Analysis comment Exclusive

Exclusive: ‘Big improvement under Formby’: what the EHRC is likely to say – and what it won’t

No institutional racism, little legal responsibility – no wonder the right is already spinning desperately

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is set to issue its report on its investigation into allegations of institutional antisemitism in the Labour Party. Although the report has not yet been published, the Labour right and other opponents of the left Labour movement have already begun furiously, even desperately, spinning up the report and its ‘shame’ for the party.

This appears to be happening because the report is set to be a ‘damp squib’ for the right. Below, as far as the SKWAWKBOX has been able to glean, is what the EHRC’s report is likely to say – and what it won’t.

What it’s likely to say:

• that there were significant improvements in the party’s processes and performance under former general secretary Jennie Formby’s tenure

• that Keir Starmer has yet to act upon his own promises

• that, where Labour’s processes were unfair or unclear, as often or more often they were unfair towards those accused

• that the focus on antisemitism disadvantaged other ethnic groups

• where there is any suggestion of ‘political interference’, that it was to hurry things up – and if anything worked against people accused rather than going easy on them. In other words: no attempts to hinder disciplinary processes by the political leadership

• that only two of the supposed thousands of alleged instances of ‘Labour antisemitism’ were the party’s legal responsibility – and no instances involving members. i.e. the endless attacks on Labour’s then-leadership for not stopping comments by members were groundless

• that Labour should have put the Chakrabarti report into practice. That’s the Chakrabarti report that Labour’s critics first welcomed, then u-turned to describe as a meaningless whitewash

The report will criticise Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints, but these complaints will centre around communications, clarity and speed – but again, all the improvements the report will recognise took place under Jennie Formby

What it’s not

• that Labour is ‘institutionally antisemitic’ – the constant claim of Labour’s detractors

any personal censure of members of Jeremy Corbyn’s close team

• any indication of any ‘political’ attempts to block or lessen disciplinary action over legitimate complaints

Small wonder that those who want the party under Jeremy Corbyn painted as institutionally antisemitic are already ‘getting their retaliation in early’.

The SKWAWKBOX will publish an in-depth analysis of the report once the it is published.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

84 comments

  1. KEY points for all:

    • that, where Labour’s processes were unfair or unclear, as often or more often they were unfair towards those accused

    • that the focus on antisemitism disadvantaged other ethnic groups

    1. “Report” to be published at 10:00 hrs.📻📲🖥💻. Allan Howard, just press a button or two to tune in on any device above. Quite simple.

      1. Welcome. David Miliband already broadcasted on BBC London, Talkradio and LBC rubbishing Jeremy in advance of publication.

        Advice for Allan Howard, stations have a regular ish pattern which helps one monitor more than one station. TIP: Talkradio junction for adds is approx 2 mins b4 LBC’s. PPC’s 5Live sports run on long after the “news” ( propaganda). Much poison can be injected in two minutes.

        If eg David Miliband is the choice of oleaginous operator’s to “tour” the stations with the poison, he won’t do two interviews at once. As the poison packet tends to be word for word the same, one can double check what has been said.

        SHAMELESSLY the “poison package” in the news bulletins wether BBC, LBC, or Talkradio, are often always EXACTLY the same… word for word. Eg the same clip of Milli and same wording of other propaganda, will be deployed on ALL the MSM, public purse funded or not.

      2. Is he snaking his way back into the UK’s consciousness.
        EVENT: Join David Miliband on US Elections and future of UK post-Brexit
        As we approach the US elections next week and near a No Deal scenario, I organised a conversation this Thursday with the former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband to discuss the future of Britain, and what this means for the younger generation.

        https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-don-t-shut-down-parliament-stopthecoup/u/27965347

      3. SteveH, you may already know, your master Sir Keith will perform for his MSM masters at 11:00hrs.🧄🧄🧄

      4. Thanks, I;ll set my PVR so I don’t miss it and I can refer back to it.,
        I’ve read that Corbyn also intends to make a statement. Have you any news about what time we can expect him to make an appearance?

      5. I think Jeremy will hopefully defend himself and the members VIGOROUSLY and CLEARLY, after Sir Keith’s performance.

        Ian Austin, already out of the traps. Just ended 08:35 Talkradio č Hartley-Brewer who of course gave him free reign to slander Jeremy and the members.

        Alas i did not take notes as was desperate for my super strong black tea instead of usual double espressos in poss too quick succession… cut down from as many as 8 or 9 doubles per day.

        Anyway, must scribble notes while LORD Austin’s performance is fresh… Allan Howard will be DEMANDING proof with asinine questions 😂😂😂 He must learn to ask politely though. Manners maketh man… and woman and all other descriptions.

        QUESTIONS: for Allan Howard. Why do you do that which you say Jeremy and team shouldn’t? ie put your case regularly and vigorously? Should we attack each other rather than the MSM and the liars?

  2. The SKWAWKBOX will publish an in-depth analysis of the report once the it is published.

    I am looking forward to reading your analysis along with the actual EHRC report.

    1. Another KEY point to note:

      • that only two of the supposed thousands of alleged instances of ‘Labour antisemitism’ were the party’s legal responsibility – and no instances involving members.

      That fits with something I heard. One of the most prolific MSM go to “guests” to repeat claims of receiving AS abuse, said on an international medium in a DOUBLE HOUR segment to amplify the claims, that out of the THOUSANDS of complaints of AS abuse, 6 people were charged FOUR were from the RIGHT ( Not Labour) and TWO were from what the guest described as from the left but NOT Labour members. I cannot remember if any were actually found guilty.

      The guest host who declared that they were friends of the prolific complainer, failed to pursue that interesting admission by the complainer.

      Also interesting is that they said they were both having a coffee one day and during that short time, the prolific complainer received 2,000 approx AS abusive messages.

      QUESTION: Who reads through 2,000 messages in an hour while having a coffee with anyone, especially with a friend?

      Why not block abusive messages? Were they unique messages or spam?

      Also interesting was a confession by the super complainer. When asked if Jeremy had reached out to them. The complainer said YES but declined to meet when invited as they had a birthday party to attend and they were not going to miss the friend’s party to meet with Jeremy! Even I was surprised at that admission from that individual, in such a blasé manner. The interviewer seemed to catch their breath in surprise and embarrassment possibly, but just moved on. Not a word.

      A party was more important, DESPITE using every opportunity for months UNTIL the election to pour out claims of great distress at AS abuse. There were several days when I heard that individual touring the MSM studios as if on a mission UNTIL the election. But again, the guest host failed to question this contradiction of the claim that Jeremy did not reach out.

      Finally, just as I heard and remembered this remarkable interview. Surely Jeremy’s team must have heard it too. That must be in the job description of a media person. No? Alas, response? ZERO… let alone a robust one. This is an example of just one of the basics we ignore at our peril.

      1. Who was this ‘individual’ that you heard touring the MSM studios on several days? And which MSM studios are you referring to?

        Why didn’t you just name them in your post instead of referring to them as an ‘individual’ etc?

        And if Jeremy had reached out to this ‘super complainer’ and wanted to meet with them, why on Earth would Jeremy have not just arranged an alternative time/day to meet with them when they were actually free to do so! Of COURSE he would have done.

        Doesn’t make sense.

      2. I agree he would have done. Be patient AH. All will be revealed. Oh and a bit on your well remembered Hobson episode will give a titbit on that.
        ps i did not just name the person for a few reasons. 1 – When an individual is unsavoury, it is useful to describe characteristics to see if people recognise the person.

        Same with events I find memorable. It is interesting to find if others found it memorable too.

        Patience is a virtue🌹🌹🌹

      3. ps and we agree “OF COURSE he would have done”. The point is, despite the regular amplified impression given by the complainers that Jeremy was hostile to them and did not cate about them, the individual was admitting that he DID reach out but they thought a birthday party was more important to attend instead rather than deal with what they portrayed as needing URGENT attention from Jeremy.

        In fact the individual admitted that he had reached out more than once. They declined all the invitations but only divulged the reason for Jeremy’s most recent invitation.

        I hoped my point was clear but alas my communication skills may not be good enough for you🙂🙂🙂

      4. windchimes “ps i did not just name the person for a few reasons.”
        Oh dear 🥱. I lost any interest I may have had at that point, your attempt at melodrama fell flat on its face.

      5. Given that Margaret Hodge and Rachel Riley used to make daily complaints of AS but haven’t made one since the 4th April. Are we to believe that the “institutional AS within the Labour movement” has been eradicated (by Keith)? In fact the whole media campaign might never have existed. It’s extraordinary. Now you see it, now you don’t, fake news.

      6. Lundiel,

        My observation was that AS peaked in the MSM around elections, and there aren’t any for months.

        (That said, I am expecting few in the future as I believe it was largely a smear campaign to get Corbyn out, and one which – along with undermining Brexit – worked.)

      7. Given that this ‘individual’ was touring MSM studios (and you just happened to catch them on each occasion), can you give an example or two of what it was they were saying/claiming, and what the response should have been from Jeremy’s team? Thanks

      8. Just checked my notes. The individual also admitted that Formby had also reached out but they declined that invitation too.

        They also said “action was needed not meetings” even though the claim was Jeremy did not care about their concerns.

      9. AH, do not misquote as is your want. I did not say i “just happened to catch them on each occasion”. For decades until the few months after the election, i have listened to the radio as much as possible for currant affairs. After Blair’s Iraq, I reduced Radio 4 considerably and around Feb, i’v upped music and reduced current affairs. BUT, when those AS accusers were touring the studios, I made a point of listening across Talkradio, LBC, a bit of BBC London and Five Live. The contents are trailed so it is not difficult to program DAB radios to stations and tune in purposefully. At a touch of a button one can station hop and listen to m the people who have gone from station to station with the spun package WORD for WORD.

        Station swapping also allows me to confirm that Chris Williamson was the hardest working and amongst the most effective defender of Jeremy on the radio. I noticed that he was often a bit breathless going from studio to studio defending Jeremy. Sadly he was rarely ever on for more than 6 ish minutes at a time. But Chris was an absolute devoted defender of Jeremy on LBC and Talkradio. Of course George Galloway was tremendously excellent+++

        Radio is also on my phone when out and about. Saved stations selectable just by tapping the earphone. Those are just a few ways one can tune in deliberately and not “just happen to hear”. .. X,Y, or Z. Hope you find that helpful.

      10. So I take it you’re not going to tell us who this ‘individual’ is/was. Is that correct? Or give us any examples of what they said/claimed OR how you think Jeremy’s team should have responded to them.

        Oh, and I was forgetting that you don’t have a TV, so in fact you just HAPPENED to catch them doing the rounds on a number of radio stations. And just out of interest, when have I ever misquoted you, because I certainly didn’t misquote you – as you alleged – in relation to your claim about Robin Lees taking legal action against Dominic Cummings. But you are of course well aware of that!

    2. @lundiel28/10/2020 AT 10:39 PM

      Indeed.

      They didn’t even try to make it look remotely convincing by letting the slanders tail off….They just appeared to have stopped, dead. Terminee. Ende. Finito.

      Of course, riley still has the twitter campaign going, but it seems more of a personal thing now. Can’t say I’ve had my attention drawn to any accusations of labour a/s from the one-trick-pony who’s only trick appears to be that it can do sums…Well, so can the contestants, most of the time.

      I digress. Even now, the electorate as a whole aren’t really that arsed about antisemitism. It isn’t a priority to John Q Public. At least nobody I’ve spoken to as regards the matter. There’s more, day-to-day pressing matters that affect everybody, see? People have to be almost prompted into even thinking about it before it’s on their minds.

      Like them donkey sanctuary adverts…Two minutes after watching one, you’re enjoying a cuppa, having worked out that 9 x 27 gives you the 243 they’re after on countdown.

      1. Usually I feel only sympathy for women who used to be cute and go to ever greater and ever sadder lengths to maintain the illusion – for Riley however I feel only schadenfreude.

  3. If this is the case, and I certainly hope that it is, where does that leave us with the pay outs for the “complainants” in Panorama? Should there be a counter claim?

    1. A counter claim for what, Labour has already admitted liability for defaming these litigants.
      Hopefully Labour will have learnt a valuable and unfortunately a very expensive lesson from this episode.
      The lesson is a very simple one and it is a surprise that it wasn’t already standard practise.
      it is wise to get official Labour Party statements passed by the lawyers before publication, particularly when commenting on contentious subjects such as this.
      It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the lawyers could have come up with a form of words that would have conveyed the same message without exposing the party to any liability..

      1. The Labour Party might as well disband if its freedom to comment on public questions is left up to the courts to determine.
        The “litigants” in this case would never have gone to court if the ludicrous action had been defended.
        The “settlement” looks suspiciously like a pay off to those who by undermining the party, sabotaging its election campaIgns and promoting the policy that anti-imperialism and opposition to capitalism are anti-semitic, paved the way for the return of the Blairites.
        Nothing is more anti-semitic than to conflate the interests of the fascist gang running Israel and the capitalist system with Jewish people.

      2. bevin 28/10/2020 at 9:52 pm
        “The Labour Party might as well disband if its freedom to comment on public questions is left up to the courts to determine”

        That is not what I am saying or advocating.

      3. There is no lesson to be learned. It was an expedient political decision by the incoming leadership. All about virtue signalling to the media, establishment and a clique of people with dubious loyalties. As such it was a small price to pay (with other people’s money) for legitimacy in the eyes of the conservative party, media barons and Bibi.

      4. lundiel – You are of course entitled to your opinion, for that is all it is, I am also entitled to think it is misguided.
        Please see my response to Allan Howard below (at 10:50pm)

      5. There was nothing contentious about the statement(s) Steve. And just WHO do you thing you’re trying to kid by implying that Labour admitted liability. They were advised by their legal team that they stood a very good chance of winning the case, and YOU know it, just as you know that the reason Starmer and Co DIDN’T contest the case was because the last thing on this Earth they wanted is for Jeremy and his (former) team to be vindicated AND for what they said about the program and the so-called whistleblowers to be judged legitimate as such.

        Steve knows all this of course, and is just trying to create a different reality and dupe people who read skwawkbox. His attempt to do so is pathetic beyond words of course, but he obviously thinks the readership of skwawkbox are stupid and easily fooled! And THAT is because he is arrogant and thinks he is superior!

      6. Allan – There was nothing contentious about the statement(s) Steve. And just WHO do you thing you’re trying to kid by implying that Labour admitted liability. “
        On the contrary it is a matter of public record and people like the leader and GenSec have a legal status as officers of the party.

        “They were advised by their legal team that they stood a very good chance of winning the case, and YOU know it, just as you know that the reason Starmer and Co DIDN’T contest the case was because the last thing on this Earth they wanted is for Jeremy and his (former) team to be vindicated AND for what they said about the program and the so-called whistleblowers to be judged legitimate as such.”
        Yes but that advice was given months ago, there is every indication that in the light of recent events the party’s most recent advice had changed. Only a complete numpty would go to court on the basis of legal advice that was given months ago when so much had happened in the intervening period.

        “Steve knows all this of course, and is just trying to create a different reality and dupe people who read skwawkbox. His attempt to do so is pathetic beyond words of course, but he obviously thinks the readership of skwawkbox are stupid and easily fooled! And THAT is because he is arrogant and thinks he is superior!”
        There you go yet again making ridiculous unfounded assumptions about what others think in a feeble attempt to give your nonsense some credence. Unlike you I am quite happy to leave it up to others to reach their own conclusions, fortunately very few are as stupid as you.

      7. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the lawyers could have come up with a form of words that would have conveyed the same message without exposing the party to any liability

        That’s right little fella, blame the lawyers… Completely (and conveniently) omitting the fact that stammer once occupied one of the nation’s most senior law positions; not averse to reminding people how “well versed” he is in defamation/libel cases.

        Did you think we’d forgotten? Do you think we’re all as gullible and besotted with the Easter island-headed slimeball as you are?

        Why do you expect that party members should ‘know their place’ and take stammers cowardliness and collaboration with decorum and reprieve?

        Do you think we – the (former) labour voting electorate should forgive him for not only trashing socialism, but democracy, as well as handing the toerags unhindered power for the next decade or more?

        You casually insult the intelligence of far better people than yourself and whinge when they get irate. You’re a shithouse who deserves every misfortune bestowed upon yiu as reciprocation for the misfortune you bestowed upon us while more-or-less telling us to suck it up

      8. Toffee – “That’s right little fella, blame the lawyers… “
        Well thanks for your ‘valuable’ contribution. However it is rather unfortunate that it escaped your notice that I’m not blaming the lawyers, I’m blaming Jeremy Corbyn for not consulting the party’s lawyers before issuing an official Labour Party statement.

    2. Sandra, Yes! Most definitely. ASAP. ps perhaps this is why a certain person should have refrained from handling machinery… After early sight of the report, their sight may have been severely impaired, Barnard Castle too far fo a test drive, mind spinning… does one keep going right or right or right or right…

    3. Yes, but given that the LP was advised by its legal team that it had every chance of winning the libel case against the party, and yet decided to apologise to John Ware and the so-called whistleblowers and pay them damages, then needless to say Starmer and Co will not be initiating a counter claim.

      And I was just thinking to myself earlier about the ‘Epshtein’ episode, and wondering why it was that no-one – the CAA or JLM or LAA etc – reported Jeremy to the police for trying to make someone sound more Jewish than they actually were…… Or the ‘Mural’ episode, or the ‘English Irony’ episode or the ‘Hobson Book’ episode or several others. Hmm, I wonder why not!

      And then there was Ken Livingstone….. Anyway, I just came across this Daily Express article from March 2018 in which it repeats the following Big Lie:

      Among those not expelled are Ken Livingstone, former london mayor, who claimed Hitler was a Zionist. He was suspended two years ago, and never apologised for his comments.

      https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/938325/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-claims-john-mann

      Needless to say, the whole piece is full of – or based on – lies and falsehoods! And Ken could hardly apologise for something he didn’t say (and the fascists at the Express were just having a laugh of course).

      1. My above comment was meant to appear just under Sandra’s???

      2. Allan – “Yes, but given that the LP was advised by its legal team that it had every chance of winning the libel case against the party”

        Oh come on Allan, don’t be so ridiculously naïve. The advice you are you are referring to was given several months earlier and lots of things had happened in the meantime. It would have been irresponsible in the extreme for the Labour Party not to seek fresh legal advice that took these events into consideration before deciding whether to proceed with defending this case.

      3. Oh did they Steve? Like WHAT, for example?

        Needless to say Jeremy himself didn’t think so, and nor did Len McCluskey and Unite, along with many others.

        But just out of interest, when was the legal advise given to them that they stood a good chance of defending and winning the case? And you imply that the LP was given DIFFERENT advise at a later stage (because things had changed), and yet I’ve not come across a single person/LPspokesperson saying such a thing – ie that they had taken fresh legal advice – and do so so as to counter what Jeremy said. It would have been the most obvious thing in the world for them to do!

        No doubt yur making it up to fit yur agenda as per usual. Well, that IS what they pay you to do after all, isn’t it!

      4. Allan Oh did they Steve? Like WHAT, for example?
        Well yes they have, it may have escaped you notice but just for starters there was the leaking of ‘the dossier’, the Forde enquiry into it and the results of the ECHR report

        Needless to say Jeremy himself didn’t think so, and nor did Len McCluskey and Unite, along with many others.
        Have you any reason to think that as a backbench MP that Jeremy would be privy to the party’s latest legal advice?
        Likewise is there any reason to presume that Len was privy to the latest advice and he has his own problems to distract from with pissing away his members money on court cases,

        But just out of interest, when was the legal advise given to them that they stood a good chance of defending and winning the case? And you imply that the LP was given DIFFERENT advise at a later stage (because things had changed), and yet I’ve not come across a single person/LPspokesperson saying such a thing – ie that they had taken fresh legal advice – and do so so as to counter what Jeremy said. It would have been the most obvious thing in the world for them to do!
        Sometime at the beginning of the year, you’ve got Google if want to try and prove otherwise. Oh FFS don’t be a numpty all your life, are you saying you wouldn’t seek to refresh the advice given months ago. Only a complete moron would proceed to court without seeking fresh legal advice, I don’t imply anything, it would be illogical not to get up-to-date advice. Obvious to you maybe but why bother when the next question from all and sundry would be a demand to see this advice and as it was Jeremy that caused the liability in the first place they probably had little interest in Jeremy’s opinion plus you should take a closer look at what Labour actually agreed to in court.

        No doubt yur making it up to fit yur agenda as per usual. Well, that IS what they pay you to do after all, isn’t it!
        Unlike you I don’t claim to be a mind reader and I’m not making anything up, you are welcome to try and prove otherwise.

      5. Allan – I’m puzzled why you think that the court case against the Labour Party was about anti-Semitism. How long have you been privy to what passed between Ware and his lawyer. However maybe there is still hope for you because you are correct to acknowledge that lawyers are skilled with getting their clients message across whilst maintaining an ambiguity. Perhaps if Jeremy had taken legal advice before issuing his statement then Labour would have avoided the possibility of being sued.

      6. Given the revelations in the leaked report Steve, I would suggest that any later advice would have been that the LP would DEFINITELY win the case!

        Anyway, you claim that the initial advice was given some time at the beginning of the year, and then go on to say that I should google it. Well I don’t use google for starters, but given that it is you who are making the claim, then perhaps you’d be good enough to provide proof that what you say is true. And as I said, given that Jeremy and Len McCluskey said what they said about the legal advice, the most obvious thing in the world would have been for a Starmer spokesperson to have said, in response, that the party has since received fresh legal advice etc. But no-one ever DID!

      7. Allan – My apologies. perhaps I should have more patience with the afflicted, but if that drivel is the best you can come up with then you can piss off and play with yourself

      8. Steve, only nasty little fascist cnuts like yourself could respond in such a fashion.

        Anyway, I can only assume that you are lying through your nasty little fascist teeth again, and that you responded the way you did precisely because you are lying AND as a ruse to get out of answering.

        You rather over-did it Steve, and your ploy fell flat on it’s arse!

  4. Steve H, by Labour admitting liability you mean its General Secretary and the leadership. As far as I know the NEC didn’t agree to any such compensation. Hence, depending on what is in the report perhaps the actual General Secretary of the Party should start thinking about his future.
    Specially, if either Paul Holmes or Roger McKenzie are elected General Secretaries of Unison later in the year and provided that the numbers at the NEC favour the left, plus the possible revelations from the Forde’s Enquiry.

    1. Maria – As you point out, until we see both these reports we are all in the dark. I would presume that Labour acted on the basis of the legal advise they commissioned from QCs who would have been privy to the contents of both these reports.
      I agree that there should be transparent published procedures in place that clearly states who is allowed to authorise what. As you also say you don’t actually know whether the NEC or some sub committee, or an individual authorised this, payment, neither do I, and that it is part of the problem of all the ridiculous secrecy surrounding the NEC’s work. Who does this secrecy serve, I would contend it is not the membership.
      Why shouldn’t we know how our NEC representatives vote. Why isn’t it well publicised who sits on which committee and what their duties are. These people are supposed to be the representatives of the members and affiliates.

      1. Steve H, we know that several members of the NEC released a statement complaining against the payment to former staffers stating that the NEC wasn’t consulted at all before the payments were made. That several of them were representing Trade Unions should give us the first clue, as Trade Unions are the ones representing workers before Employment Tribunals.
        What we also know that the Legal opinion the Party received was that the Labour Party had a case that could be defended in Court against the former staffers.
        What we know too, is that during the leadership contest, Starmer already was making statements that the Party wouldn’t take action against former staffers. Hence, it could be argue that he emboldened former staffers to seek compensation.
        At the time, the Party settle out of Court with the former staffers no preliminary report from the EHRC had been released neither a preliminary from the Forde’s Enquiry. We will have to wait and see what is on both those reports. I would expect that if the reports are any where near what the Skwawbox is suggesting that the General Secretary resign its position as it would become untenable. As clearly, he pay compensation from our levies to people that wouldn’t have a chance to win their cases against the Party in an Employment Court.
        What we know too, is that Starmer as Director of Public Prosecutions wasn’t keen on taking action against the police officer involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson despite video evidence. Or an independent enquiry into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. However, very quickly to threaten with prosecution women victims of Domestic Violence if they withdrew their statements against a violent partner.
        Hence, either David Evans or Starmer would have to resign and since Starmer was democratically elected by the membership, I believe it would fall on Evans.

      2. Maria – We can agree on this “We will have to wait and see what is on both those reports”

      3. Maria – “we know that several members of the NEC released a statement complaining against the payment to former staffers stating that the NEC wasn’t consulted at all before the payments were made.”

        Do we ? I’ve seen McCluskey wittering on but no reference to NEC members complaining about the settlement. Do you have a credible link

      4. If NEC members wrote to you on here telling you as much you’d try to trash them.

        As usual you’re stalking for time in the folorn hope we’ll all forget about this. No doubt you’re getting the excuses and further obfuscation ready as this is being typed.

        Well guess what little steven? Everyone’s memory is better than yours. Page will be bookmarked for future reference so when the time comes everybody can be reminded of your shit tired old M.O. and watch it fail for the cunteenth time.

        Piss poor joke that you can only attempt at being.

        I also notice jackanory doesn’t make much of a fuss about your zealous defence of stammer’s shameful, inexcusable capitulation to them Zionists… Wonder why?

      5. Toffee – “If NEC members wrote to you on here telling you as much you’d try to trash them.”
        But surely the whole point is that they haven’t, you numpty
        If you have any credible evidence that supports your ‘assertions’ then please, please post the links.

      6. But surely the whole point is they haven’t ANYWHERE – BUT – if they HAD or they in future, DO… You colossal moron.

        Where’s your evidence stammer’s actually opposed the toerags OR prosecuted them – even when armed with the publicly given opinion of the met police that shapps may have constituted fraud?

        You’re too fucking imbecilic to realise that with every outpouring of your unconditional support for easter island head, combined with your overdramatized denials and spin in the face of irrefutable evidence of stammer’s establishment bias, PLUS your ‘Micawberist’ attitude that’s NEVER ONCE seen you vindicated, makes you and your risible pleas that you’re of the left, look pretty fucking implausible AND idiotic.

      7. Toffee – “But surely the whole point is they haven’t ANYWHERE – BUT – if they HAD or they in future, DO… You colossal moron. “

        ……. and you have the f’ing cheek to call me a moron.
        You really should make an effort to stop projecting your own obvious shortcomings onto others

      8. SteveH29/10/2020 AT 9:01 AM

        Oooooh, Lordy! The little fella’s rattled!! Well, now! And YOU attempt to lecture ME on MY ‘shortcomings’ Ahaahahaaaaa 🤣🤣🤣🤦‍♂️

        Here’s a wee tip for ya – Attacking me doesn’t address the issues I raised about your shithousery, does it, moron? So instead, try doing the former instead of the latter every time, and you might – just MIGHT – garner a modicum of respect from your betters (everyone else).

    1. I thought the same i was beginning to think every area of British society had become corrupt if the EHRC tell the truth it will seriously restore some hope and faith in this country again perhaps there is still truth and justice left in this country.

  5. What makes the Skwawkbox so confident that the EHRC are going to supply a report based on the evidence?

    The really depressing thing about the last four years is the number of people I used to respect that turned out to be Liars or Fools.

  6. Correction, skwawkbox
    This is perhaps what should be revealed
    However ehrc isn’t exactly a fair unbiased entity

    1. helsbells2022, in general “the many” have a big problem in being reluctant to put up an inteligent / thoughtful fight. The few are very inclined to stitch and clean and u-turn and test eyesight on hilly bendy roads etc etc. That’s the Right for you. They certainly have a can do attitude.

      I’m expecting that though u right, ehrc is neither fair nor unbiased,… i would add, quite abominably led, the evidence was overwhelmingly against the prolific and theatrically presented claims.

      Thousands of allegations came from a few etc. Quite odd. No? I suspect a certain individual read the report BEFORE Sunday 10:45hrs and since then has been quite preoccupied… Can’t focus. After all, how does one spin this long awaited report to support the vast cesspit of lies? That may challenge even the WMD creatives.

      In any case, how does one beg for advice from oleaginous spinners possibly sunning themselves in Barbados or on some oligarch’s yacht in the Med? How does one turn safely when a gunk laden head is in a spin… or spin when the gunk head is in a turn? How does gunk know right from more right, when hard facts just don’t match amateur melodramatic theatrics?

  7. You mean the EHRC has exposed the liars really i shall have to wait till tomorrow to believe it ! Truth at last if that is the case which means the beginning of the end of some peoples careers and it will be impossible for Starmer to whitewash the leaked report.

  8. windchimes – I guess we’ll see that when we have had the opportunity to criticality read the report and reach an informed conclusion.

    1. ‘Informed conclusion he wails

      Yeah, because none of the other ‘assumptions’ made by everyone critical of stammer and the centrists & zionists have ever been right, have they?

      Like the election humiliation as a direct result of the shithousery of you centrist reptiles? (We were laughed at when we forecast the result…Remind us all, who’s got the EIGHTY SEAT MAJORITY, AND WHY?)

      Like every one of the 10 promises he made BROKEN in LESS than 6 months of usurping the leadership? (Most were surprised it WAS months and not WEEKS)

      Like how he’d drop the EU like a hot potato and instead take up the antisemitism hyperbole? (Nowt in the EU anymore, and stammer’s top dog now – but the left HAVE to be eradicated, don’t they?)

      …To name but three

      So why do continue to refuse to offer us all an example of when you predicted something about starmer or the zionists that turned out to be right, little fella?

      Just one?

      1. Nowt in the EU anymore

        Should read: ‘Nowt in BREXIT, and there NEVER was – except the certainty of fatally undermine Corbyn and prevent socialist policies determining Britain’s future by KNOWINGLY alienating the already pissed-off electorate.

    1. The tactics used by the right wing destroyers won,the report doesn’t matter in the big picture and the corrupted opposition limps on having sacrificed comrades and morality…IT leaves a bitter taste whatever and really doesnt do anything for justice.or truth.The Labour party shot itself in the head.

      1. No it didn’t Joseph, the Establishment’s propaganda machine and the CAA and the JLM and LAA and the Jewish newspapers and the Blairites and the Tory leadership and the LibDem leadership and John Ware and Co smeared and demonised Jeremy and the left membership and, as such, shot down any chances of Jeremy ever becoming PM.

  9. Jeremy Corbyn is one of the few Politicians whose word can be trusted, Starmer and his cabal of no users are a Disgrace and Affront to the Working Class I wish Jeremy would resign from the shambles of Starmer’s New Labour Party, Then He could gather round him Politicians who share the same beliefs and Socialist Ideals, He is a Leader of People a Man of Honesty Integrity a Man of Principles I am positive Jeremy would garner enough support to sweep into Power, We cannot afford fairness in forming a New Political Party The Socialist Labour Party for the Many, No Centrists no Globalists and No Right Wing New Labour Scum shall be allowed entry into the People’s Party Jeremy for a New Dawn Jeremy for the Many and Jeremy Corbyn can be Prime Minister in a Landslide because everyone in the new Party will be with him 100% No Traitors will be Tolerated. Long Live Jeremy Corbyn Long Live The Socialist Labour Party for the Many.

  10. It’s now just over three months since Ware and the whistleblower saboteurs were paid damages by Starmer and Co AND since Jeremy objected, and since most of the MSM reported that Ware was going to sue him, as reported in the following Indy article, for example:

    Mr Corbyn reacted angrily, denouncing the decision to settle in court as political, rather than legal, and insisting: “Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence.”

    The settlement “risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations” about the actions taken to tackle antisemitism under his leadership, his statement claimed.

    It prompted Mr Ware to begin legal action. Mark Lewis, from Patron Law, who represented both him and the whistleblowers said: “I can confirm that I have been instructed to pursue cases.”

    Ware didn’t say any such thing, and what he ACTUALLY said was that he was thinking about it – ie thinking about suing Jeremy – but most of the MSM lied about it and said he WAS going to sue Jeremy. But I don’t suppose there are too many people out there who were led to believe that he WAS, who have since thought to themselve as the months rolled by: “Hmm, funny how we’ve not heard anything more about the legal case that John Ware is persuing against Jeremy Corbyn”.

    Needless to say, John Ware never had any intention of taking Jeremy to court, because he knew he would undoubtedly lose, and his Panorama hatchet job be exposed for what it was – AND the BBC condemned for defending the program – and the so-called whistleblowers exposed for the saboteurs and the liars that they are!

    And needless to say, THAT is why Mark Lewis phrases it the way he does, and DOESN’T say “I’ve been instructed to pursue a case against Jeremy Corbyn”, and is deliberately vague about it, as such.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-party-keir-starmer-damages-whistleblower-a9633086.html

  11. If the EHRC had the courage that comes of conviction and the impartiality their statutory duty demands they’d not only find FOR Labour, they’d find – loudly – AGAINST its accusers in their report.
    It would be in two parts – the first exonerating Labour, Corbyn, the rest of the leadership and the wider party – and the second finding the right’s crimes against democracy to be motivated by institutional anti-Socialism and a total disregard for the needs of the people.

    1. And condemn them for falsely causing concern and consternation amonst a significant section of the Jewish community.

      And for falsely accusing many life-long anti-racists of anti-semitism and demonising them (as the Nazis did to the Jews).

      And for duping and misleading millions of people AND subverting democracy as such, which was the whole point of the excercise.

  12. SteveH: “A counter claim for what, Labour has already admitted liability for defaming these litigants.”
    That may or may not be the case, but even if so, I don’t believe that closes off the possibility of further action by Labour to clear its name, and possibly to obtain redress – even if it now has to be on new, different evidence.
    I assume you have in mind that voluntary payments made with knowledge of relevant facts are generally held to be irrecoverable – however, whether all salient facts were indeed known to the party when the payments were authorised might be open to question.
    Nothing I know of prevents a new action being raised anyway, especially if recipients of payments are later discovered to have acted illegally, lied or acted in bad faith – given that their employer at the time was Labour.
    Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception might apply to quite a few people.
    A further question but a completely different action with different respondents might hinge on whether the person or persons who authorised the payments was or were authorised to do so in the circumstances pertaining.

    1. David – I would contend that the chances of what describe ever happening are about as close to zero as it is possible to get. I get the distinct feeling that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

  13. the right’s crimes against democracy to be motivated by institutional anti-Socialism and a total disregard for the needs of the people.

    Yep.

    Remember the toerags, the lib dims the labour centrists and the MSM all telling us the country deserved better? How Corbyn was ‘unpatriotic’ , and how it was ‘patriotic’ for the country to have a: ‘credible opposition’

    And look what we’re lumbered with as an ‘opposition’ today.

    I’m still to hear the stammerite cultist weirdos provide me with one single instance of something stammer’s opposed with or without any conviction.

    AFAIC the collusion to oust Corbyn and replace him with that slimy ponce and his total lack of opposition has sold the nation down the river, and IMO they’re all guilty of high treason.

  14. Maria – First off I’m puzzled why you didn’t link to the original article https://skwawkbox.org/2020/08/16/nec-members-demand-evans-explain-on-whose-authority-he-banned-members-from-discussion-and-votes-on-starmers-surrender-pay-out-and-ehrc-report/

    If you take the time to read the article critically you will see that the only mention of the NEC not being consulted about the settlement is a SB editorial comment. There are plenty of direct quotes from NEC members that CLPs had been banned by the GenSec from discussing or passing Motions on the settlement but non about them not being consulted about the actual settlement.
    Things are not as they first appear

  15. BREAKING NEWS

    JEREMY CORBYN HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FROM THE LABOUR PARTY AND HAS HAD THE WHIP SUSPENDED

  16. EHRC Report condemns Labour Party Complaints ref Anti-Semitism & compares them with LP investigations ref. Sexual Harassment. (See Bex Bailey Outcome?)……Perhaps a more fair & logical comparison would be with the AS complaints processes of other political parties?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: