Prof Jonathan Rosenhead was targeted by Special Branch in the 70s and 80s for opposing apartheid – and is now being targeted by Keir Starmer’s regime. He has disclosed his response dismantling the party’s racism and wilful ignorance
Jonathan Rosenhead is a Jewish retired London School of Economics professor whose decades-long record of fighting racism and apartheid is so strong that he was targeted by the Met’s Special Branch for his fight against South African apartheid.
And the Labour party suspended him for supposed antisemitism as part of its bid to purge left-wingers and supporters of Palestinian rights, in which Jewish anti-racism activists have been disproportionately persecuted.
Prof Rosenhead has taken the courageous decision to ignore Labour’s ban on targeted members disclosing details of their persecution, to publish in full his response dismantling the party’s risible suspension of him for citing history and quoting discussions that are on the public record – and its blatantly political abuse of antisemitism accusations to dictate what is acceptable Jewish opinion. The Labour party has so far failed to respond. It is reproduced below with his permission.
Jonathan Rosenhead: Appeal against Suspension from Labour Party
On 21 December 2021 I was sent a Notice of Suspension from the Labour Party. On January 1st 2022, having had no response from the Party to my request for an extension to the period allowed for my appeal, I sent you a message which consisted substantially of the following (emphasis added):
I now submit this letter as my notice of appeal against the decision. The grounds of my appeal are that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the charge is proven and you provide none. I have already set out in detail the basis for claiming this in my response to your revised notice of investigation and I invite you to treat that response as incorporated in this notice of appeal.
I understand that this appeal will be heard by three members of the NEC and that this means that there will be an oral hearing, which I welcome. I wish it to be clear that I consider it to be my right to have an oral hearing of my appeal and I insist upon it, and upon the right to be accompanied by a legal adviser. I also reserve the right to amend or supplement this notice of appeal in the light of your reply or otherwise should I choose to do so.
This current document is sent, consistent with that message, as a substantive part of my appeal. I will organise my arguments under the headings of Content; Process; and Outcome.
Content of the allegations against me
The Notice of Investigation suggests that I might have
• demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, or belief; and/or
• undermined the Party’s ability to campaign against racism.
You sent me three pieces of ‘evidence’ that, the document implied, were relevant to these charges:
• a 2018 interview in which I reported the unanimous view of five character witnesses for Ken Livingstone, all Jewish, at his Labour Party disciplinary hearing (which had taken place a year earlier) that nothing Livingstone had said was antisemitic;
• a comment in the same interview that the activities of the Board of Deputies and other Jewish organisations had made many UK Jews unnecessarily fearful about the threat to them of antisemitism within the Labour Party; and
• a passage within a 2-minute public talk I gave in 2017 in which I made a glancing reference to mass conversions to Judaism in the first millennium CE in North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
The first of these quotations was simply misrepresented in the ‘charge-sheet’. It was not an April 2018 personal comment by me on the remarks that had got Livingstone into trouble. The programme video is clear – I was giving a factual report on events that had taken place a year earlier. This was the view of Livingstone’s Jewish character witnesses, and it is verifiable. For some reason the Labour Party seems not to be happy with these facts. But not liking facts does not turn my stating them into antisemitic behaviour. So how can this piece of evidence support a decision to suspend my Party membership?
The second quotation is also a statement of fact, and in justifying it I can cite evidence from the exact period of the interview. For in her message to Labour MPs in February 2019 then-General Secretary Jennie Formby reported that between April 2018 and January 2019 the number of accusations of antisemitism by Labour members came to 673. A Labour spokesman said “These figures relate to about 0.1% of our membership”.
Yet the average public estimate of what proportion of Labour members had been personally accused of antisemitism (survey, Philo et al, 2019) was 34%. Relentless attacks from the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Chief Rabbi, amplified by one-sided media coverage, had undoubtedly contributed to this gross distortion. Here are just two examples. In March 2018 the Board of Deputies issued an open letter accusing Jeremy Corbyn of “siding with antisemites”. In August 2018 its Chair said that the Jewish community is “feeling nervous, we’re feeling anxious, it’s like Jeremy Corbyn has declared war on the Jews at home”. And by September 2018 a poll showed that nearly 40% of UK Jews would seriously consider emigrating if Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister.
There is a name for promoting as facts things that aren’t so: its fake news. Calling out fake news is a social, ethical and political duty. By citing my statement as potentially a disciplinary offence you are conniving at the promotion of untruths which you seem to regard as politically expedient. It doesn’t change the facts. But it does change the Labour Party for the worse.
Your third piece of ‘evidence’ deals with an extract from a brief talk I gave in 2017 about the many threads that make up the Jewish population. The fragment that the party’s intrepid investigators have homed in on deals with ancient Jewish history, which I mentioned in the context of this discussion of Jewish diversity. The existence around the 8th century CE of an extensive Jewish-ruled Khazar empire in which conversions to Judaism took place is not disputed – the Labour Party does not control historical research. See for example Peter Frankopan The Silk Roads, 2015. [Media columnist] Raphael Behr described Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People, which I cited at this point in my talk, as a “quiet earthquake of a book [which] is shaking historical faith in the link between Judaism and Israel”. Is Behr a party member? Perhaps he should be suspended.
All this evidence and argument was presented, with much more, in my rebuttal of the charges. The Party has decided that my behaviour merits punishment. But in its initial Notice of Investigation says nothing at all about how what I said violated any aspect of the party’s disciplinary code. Nor in the concluding Notice of Suspension is there any single sentence, not a word, about how the Party came to that conclusion. Would an organisation confident in its processes and in the defensibility of its decisions practice such radical opacity?
My response to your Notice of Investigation included a comprehensive deconstruction of the accusations made against me. Did the relevant NEC panel discuss this detailed rebuttal? It is unthinkable, surely, that a responsible body would allow such significant decisions to go through without discussing the case made by the ‘accused’? On the nod? But the available evidence suggests that this is exactly what happened. The panel meeting on December 1 2021, the one that decided to suspend me, decided a very large number of cases in just a single meeting. Perhaps allowing more than 4 minutes per case on average would improve the quality of justice, which currently seems quite strained.
Invalid Process
It is not difficult to set up disciplinary procedures in any organisation that respect natural justice. The consensus is broadly that the process should include the following components and features:
• The accused should be informed of the nature of the complaint, and who has made it.
• The charge should relate to clear guidelines on what is unacceptable behaviour available to the accused before the behaviour complained of.
• The charge should be clearly and unambiguously stated.
• The roles of investigator, prosecutor and judge should be separate and independent.
• The accused should have a right to a hearing at which s/he has the opportunity to contest both the evidence, and the link between evidence and charge.
• The disciplinary process should include a clear statement of the basis on which the disciplinary panel has reached its conclusion.
• There should be provision for an appeal on the substance of a decision, currently it is only permissible in relation to a process failure
• There should be a process in which the accused can appeal the verdict in person and refute counter-arguments.
Almost all of these are absent from the process that the Party has employed in my case, and in far too many others.
Here are just some of the ways in which the disciplinary case against me has violated these common-sense requirements. They are numbered below to make your task of responding to them a little simpler.
- You have not provided me with the name of the complainant or the text of her/his complaint. I only have ‘your word’ for it that there ever was a complaint. The Chakrabarti Report (2016), accepted by the Labour Party, says that the norm should be that “the member would be given notice of the fact and nature of the investigation into him or her and the identity of the complainant”.
- The full guidelines for conduct on the question of antisemitism (which seems, outlandishly, to be the charge against me) were adopted late in 2018 but kept secret from all members until a court case in 2021 (in which I was one of the plaintiffs) forced the NEC Code of Conduct on Antisemitism into the public domain. All the ‘evidence’ that the Party challenged me to explain away were from interviews and talks I gave in 2017 and early in 2018 – when there weren’t even secret guidelines.
- There is no charge! What the Labour Party offers as a charge is nothing of the kind. To be precise they assert that what I said “may reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, or belief; and / or undermines the Party’s ability to campaign against racism”. That’s not like being charged with robbing a bank, or stealing from my employer, or assaulting someone, or even using offensive language. How the investigators or any other bit of the party could establish that the ‘evidence’ they offer is in any way connected (logically? causatively?) to these very abstract ‘charges’ is a mystery that was never shared with me. Indeed the wording of these charges, as you know, has nothing specific to do with my case. They are used identically in hundreds of cases against other members.
- Fundamentally the investigators, the prosecutors, the ‘disciplinary panels’ and (if I get one) the appeal panel are in no way independent of each other. They are evidently operating in concert, following the mandate given them by the leadershipAngela Rayner said in November 2020, expressing outrage that Jewish party members had experienced a hostile environment, “if I have to suspend thousands and thousands of members, we will do that”. She was apparently able both to predict the outcome of cases such as my own, and to experience no concern about the hostile environment she would put this and many other Jews into: an experience of totally unmerited investigation, suspension, expulsion.
- “The accused should have a right to a hearing at which s/he has the opportunity to contest the evidence, and the link between evidence and charge.” There has been no hearing. My case was dealt with in my absence by a panel processing dozens of cases in a single session, dealing with each in a matter of minutes. The papers sent to me in my Notice of Investigation provide not even a hint as to how what I had said substantiates the so-called ‘charges’.
- “The disciplinary process should include a clear statement of the basis on which the disciplinary panel has reached its conclusion.” This should include a response to my representations. The only documents I have received from the Party are the February 2021 Notice of Investigation and the Notice of Suspension received 10 months later. The former contained evidence but no substantive charges; the latter pronounced me guilty of all the alternative charges listed at point 3 above but with no explanation of the Panel’s thinking. Did the Panel think?
- Both the Notice of Suspension and the Notice of Investigation were Swiss cheese documents, in which it seemed that mice had eaten all the logical connections between charge and evidence. The latter Notice says that these were the charges, this is what you said, thank you for your submission, you are guilty, goodbye. The spaces between the charges, the evidence and the decision to suspend are just gaping holes.
- I am submitting these documents as my appeal. The Party says there is an appeal procedure, so I intend to make use of it. I will relish the opportunity to explain my case to the Appeal Panel.
In sum, the definition of a kangaroo court is one that ignores recognised standards of law or justice, ignores due process, and comes to a predetermined conclusion. Prove me wrong. Let the Party suddenly discover natural justice.
Outcome: The personal is political
A well-respected comrade wrote as he left the Party in despair last month, “it’s more than distasteful for non-Jews to dictate what views Jewish people may or may not express.” I think those operating the party’s disciplinary apparatus really should reflect on that. In the service of a partisan and disputed version of what classifies as ‘antisemitic’ you have arrogated to yourselves the right to determine what it is kosher to say about Israel, Palestine, the Board of Deputies, Jews, Jewish history and more besides.
Most of those in the Party hierarchy now so exercised about antisemitism seem to have suddenly discovered it almost as soon as Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader. For Jews, however, awareness of antisemitism is not a fashion item that one simply adopts when it is in style. I wrote about this personal lived experience in my response to your Notice of Investigation. I infer from the penalty that your panel has delivered that they cannot have read this account of growing up Jewish – so I attach it below as an Annex.
I have no reason to believe that the people operating this outrageous system are incapable of estimable personal relations. It is entirely possible that they have loved their parents, their partners, their pets, their children. But they have evidently lacked either the emotional intelligence, or the imaginative reach to understand that their party games are impacting on real people. Elsewise, how could this baseless conclusion, this verdict unimpeded by any concern for the actual meaning of words have included this component:
As a result of the finding of the NEC Panel, and in accordance with the Labour Party Rule Book, you shall be required to complete a specified training course following this period of suspension.
This ‘training’ would presumably be based on the Jewish Labour Movement sessions rolled out on zoom in June 2021 – a one-way transmission from a Zionist perspective which many participants found superficial, and patronising, as well as confusing.
Were it not that I see no evidence of self-awareness in any of your messages to me, this instruction that I submit to JLM training might almost suggest an admittedly macabre sense of humour. You have spent the past several years and now two investigations demonstrating in spades that you have no understanding at all of antisemitism, and no comprehension that this is a potentially lethal virus. You have trivialised it for tactical advantage.
I have been an educationalist throughout a 50-year working life. Specifically I have with others provided educational sessions on antisemitism to hundreds of Party members. Why on earth would I, or anyone, accept ‘training’ about antisemitism from anyone that you recommend?
Jewish awareness of antisemitism runs deep. I saw those pictures of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen camp as a child in 1945. In my home town Liverpool there were anti-Jewish riots in 1948. Like, I would imagine, virtually all Jewish children, I was alerted by my parents to be aware, even hyper-sensitive, to the fact that non-Jews might treat me differently, and less favourably. So although actual overt antisemitism directed at me personally has been rare (I would say less than once per decade) that awareness inculcated in childhood remains part of my makeup.
You think, or find it expedient to think, that statements of facts that are inconvenient, even that discussion of academic historical propositions that might undermine the foundation myths of Israel, should be classed as antisemitic. What is antisemitic is to tell Jews that their understanding of themselves is not permissible, to tell them that if they do not think and speak as permitted then they will be excluded and denigrated. How antisemitic can you get? And where does that end?
ANNEX
Who you have addressed this Notice to
I grew up in a Jewish, Zionist but secular household. My parents sent me and my brother to synagogue every Saturday but didn’t go themselves. I went to Cheder (religion classes) every week until I had gone through the agony of my barmitzvah – an excruciating performance for any introverted 13 year-old.
Being Jewish is or was a wall-to-wall experience. It’s an identity that you acquire and keep. Add in Zionism and it is a strong brew. I celebrated every Israeli military victory from 1948 through 1956 and 1967. And then with a viable state territory established I waited for Israel to make peace with its Palestinian neighbours and internal Palestinian population. But that didn’t happen. As Israel’s reprisals grew heavier my in-principle support for the state of Israel became increasingly overlaid with my criticisms of its actual behaviour. Even my mother by about 1990 and in her eighties was saying that this wasn’t the state that she had thought she was working for. (She had held many offices in Zionist organisations, as had both my maternal grandparents.)
This is a journey that those who are not Jewish have not had to make.
By 2002 with the heavy repression by the Israelis of the second intifada I felt it was time to say that this was not being done in my name – because according to the Israeli establishment it was being done in my name. Up to that time my involvement with politics (a theme in my life) had never been about my Jewish identity. I had been a Labour Parliamentary candidate in 1966; was on the Executive of the Anti-Apartheid movement a few years later; then involved with the Stop the Seventies Tour (a crucial stage in the sporting isolation of South Africa); and also from 1969 with the socially responsible use of science – which led to my campaigning activity about plastic bullets, then in widespread use in Ireland. There was more, but in none of this was my Jewish identity a factor.
So it came as a surprise, an unwelcome one, to find that I was involved in a political activity predicated on my ethnic/cultural/what you will identity.
Being Jewish, as I said before, is an enveloping experience. It is not discardable any more than other shaping influences such as class, or gender, or… Yet many Jewish people, without discarding that identity, have been forced by events to travel a path similar to mine in which the Israel-related aspects of their identity, while still constitutive, take on a different form. It is substantially because we are Jewish that we do care every much that Israel has become what it is.
For an insight into the personal effects of Israel’s transformation I would recommend the late Mike Marquese’s If I Am Not For Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew. (Eccentrically for an American Jew, Mike also wrote beautifully about cricket.) Or you could read Tony Lerman’s The Making and Unmaking of a Zionist. Tony had been Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
So what about antisemitism? Well to anyone brought up as I was it was a part of our assumptions. My grandparents were born in (roughly) Lithuania and Poland and emigrated to the UK around the turn of the century, just before Jewish pogrom-related immigration led to the racist 1905 Aliens Act. My father grew up in the ghetto area of Leeds, my mother in a somewhat better neighbourhood. They simply assumed that Jews were at best tolerated in this country, and expected everything to be more difficult for Jews, that Jews would have to be better than non-Jews to get on etc etc. All their friends without exception were Jewish (though my father as a university professor also moved in what for him was a semi-alien gentile world. He took care to be as restrained, ie ‘English’, as possible in order to fit in.)
I was socialised into being alert to the possibility of antisemitism. Only gradually have I realised where this came from. My father when a post-doctoral student at Gottingen in 1930 took a side trip to Poland and organised a reunion between two branches of his family living in different villages; it involved hiring a small coach. When much later I asked him about those family members, I was simply told that none, at all, had survived the Holocaust. But of course the Jewish alertness to antisemitism goes back through generations of history – the mediaeval blood libel; the slaughter in that tower in York; the accusations of poisoning of wells; the restrictions of the Pale of Settlement; and the fictional Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The awareness of the provisionality of tolerance has a taproot stretching back centuries. That was why all my parents’ friends were Jewish; and why all their friends were Jewish.
I am telling you all this to give you a take on how outrageous it feels, in effect, to be accused of antisemitism. Outrageous. It actually gives me the sense that whoever drafted this Notice has quite simply failed to grasp the enormity of antisemitism as a concept or practice.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – 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 doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
That was an excellent, detailed and educational response as one would expect from a professor. On the other hand, being written to Starmer’s Labour[sic] Party, a complete waste of time (except to inform people such as myself, – I haven’t been a member since Blair’s time!) So a personal thankyou to the Professor, and a statement of support from me in knowing that the Starmer Labour[sic] Party will totally ignore it.
There are now new disciplinary procedures in place that cover all cases that involve ‘protected characteristics’, this case is obviously being judged under the old discredited procedures.
Surely it is unconscionable to try someone under the old disciplinary procedure that has been found wanting and that have already been discredited. Labour should have immediately suspended all the outstanding cases that would fall under the new system until the new procedures were in place.
Yes, being judged under the old discredited procedures because kangaroo court president Starmer and his henchmen have made it very clear the new disciplinary procedures is a privilege which applies to ”us” right wingers but is NOT, REPEAT, NOT for lefties like the good Professor. If they treat their own members is such a Putin-esque/Guantanamo-esq fashion, God help the ordinary folk of the country. It will be the Tory Pig rule albeit with a bit of red lipstick – just enough to fool the sheeples.
This terrible cruelty to a elderly Jewish man who is imerssed in the Jewish community is actually becoming mainstream in the persecution of those who practice the Jewish faith and are members of the labour party.
.Steve H this will not go unnoticed for ever in the media and one day you members of the labour party will be judged along with your fascist leader by the people of Britain as the twisted fascists labour party.you are…….remember that….all of you who fund this abomination will answer one day soon hopefully….The longer this goes on the worse these scum behave.
And you’re going to have to admit that Keir is responsible for these injustices, while Corbyn & the Left are blameless, since Corbyn changed Labour’s disciplinary processes for the massively better.
Why can’t you just come out and admit that it’s essentially impossible to be an antisemite if you’re Jewish?
Why can’t you admit it’s not the place of a largely-Gentile party disciplinary machine to tell Jewish party members they are obligated to support a right-wing nationalist movement that does nothing to help them but which reactionaries like Keir think they should feel compelled to support “without qualification”?
I’m not saying none ever have been in the dead past, like Herzl or the occasional self-loathing, self-marginalising weirdos like Gilad Atzmon- but why can’t you admit that no one who is Jewish can fairly be called AS now just for making harsher comments than others would like about what the Israeli government does to Palestinians?
Meet the new procedures, same as the old procedures.
Because its all about the only thing which matters, The Official Narrative. Straying from which is an automatic offence with no recognition of any right of defence.
And those who operate in this way towards their own paying members will have no hesitation in behaving in the same way towards voters and de facto subjects who stray from the sacred Official Narratives should those voters make the mistake of voting these people into power.
Everything else is just white noise.
Dave – Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the differences between the new and old systems before commenting further.
Wrong SteveH – there are many members who remain suspended or who have been found guilty of anti-Semitism because of anonymous accusations, often not knowing what the accusations were. Must make you so proud of Murdoch’s lap dog!
steve101704 – Have you acquainted yourself with the new disciplinary procedures yet, when you do you will find that they are quite different from the discredited procedures that Formby put in place?
No
This procedure is administered by Nazi supporters which explains the hatred of the Jewish Community
Doug – Oh dear, running around calling anyone and everyone a Nazi just makes you look silly. FFS Grow Up.
ps – Do you know the proportion of the Jewish community that actually vote for Labour and how few there are of them.
Why have vexatious claims of anti semitism not been tested in court
I would have thought particularly against a distinguished member of the Jewish Community and lifetime anti racist
It would be a slam dunk
Doug – I would have thought that you would be better informed about that than myself.
With all due respect to the valuable contributions of Dave & Doug, they should be wary of letting debates on this site to be hijacked by a certain neoliberal troll who has no place within this sites community.
The issue here is about the vexatious nature of the pro-Israel anti-semitism claims now even made against respected and elderly Jews. These have increasingly been made after the 2014 bombing of Gaza killing 2000 people, 551 of whom were children. Let’s not get sidetracked into nonsense about ‘procedures’.
According to the 2011 census British Jews are only 0.5% of the population – one in two hundred people – of whom only a proportion support Israel, so not really a significant voting demographic. This is obviously more about attacking the left and supporting colonial Apartheid than a marketing electoral strategy.
https://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/2011%20Census%20results%20(England%20and%20Wales)%20-%20Initial%20insights%20about%20the%20UK%20Jewish%20population.pdf
Bernie – Do you disagree with what I said above?
https://skwawkbox.org/2022/04/17/83yo-jewish-professor-and-anti-apartheid-campaigner-responds-to-labours-punitive-and-antisemitic-suspension/#comment-221064
Running around calling Jewish people anti semites makes sense then
Methinks not
Doug – You may well be right but I do seem to recall that the same happened when Formby was in charge. She actually made a speech telling everyone how proud she was of her achievements
Bernie
The toolmakers sons favourite tool plays an important role on this site and as we know democracy is the least worst system
In every democracy you need a bucket of shit party for Tories/Nazis to vote for to keep up the pretence
Our challenge is to get them out of the Labour party or start again
Regards
Incidentally in the same census and to put the A-S moral panic in context, in comparison to the 0.5% of British Jews, Asian-Britons together are 7% Black-Britons 3%, Mixed-Race Britons 2% making a BAME total of 12%. Or 24 times the size of the Jewish population.
There is a of UK Black Lives Matter police killings crisis including Jermaine Baker, Sheku Bayoh, Leon Briggs, Rashan Charles, Kevin Clarke, Mark Duggan, Trevor Smith and very many more – so far no Jewish equivalents.
There is Windrush generation illegal deportation scandal victimising significant numbers of Caribbean Black-British citizens. They remain uncompensated – there are no Jewish equivalents
Victims of those who believed Tony Blair’s poisonous ideology of collective Muslim guilt – labelled ‘radical Islam’ or militant Islam – have included those firebombed at Bishopbriggs, Glasgow and Finsbury Park, London mosques, a lethal van attack on Finsbury Park Mosque worshipers, a murdered 82yr old grandfather Muhammad Saleem with his killer planting bomb devices on three further Mosques; and frequently attacked Muslim women wearing the Niqab, in the street.
So far, no UK Jewish equivalents.
These are significant voting demographics and there’s no party political concern about their treatment or what would happen to them in parts of Apartheid Israel, given that many of them share the ethnic appearance of those victimised there.
This is the source for the BAME population stats. Page 6 has it all on a graph. Black and Mixed-Race groups are listed in their own catagories. But you have to add all the various Asian groups up together to get the total quoted in previous posting.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20160107125617/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_330610.pdf
Bernie, your dead right describing him as a neo-liberal troll. He’s once again hijacked responses to an article.
Comrades do yourself a favour- stop feeding the troll!
john – Don’t blame me, blame the dross I got in reply to my original comment.
“There are now new disciplinary procedures in place that cover all cases that involve ‘protected characteristics’, this case is obviously being judged under the old discredited procedures.
Surely it is unconscionable to try someone under the old disciplinary procedure that has been found wanting and that have already been discredited. Labour should have immediately suspended all the outstanding cases that would fall under the new system until the new procedures were in place.”
Did you find anything that is particularly controversial or that you disagree with in my original comment.
Can I please emphasise stop responding to the neoliberal troll as if he has credible debating points. All he is doing is stopping us from engaging with the theft of the Labour Party, genuine racism in Briton and he is helping to facilitate the continued lethal oppression of the Palestinians.
You DONT RESPOND TO A RACIST MCCARTHYITE MORAL PANIC by debating normalising authoritarian procedures but by constructing strategies to confront power. Clearly the troll does not want this to happen.
It is appalling but completely understandable that an 83 year old Jewish lifelong anti racist and human rights campaigner should be treated like this by this Starmers Labour.
Starmer has made Labour a Zionist party and as this man like so many others before him is not a Zionist he is unwelcome in the party, has had his reputation trashed and has been denounced as an antisemite.
Shame on Starmer and witch hunters inside and outside the party who do not care about the hurt they inflict on people like Mr Rosenhead as long as they are able to undermine them and their anti Zionist views.
I was under the impression that the witch-hunt started when Corbyn and Formby were in charge. 🤔
And I was under the impression antisemitism wasn’t a problem until Corbyn was elected leader 😗🎶
Strange, how little keef spoke about it – until he shat his kecks over brexit.
Toffee – Here is an extract from an email which Jennie Formby sent to all members of the PLP in Feb19
“When I became general secretary of the Labour Party last April, I had been a member of Labour’s national executive committee for a number of years.
I had witnessed first-hand that our complaints and disputes procedures were not fit for purpose, with longstanding cases that hadn’t been dealt with, alongside new cases coming in, especially in relation to appalling antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories, mostly on social media.
It couldn’t have been clearer that urgent action was needed to ensure our processes for dealing with complaints were robust, efficient and fair; to resolve outstanding cases; and to establish political education to deepen understanding about, and combat, antisemitism within our movement.”
You can read the full text of her email here
https://labourlist.org/2019/02/eliminate-the-evil-of-antisemitism-from-our-movement-that-is-my-mission-says-jennie-formby/
Not interested.
Neither Formby nor Corbyn are anything to do with it anymore. It’s squarely on blockhead’s toes. He’s the one with the ‘problem’ that he needs to sort out.
Toffee – It will not come as a surprise to anyone that you not being interested in facts
Unfortunately apart from the deficit of parliamentary seats there is still every reason to be concerned about the Corbyn/Formby legacy because whether you get the new or the old system is dependant on the accusation.
Also, wee gobshite…Take a look at the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the Prof’s letter.
On 21 December 2021 I was sent a Notice of Suspension from the Labour Party. On January 1st 2022, having had no response from the Party to my request for an extension to the period allowed for my appeal, I sent you a message which consisted substantially of the following (emphasis added):
Now then…What’s the TWO glaringly fucking obvious clues that are almost poking you in the eyes?
That’s right…The DATES – FROM THE OPENING PARAGRAPH FFS.
How long has Corbyn been ostracised? WHEN did Formby jack it in? 🤔🤔
Come back when you’ve got a fucking clue. See ya.
Toffee – Using the discredited procedures that were put in place by Formby. I’ve already made my opinion of them doing this clear in my comment above
Evidently Keith’s stenographer has issues with facts and wishes to ignore all cases of persons being ejected from the Party by the Rightist Scum regime under McNicol.
The Witch Hunt of Leftists (Corbyn supporters) began in late July 2015 and has continued since that timeline – unless of course myself and 1000’s of others in receipt of expulsion/suspension/auto-ejection notices from the GLU are liars.
Which is it?
christopher – It makes one wonder why Corbyn was so naive. It was disappointing that Corbyn lacked the political nounce to get rid of McNicol as soon as he was elected Labour’s leader.
“It makes one wonder why Corbyn was so naive. It was disappointing that Corbyn lacked the political nounce to get rid of McNicol as soon as he was elected Labour’s leader.”
Two things:
Firstly, Jeremy Corbyn as leader saw his purpose as serving the party. Injudiciously changing the party’s appointment of GS would have seemed to JC as oversteping his authority. Perhaps that strikes you as gullibility or overly-trusting, but it is part of the man’s integrity and appeal, his USP.
Secondly, after the glorious interregnum that Jeremy’s leadership loaned the party, and more particularly, now that a more usual style of leadership and the crass self-interest and political chicanery of Starmer&Co applies again, many people prefer the possible niaivity of JC, including, for example, people like Peter Oborne.
I suspect that even if you concede the above, you patronisingly assume (like Lord Mandelson) that the relevance of it goes above the heads of ‘ordinary people’ and that it will not affect their voting. It doen’t and it will. People distrust Starmer and 5th May local elections will show this.
qwertboi – Many of electorate self evidently lost their trust in Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2019-12-23/Why%20did%20people%20not%20vote%20labour.jpg
The polls are now consistently showing that trust in Labour and its leadership is now being rebuilt
Thanks for confirming how unsuited Jeremy was to be party leader.and as for his USP the 19GE results clearly illustrated that as far as the electorate were concerned JC had pissed all over whatever USP he once had.
Reply to Steve H re the witch hunt
The witch hunt started against Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters once he was elected leader. He openly deplored the behaviour of the Israel government towards Israeli Arabs and offered them his support. There was no way British Zionists would countenance a Pro Arab/ Palestinian leader of the Labour party so they along with the Right of the party, the establishment etc set out to destroy him. They didn’t succeed but they did enough to rob us of a Socialist government and enabled the election Johnson and his hard right cabinet. They should be ashamed of themselves .
Smartboy – The ones who should be ashamed of themselves are the gullible idiots who switched their vote from Labour to Conservative at the 19GE.
Reply to Steve H
The demonization of Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters by British Zionists and others cannot be excused by blaming the electorate. Yes as you say the electorate were gullible – they bought into the wall to wall anti Corbyn propaganda they were fed every single day for 4 years but the behaviour of the purveyors of the propaganda who maliciously smeared and lied about Jeremy for their own ends- Zionism, Neo Liberalism or just sheer self interest – have to bear responsibility for the mess the country is in today.
Smartboy – Jeremy didn’t deal with the anti-Semitism accusations very effectively but I honestly don’t think the AS thing was the major issue. Unfortunately Jeremy pissed all over his own USP, he lost the trust of a lot of the electorate and the voters felt let down.
Reply to Steve H
Please do not try to trivialise what is happening to Jews in Starmers Labour. What is happening is indefensible and amounts to real antisemitism. Shame on the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi, JLM etc for turning a blind eye to it.
A very eloquently written letter.
…Which will have as much effect as a fart in a hurricane to smarmerism.
A word of advice, Prof. you’re best off out of the whole shitshow altogether. Let them drown in their own stupidity & vindictiveness.
Toffee – Using the discredited procedures that were put in place by Formby. I’ve already made my opinion of them doing this clear in my comment above
And you expect ANYONE to buy your pathetic SHITE?
No fucking chance. You’re using Corbyn & Formby to evade and distract from the fact that keefs’ been worse than useless on the matter under his own stewardship.
You want nothing less than to hold the pair of them accountable for keefs’ own incompetence and shithousery.
Again.
Change the bastard record for absolute FS.
Toffee – It is an opinion that I have expressed on these pages before and whether you buy it or not is of little consequence to me (or anyone else).
You’re opinions aren’t worth shite. That’s why they get pilloried by just about everyone else on here.
You’d be blaming Corbyn & Formby for the extinction of the dodo if you thought you’d be able to get away with it
It doesn’t matter what the next tale of keefs’ shithousery & incompetence entails; you’ll still lump it all on Corbyn’s toes as thought keef has some sort of papal infallibility or that he inherited a right shitshow when he and his fellow shithouses created it in the first friggin place.
But your silly little game’s completely shot to fuck when you’re reminded that what keef inherited was circa 200k more members than he has now, plus at least £13m in reserves.🤫
Toffee – On the contrary I’ve clearly pointed out above that I thought it was a mistake to continue to hear cases under the widely discredited procedures that were put in place by Corbyn/Formby. You’ve conveniently forgotten that Corbyn lost 20% of the membership during the latter half of his tenure.The membership was down to 430k in Nov19.
Even if true (when were the figures you cite compiled, by whom, why, with what verification?), the StarmerLabour party would love to achieve even half that membership figure.
It’s seven months since I cancelled my membership payments to the party, but it still considers me a member (but in arrears). I’m not. Dangerous regimes’ data is never to be trusted.
qwertboi – The figure I have quoted are extracted from the voting returns at an NEC election. The figure of 430,359 for Nov19 only includes fully paid up members who were entitled to vote in Labour’s internal elections and do not include any member who was in arrears. These figures were compiled by the NEC when Jeremy was in tenure.
It isn’t the Labour party’s fault that you haven’t told them that you no longer wish to be a member. If you are so concerned about being included in the membership figures then the solution lies in your own hands.
Why haven’t you filled out the resignation form? https://labour.org.uk/contact/membership-resignation-form/
On the contrary..
Ever the contrarian. Ever the colossal bore.
And again with the but Corbyn…
And that’s total bollocks as you well know. Corbyn took the membership from under 200k to over 500k.
That’s NOT a a loss of membership you complete cretin.
Do keep making a monumental bellend out yourself, wontcha?
Toffee – If what I read on these pages from various contributors is true then all ‘the left’ members have already left the party. The membership of the party is now very different from what it was in JC’s era.
You’ve been told before steveH that procedures are only as good as those who administer them.
The problem was not the procedures in place under Formby and Corbyn but the fifth columnist’s throughout every level of the Party tasked with implementing them. People who spent all their time undermining the Party and any member who had a different world view to themselves – who they subjectively defined as ‘Trots’ to be expunged from the Party. Even to the extent of deliberately sabotaging not one but two elections.
However, given you have consistently demonstrated your sympathy for and alignment with these low life’s and their project it is unsurprising that you consistently deny this objective reality. Once again showing your dishonest and base character.
Dave – Yet more baseless assertions, is that really all you’ve got to offer? You are more than welcome to try and prove that I have ever aligned myself with the likes of McNicol or Oldknow
“Why haven’t you filled out the resignation form?
Mostly because I haven’t left Labour, an enemy-agent has taken it over and is doing his darnedest to destroy it, its people and purpose. It is not longer the entity I want to support and serve. It has left me.
qwertboi – You can spin it however you want but you are the one that is grumbling that you are still regarded as being a member (but in arrears). As I said above the solution to your so called problem is obvious.
“the solution to your so called problem is obvious.”
Not my problem. When a political party loses the support ond vote of a member, it’s theirs (now multiply that by tens – maybe hundreds – of thousands).
qwertboi – ….but you’re the one grumbling about it. 🤔
The Toffee again expresses sentiments and data with which most leftist traditionalists coming to this site will agree. But again we have this problem of responding to a certain neoliberal troll as if he’s arguing in good faith. This allows a debate about the theft of the Labour Party, the new pro-Israel McCarthyism to be hijacked by someone who is not remotely sympathetic to the values of this sites community.
Toffee btw; If it helps MSN provided this info on Labour’s turnout in the Erdington by election which since Corbyn “has less than halved since 2017, from 21,571 to 9,413.”
Prior to this Rachel Swindon recorded
“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to see how the great electable Starmer is getting on, when it comes to the only poll that really matters. Hartlepool lost to the Tories—Corbyn won the seat twice. 327 council seats have been lost, as well as control of 8 councils. They won a humiliating 1.6% of the vote at Chesham and Amersham, which was Labour’s worst result ever.A majority of 3,500 in Batley and Spen was turned into a majority of just 335. And just this week in the North Shropshire by-election the Labour vote collapsed by 12.4%, picking up just 9.7% of the overall vote.”
All the best (and that troll is really not worth our time).
Source – https://arena.org.au/the-lefts-right-turn/
Bernie – It wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that the voters of Hartlepool were more than a little pissed off with Labour about Mike Hill.
Steve H – always neglecting to mention the avalanche of antisemitism claims was started by Dame Hodge & Co. when JC became Leader. Simply to overload the system that was, then, in place under the discredited GS McNicol – who did nothing about them. Spent his time varnishing his toenails, by the sound of it.
McNicol was replaced, the system was changed and – eventually – the bogus claims were discovered – the vast majority being, unceremoniously, chucked out.
Wormtongues like steveH do not do inconvenient facts. They pick and choose to suit their own warped and subjective fantasy reality.
Dave – You are more than welcome to quote your own figures. It was Jeremy’s decision to keep McNicol on, who knows how different things might have turned out if he hadn’t been so naive.
George – I thought that was common knowledge, but your comment does highlight what an error of judgement it was for Jeremy not to have got rid of McNicol. Because I thought it was common knowledge I also neglected to mention that Jennie also made a speech in Feb19 showing off about how much more efficient she’d made the system for kicking members out of the party.
You’ve forgotten to mention that the ‘new system that Formby put in place was the system that was discredited in the EHRC report.
“Discredited” is a bit strong. EHRC said Formby improved the process for dealing with complaints – but said it should have been be further improved – by more guidance and clarity on procedure.
One problem I had with the EHRC report was that its main findings generally didn’t distinguish between pre- and post- Formby. Another was, which “leadership” it was talking about. I assume that, since political and managerial leaderships were supposed to be separate entities, the management of the complaints process was the responsibility of the GenSec, rather than the political leader.
EHRC also says it had sight of the leaked report (which had been commissioned/prepared to be presented as evidence, even though it hadn’t been entered as evidence). So EHRC would have been aware that, under Iain McNichol, AS complaints had been sat on, to make JCorbyn look bad. In particular, they were sitting on the high profile Ken Livingstone AS complaint — for which Corbyn was getting stick. Yes, his office asked for that complaint to be resolved, one way or another, pdq — but that’s not a great crime in the grand scheme of things.
It would also have been clear that in the interregnum between McNichol and Formby, staff were referring a few complaints to LOTO for guidance (which is not the same as “interference”).
It’s instructive to read both reports (as I have).
SteveH 17/04/2022 at 8:12 pm :
Many of the points you made in reply to my post, have been very well addressed by Elaine Jacobs, so I’ll, just, concern myself with your statement –
‘…what an error of judgement it was for Jeremy not to have got rid of McNicol’.
I’ve seen it a few times, from you, so, it’s time it was addressed.
From Jeremy Corbyn’s – adult and decent – point of view, when someone’s in the same political party as yourself, and you’ve, just, won a democratic contest, to become Leader of that party, with a huge majority, given to you by the Membership of that political party, there is(was) an expectation that someone, with the senior authority of a General Secretary, would accept that democratic decision, by the Membership, which employs them.
We, now, know, there was no such acceptance from McNicol. But that’s in hindsight.
Despite the many – sickly grin – photo opportunities, McNicol had with JC, we, now, know he was plotting against him, right from the off, before the ink was dry, on JC’s confirmation as Leader.
The weasel – selfishly – ignored the wishes of the majority, knowing full well, he would be ‘all right, Jack’. He would be ‘looked after’, and throwing his lot in with the, equally weaselly, 172 MP’s, plotting in the PLP.
In many respects, you – yourself – have many of the ‘qualities’ of McNicol. You’ve been commenting on Skwawkbox, much, longer than I have, and, certainly, much more often.
I can imagine in the beginning, you were accepted as a comrade – much as JC made the mistake of accepting McNicol as a comrade.
Someone to argue, debate, discuss issues with. Some people may, even, have enjoyed it – in the beginning.
Again – like JC – in hindsight, we know different, now. We’ve seen your spoiling tactics, almost, every time you post a ‘comment’.
Your deflections, distractions and – yes – your outright lies. Your insults, provoking anger and arguments.
Ask yourself this – do you have the back-up of a McNicol? Are you in the same ‘I’m all right, Jack’ position?
If you have, that would come as no surprise. If you haven’t – well then – the only advice I can give you is to seek counselling.
Contrarian and provocateur are very limited options.
…and you’re not very good at either.
George – I must have missed the points that you say have already been covered. When you’ve managed to get over yourself perhaps you could explain why my initial comment on this page was not relevant, did I say anything in it that you disagreed with.
You accuse me of telling outright lies but you have failed to provide any proof. I wonder why.
However thanks for explaining at such length why Jeremy was so unsuited to his job as leader. You’ve done an excellent job of explaining the roots of his naivety.
If I really am what you claim but not very good at it (whatever that is) then what does that say about you, I’ve managed to coerce you into writing a small essay. that explains in your own words how naive Jeremy was. 🤔.
The resident rodent and all Starmeroids can say what they like about the disciplinary process as it was in 2015 -18, the Formby attempt to clean it up or as it is now (or how they think it works in their limited and partial reality). What they can’t remove is the reality. Nothing has changed.
There is no fairness or natural justice. It’s just a warped and callous McCarthyite attempt to remove democracy from the Labour party. And it’s being noticed outside of the Labour bubble.
And this is not putting down any troll food. So don’t even bother.
nemtona – Are you aware that dependant on the nature of the ‘charges’ there are actually two separate sets of disciplinary procedures in place now.
Nemtona….. As we all know by now Corbyn still lives in their fetid, rancid pea like brains 24/7. It’s all Jerombly Corbingly’s fault……..
When they get hammered in a couple of weeks it will all be Corbyn’s fault too….
baz2001 – If that turns out to be the case then I expect you’ll come back and gloat.
How many top rate professors does it take to point out the failings of the political élite’s recently exposed poor grasp of equalities? Perhaps it’s not really the point? So how many top rate professors does it take to point out that Starmer & co’s inept approach to equalities is a product of a Labour bruising by the Tory media, and the need to somehow respond to it? None – it’s obvious to a bright school student. So what’s the point of being a top rate professor in a world governed by anti-intellectual greed? Asking for a friend…
2 cheeks democracy means Temporary Embarrassment is acceptable to the kleptocracy
Unfortunately the Demos know who and what he is, so any move by JC and the Unions would under FPTP wipe out both toxic Tory parties
Doug – Oh dear. Who are you trying to convince, yourself?
CSE Maths
That’s you fucked then
Doug – What grade did you achieve?
SteveH
Im a failed Accountant and Debt Specialist
How close are you and Nazis to repeating history
5 million lost votes and bankruptcy
Do you realise how easy it will be for us to buy our party back from the Receiver for a token payment
There is it seems no truth anymore only the dominant Right Wing Neo-Liberal Capitalist narrative.
And like in Right Wing Labour perhaps disagree with this and you are out?
Facts, evidence, truth are irrelevant to them?
Best to free yourself from it and build something new which offers a counter narrative and we all await what JC is doing at the next GE and hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporters are out there kind of in a political limbo land.
And remember.
Brown 2010 8.3m.
Miliband/Reeves 2015 9.6m (the Left gave Miliband every chance not criticising him in public for years).
Corbyn 2017 12.8m (despite Right Wing Labour MPs slagging Corbyn off in public for years thus aiding Labour’s enemies and some Right wing staff (Forde Report) sabotaging the GE campaign?)
2019 Corbyn 10.2m (despite sabotage by Starmer and the Right re Brexit and a 2nd PV, JC was trying to keep Labour together but should have stuck to his instincts arguing two thirds of Labour seats were in Leave voting areas and not to fight for a Better Brexit was electoral suicide and millions would then suffer plus then we also had a vicious right wing media campaign against JC).
JC was due to make an announcement soon but Ukraine intervened.
But we need to organise soon and people need an alternative to lies plus to give hope as turnouts tumble. Solidarity.
It seems to me that those who administer what passes for
current disciplinary procedures are ignoring everything that EHRC recommended as well as every principle of law and
decency.
In fact as already pointed out by Skwawkie – under Starmer the Labour party’s new 2022 rule book has omitted previous reference to fairness and natural justice from its expulsion processes.
HFM – The new procedures have been approved by the EHRC
Have the ‘new procedures’ been approved by the Membership?
George – Yes the required rule changes were all passed at the 2021 conference. I’m really quite surprised that you didn’t know that already,
But they are not acceding to the new procedures as laid down! For example EHRC encouraged discussion – Evans has forbidden it .
Applying laws retrospectively is illegal with respect to
any sort of Common law and was not acceptable under
any previous administration – under any Labour Party
Secretary even in 2015.
Not only that but A-S complaints by “left wingers” are routinely ignored – I do not know of any official
procedures where that was acceptable.
Seems the Labour party is using Pastor Niemöller’s poem as a step by step guide…
Wonder if they needed the illustrated version?
I’m afraid I’m going to give SteveH ‘the time of day’, because there is some truth in what he says & Jennie Formby cannot just walk away without some blame for the way Jeremy’s Labour Party dealt with accusations of anti-Semitism; some of my friends were suspended & then expelled at that time, never knowing who or what the accusation was. Others in the Party, such as Chris Williamson, were thrown under a bus & Chris should never have apologised for anything.
In a democracy we need free & open debate, which is the one thing that Starmer seeks to eliminate. As per Voltaire, ‘I may disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it’…..no platforming can never be an option.
We should not give any reverence to the EHRC which was a corrupt quango whose members were appointed by gov’t & all evidence neatly packaged & kept anonymous; some barristers being able to represent both complainants & EHRC at the same time? (Wagner) & their preferred criteria, the IHRA Definition of anti-Semitism is a perverse ideology, especially when placed in the context of the Israeli Nation State Laws of apartheid. It is now a self evident truth that Israel is a racist endeavour.
Stop apologising & get up off your knees; anti-Semitism is real but has been used by MSM as a stick to beat & eliminate Socialism from any agenda; a classic Moral Panic.
It is simply incompatible to be part of an organisation which claims to be democratic but yet operates such undemocratic procedures. Everyone who remains part of the system where this operates remains part of the problem! People who claim they remain part of the system in order to change the system must cite a timeframe on their objectives otherwise they simply trample on the integrity of those who have been the subject to a brutal summary injustice.
Labour need to be a clear 12 points ahead until there is any chance of a majority and that is nowhere in sight. I can’t find any positive reason to vote for them at the moment.
You wanna try being muslim in this islamophobic labour party. Imagine if corbyn invited antisemitic donations. But keef has no problem when its against us.
Hodge was sending in 200 cases a day of Antisemitism, all were condemnation of Israel for its treatment of Palestine. What then went out to the press was that AS was rife in Labour,Almost all the cases were taken as read, in fact there wasn’t anything in place to oversee that many cases so the story was that they were AS.
The complaints department was overwhelmed by the sheer numbers, every case had to be investigated and there wasn’t the staff to do so.They then put out how many complaints they were receiving, never mentioning that the ones that had been investigated were antizionist not antisemetic.
There were groups on social media set up by socialist lawyers,and even barristers who gave members suspended the letters to be sent asking for proof of their said misdemeanours.Asking for SAR’s,asking about natural justice,many different ways to do everything legally!
People were confiding how they were losing sleep, terrified about being labelled an antisemite,losing their jobs,mental health issues, there were even suicides.It was horrendous.I was accused, I asked for a SAR, paid £10 for it and they sent me 2 tweets that I had retweeted that called the party centrist? That was it? 55 years of membership gone! I asked for a full SAR,it was ignored then months later after persisting in asking for a full SAR,I was reinstated with a warning???
The BBC eventually published in a tiny corner of one of its pages that “ after an investigation by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service after being handed a huge log of complaints of Antisemitism in the Labour party that only one person had been found to be antisemetic and he will be prosecuted” .
The trouble was that when Formby took over, had she said that there was no Antisemitism in the party she would have been blasted and so would Corbyn by the media as so many in the party,the centrists were still saying complaints were coming in daily, which they probably were but it wasn’t about Antisemitism it was about antizionism and they had to investigate every single one of those 200 a day.
Strange that all this rife Antisemitism disappeared the minute that Starmer was made leader?
The lawyers kept us all informed of everything going on and I could write a book,the group was overwhelmed because they were suspending hundreds a day under McNicol,many are still suspended as their mental health suffered so much but many more are still in touch who were never given their memberships back for supporting Corbyn.
The reason that Corbyn lost 2 elections was the right/centrists crucified him all over the media hourly. The 2nd time was through Starmer as Brexit sec insisting on a Peoples Vote saying it would gather votes. We all saw what happened then, the Brexiters in the North all voted Tory to “get Brexit done” polls after showed 71% of Lab voters who voted Tory this time was for that reason! 2% because they didn’t like Corbyn.