Analysis

So which is it, Keir? Was suspending Corbyn Evans’s decision – or YOUR ‘difficult decision’ and ‘leadership’?

Keir Starmer can’t seem to make his mind up. On the BBC’s Marr show this morning, he insisted that the decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn last week was made by general secretary David Evans – and that the EHRC report forbids Labour’s political leadership from interfering.

But on the radio, while he repeated the Evans line initially, when he was offered a chance to boast about how the suspension would be a defining moment (he likes moments) in his tenure, he could’t resist, claiming that:

I’m not going to shy away from difficult decisions. That’s what leadership is, difficult decisions. We made a very difficult decision.

So which was it, Keir? Was it you? Was it Evans? Was it ‘we’?

Didn’t you really just do what the EHRC says is forbidden and influence a disciplinary decision? And didn’t the EHRC say that Corbyn has a legally-protected right to say what he said anyway?

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.

83 comments

    1. So whoever made the decision, and I’ve no doubt whatsoever it was Starmer to please his Israeli boss, where is the democracy in all this? The truth is that when it comes to suspensions it is non existent and it never has been.

  1. I noticed the same thing in different articles from the hacks at the Guardian. They couldn’t quite remember consistently whether it was Starmer making the decision, or the Gen Sec making it in monastical isolation.

    I think we should be told. Literally. WHO made the decision. Somewhat like, who made the decision to pay out £600K in a settlement that stopped everything coming out in court (you’d think a lwayer would like things that come out in court – then there’s no doubt who did what to whom!)

      1. I agree there should be a clear structure detailing who is allowed to authorise financial payments and the limits of what each individual or group is allowed to authorise. This information should be freely available to all members to view on-line. It makes one wonder why nobody has thought to do anything about this issue for the last 10 years. Surely in most organisations this would be just a part of their standard financial governance.

  2. Very good question indeed. He seems to be fluctuating between blaming someone else (Evans), then when he thinks it makes him look so much in control then he will take the perceived street cred. whilst then making it quite vain. I wonder if we is we as in Evans and him or we in the sense of the Royal we. What a plonker. As a lawyer it should have occurred to him that he/we/I have acted illegally.

  3. Or it could just be that Keir Starmer made the decision to refer Jeremy ‘s conduct to the GenSec and the GenSec made an independent decision to suspend Jeremy and open an investigation which would then have inevitably led to the removal of the whip.

    1. Unlikely. Why would it be Starmer who made the referral. And if he did, then HE would be interfering in the process – soemthing that is specifically recommended against …. and he did say he accepted all the recommendations did he not? Or are the recommendations NOT accepted in their entirety, sometimes, when not “convenient?”

      1. Doug – The Rule Book clearly states the GenSec’s responsibilities with regards to the party’s disciplinary procedures.

      2. SteveH
        We both know only sub committee of NEC has the power to suspend an individual

      3. SteveH
        Stop doubling down on your bullshit, the General Secretary does not have the power to suspend and withdraw the whip from an MP
        So unless you give us the clause in the rule book that says otherwise, who do you think folk on here are going to believe

    2. Sort of. From the BBC: The report was published at 10:00 GMT on Thursday. Around 30 minutes later, Mr Corbyn put out a statement.

      He said anti-Semitism was “absolutely abhorrent” and “one anti-Semite is one too many” in the party.

      But he then said: “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.”

      After another 30 minutes or so, Mr Corbyn’s successor as Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, made his own statement.

      He said those who believed the issue of anti-Semitism in the party had been “exaggerated” or were a “factional attack” were also “part of the problem and… should be nowhere near the Labour Party”.

      Sir Keir told the BBC on Friday that he had informed his predecessor of what he planned to say and was “deeply disappointed” that Mr Corbyn’s comments appeared to contradict his statement.

      So, Stalin had a fit of leadership pique, phoned his gofer and pet journalists and poured himself a large one.

      1. We shouldn’t forget that Keir also personally called Jeremy on the Wednesday evening to make sure he understood that it was Labour’s intention and policy to accept the EHRC’s report in full.
        Further to this the Deputy Leader of the party were also in touch with Jeremy and his team on the Thursday, before he released his statement, and it was made clear to Jeremy that what he intended to publish was unacceptable.

      2. He told him he would implement in their entirety the recommendations in the report
        Go to JVL website read EHRC critical report No 4
        Truth Defence are going legal to strike down EHRC report findings, for ignoring Labour internal report evidence,
        In other words EHRC dont have a leg to stand on, they also question who decided not to publish and pass the internal report to the EHRC, considering it was commissioned for them
        Oh what a tangled web, what a bunch of fuckers

    3. SteveH: Could be that “Keir Starmer made the decision to refer Jeremy ‘s conduct to the GenSec and the GenSec made an independent decision to suspend Jeremy.”

      2 things:

      i) Gen Secs never make an important decision that would obviously have significant consequences for the leader and his party, its standing and, ultimately, its electability, without clearing said decision with aforementioned (stalin-ian) leader who will have appointed said Gen Sec in recognition that he or she will be critical to the success (or otherwise) of the leader’s tenure; and

      ii) It would show an absolute absence of leadership skills (or profound (mis)trust) for a manager to empower a non-accountable ‘other’ to make a decision which could have profound and destructive consequences on the success and efficacy of said leader.

      I’m not sure why jelly-spined Starmer is NOT showing leadership and command of this situation, but his other decisions and actions as leader suggest it is because he is not really a particularly strategic, results-oriented thinker. “Forensic” is not Keir Rodney Starmer, our esteemed “Sir” of the Trilateral billionaires. He’s more of a blunderbuss.

      1. qwertboi – Perhaps you’d be better served if you had taken the trouble to first familiarised yourself with the specific responsibilities of the various Labour Party Officers before choosing to pontificate at such length.

    4. If StteveH REALLY believes that it “could just be that Keir Starmer made the decision to refer Jeremy ‘s conduct to the GenSec and the GenSec made an independent decision to suspend Jeremy”, then SteveH has difficulty recognising leadership when it is absent.

      A decision to suspend the predecessor leader would INEVITABLY have profound consequences on the current leader, his tenure, standing and electability, and for him to allow an appointee-bureaucrat who is in no-way accountable for the decision is both dangerous and stupid. Not a manager, a leader, a capable, strategically-thinking, results-oriented achiever. Not forensic. Not how a Leader of Labour should act.

      He should cross the floor and join the LibDems.

      1. Meanwhile, in a dimension far, far away, Hodges constantly waves his little rule book at the troops to defend his hero Capt. Mainwaring.

    5. Gosh SH it is isn’t it that u have learn’t your script? Your devotion, the devotion of your lot to stand by your man’s full stench stamarshithousery SteveH

      1. windchimes – Oh for goodness sake, is that really the best you could manage to come up with.

      2. SH it must be a smelly job shovelling up after your sir starmer. hope he is better at providing PPE than BloJob, Cumcums & Dodo Ltd

      3. windchimes – Thanks for your concern but I was sensible enough to buy my PPE back in January when there were plentiful supplies at a non inflated price. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong person with regards to who needs cleaning up after.

      4. David – I too find people’s weird obsession about toilet paper amusing. Fortunately we had no need to even consider getting caught up with the panic buying as we are fortunate enough to always have enough food in stock to get by for several weeks.

  4. I don’t believe for a second that David Evans needed influencing to withdraw the Labour whip from Corbyn. Like a good servant, without the need to be told, Evans knew what his master Sir Kier wanted and he delivered. I wonder if Rayner served Sir Keir a whisky to celebrate the accomplishment.

    1. It’s no coincidence that Starmer chose Evans to be the GS. Evans don’t like socialists or a member led party. Between the two of them they appear to be actively purging the left

  5. Surely all members (or anyone else for that matter) have a right to report other members to the GenSec. How you’ve managed to construe that with interfering in the process is baffling. However the above does re emphasise that Keir is right to call for a truly independent process to be set up that is fair,transparent and just for all.

    1. Steve H, and independent process you say. Where is the democratic accountability on a process that isn’t managed by the Labour Party?
      What we need is the implementation of the Chakrabarti’s report recommendations. Thus, ensuring transparency and due process.
      Or are you naive enough to believe that “independent investigators” wouldn’t be influenced by either their own agendas or the agenda or the leadership that after all is the one that will be paying for its services. The one who pays the pianist chooses the tune after all.

      1. I seem to remember that Keir committed to an independent disciplinary process during the leadership campaign so it’s nothing new. As for the democratic accountability I presume that would operate on a similar basis to the relationship that exists between parliament and the courts in that the NEC/Conference would set the operating procedures and the ‘laws’ and then leave ‘the court’ to get on with it.
        Most of us seem to be quite happy to accept this methodology for a system that can incarcerate us or confiscate our property so I’m struggling to see why Labour party members should have a problem with a similar set up. You only have to look at where we are now to realise that political accountability in its current form has not served the members well.
        I also understand that Labour will be consulting with the EHRC on our new disciplinary procedures.

      2. Steve H, you are truly naive or play at been naive. It is a huge difference from the judiciary, for starters that judiciary isn’t elected by the Government and cannot be fired by the Government. Plus they aren’t paid directly by the government but rather by the State,
        Those is charge if the “independent” process in the Labour Party would be hired by the Labour Party and could be equally fired by the Labour Party..
        We only have to see, the Forde “independent” Enquiry it was Starmer that instructed the NEC as to the parameters of the Enquiry and who to seat of the Enquiry. Martin Forde QC is in there to deliver what the Labour Lord and two Baronessess instructs him to deliver. Martin Forde QC is there to make sure that things don’t get out of hand and that the final report looks good.
        It is not different that when you hire a solicitor, the solicitor cannot deliver miracles but will receive instruction for his/her clients that after all are footing the bill and would try to get a result as close as possible to his/her client wishes.

      3. Maria – Those is charge if the “independent” process in the Labour Party would be hired by the Labour Party and could be equally fired by the Labour Party..
        There is no reason why the judging panels should be political appointees.

        We only have to see, the Forde “independent” Enquiry it was Starmer that instructed the NEC as to the parameters of the Enquiry and who to seat of the Enquiry. Martin Forde QC is in there to deliver what the Labour Lord and two Baronessess instructs him to deliver. Martin Forde QC is there to make sure that things don’t get out of hand and that the final report looks good.
        Yes of course KS would have made his recommendations as would others BUT it was the NEC as a whole that voted the panel in and decided on the remit. Did you not bother to read the reports at the time. It should be noted that Starmer explicitly made it clear at this meeting that normal Labour HR and internal party discipline should not be impeded by the enquiry. You are of course at liberty to claim that they just rubber stamped it all and question the integrity of the panel but to be honest without any evidence that just looks like a load of baseless sour grapes.

        It is not different that when you hire a solicitor, the solicitor cannot deliver miracles but will receive instruction for his/her clients that after all are footing the bill and would try to get a result as close as possible to his/her client wishes.
        It is a completely different situation and it is concerning that you can’t see that. Quasi judicial bodies operate quite successfully all over the world in a multitude of different spheres. For you to try and claim otherwise would be absolutely ridiculous.

    2. “Independent” like the EHRC? How about the accused having the right to be judged by their peers?
      The technology exists to poll every online member in circumstances like these.

    1. Albert – …… and yet right from the get-go Keir has proved to be considerably more popular with the electorate than his predecessor ever was throughout his tenure

      1. Really Steve H? When has Starmer faced the hostility of the MSM and the same level of hostility within the Labour Party that Corbyn has? Let’s see how Labour under Starmer fares in the Scotish’s elections next year and the local elections across England.
        Let’s see too how Sadiq Khan managed in London against a lesser Tory candidate that Zack Goldsmith, less see if Sadiq manages to increase the Labour vote, shall we?
        I don’t know how true it is, but I am hearing whispers that BLM is filing a candidate for the Mayor of London’s position. If this is true and he or she is any good, we could have a deja vu of 2000. Specially, if Corbyn was to endorse the candidate,

  6. Evans crept in under the radar of most members. He is as far right as you can get within the Labour Party and he must have made the key decision rubbing his hands as he did so as he pleased our knighted Leader.

    1. The GenSec was voted into office by the NEC and Conference will also need to ratify his appointment.

      1. Maybe that’s why they (Evans and Starmer) are doing their damndest to make good, decent, moderate democratic socialists leave the Party. And, by the way, the NEC simply ‘rubber stamp’ the leader’s Gen Sec appointment, knowing that Conference can annul (well end) it.

      2. I hope that Conference next year doesn’t ratify him. A good reason to stay put in the Labour Party for another year. Stay put in Labour to kick out David Evans.
        Thank you Steve H, for giving the left a very good reason to stay.

      3. Maria – I’m pleased to have been of help. I believe that as many as possible should involve themselves in the democratic process. If all the ‘poor’ got off their arses and voted for Labour they wouldn’t be suffering like they are today under the Tory regime. Political disengagement serves the Tories exceptionally well. I guess its effectiveness is why it forms a major plank of the Trump campaign.

      4. So an acting, unratified “Starmer’s first choice” (The Independent), “Staunch opponent of hard left politics/fierce critic of anti-Zionism” (The Jewish Chronicle) – gets to decide the fate of the leader Starmer undermined before replacing.
        Even the right-wing-stuffed NEC was split – the vote was 20 to 18 according to Wikipedia.
        That seems democratically, judicially and ethically sound to you SteveH?

      5. David – I seem to recall that Corbyn supporters were actually in the majority on the NEC until the beginning of April when the balance shifted slightly to one were the Starmer’s level of support is now dependant on specific issues.
        Labour’s approach to internal party appointments and the democratic legitimacy of the makeup of the NEC is none of my doing.
        From a personal perspective I am very disappointed that we were let down so badly on the promised democratisation of the party.

    2. NEC looked at it last week, they have demanded to know what rule was broken and why it wasn’t referred to relevant sub committee with responsibility for suspending
      They have threatened to strike it out or go legal if they don’t get satisfactory answers

      1. Doug – FFS stop wasting my tine and read the Rule Book, it is freely available on-line.

      2. So what comes out on top Steve? The law, or the rulebook, or even your interpretation of same?

        If the rulebook then you should be on here saying the EHRC findings that Labour broke the law be damned, the rulebook is prime.

        If the law, then you should be on here pointing out the same alleged breaches to the primacy of the law that political intervention to suspend Corbyn for merely stating fact, within his right and in a way highlighted by the EHRC, represents.

        Let’s say nothing for the calumny of misrepresentation of what Corbyn said in an attempt to retrofit an excuse for this action to a slovenly press?

        The act of fiat that precipitated the last three days has unravelled fast and now Starmer’s team has managed to back itself into a corner (witness the bluster) and has edged itself between the walls of legalese and anti left appease. Pick one and you end up in a courtroom drama that you avoided before with payouts, pick the other and you look like the weak blustering fool you seem to actually be and your strong arm the left tactics are not so much muscles but mere deflating balloons.

        Sheer incompetence. To save face he now needs Corbyn to so something that Corbyn will find difficult, back down and retract (when was this opportunity to react given as Corbyn seems to be surprised suspension was in the offing?). Why would Corbyn bother?

        Procedure and the law exists for a reason and you might get away with suspending it to pick off a convenient rival once or twice with a media class holding the door open while you do but you leave a body of evidence.

        Starmer is supposed to be the competent pair of hands thats what gets me and this is a mess on his watch of his making to please wither a jumped up faction over playing its hand or his ego.

        Many members will be watching to see if party democracy (what there is of it) will be suspended.

      3. David – At the moment it looks like the law and the EHRC are out in front. Labour has been served an enforcement notice by the EHRC that forces the Labour Party to coming up with a new disciplinary system that actually makes sense within 6 weeks.
        How different things could have been if this had been got a grip of 4 or 5 years ago.

  7. Quertboi, I think he also might face an election campaign akin to ‘one man and his dog’, because there might be noone left prepared to campaign for him…..

    1. Iam going to bed delighted by your comment Sabine. It would be a fitting end to the Labour Party’s 100 years of Top-Down managerial compromise if the afiliated unions, socialist societites and 500,000+ people formed a new “real”, bottom-up, green Labour party, wouldn’t it?

  8. that is correct lundiel. raynor also met with Jeremy b4 pritt-stick headed starmer’s performance. They hoped to discombobulate Jeremy. the liars repeatedly pretend not to have heard Jeremy condemning anti-Semitism and reaching out to the complainants. i got sick of hearing him say those two things. if i heard it enough to be sick of hearing it, then EVERYONE has heard it.

    the bastards deliberately try to aggravate Jeremy on that particular matter. From the clip of ITV or Sky interview they replayed on LBC several times, Jeremy’s words, meaning and sentiment were clear and 100% appropriate to all decent people.

  9. Starmer really isn’t up to the job and the cracks are showing so soon. Cameron and Boris knew that riding a bike is virtue signally and gets a public tick – what does Starmer do, priceless. A face like a smacked arse and lacking Blaires ‘winning’ smile/rictus grin, just don’t let him get near kids and babies.

    1. charming64, u can say that again!!! will frighten the babies. i can’t stand the sight of Bliar & Starmer’s faces either. True Cameron’s is funny like a chickens fundament, but the war criminal Blair’s is odd like an over done alien, false grin as if it has a proboscis sucking the life out of a baby behind its back.

      Starmer’s on the other hand, looks like a novelty Halloween themed prick sheath with a suction cup at the end of his feet.. looks stiff as if Peter Mandelson and Jack Straw have a game where they throw him at a dart board. Who ever hits the bull’s eye gets to play daddy… first, with SH’s Keith.

      They are selfish. So i suspect they will never give SteveH a turn until THEY Mandel Straw decide he has defended 666 undefendables 666 times. Thats why SteveH works so hard.

      1. windchimes – Oh dear, are you back in the playground reliving your childhood.

    1. Dave – Really, I wasn’t aware of that, This would present a rather strange state of affairs because currently the party’s Rule Book explicitly gives the GenSec specific powers and responsibilities with regard to the party’s disciplinary procedures. Could you please provide direct quotes from the EHRC report that verify your assertions.

  10. Not aware? Seemed very sure of yerself t’other day, plums

    https://skwawkbox.org/2020/10/31/breaking-7-major-uk-unions-issue-joint-call-for-corbyns-immediate-reinstatement-still-not-told-what-rule-he-supposedly-broke/#comment-162261

    So now we have stammer saying it weren’t me….but it was me.

    And you declaring stammer had no say…but you’re ‘unaware’ that the general sec you implied was responsible would be political interference.

    Truth is neither you nor blockhead have got a clue…on anything.

  11. Correct me if I am wrong … “Sir Keir, in his online call on Tuesday, said he had demanded that all the outstanding anti-Semitism cases be “on my desk at the end of the week.”

    So, Starmer wanted to interfere in every single complaint?

    1. As there were at least 235* cases of anti-semitism to review, and according to his earlier diktat they all had to be on his desk, one must assume that he personally “interfered” in those (there were others not related to AS). Now, how many did the report state the LOTO’s Office had “interfered” in during Corbyn’s time?

      It seems that Starmer has one rule for himself, and one rule for others if we take his various pronouncements on these issues at face value.

      We need an explanation from him. DID he “interfere” in any, or all of those 235+ cases, and did Corbyn (no evidence suggests as far as I am aware that Corbyn did). What involvement did he have, and did he intend to have with those cases he called on to his desk? Did Jeremy Corbyn call for cases to be on HIS desk. I have not seen any suggestion that that is so.

      What does the rule book say (Steve H?) about the Leader himself having direct personal oversight of disciplinary cases?

      I believe more than 80 of those cases ended in suspension from the party. As they were on his desk, did Starmer have any involvement in pushing those people out of the Party, and if so, under what rule could the Leader do so? If he didn’t make the decision, then WHY did he insist they were “on his desk?”

      *Number gleaned from FT on Google, but as I don’t subscribe to FT, can only see the Google extract, sorry.

  12. SteveH. Your blind obedience to Stalin and fake support for transparency belies the fact that Stalin sat on this report and the unreleased internal one all summer and Labour would have won the 2017 election if elements you back hadn’t done everything they could to ensure a conservative victory. You are a disgrace. We can’t be expected to believe a word you write.

    1. lundiel – Don’t be silly, Starmer had no control over the release date of the EHRC report and as for the Forde report it was announced this summer that the report would be delayed until the end of the year due to unexpected complexities and a call for further submissions. Although I appreciate your frustration (which I partially share) I also think it is important that the report is really thorough, accurate, well evidenced and balanced so if we have to wait a few extra weeks then so be it.
      As for your ridiculous accusations that I in any way support the individuals who sere accused of betraying the party, PROVE IT!

      1. Prove it?

        Hmmmm….let’s see, now.

        Just WHO is it (post-leadership election) brags about his suport for stammer, but during the campaign pleaded they’d only do so because ‘he was best of a bad bunch’ , and ever since then has lauded his every backsliding, shithouse, toerag-supporting manoeuvres?

        Just WHO is it tells everyone NOT to jump to conclusions about stammer’s (latest) shithousery – only to find that people’s suspicions have invariably been justified time & again?

        Yep, that’s right.

      2. No – it’s NOT opinion, knobhead.

        YOU openly support stammer…who BRAGS about his support for the toerags and SACKS MPs who vote against a one line whip on a policy that’s permit torture and murder. .

        Stammer vetrated the party when he shithouses the second referendum and handed the ‘rags an EIGHTY SEAT MAJORITY.

        Now YOU prove otherwise.

      3. **Betrayed not vetrated(??)..bloody phone keyboards tiny.

      4. Toffee, you probably already know but you can get bluetooth keyboards for phones for not much more than a fiver on ebay.

        Off topic question for everybody – has anyone else had sim cards, bank cards, SD cards etc. – anything with metal data contacts – fail more than usual lately? I had three cards fail within two days last week that I had to scrape oxidised contacts on to make them work again, and one of them is almost new.
        Three at once just seemed a bit weird and the contacts were worse than I’ve seen before so I wondered if it might be an effect of whatever that sanitiser is that you see them spraying everywhere around towns on TV.

  13. The EHRC ‘Secret Society’……….there are so many more questions about who they are & whose interests they serve? Where is a critical 4th Estate or is investigative journalism just an invention of ’40s Film Noir Films? A sad indictment when the only critical voice emanates from the Daily Mail’s Peter Obourne. When a highly opinionated quango are gathered to pass judgement on a political party in ‘Opposition’ in a democracy, independence (like justice) must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

    Its very composition of members should be a cause for concern, especially when immediately endorsed by the Jewish Chronicle & objections are made by Christian Concern. Many of the ‘senior’ members have shared histories; religious interests & lucrative gov’t contracts. ‘Oxbridge’ educated; EHRC Chief Exec. Rebecca Hilsenrath (Oxford Univ.) eventually had to ‘declare an interest’ & withdraw, but still remaining Chief Executive. David Isaac (Chair EHRC) Equity Partner @ Pinsent Masons & Suzanne Baxter (EHRC Board Member) also employed by Pinsent Masons. Panel member, Adam Wagner (Oxford Univ.) writes for the Guardian & visiting professor @ Goldsmiths. So many of these law firms are financed by a conveyor belt of gov’t contracts, giving credence to the accusation from Jeremy Corbyn that they are part of the gov’t machine.

    In 2006, Trevor Phillips was invited by Tony Blair to create the ‘Equalities & Human Rights Commission’. He recently stated that the difference between racism in The Tory Party & the Labour Party was that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party emanated from the top, therefore no comparison & no investigation was necessary, pre-empting EHRC Report.

    The Report is extremely vague about its terms of reference; why it was necessary & why the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was adopted. It makes constant reference to ‘Sexual Harassment Investigation Processes’ in the Labour Party in comparison to anti-Semitism (Whatever happened to Bex Bailey?) & no comparison whatsoever with other major political parties. It makes reference to Jewish Stakeholders but will not identify who they are nor explain any potential conflict of interests with selected, anonymous complainants. This must beg a very serious question about whose interests the EHRC serves. It correctly criticises the Labour Party procedures for not keeping accurate records & the process of ‘keeping anonymous’ the identity of complainants, as well as the specific nature of any complaint B4 it embarks on a similar process itself by self selecting ‘complaints’ & keeping the identity of the complainant & the specifics of the complaint anonymous. The secret society complete; when will glasnost & perestroika be applied to EHRC?

    1. Addendum…….
      Adam Wagner begs some very interesting questions about the independence of EHRC. Employed by Dowty Street Chambers, he is a panel member of the EHRC. Just over one year ago, B4 any EHRC investigation was announced, he wrote in the Guardian about the heroic Luciana Berger & the denial of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party by Chris Williamson & Diane Abbot. Judge; Jury & Executioner. Dare you question?

      Oxbridge boy, he shares more than his religion & gov’t contracts with other EHRC panelists. his is employed by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) & supported by JLM. Why should it be no surprise that EHRC initially announced the need for an investigation & the conclusions of the Report. If you dare question, you are guilty of anti-Semitism by definition…..classic Catch 22.

      A product of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, the ‘MacPherson Principle’ has become an ideology embraced by ‘Liberals’ to counter institutional racism, but with unquestioned consequences. Its major premise is that that all accusations of racism should registered & addressed as racist; making the complainant the agent of defining what is racist. Now applied by the EHRC enquiry, all complaints are racist by definition. Racism in the eye of the beholder & anti-Semitism is rampant in the Labour Party the CAA; the BoD & the JLM say it is. Dangerous precedence.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: