CLP secretary suspended for discussing the EHRC Report

JVL Introduction

Tom Conwell, secretary of the Newent branch of the Labour Party in the Forest of Dean, has been suspended.

Why? Because he criticised the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report about antisemitism in the Labour Party.

In this critique he explains why he thought it was a shoddy piece of work, an opinon he shared with his branch members.

We repost his critique as submitted, having only made a few presentational changes, including the addition of a handful of subheadings to facilitate legibility.

Tom Conwell writes

Before I was suspended I was the secretary of the Newent branch of the Labour Party in the Forest of Dean. My suspension letter did not specify the allegations that had been made against me other than to say it related to my on-line activities. As I don’t have any presence on social media, that could only refer to the newsletters I had been e-mailing to branch members. The offending content could only have been my criticisms of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report about antisemitism in the Labour Party. The General Secretary of the Party had written to all members telling them that it was forbidden to criticise the EHRC report. When I read the report I thought it was a shoddy piece of work and I wrote to branch members setting out why I thought that. If Mr Evans thinks the report is so good, why is he so worried about it being discussed? If he’s got any answer to what I’m about to say, well, no-one’s trying to silence him.

Before I begin I think I should make a few things clear about where I stand. A small percentage of the population of this country are anti-Semitic. Labour is a mass movement. It is inconceivable therefore that there are not some members of the Party who hold and express antisemitic views. But the Party is not a natural home for anti-Semites, far from it. I do think that, either from ignorance or malice, the scale of antisemitism within the Party has been grossly exaggerated. This article, though, isn’t about my views. Its about the EHRC report.

Just so we’re clear, the EHRC said that the Labour Party had committed three ‘Unlawful Acts’ against its Jewish members. These were:

  • the harassment carried out by Ken Livingstone and councillor Pam Bromley;
  • political interference by the party leadership in antisemitism complaints; and
  • the failure to provide adequate training to staff handling antisemitism complaints.

1. The failure to provide adequate training

I’ll take the last one first, as I think that’s key to understanding everything else. The EHRC didn’t say what adequate training might look like other than “Adequate training requires not only an academic understanding of what antisemitism is, but also practical training on how to handle antisemitism complaints.” I don’t think anyone would argue with that, so I put in a Freedom of Information request to the EHRC asking what training it had provided to its staff carrying out the investigation. I was surprised when the EHRC replied to say that its staff had been given no training, as it did not think its staff required any training either in how to identify antisemitism, or how to deal with antisemitism complaints.

At first sight I was just struck by the hypocrisy of it. Seemingly in blissful ignorance, armed only with their unchallenged preconceptions, these would-be champions of human rights blithely set forth to sit in judgement on others. But I don’t think it’s as simple as that. There is no clear-cut, universally accepted, definition of antisemitism. What one person might see as antisemitic, another might not. Here’s a couple of examples of the elasticity of allegations.

In an open letter to the Guardian columnist Owen Jones, Professor Tony Booth, a Jewish member of the Party, wrote:

“I often draw attention to the allegations of antisemitism from within the Board of Deputies of British Jews against its president, Marie van der Zyl and vice-president Sheila Gewolb by other deputies. I don’t think for a moment that they are antisemitic but that some within their organisation have sought to extend claims of antisemitism for factional purposes.”

The Labour Party report ‘The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019’ was leaked to the press in April 2020. The EHRC says that it has “considered the leaked report and taken it into account where appropriate.” I wonder what the EHRC investigators made of the fact that in 2019 when the ‘crisis of antisemitism’ within the Party was seldom out of the news, one half of all the allegations of antisemitism made against Party members came from one individual. This witch-finder general was trawling people’s social media accounts looking for evidence of antisemitism and, so we are told in paragraph 6.8.4.i of the leaked report, they regularly submit complaints about people sharing Jewish-related articles, with the comment “They’re not Jewish”.

It seems incredible that the EHRC would send its staff out into this confused, complex and contentious arena without any education or training on the issues they were about to investigate.

The EHRC received over 220 complaints regarding the Labour Party’s handling of antisemitism allegations. These complaints had been compiled by the Jewish Labour

Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism . The EHRC selected 58 of these cases for investigation. The EHRC report does not say that these 58 cases were selected at random. If they had been I am sure the report would have said so. It’s reasonable therefore to conclude that the EHRC selected what it thought was the most egregious examples. In addition to these 58, the Labour Party supplied a further 12 cases “that it thought demonstrated a fair overview of the successes, and past weaknesses, in its disciplinary process.” Of these 70 cases, the EHRC found 2 cases of unlawful behaviour – one involving Ken Livingstone and the second involving Pam Bromley. There were a further 18 cases which the EHRC described as ‘borderline’. The other 50 were never mentioned again.

Now, concluding that 18 allegations of antisemitism were ‘borderline’ is a rather opaque way of saying ‘we couldn’t make up our mind’. The EHRC say that in these 18 cases “a person had committed conduct that could (my emphasis) amount to harassment and held a position within the Labour Party, such as a local councillor, candidate for local election or Constituency Labour Party office holder. However, in these cases there was not enough evidence to determine whether the Labour Party was legally responsible.” Very deliberately, I think, the EHRC does not say that the conduct was harassment, but a quick reading  would give the impression that it was and that the only difficulty was in determining the Labour Party’s responsibility. But that doesn’t bear close examination. How come the Labour Party couldn’t be held responsible for the actions of someone who “held a position within the Labour Party, such as a local councillor” and yet be held responsible for the actions of someone who was a councillor – Pat Bromley?

Hers was a  ‘clear-cut’ case of antisemitic harassment, so we are told, whereas the 18 ‘borderline’ cases  were only “could” have been. The EHRC didn’t, or couldn’t, say whether they were or they weren’t. I’m not sure whether ‘adequate training’ would have helped the EHRC investigators make up their minds. Probably not, given the lack of a clear-cut, unambiguous definition of antisemitism. And the difficulties caused by that will become more apparent when we look at the two ‘clear-cut’ cases. However, I would have thought that, after investigating these 70 cases for a year and a half, being unable to make up its mind about 18 of them would have given the EHRC pause for thought before condemning the failures of others to make quick, or indeed any, decisions.

2. Political interference

The EHRC’s handling of the question of political interference is, in my opinion, downright dishonest. The EHRC report makes clear that the party’s complaints unit (The Governance and Legal Unit) was a shambolic operation that not only failed to make decisions on cases, but didn’t keep its files in order or communicate properly with either complainants or respondents (as far as this last point goes, the EHRC report makes clear that the respondents were treated significantly worse than the complainants). Given the press frenzy that frequently broke out about the Party’s handling of antisemitism complaints, what leader wouldn’t ‘interfere’ to try and get some action.

The EHRC Report acknowledges that the leadership’s political interference had ‘in some cases’ resulted in getting the complaints unit to progress complaints. When it did intervene, the evidence in the  report shows the Leader’s Office as more likely than not to be pushing for disciplinary action against the respondents. How then, one might ask, had this political interference “amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination against its Jewish members”?

The EHRC have a ready answer: “the inappropriateness of political interference in antisemitism complaints is not necessarily about the particular outcomes that it led to, but rather the contamination (and/or the perception of contamination) of the fairness of the process.” 

Having spent pages showing how the incompetently run complaints unit was unfair to everybody, the EHRC then says that the Leader’s Office’s attempts to get something done was interference with a fair process. And then, casting aside its own evidence that the most unfairly treated were those against whom complaints were being made, the EHRC concluded that the Leader’s Office’s efforts to get action on these complaints “put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members”. The EHRC didn’t explain how this could possibly be, other to say that this ‘contamination’ was more likely to take place on complaints that had been initiated by Jewish members. These findings are such a distortion of the evidence that I can’t but think the EHRC were out to get Jeremy Corbyn for something.

3. Harassment by the Labour Party through the acts of its agents

Which brings us to the finding that “The Labour Party committed unlawful harassment of its members, contrary to section 101(4)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, related to race (Jewish ethnicity), through the acts of its agents Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley”

The EHRC based that finding on its belief that comments made by Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley’s “were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity” and that this ‘unwanted conduct’ meet the Equalities Act definition of harassment. Somewhat bizarrely the EHRC went on to say that, it came to this conclusion without reference to the  International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and at the same time said that it was satisfied that their comments would meet the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

The IHRA  definition is: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It is described as the ‘Working Definition’. I take that to mean it is not the finished product, and clearly “a certain perception” could be improved upon, but it is the definition that is currently in use.

The Pam Bromley case

Pam Bromley was a Labour Councillor in Rossendale. The  Labour Party received complaints about her Facebook activity in May 2017. No action was then taken until an article referring to these complaints appeared in the Times newspaper in April 2018.  Councillor Bromley was then suspended from the Party the following day. A year later she received a disciplinary sanction. A year after that, following further complaints about her Facebook postings, she was expelled.

The EHRC does not say what Pam Bromley’s original Facebook post was but, rather coyly, it gives, as an example of inactivity by the complaints unit, an unattributed 2016 Facebook entry in which ‘a councillor’  “shared an image of Jewish banker, Jacob Rothschild, on their Facebook page along with a caption claiming that the Rothschild family and other institutions, including the City of London and the Vatican, ‘own our News, our Media, our Oil and even our governments’ “. From the entries that are attributed to Pam Bromley, I think we can be sure that she was that unnamed ‘councillor.’ And that it was this 2016 Facebook post which was the subject of the initial complaint.

There are two points to make about this. The complaints about Pam Bromley’s initial post were sat on by the complaints unit for over a year, until an article appeared in a newspaper. I think we can reasonably conclude that the first the Leader’s Office knew about this complaint was when that article appeared and that it was ’political interference’ from the Leader’s Office which led to Pam Bromley’s suspension the following day.

The second point concerns the contents of the post. In my opinion it shows a very poor understanding of the workings of capitalism. But the question is, whether her use of the Rothschilds is antisemitic. The image of the rich Jew controlling things is an anti-Semitic trope that is often used. And many people would consider her post to be blatant antisemitism.

Did Pam Bromley select the Rothschilds because they were Jewish, or because they were rich?  Either option is possible. If we leave intention aside, is trying to generate antipathy towards the activities of a rich family, that was well known to be Jewish, evidence of antisemitism?  I’m not sure whether it is or it isn’t. The EHRC didn’t seem sure either. It didn’t include it with her other Facebook posts for which it found her, and the Labour Party, guilty. It only appears in the section dealing with delay and inaction in progressing complaints. I know that there are allegations that staff in the complaints unit deliberately sat on antisemitism complaints in order to embarrass Jeremy Corbyn. These allegations may or may not be true. But maybe staff in the complaints unit couldn’t make up their minds about this post either. I’m labouring this point because I think it shows the difficulty of correctly identifying antisemitism in the absence of a clear definition and doubly so in the absence of any education or training. These difficulties are even more apparent in the Facebook posts that the EHRC say did show her “unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity.”

In its coverage of Pam Bromley the EHRC only quotes the Facebook entries she made after the appearance of the Times article. The first entry was

‘Some time back I got hammered for posting an anti-Rothschild meme. However here they are again. We must remember that the Rothschilds are a powerful financial family (like the Medicis) and represent capitalism and big business – even if the Nazis DID use the activities of the Rothschilds in their anti semitic [sic] propaganda. We must not obscure the truth with the need to be tactful’

In support of its finding of ‘unwanted conduct’ the EHRC said

“One of the social media posts used an obviously antisemitic trope, namely that Jewish people control the world’s financial system. In her response to this investigation, Pam Bromley said that she was making general criticisms about capitalism and a legitimate political argument. In our view, this post goes beyond legitimate comment, referring to antisemitic Nazi propaganda.”

We need to put aside whatever feelings Pam Bromley’s political opinions might evoke in us, and look at this matter dispassionately. Did she say that Jewish people control the world’s financial system. No she didn’t. The EHRC put those words in her mouth. Was she endorsing antisemitic Nazi propaganda, just because she referred to it? I don’t think she was. How can it be ‘unwanted conduct’ to simply refer to antisemitic Nazi propaganda? If it were it would knock out an essential component of any understanding of the Holocaust.

The second finding against Pam Bromley was that

“Some of Pam Bromley’s social media posts suggested that Jewish people were engaged in a conspiracy for control of the Labour Party, which we consider to be an antisemitic trope (for example, the reference to a ‘fifth column’).

The EHRC do not reproduce the whole ‘fifth column’ post, but provide the gist.

‘Had Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party pulled up the drawbridge and nipped the bogus AS accusations in the bud in the first place we would not be where we are now and the fifth column in the LP would not have managed to get such a foothold … the Lobby has miscalculated … The witch hunt has created brand new fightback networks … The Lobby will then melt back into its own cesspit’

I think we can conclude from this that Pam Bromley thought that there were some traitors in the Labour Party who were using accusations of antisemitism as a means of overthrowing Jeremy Corbyn. The ‘Lobby’ is probably shorthand for the ‘pro-Israel lobby’. In effect, what Pam Bromley was alleging was that traitors within the Party were working with the pro-Israel lobby to bring about regime change.

The majority of Pam Bromley’s entries quoted by the EHRC say that the complaints about antisemitism are ‘fake’ and ‘false’. The main finding of unwanted conduct against Pam Bromley, as far as I can see, was that she had been “repeatedly saying that allegations of antisemitism were fabricated”. Now, I can see that her posts would be very offensive to the people making the allegations, and that they would have been ‘unwanted’ but I do not see how they can be described as harassment. Putting aside whether she was right or not, she is clearly saying ‘some Jews are up to no good’.  Whatever else it might be, by any reading of the IHRA definition, I can’t see how it’s antisemitic to say that.

The EHRC got into an awful muddle over Pam Bromley. It wanted to find her guilty and so put words into her mouth to fabricate an open and shut case, but forgot, or hoped everyone would overlook, that the same Facebook posts that are used to demonstrate her clear cut guilt also appear in the list of Facebook posts from the 18 ‘borderline’ cases where the EHRC couldn’t make up its mind, e.g. “described a ‘witch hunt’ in the Labour Party, or said that complaints had been manufactured by the ‘Israel lobby” and “referenced conspiracies about the Rothschilds and Jewish power and control over financial or other institutions.”

In addition to education and training, the EHRC could also have benefited from better proof reading

The Ken Livingstone case

The EHRC said that it had based its findings against Ken Livingstone on his “statements about antisemitic social media posts by Naz Shah MP….. Naz Shah’s social media posts included an image suggesting that Israel should be relocated to the United States, with the comment ‘problem solved’, and a post in which she appeared to liken Israeli policies to those of Hitler….. In media interviews between 28 and 30 April 2016, Ken Livingstone denied that these posts were antisemitic”.

The EHRC Report found Ken Livingstone guilty of antisemitic harassment because “Labour Party members told us that the comments by Ken Livingstone in relation to Naz Shah (referred to above) caused shock and anger among Jewish Labour Party members. They felt his comments were appalling, highly offensive and very distressing….. They said the effect of these comments was humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, and had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for Jews.”

Some people question whether all of these expressions of distress were genuine. But I think that the EHRC was correct to take them all at face value and accept that these feelings were genuinely held. My concern is, why were they the only voices that are recorded. There are plenty of Jewish members of the Party that do not feel that way. Many Jewish Labour Party members provided testimony to the EHRC directly contradicting these allegations. Why was their experiences and testimony omitted from the EHRC report?

Let’s go back to Naz Shah’s post of the map of Israel superimposed on the USA. Where did she get it from? In 2014, during one of the periodic outbreaks of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, Naz Shaw reposted the map which she had copied from the website of an American academic, Norman Finkelstein. In 2016, Mr Finkelstein was  interviewed about the map and Ken Livingstone comments by Open Democracy. Anyone can find this interview on-line.  I find it inconceivable that the EHRC investigators were unaware of what Mr Finkelstein was saying. I think they just chose to leave him and all the other similar Jewish voices out of their report, because it suited their purpose.

The EHRC was perfectly aware that there were differences of opinion within the Jewish community about whether Ken Livingstone’s remarks were antisemitic. Lots of Jewish members wrote to the EHRC to refute the allegations of antisemitism. Doesn’t the Labour Party owe it to its Jewish members who were silenced to ask the EHRC why it didn’t allow their voices to be heard?

Nobody knows what Ken Livingstone said in his own defence. He too was silenced. All the report says is “Ken Livingstone was given an opportunity to comment but did not provide any relevant points.”

Concluding remarks

What possible good does it do for the EHRC to be so one sided? It just makes them look biased.

If the people running the EHRC were too spineless to allow any voice to be heard, other than the powerful voices bringing the allegations, maybe they should ask themselves what they’re doing in an organisation dedicated to protecting human rights.

Of course ignoring what one side has to say makes it easier to write a simplistic narrative. It’s just a lot easier to dishonestly present an allegation of antisemitism as an undisputed fact, (especially if you haven’t bothered to have any education or training) than it is to examine and question the allegation. And having done that, all the sordid rest follows. If Ken Livingstone’s defence of Naz Shah is, without any questions asked, deemed to be antisemitic and there are some people saying that his defence of her made them feel humiliated and threatened, then, well, it’s an open and shut case – he’s guilty of the harassment of Jews! This type of ‘fitting-up’ to gain a conviction has a long and dishonourable history. Welcome to the Orwellian ‘Equalities and Human Rights Commission’.

Meanwhile we in the Labour Party end up with a General Secretary who appears scared out of his wits that this shoddy report will be held up to the daylight and everyone will see the holes. I wonder why?

Links to all JVL statements and other articles on the EHRC report

Comments (29)

  • DJ says:

    Terrific article. Bang on the money. Support Ken Livingstone’s attempt to clear his name against the bogus claims against him. We need to go on the attack against the partisan EHRC and its disingenuous report.

  • Katharine Murdoch says:

    Will you please precis this report!

  • Kevin Harrison says:

    There’s a lot wrong with the Israeli government, the BOD and EHRC.
    But why are we allowing them to dictate policy to a UK political party?

  • Martin Clay says:

    Excellent piece. The admission by the EHRC that its staff have no training and the claim they don’t need it but Labour do is breathtaking.

  • Deborah Darnes says:

    Excellent. Shows what a mess the Labour Party is in. Also EHRC not fit for purpose. I read the previous Chair who led this investigation is now critical of government interference in their work

  • First class resume the attempts to curtail right to freedom of speech under human rights legislation also unacceptable in the EHRC report

  • James says:

    Then the General Secretary needs to be democratically replaced with another, but more intelligent person.

  • Margaret Healey-Pollett says:

    Thank you, Tom Conwell for this critique of the report, and especially your thoroughness in asking your freedom of information question on what training the EHRC staff had received. I am both shocked and amused by their admission to having no training.

  • Brian Walford says:

    A very interesting read

  • brendan stebbings says:

    Could we possibly nominate Tom Conwell for the position of Gen Sec of the Labour party please?

  • Alan Maddison says:

    Excellent analysis Tom. Rather than debate your points Evans prefers to silence you and intimidate others. Similar tactics to those used by ‘pro- Israel’ or as some prefer to call them, the ‘anti-Palestinian equal rights’ groups. They both do this because the can’t win the arguments.

    I understand Ken and Pam will be taking the EHRC to court about this. Quite right too. It seems the only way, as Starmer and the Tory establishment will otherwise ignore such valid criticism and continue their dishonest weaponising of antisemitism.

  • Philip Ward says:

    Can I correct the point made by Deborah Darnes? The EHRC investigation was not led by its chair David Isaac, but by one Alasdair Henderson, who according to the Guardian doesn’t believe homophobia and misogyny are useful terms and has “liked” tweets by Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray, the first subject to racist and antisemitic outbursts and the second an advocate of anti-muslim measures.

    Judging by what I can glean from the minutes of their meetings, the EHRC report in its final form was not presented to the board prior to its publication, so it is a moot question whether it has any official standing, notwithstanding that it was overseen by someone who seems to have a very poor grasp of inequality, discrimination and oppression.

  • Mary Davies says:

    An excellent critique of a flawed report.

  • Pam Bromley says:

    I’m pleased to see a further critical analysis of the EHRC report has appeared. The more the better. However, the random and out of context choice of FB posts to focus on has left some commentators making wild guesses about what I meant, and annoyingly they are shooting off in all directions, as in this article. Why not contact me and ask?

  • David Hawkins says:

    This is a genuine question and I ask it specifically because I am not Jewish.
    Throughout all my adult life I have motivated by a hatred of racism and because I was born in the shadow of the Holocaust, I have a special hatred of racism against Jews.
    But as someone who is a social democrat and believes all human life is equal, I can see no justification for a separate category for racism against Jews.
    All racism is equally vile and I don’t see any evidence that British Jews in the 21st century are especially threatened. Of course Jews were especially threatened by the Nazis, but we are not living in Nazi Germany.
    I am quite sure that many British Jews feel especially threatened but that by itself in not evidence that they are threatened.
    “Anti Semitism” implies that British Jews are fundamentally different, that they are “the other” and I fundamentally reject that.
    All British Citizens are equally precious.
    As a non Jew I think that “anti Semitism” has become an ideological tool of Zionism. Why can’t we just talk of racism against Jews ?
    What do you think ?

  • John Burton says:

    Well done Tom. Simply, cogently, beautifully argued, step by step. Even I can understand it. So good to “hear” your voice. Get in touch. John.

  • Alan Marsden says:

    Brilliant and “forensic” evisceration of the crooked EHRC.

  • Lucy Toynber says:

    Thank you for this excellent critique of that report.
    In particular, as you point out, the result of your FoI request re training and the whole issue of the lack of clarity around what constitutes AS.

  • Mat Anderson says:


  • sean clarke says:

    your posts are my first read of the day, keep up the good work in these difficult days.

  • David Townsend says:

    It says on my erstwhile membership card that Labour is a ‘democratic socialist party’.

    What part of ‘democratic’ does the present leadership not understand?

  • Alan Stanton says:

    Tom Conwell’s comment is superb. Will anyone with power listen?

    Merriam Webster: Definition of ‘weaponize’
    Transitive verb: “to adapt for use as a weapon of war”.

    Why has the National Labour Party leadership left itself trapped in this dead end of weaponized allegations by secret anonymous informers? Allegations often leading to suspensions with a ban on talking about this. Investigations perhaps appearing incompetent and shambolic. Maybe these are followed by a parody of a hearing; trials with unnamed witnesses, perhaps conducted by people with inadequate knowledge and training?

    From the few cases I know about in my own borough I have a picture of a complaints system resembling a grotesque circus which has spun out of control. A system achieving little or nothing positive. People are harmed and dispirited. They may be smeared and left in limbo for months. Long standing Party volunteers are treated with contempt, or as “pieces” to be removed from a “gameboard” someone else is cynically playing.

    Watching this ongoing self-harm, enemies of the Labour Party must be exultant!

  • Sandy Palmer says:

    To be suspended for challenging the report and wanting dialogue on it’s findings is the most appalling element of this situation. Tom’s human rights are being trampled over by a party which has lost it’s way.

  • Peter Jones says:

    I expect many will join me in commending and thanking Mr Conwell for his diligent deconstruction of a report that he exposes as being a slovenly piece of work.

  • Charlotte Peters Rock says:

    A very careful, and much needed critique, of a murky and I believe, deliberately divisive and destructive situation, which should never have been allowed to exist and grow. I believe, McNicol should be answerable for this. Instead blame has scattered, threatening an enormous number of Labour Members, in a totally uninformative and undermining situation, which has also had the gall to demand their silence, about undisclosed, supposed wrongdoing, leaving them bereft of reputation and aid. That his has arisen within this particular Party, is a further disgrace.

  • Tony Beddow says:

    Thank you for undertaking this detailed analysis. It will stand proud in the history of the Labour Party as a document of record.

  • Michael Herring says:

    The more I read about the EHRC, the more shocking they seem.

  • Kuhnberg says:

    The argument is incontrovertible. The evidence is there in plain sight. And yet it all goes unacknowledged by all but fringe media outlets, whose efforts consist largely of preaching to the converted.

    What can we do about it? How, in a world where opinion is controlled by what amounts to state media, and even the leader of the Labour Party colludes with the propagandists, can we make our voices heard?

    Sometimes I feel as helpless aa Winston Smith in 1984.

  • Rab Amos says:

    Excellent analysis of the EHRC report, the reason Starmer and Evans, goes back to 2015 when Corbyn was elected, his vision of a fairer society was capturing workers minds, the setting up of Momentum put fear into the elite, the 90 plus right wing Labour MPs, hatred of Socialism, in 2017 election we were 2500 votes away from getting that vision, Anti Semitism was only a tool.

Comments are now closed.