspension took place in response to external
pressures.
• There was political interference in suspension decisions (we explain this in
Chapter 5).
• The Labour Party almost never kept written reasons for a decision to
suspend or a decision to lift a suspension.
I cannot comment on this as I have no information on whether my suspension took place due to external pressures or as a result of political interference. I did submit a Subject Access Request to the Labour Party, to find out more about the process, but when I finally received a response two years and two months later, much of it was blacked out.
The next section is headed “poor record-keeping” and stated that “there were documents missing in 62 of our 70 sample files”. I have no idea if documents were missing from mine as Labour has withheld that information from me.
The next section is about a “lack of guidance to the NEC and NCC” but I’ll skip that because it leads directly to something I can discuss: “unclear decision-making by the NEC and NCC”.
“NEC and NCC panels make decisions on suspension and expulsion, among
other matters,” the report states. “Given the potential consequences for the person being accused, we would expect detailed notes of NEC and NCC meetings, and the reasons for their decisions, to be recorded. This is also essential to ensure confidence in the process and to allow monitoring of decisions.
“However, the Labour Party informed us that it does not keep detailed notes of NEC antisemitism panel meetings and the reasons for the panels’ decisions. This is particularly problematic now that the NEC has the power to expel members.”
I was never provided with reasons for the NEC’s initial decision to send me for indoctrination by the Jewish Labour Movement.
I was told about the discussion by a friendly NEC member – that my case was not on the agenda but was heard in “Any Other Business”, meaning no documentary information was provided to committee members; they were asked to listen to a verbal briefing and then come to a decision. My friendly NEC member did not, as I recall, provide any information on the reasons for their decision.
Note that I was not asked to attend and that, therefore, nothing in my defence was stated in the verbal report. I later saw a version of it (in the bundle of papers I received ahead of the NCC hearing) and it either misquoted me, twisted my words, or both. My understanding is that the only reason I wasn’t expelled on the spot was that several NEC members who were familiar with my work spoke up for me.
“We also note that an appeal to the NCC is on procedural grounds only, and question how someone can use this right properly without knowing the underlying reasoning from the NEC.”
This is curious. After I refused to go for JLM indoctrination, my case was automatically referred to the NCC. I was not informed that it was on procedural grounds; my understanding was that the panel would make its decision on the merits of the case against me and my defence against it. Indeed, I was told: “The NCC is only concerned with the procedures to be adopted after a charge is presented to it. It is entitled to act on the basis that the charge is properly brought before it and any complaints regarding the conduct of the investigation should be addresses to the General Secretary”.
The report continues [boldings mine]: “Our analysis of the complaint sample … shows that the NEC and [NCC] do not often give reasons for their decisions; where they are given, they are often not adequate to explain why an allegation is found proven. We found unclear evidence of decision-making by the NEC and NCC in 56 of our 70 sample files.”
This is clearly what happened in my case. I have seen no record of any reason given to find the case against me proven. I provided an excellent defence which was overlooked by the NEC and the NCC. Neither body provided even the slightest evidence in support of their decisions.
The next section refers to “inappropriate use of informal communications in the complaints process” and states that “The use of personal communications outside of the formal complaints process undermines confidence in the process, and affects its fairness and effectiveness.
“Because they do not form part of the complaint file process, including record-keeping, informal communications undermine scrutiny of the process.”
It goes on to discuss – and legitimise – theleaked Labour report which “referred to ‘thousands of messages exchanged on … an internal Party messaging service’ and 465,000 words in three WhatsApp groups”.
It notes that Labour did not provide these messages to the EHRC, claiming that ” it would be disproportionate and too onerous to provide this material to us”. I would have thought that would be a decision for the investigator, not the organisation being investigated.
In my own case, I am aware of only one instance of personal communication – and I found it in the files delivered to me after I made my Subject Access Request.
It refers to a complaint I made after Labour MPs Anna Turley and Wes Streeting referred to a Sunday Times report that I was an anti-Semite (using information leaked from the NEC meeting), and discusses the relevance of this matter to my NCC hearing which was still several months away at that time.
It states: “He will rightly say it is impossible to have a fair hearing if his case has been discussed publicly by senior party members, and we won’t be able to apply any sanction without it being subject” and the rest is blacked out. I subsequently received an email response saying that the matter was not a suitable subject for a complaint to the Labour Party and would be taken no further. This discouraged me from mentioning it at my NCC hearing or in the run-up to it. I now consider it to be clear evidence of an attempt to corruptly influence the outcome of that hearing.
The NCC hearing I attended was nothing more than a kangaroo court, as I have stated in previous articles. I was not allowed to conduct my case in the way I had expected, while the tribunal chair, at least, seemed to have made up her mind before the hearing began. When I received the decision notice it was that the charge against me was proved “on balance of probability” – which means nothing.
In summary: The EHRC report contains a wealth of information that the Labour Party did not only discriminate against Jewish people (and/or anybody else) complaining about anti-Semitism; it also discriminated strongly against the majority of people accused of the offence, and I am able to provide proof to support the EHRC claims.
Nobody in the mainstream media is mentioning this; neither is Labour leader Keir Starmer. They are concentrating on the claims that make Jeremy Corbyn look bad and he had nothing to do with any of the transgressions I mention above, apart from attendance at the NEC hearing.
As I mention above, I had to take a case to court in order to seek justice.
The verdict in that case is due on November 24.
What will Starmer say if it comes out in my favour?
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.
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!
Jeremy Corbyn is clearly not an enemy of the Jewish people.
An obstructive Labour Party bureaucracy under right-wingers who opposed Jeremy Corbyn worked to stop him improving the process for handling complaints of anti-Semitism, the former party leader has said in a statement.
Mr Corbyn’s words are corroborated by the new Equality and Human Rights Commission report, which states that “despite … clear recommendations, the Labour Party did not take action to implement these changes until 2018” – after Jenny Formby had replaced Iain McNicol as general secretary, and with a ruling National Executive Committee dominated by supporters of Mr Corbyn after then-recent elections.
Mr Corbyn said, in a statement on Facebook [boldings mine]:
“As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.
“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.
“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.
“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.
“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also 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.
“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”
The claim that the scale of the problem was exaggerated has been picked up by the media – I’m hearing it on the BBC as I type this – and it will be interesting to see the accusers squirm as they try to justify their behaviour.
The EHRC investigated 70 complaints of anti-Semitism and found the Labour Party responsible for unlawful harassment against Jewish people in only two.
That’s too many – but it was not enough to justify claims of “institutional” anti-Semitism, so the report has concluded that those claims were false.
I note that none of the people and organisations who made such claims have accepted that finding.
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.
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!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
