Announcement Breaking

Livingstone, Bromley take legal action against EHRC over ‘harassment’ claim and right to free speech

Judicial review will focus on EHRC’s conclusions relating to statutory test for harassment under Equality Act 2010 and freedom of expression under Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Rossendale borough councillor Pam Bromley, who were both named in last year’s EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) report into alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, have today announced that they are challenging the Report’s findings against them via judicial review.

In its long-delayed and controversial report last October the EHRC found that Livingstone and Bromley had ‘contributed’ to alleged ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish race and religion’ by the Labour Party.

Livingstone and Bromley firmly have rejected the EHRC’s findings and the legal analysis underpinning them, which they believe is flawed. The pair have assembled a top legal team to address the findings against them and are crowdfunding £40,000 to cover initial costs.

The pair’s case will focus on the sections of the EHRC report relating to them – including concerns about their right to freedom of expression – which could lead to sections of the current report being substantially revised. It will address the EHRC’s legal analysis relating to the statutory test for harassment under the Equality Act 2010 and freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The legal challenge is being supported by the Left Legal Fighting Fund, a central fund to assist activists, protesters and whistleblowers. The Fighting Fund was established at the end of 2019 by former Labour MP Chris Williamson from the costs he won after his High Court victory against the party.

Speaking about his decision to launch the judicial review, Livingstone said:

The EHRC’s investigation into the Labour Party was a politically-motivated attack aimed at derailing Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The Commission cobbled together a half-baked case against me, justified by a flawed legal analysis.

This judicial review will be a vital step in correcting the record and in fighting back against a McCarthyite smear campaign which has been waged against the British Left over the past five years.

Bromley added:

The EHRC Report and its dubious legal analysis will have knock-on effects for freedom of expression. The right of pro-Palestine campaigners to criticise the State of Israel and its apartheid policies is being actively suppressed.

This judicial review will not only help to clear mine and Ken’s names, it will ensure that the EHRC Report can’t be used as a tool to bludgeon activists who dare to speak up for Palestinians.

The crowdfunder will be live at:

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.


    1. Wishing Ken a RESOUNDING victory against vile liars!!!

    1. Leonard – Scottish Lab Leader resigned with immediate effect.

      1. CLARIFICATION “at last” to SB post above, not to Richard Leonard’s resignation as need to assess implications. In meantime, i see Richard’s resignation as evidence of Starmer’s abysmal failure of leadership. Scottish Conservatives welcome Richard’s resignation, so tells much of what we need to know ie Starmer is as ever as one with Tory feelings. At one with Tory aims. At one with Tory prioritisation of the few at the expense of the many.

  1. Excellent news.

    Less good news (unless you’re Rupert Murdoch) was Annaliese Dodds’ lecture to the Business School of City University London yesterday.

    This would have been an ideal opportunity to reiterate, for example, Corbyn’s call for universal free broadband but Stepford Wife Number 1 AKA The Shadow Chancellor (with the emphasis on shadow), Dodds is clearly a product of AI research, her face humanoid but her voice and delivery borrowed from the Daleks and her brain a clone of George Osborne’s. Clearly more R&D is required because SWNo1 is overloaded with certain words and phrases when a few synonyms would have come in handy. For example, the word “responsible” appears in nearly every sentence, sometimes twice in the same sentence; similarly “resilience” is over-prominent, whilst “prudence” has clearly been borrowed from one her predecessors. One outstanding feature is that, having spent over half an hour with not just her nose and tongue but her whole head rammed up the arse of multinational capital, she still looks as shiny as when she came out of the Blairite mould.

  2. Fantastic news about Ken Livingstone. I will ask for my donation to Jeremy to be returned so it can go to this campaign; if Jeremy did ever need it I’ll scrape my barrel and it won’t be a problem, I’m saving money by leaving the LP and not donating to their ‘cause’.

    1. Good luck to both of them. I will be happy to be part of the crowd funding of this important case.
      It really bothers me how the word antisemite has been cheapened , bandied about and used to silence political or other opponents. Antisemitism is a vile form of racism, fostering the of hatred of Jews and scapegoating them. Antisemitism led to the mass murder of 6 million Jews during the holocaust and the torture enslavement and starvation of many more who while they survived the death camps lived with the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives.
      To accuse someone of antisemitism with little or no evidence is a disgusting thing to do not only because it damages the reputation of the person accused but it also as I said above cheapens and trivialises real antisemitism.
      Furthermore to categorise concern about the mistreatment of Israeli Palestinian and Gazian Arabs by the Israeli government as antisemitism is an outrage which our party has bought into with the result that decent members many of them Jewish have had their membership revoked and their reputation trashed.
      So well done Ken and Pam for taking this action . I assume a judicial review is only the first step in clearing your names and hopefully the knock on effect will be that others similarly maligned will have their names cleared too

      1. This is excellent news but are they not too late for a JR application?

      2. Vexatious claims of anti semitism are hate crimes and should be prosecuted

      3. Yes smart boy for to long the Left of LP have just done nothing when allegation’s of A/S have been used against them. The likes of Hodge Smeeth Berger Austin Mann et al it is time that these so called Labour supporters who encouraged along the MSM the Guardian Freedland Observer Cohan Andrew Rawnsley LBC James O’Brian a gross misinterpretation of Anti Semitism, were all confronted over their misuse and weaponization of A/S It was and is a vicious form of McCarthyism.
        Also one can add the right wing of PLP Evens Blair Starmer all should be confronted and made to apologise.
        The Forde Report should be published fully if not why not.? It will; anyway. What will the likes of the above have to say in their defence would be very interesting. It would expose their duplicitous behaviour, would it not.?
        I support Livingstone fully in his action and any others who decide that enough of this nonsense and gross misuse of A/S for political purposes.

  3. 5 million folk waiting for hospital treatment
    200,000 waiting more than 12 months
    Pre Covid19 it was 2,000
    What say you ‘killer Snowflakes’


    Richard Leonard has resigned as Scottish Labour leader, saying it is in the best interests of the party for him to stand down.

  5. Dont often support Ken, but on this point and commitment to freedom of expression he is dead right and everyone with any sense will support him.
    Starmer is turning the party into an advertising agencies idea of pink Toryism. He stands for nothing just smiles sweetly and waffles comforting noises.

  6. In a statement to LancsLive, Coun Bromley said: “The material in the EHRC report concerning myself is utter nonsense. I am currently consulting my legal term regarding the allegations, which I believe may have been included illegally. My intention is to prosecute and to clear my name.
    “A close reading of the report shows quite clearly that there is nothing anti-Semitic in the quoted material. The report is weak and the conclusions drawn are self-contradictory and illogical.
    “An example is included in which I call for the reinstatement of Chris Williamson, who was wrongly suspended from the Labour Party for anti-Semitism. EHRC have now conceded that is not the case. Criticising the brutal actions of the state of Israel against Palestine is not anti-Semitic. The only references to Jews are the ones inserted by EHRC.
    As for Ken Livingstone he made factually correct observations about the haavara agreements between the Zionists and the Nazi leadership backed up with books and documentation from leading Jewish authors.
    Good luck to you both.

    1. Well said. The moment when the historically agreed facts were flatly denied was the moment we entered the Alice in Wonderland of 1984. The fact the MSM supported the whole scam (that Lefties were anti-Semites and therefore racist) was disaster for many. The Truth and been turned completely by a Cabal represented by Mrs Hodges and the Guardian.

  7. If you’ve never read it, it’s well worth reading Ken’s resignation statement (reproduced in full on JVLs website. The following are a few clips from it:

    At 8.50am on 28th April 2016 I was asked by Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London to respond to a social media post by the Labour MP, Naz Shah, quoting Martin Luther King, that ‘what Hitler did was legal’. King’s point, obviously, having been that just because something is legal (talking in the context of racist segregation laws in the US in the 1960s) does not mean it is right. I saw no relevance between Hitler and Labour so I responded in under 40 words pointing out that in the 1930s Hitler had supported Jews leaving Germany – including moving to Israel and he had arrived at a practical agreement with Zionist organisations on this.

    In the hours that immediately followed my interview with Vanessa Feltz no journalist asked me to comment on my statement. At Millbank* at 11.45am I was confronted by Labour MP John Mann shouting that I was a ‘lying racist’ and a ‘disgusting Nazi apologist’.

    My interview by the Labour Party Disputes and Disciplinary Panel was delayed by seven weeks thus preventing me standing for the NEC.

    I handed evidence to the chair which showed what I said was true, but she replied she was not interested in history, and was determined to avoid what I said and whether it was true. In their report to the NEC there was no reference to the claim that ‘Hitler was a Zionist’ nor did it admit what I had said was true. It was suggested I considered Zionism was equivalent to Nazism and that I ‘raised Hitler as a defence’ – all entirely untrue. That this malign report was submitted to the NEC without my being allowed to see it and challenge it is a violation of justice.

    [* Ken is referring to Millbank Studios where he had been invited to appear on The Daily Politics, along with John Mann, who just happened – purely by coincidence of course – to be by the entrance to the building with a film crew when Ken arrived. Perish the thought that it was all a set up!]

    1. Very worth reading! Thanks. Quite clearly it was a well organised set up. I remember on TV there was a partial view of Mann seemingly blocking the stairwell, screaming abuse in a hysterical manner. It looked as if he was going to get violent. The Brown Shirts had arrived. It was immediately chilling.

    2. The conspirators couldn’t have known that Ken would say what he said – ie that ‘Hitler was supporting Zionism’, but I have no doubt that a verbal attack on Ken by John Mann was planned in advance – along with film crew to hand to record it for the MSM – and the original plan had been for John Mann to verbally attack Ken for defending an anti-semite and what she did/said – ie Naz Shah.

      As I’m sure just about everyone who follows skwawkbox knows by now, Ken was alluding to The Haavara Agreement, an historical fact, but an historical fact that hardly anyone knew about at the time, including the vast majority of Jewish people, including Tony Greenstein (who is very knowledgeable about Jewish history). The conspirators would have very quickly realised that practically no-one knew about the agreement, and then chosen the obvious line from what Ken said in the interview to attack and condemn and vilify him for saying – ie for ‘claiming’. Or to put it the other way round, had The Haavara Agreement been common knowledge, they would NOT have attacked and vilified him for saying that, precisely because they – the conspirators – would have known that the majority of the general public would realise and know that Ken was alluding to the agreement.

      The conspirators obviously knew that only a relatively small number of people would have actually listened to the program – ie the interview – and that 99.5% or so of the population HADN’T, and one of their number having thought of it, they realised that they could assert that Ken had said that Hitler was a Zionist – ie that THAT is what Ken meant when he said that Hitler was supporting Zionism – which was of course concocted and contrived to give the impression to the general public that Ken was dissembling nasty anti-semitic lies and/or that he was completely whacko to claim such a thing. Ian Austin even claimed in a Commons debate about anti-semitism some three years ago that Ken had said that, and viciously attacked Ken for doing so (not in person), saying he should be ‘booted out of the Labour Party immediately’.

      Needless to say, a lot more people are now aware of The Haavara Agreement – and especially on the left – precisely because of the interview, but many millions still don’t know about it, and that THAT is what Ken was alluding to. The following Indy article relates the whole passage where Ken alludes to the agreement.

      Asked by Vanessa Feltz if Naz Shah was anti-semitic, Ken responded as follows:

      “It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932 [he meant 1933], his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

      PS And if you’re not familiar with The Haavara Agreement, check out the wikipedia entry for it.

  8. “The party must change urgently a process where prior to due process taking place leading figures in the party declare people guilty in the media and pre-empt the decision of the relevant bodies”.
    Starmer was involved in the initial suspension of Corbyn contrary to the Equality Commission recommendations, the Commission also said Corbyn was entirely within his rights to comment on the report, the Deputy leader Rayner agreed that Corbyns Anti Semitism complaints numbers were true, then Starmer went on a tour of TV studios and called Corbyn an Anti Semitism denier who deliberately minimised the figures and that Corbyn should be nowhere near the Labour party. Starmer was in effect declaring Corbyn guilty even before the NEC panel had been convened. The panel then cleared Corbyn, whereupon Corbyn was suspended again by Starmer and told that he must unequivocally apologize for something the NEC panel had earlier acquitted him of [double jeopardy] This is not justice, this is harassment/ victimisation of the worst kind, Starmer should be nowhere near the labour party, in fact he should be nowhere near the legal profession, he is a shyster of the worst kind.

  9. I just came across an article in the Daily Mirror published on the 28 April 2016 with the following headline and sub-headline:

    ‘Why I called Ken Livingstone a ‘Nazi apologist’ by Labour MP John Mann’

    ‘Ken Livingstone claimed Hitler wanted to move the Jews to Israel in 1932 to help the cause of Zionism. No he didn’t’

    Well, it’s true that it wasn’t 1932 (which Ken said by mistake in the interview with Vanessa Feltz), it was 1933, and John Mann knows it of course – ie that Ken got the year wrong! Anyway, Mann then says the following at the beginning of the article: ‘Livingstone claims that Hitler’s policies were Zionist.’ Ken DIDN’T of course, and that’s TWO falsehoods already! Mann then goes on to say the following:

    There was no such Nazi policy in 1932 [No!, it was 1933, as you know full well Mr Mann!]. The idea that Hitler “went mad” rather than calculatedly planning to murder Jews is also grossly offensive.

    Instead Hitler in his first acts in power targeted Jewish businesses and set up Dachau concentration camp.

    Where did Ken Livingstone dream up the grotesque idea that Hitler’s policies were “Zionist”?

    So in the space of three sentences Mann repeats the falsehood re 1932 AND the falsehood about Ken having said that Hitler’s policies were Zionist (note that the only quotation marks are around the word Zionist, which is a deception of course). Yes, it’s true that one of Hitler’s first acts in power – a couple of months after he was appointed chancellor on Jan 30th (1933) – was for Germans to boycott Jewish businesses, and the Dashau concentration camp – the very first concentration camp to be set up – was opened on 22 March 1933, but needless to say, the reason Mann mentions Dachau is to dupe readers of the Mirror (who would have been mainly Labour voters) into believing that Jews were being transported to a concentration camp almost immediately HE – Adolf Hitler – came to power. But they WEREN’T.

    The following is from a Haaretz article entitled ‘When Did the Holocaust Begin? A Genesis of Genocide’, published on 26.01.2020:

    A major turning point in Nazi policy toward Jews was the coordinated attacks by the Sturmabteilung (or SA, the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party) against Jews and Jewish institutions and businesses throughout Germany and Austria on November 9-10, 1938 – an event known as Kristallnacht or the Night of the Broken Glass, due to the large amount of shattered windows at Jewish properties in its aftermath. At least 91 Jews were killed in the violence, and 30,000 were arrested and interned in concentration camps (but not extermination camps). Over 900 synagogues and 7,000 Jewish businesses were severely damaged or destroyed.

    Kristallnacht marked the transition of the Nazi policy vis-a-vis Jews from social ostracism, abrogation of legal rights and economic boycotts, to organized physical violence including murder. As such, some consider the November ‘38 pogrom as marking the actual beginning of the Holocaust – the date when anti-Jewish persecution in Germany began moving toward genocide.

    And here’s a couple of clips from the wikipedia entry for Dashau concentration camp:

    Dachau was a Nazi concentration camp opened on 22 March 1933, which was initially intended to hold political prisoners… After its opening by Heinrich Himmler, its purpose was enlarged to include forced labor, and, eventually, the imprisonment of Jews….

    From 1933 to 1938, the prisoners were mainly German nationals detained for political reasons. After the Reichspogromnacht or Kristallnacht, 30,000 male Jewish citizens were deported to concentration camps.

    Yes, no doubt there were some Jews amongst the political prisoners, but as far as I can determine Jews weren’t being interned in concentration camps in significant numbers until just after Kristallnacht in November 1938.

    And Mann finishes the relatively short article by saying this:

    We fought the war for British values and for our vision of democracy. We paid a high price in doing so. We cannot therefore stand by and allow any rewriting of the history of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.

    ‘our vision of democracy’ he dissembles whilst in the very process of doing his bit to subvert it! And the only person doing any ‘rewriting’ was Mann himself, ‘rewriting’ and misrepresenting what Ken said!

    1. Mann is a particularly nasty piece of work . For some reason he is I believe Lord Mann . For what reason this obnoxious so called human being was so elevated if you can call it that god knows.
      good luck ken.

      1. Exceptionally nasty; another Ian Austin, lord of godknows where. It’s quite a good deal getting a peerage. £300 a day plus X’s for life for doing nothing except maybe have a couple of subsidised meals and plenty of booze. No pesky electors. But what they really like is the traditional British deference to My Lord. It gets the repair man round quicker, gets you in the restaurant and upgraded on your holiday flight. Her Ladyship is often ‘blamed’ as the one really wanting it; it’s great when making hair appointments they say. Some insist the butcher and baker refer to them as Lady Shitface and whatever. Oh yes well worth it they say! For the ex-politicians it is like witness protection hiding their original identity behind a title. Mr Bastard MP becomes Lord Lovely of Clovelly. For the businessmen it looks great on the letter heads ‘Lord Squeeze-em to the bastards drop’ must be bone fide – ‘es a Lord, e be!, send him a hamper and don’t be so uncouth as to ask him to pay the bloody bill, aristocrats just don’t do that. As we know it’s such a good retirement wheeze plenty of people pay large sums for the honour. Lloyd George charged £10,000 for a simple Knighthood 100 years ago so imagine what it costs now. The only compliant the elite have is the scarcity of Baronets whose children for ever more get to be Lords and Ladies. The whole system should be scrapped; give it another 100 years though, we know how complex these reforms can be. Meanwhile the chance of being asked to advise on some issue is high – Lords Rifkin and Straw showed how it was done. Cash only please! A sleazy character Maundy Gregory was Lloyd George’s broker, now it seems the PM does it himself. I suppose that’s progress?

      2. no wonder Paul this excuse for a human Being Mann is so happy You are right it is a a Archaic out date system of privilege. It should be scrapped ASP replaced by some sort of elected chamber based on real merit.

      3. Lord knows what Is that both Mann and Austin??? Well I can remember years ago while I was at university doing a part time evening job called Dial A meal round the west end. The kitchen was on top of a newspaper shop in Knightsbridge,, It was a interesting job seeing how the other half lived as it were. Met all sort’s of interesting people including Toy Benn s Mum Lady Stansgate in Chyne Walk. One pereson I remember I called to deliver a meal was off Sloane Sq. The Chap was called Mr Pratt.. so I called him that . I had to into the basement put the food into his oven. It was literally like upstairs downstairs. full of chinless wonder s with odd names. I kept calling Mr Pratt Mr Pratt Until he pulled out his Barclay card to pay. I noticed it Said Lord Michael Pratt I apologised most sincerely saying I am sorry Lord Pratt. He did not appear to like it.
        What a name may be the new lord Pratt is Lord Austin Pratt or Lord Mann Pratt.??? A worthy title do you not think.????

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: