No Place for Antisemitism: Disciplinary Processes – A Critique

In this article Richard Kuper raises some disturbing questions about Labour’s latest update on progress in dealing with antisemitism allegations.

The Labour Party published a report No Place for Antisemitism: Disciplinary Processes a few weeks ago (28 Jan 2020), showing how it has “continued to take decisive action to root it out”. The document and a brief comment on it were posted on the JVL website here. And Lee Harpin, trigger happy as always, reported subsequently in the Jewish Chronicle how “Labour recently expelled 25 party members in a single day”, as if that is something to be terribly proud of.

I want to develop a critique of the Labour Party’s report here. While concurring with Labour’s commitment to deal with antisemitism, I am not reassured by its account of the procedures introduced to speed up disciplinary hearings nor by the report of 298 suspensions and 45 members expelled in 2019, compared with 98 suspensions and 10 expulsions in the previous year. Nor indeed by the 149 members who were removed from the party “either being expelled or quitting the party as proceedings progressed”.

What matters is knowing precisely what members were suspended or expelled for – what the Party is in practice deeming to be antisemitic.

For all that Formby states in her report that “we are committed to transparency” there is remarkably little of that about.

JVL sees dealing with antisemitism, as with all forms of racism, as an educative as well as a disciplinary matter – to eliminate what is blatantly antisemitic behaviour, with expulsions if necessary, but at the same time educating Party members and people more generally about the nuances and harms that may inadvertently be caused. The process must also at the same time preserve and foster the freedom to speak out and debate the injustices of the world, particularly, in this context, concerning the Palestinians.

How can anyone learn anything from a suspension or an expulsion unless they know what it is for? What did the individual do to merit such a harsh punishment? Without that knowledge all a disciplinary “zero-tolerance” approach achieves is to instil fear, to silence, to censor. It encourages self-censorship and we are all the losers. Our right to free speech, our ability to educate ourselves, our right to free and frank debate – all simply disappear out the window.

So we are not reassured when Jennie Formby writes: “A small minority of Labour members hold antisemitic views and a larger number don’t always recognise antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories for what they are.” We need to know what these beliefs are and, in particular we need to know what “antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories” are being referred to.

You’d think it would be easy: Holocaust denial, perhaps, or blood libels, or Jews in conspiracy to achieve worldwide domination? But no, as a couple of examples will show.

Where is the antisemitic stereotype or conspiracy theory in the disturbing report, for example, of someone suspended for reposting a JVL Facebook post, a photo of nonagenarian Emeritus Prof Frank Land and his twin brother Ralph – holding up a poster saying “Jews for Jeremy” to which the re-poster had added the comment: “The right kind of Jews – ie left voters”?

Or consider the charge brought under the fast-track procedure against a member for claiming that the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis was “manufactured” and that “privileging antisemitism above other forms of race hatred is nothing to be proud about. Neither is supporting Israeli racism and apartheid.” For this the member was put on the fast-track disciplinary process (of which more below). For the moment it is worth recalling that when this process was introduced in July 2019 it was to be reserved, we were assured, for “the most serious cases”.

You don’t have to agree with the comments, or even approve of the language used, but how can this be deemed so unacceptable that no hearing is required? The topsy-turvy logic explicitly used was to assert that saying complaints are “manufactured” suggests that Jewish complaints should receive less favourable treatment than other complaints; and that saying antisemitism was privileged suggests merely addressing complaints of antisemitism places Jews in a privileged position, implying that these complaints should not be dealt with…

The person accused could easily have rebutted these utterly unreasonable interpretations of what they were reported as having said. But, under the accelerated disciplinary procedure, they are not called to a hearing or even allowed to enter any defence whatsoever. The member concerned was in fact summarily expelled.

So we do indeed have questions as to what the 45 expulsions were actually for – and why a further 104 members accused of antisemitism left the party before the hearings were determined. Because they were guilty as charged? Or because they simply could not bear to put themselves through the processes of investigation which they had come to feel were McCarthyite, vindictive and vengeful?

Lest anyone think this fanciful, consider Simon McGinn’s experiences as recounted in early 2018 in his powerful statement The Labour party, the blood libel and me. Or the ongoing case of Mike Sivier who is taking the Labour Party to court “over its decision to expel me from membership on charges relating to anti-Semitism, using a compromised disciplinary procedure that, I am alleging, breaches the terms of the party’s contract with its members”.

There is also room for justifiable concern when Formby writes: “The vast majority of complaints relate to social media activity, often social media posts from several years ago. A third of all cases in 2019 have the same single individual as the main complainant.”

Of course, what is posted in social media is relevant and raises issues of a completely new kind. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust published a measured, special report on it last October entitled “Protecting the Jewish community from antisemitism on Facebook”. They point out the problem: “Despite all the good that we all share online, some people still want to use Facebook to spread their hate. Sometimes this hate manifests itself as antisemitic hatred, racism or extremism.” They illustrate it like this: Some violating examples of antisemitism reported to social media include: “Jews are rats”, “All Jews are greedy” and “I’m glad the holocaust happened”. It contains sensible and practical advice, and calls for such abuse to be reported to Facebook and to the CST

Insofar as these posts relate to the kind of material the BoD and CST have identified, there is no issue or disagreement. But do they? Examples cited in circulated reports of investigations are generally not like this at all but more like the examples above: jokes about the “wrong kind of Jews”, calling Israel an “apartheid state” or a “racist state”.

We need to pick up also on Formby references to social media posts “from several years ago”. What did they say? When? In what context? We simply are not told. Surely an angry, upset, even over-the-top attack on Israel at the height of its phosphorus bombings of Gaza is not the same as “Hitler should have finished the job”?

The idea of being held accountable “several years” later is itself problematic. That is why the Chakrabarti Report recommended “a moratorium on triggering new formal investigations (as opposed to informal discussions) on comments and conduct arising prior to my report (p.20)”.

Such comments may indeed be relevant, but if they have not been repeated or acted upon over five, ten or more years, in what sense are they evidence of what the person believes now? Labour candidate Ali Milani is a case in point.

While a council candidate in April 2018, Ali Milani was hounded by Euan Phillips spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism for a tweet made in 2012. Phillips wanted blood: “Ali Milani is an antisemite who should not be representing @UKLabour in any capacity, never mind for our nations highest elected body. If zero tolerance means anything then @jeremycorbyn will intervene to ask Ali to stand down. He won’t of course. #LabourAntisemitism”.

In this case both Ali Milani and the Labour Party acted sensibly. Milani apologised for the comments made as a teenager, saying: “We all make mistakes and we must be willing to accept that most of us aren’t chiselled from adolescence for public office.” And the Labour Party accepted his apology and allowed him to move on.

Hearsay evidence, and a few cases where charges and allegations have been made public, suggest that many suspended and expelled people fall into a similar category. But we simply do not know.

The is also the question of allegations which are unsubstantiated, or indeed vexatious. This is most definitely not saying all allegations are “manufactured”, but it is determinedly saying some might be. What sense can we otherwise make of the recent Skwawkbox report which claims: “NEC investigators pass us evidence to assess, but much of it is so flimsy or irrelevant that when we’ve talked to our legal advisors we have no choice but to reject it as unfit – as much as 90% of it in some cases.”

What is lacking in Labour’s disciplinary processes is any notion of transparency and very limited ideas about natural justice and due process. The recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report about disciplinary procedures and processes which were intended to ensure this, and which were supposedly accepted soon after its publication, appear simply not to have been enacted.

Those suspended aren’t told who have made allegations against them (in direct contravention of a key Chakrabarti recommendation), are given a questionnaire about things they are thought to have posted, and without being accused of anything specific are in effect invited to incriminate themselves. And, while they have been instructed that they must not say anything publicly about the accusation, they not uncommonly find that, leaks of these allegations find their way into the media, often resulting in cyber bullying. For this Labour does offer a remedy – everyone suspended is routinely given the phone number of the Samaritans…

The investigative process which I have sketched in seems to be one in which the people accused are invited to collaborate in constructing charges against themselves. Some cases we have seen are based on tweets or Facebook posts which are simply not problematic as charged; they express political views which others strongly disagree with but which are nonetheless legitimate views.

So we end up perplexed by Jennie Formby’s latest report. It raises more questions than it answers.

JVL, for its part, will continue to ask awkward questions as and when necessary, will continue to argue that some accusations of antisemitism have in fact been weaponised, and will continue to call for transparent disciplinary processes that meet the criteria of transparency, due process and natural justice. We, and the Labour Party, have a way to go yet.


Comments (26)

  • Jan Brooker says:

    Today one of my facebook friend’s disciplinary *items* was that she posted a quote [she thought] from the Chakrabari Report. On checking, I found it was from the Home Affairs Ctte Report. How the hell can that be a disciplinary offence. We’ve truly passed through the mirror. The offending quote [p.46]:
    “Despite significant press and public attention on the Labour Party, and a number of revelations regarding inappropriate social media content, there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.”
    The mind boggles.


    Excellent and much needed analysis.

    Of course some antisemitism exists in Labour, and needs to be tackled, but is less prevalent than on the Right and Far Right, and other forms of racism, all which bizarrely get less attention.

    Now I could be accused of antisemitism because, whilst simply stating the facts that point to a political attack, I could appear to suggest that perhaps antisemitism does not matter!! Did I?

    Bernie Sanders’ team has been victim to a similar smear campaign, which he said is aimed at silencing necessary debate about Israel and Palestine.
    The democrats and US media have called out such divisive and hateful attacks against decent members Democrats. They have obtained an apology from AIPAC.

    Our problem seems to be that some on the Labour right, rather than similarly defend members, are instead participating in the weaponising of antisemitism to destroy the Left. The media too are showing appalling bias. And it seems the leadership candidates lack the basic awareness, integrity or courage to confront those leading this relentless and dishonest campaign.

    Thank goodness for Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler and JVL, whose voices the BoD, JLM et al obviously wish to silence. In a recent survey 73% of members thought the prevalence of antisemitism in Labour was being exaggerated. I hope Labour HQ and Jennie Formby wake up too, before it is too late.

    Meanwhile the eugenicist authoritarian Tory Government persues its continued racist hostile environment, and the antisemitic Far Right is given carter blanche by the right- wing Jewish establishment.

  • Naomi Wayne says:

    Terrific article Richard. How sad that these basic principles of natural justice have to be reiterated again in 2020 when discussing the disciplinary procedures of Britain’s social democratic party. Whoever described what is going on as McCarthyite was not exaggerating.

  • RH says:

    I again compliment JVL for getting to the heart of the matter. The current disarray of the Labour Party is encapsulated in the desperate illogicality and lack of principle around the ‘antisemitism’ hysteria. This article nails the problem very clearly.

    The key problems in separating distorted sectarian mythology from facts are enapsulated in two sentences :

    “We need to know what these beliefs are and, in particular we need to know what “antisemitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories” are being referred to.”


    “What is lacking in Labour’s disciplinary processes is any notion of transparency and very limited ideas about natural justice and due process.”

    There is a desperate need to get back to the Chakrabarti Report as a starting point, abandon the totally flawed IHRA model, reject the BoD distortions of due process, and bind examination of ‘anti-semitism’ into a coherent process involving other forms of prejudiced rhetoric and behaviour. But the abject fear of those who need to take the lead is entirely depressing.

    What is for sure is that, unless the nettle is grasped and truth is faced and told, the future of the Labour Party is massively compromised as a serious radical force rather than a vehicle for the advancement of cringing time-servers.

  • Leah Levane says:

    Richard – this is exemplary. Thank you – I hope that before too long the Party will come to its senses and treat its members with respect and save this fast track for those (few but nonetheless regrettable) egregious cases.

  • Mags says:

    Do we know the number of expulsions over the last few months?

  • Doug says:

    A third of all cases in 2019 came from the same individual complainant
    Were they justified or were they vexatious
    If vexatious, then complainant should at very least be suspended pending expulsion
    The nightmare continues with current leadership candidates, does anyone have a theory on why they are so ineffectual

  • Margaret E Johnson says:

    as a Labour Member I abhor the lack of transparency and rule of law in the disciplinary actions being taken against members. It seems that none of the candidates for Leadership has the guts to stand up and say “We will not tolerate racism of any kind nor will we be bullied and threatened by any outside body we will live by the law and treat all equally.” I am sorely disappointed and do not know who to vote for in this seemingly endless morass of accusations and lack of true justice.

  • Tommy O Neill says:

    Another Brilliant article by Richard and the JVL
    I’ve always said that the labour party should listen to the very knowledgeable JVL because they Express things correctly and always helpfull with advise to members

    The very important issues by which good labour members are being either suspended expelled or even resigning because of accusations made against them by an unnamed person or persons of antisemitism against them .
    We have recently had a lovely lady suspended who later died .

    I’m not saying her death was caused because of her being suspended .
    But it does feel that this has contributed to it by the upset and pain of being suspended when her only crime was to care for people and speak out for them against the attrocities they were having committed against them Which makes you start to think how many other people have been affected in this way through suspensions and expulsions through someone making an allagation against them without having the right to know who the person is that made the accusation.and what proof did they have to back the accusation up .

    If the labour party dont start listening to their members and in my opinion the JVL who have the knowledge to help the party in going forward in a way that would be far more open regarding what evidence there is to back up these claims against members

    This is so important and could prevent anymore deaths by people who have been accused of something that in probability they are not even guilty of .

    Antisemitism and other form of racism is wrong and people who are guilty of it are committing a criminal offence and should be dealt with for it as it’s wrong No ifs No Butts

    But when accusations are made of a person or persons Then the proof should be asked for . And if the accusation is false then the person making the accusation should be named and face disciplinary action.

  • dave says:

    The way to tackle this is to get people who have been disciplined or expelled to disclose all the documents and do some research, which will obviously take some time and effort. Some have already posted materials (eg Asa Winstanley).

  • Gerry Glyde says:

    Jan Brooker, Ìt is beyond belief that our party should in any way think it inappropriate to cite a quotation in an official report and ask the accused person to justify themselves. In your friends case it sounds as if the complaint should have been summarily rejected if that is the level of their concern. I expect however it was being used as ‘evidence’, of denial of a problem existng in the party. If the panel is not aware of the quotation, or its origins, they are not fit for purpose as adjudicators.

  • Philip Ward says:

    Tommy O’Neill (above) says that antisemitism and racism are criminal offences. This is not true, and nor should they be. The equality act protects employees and users of services from discrimination, harassment or victimisation on grounds of the nine protected characteristics. I’m not a lawyer or involved in this, but it looks like remedies under the act have to be pursued in civil courts or tribunals – and the settlements will then involve compensation or reinstatement – so breaches of the act are not criminal offences. The criminal offences are incitement to racial or religious hatred, so an intention has to be proved. I think this is a reasonable balance, although there are potential problems with the issue of religion.

    The late A Sivanandan, referred to in a previous article on the JVL site, made a distinction between individual acts of verbal racial abuse, offensive and distressing though they may be, and institutional racism by the state and associated bodies, which impacts ethnic minority people every single day (look at education, for example). I think this is a useful distinction, which would merit further discussion in JVL.

    Here’s how Sivanandan expresses it (“Challenging Racism”, 1983) “It is the acting out of racial prejudice and not racial prejudice itself that matters. The acting out of prejudice is discrimination, and when it becomes institutionalised in the power structure of this society, then we are dealing not with attitudes but with power…. We learnt it as we walked the streets, in the social and welfare services, in the health service – we learnt it everywhere.”

    What all the equality acts leave out is discrimination on grounds of class (look at education again).

  • andrew hornung says:

    Sounds tough, doesn’t it, that slogan: “Zero tolerance”? And if I were a witch-hunter, I’d use it. I’d seek out evil people, then I’d seek out those who failed to condemn the evil people and the people who question the efficacy of our evil-ometer. Must be scores of them. Then I’d break down the evil into its component parts and I’d punish those who showed sympathy with any one of these parts. Must be hundreds of them. And of course I wouldn’t spare those who failed to condemn those who showed sympathy with any one of those evil parts. Must be running into thousands by now. And then there are those that think I’ve gone too far – obviously a thinly veiled attempt to show solidarity with those we’ve already condemned – so they’d have to go. Did I say punish? Only we worst will do. Eradication.
    But I’m not a witch-hunter. I’m an educator. So when I encounter evil I ask myself if it arises out of confusion, out of ignorance or out of malice. I ask myself if I can change the situation, if correction is possible without punishment and, if punishment is necessary, I consider what its effect will be and whether it’s proportionate. I ask myself if the wrong-doer is obdurate or contrite. I ask myself whether I might have done the same if I had been in the wrong-doer’s position. I remind myself that the abuser was often the abused. I do this because I have been educated in a culture we refer to – mistakenly I think – as Judeo-Christian.

  • Janet Elizabeth Stains says:

    Yet again JVL thank you and Richard for highlighting the lack of transparency that has caused so much anguish to members who have been accused without proper evidence. What a shame the Chakrabarti report wasn’t implemented; -who was responsible for this being shelved? I wholeheartedly agree with all the preceding comments -and Margaret Johnson ‘s dilemma regarding the 3 candidates, pretty gutless I reckon, the way they’ve caved in to the BoD. I am not voting for them, only the 2 for deputy who have some backbone!!

  • I criticized Preti Patel for meeting an Israeli minister 12 times in secret while she was a government minister. That was enough for the CLP to describe my comments as “racist against Israel”. This was later changed by the party to antisemitic. I said quite clearly Israeli. not Jewish. Most of the antisemitic “evidence” against me, was doctored. My name on tweets differed. The fonts differed. Some did not have my twitter name on them, these things do not happen on social media. One had a strange insignia at the side, that I did not recognise.
    It took me two years, the intervention of the ICO and a solicitor to obtain my legal right to a Subject Access Request. Something the Labour party do not give to their accused as a right, but which they are entitled to in law.
    My MP tried to intervene on my behalf, because he knew it was all manufactured. He was then accused of antisemitism by Gnasher. A quick apology from him and join LFI and all was sorted. For him. I have the emails from his office asking to see Formby to talk about this. Formby blanked him and refused to engage with him about my case.

    Due process does not happen in the Labour party. This latest fast track expulsion only highlights the rot at the top of the party.

  • Gerry Glyde says:

    We need to challenge all candidates to disclose who they think could be ‘independent’ in respect of a member led body.
    I fear they would suggest the BoD, Jewish Leadership Council or similar who are led by conservatives. That will not be acceptable to members

  • Gerry Glyde says:

    Phillip Ward asserts that antisemitism and racism are not criminal matters but civil ones.

    They may be both depending or either, depending on the circumstances. This is evidenced by the fact that the 45 files that a Labour insider leaked to LBC and ambushed the Met Commissioner, demanding she should prosecute. After investigation the CPS has decided to prosecute 5 people. The facts have not been disclosed about the 40 or the 5 cases. An assault on a person may be a basic offence, or if there is evidence may be increased to a racially aggravated offence. Some comments or slurs may be so minor as not to qualify as either criminal or civil issues. A physical attack on a Jewish or Muslim place of worship , might be civil or criminal, again depending on the facts. If a variety of buildings in a locality were all attacked on the same occasion but without indicating a particular prejudice it might count as basic criminal damage. If only certain religious buildings were targeted it could show discrimination. Recently in North London various businesses were daubed with anti Jewish slogans. That indicates antisemitism. It is important to be clear about the issues.

  • Tom Loeffler says:

    I have read the Formby report and here are my comments on the data presented. I will not at this point comment on the qualitative aspects of the disciplinary process, such as fairness, openness, and transparency, and the key issue of what constitutes antisemitism.
    My main conclusion from the data is that the “antisemitism crisis” is no such thing. In Table 1, it is reported that 149 people were removed from the Party in 2019. The membership in July 2019 was 519,000, so that the incidence of antisemitism corresponds to just under 0.03% of the membership. Anyone claiming this is a crisis is talking absolute rubbish. At that level of incidence, I would need to meet about 3,500 members of the Party to come across an antisemite within a year (no wonder I have never met one in many years of membership). I would suggest that fellow members who have a Labour M.P. should inform him/her of this finding. It would be particularly useful if members whose M.P. is a candidate for the Leadership/Deputy Leadership did so.
    Other conclusions from the data are:
    (1) In Table 1, the figure of 149 members removed from the Party includes those who resigned, those whose membership lapsed, and those who were removed for other reasons, all during the investigation of the claims. It is wrong to assume that all these people were guilty, as no antisemitism was proved in these cases. Taking the figure of those expelled from the Party on the grounds of antisemitism (45), the incidence drops to 0.009% of membership.
    (2) The change in procedure in the final quarter of 2019 resulted in an increase in expulsions from around 20% in Q3 to around 60% in Q4
    (3) The data in Table 2 (First outcomes) show a big jump in overall cases (about 80% up) from 2018 to 2019, and an increase in the number of suspensions (from 23% of total cases to 38%). The data also confirm that suspension has become the disciplinary panels’ most likely decision, whereas the rules suggest that this decision should only apply to serious cases of prejudice (admittedly a very subjective criterion)
    (4) A quarter of claims made led to no action.
    (5) The move to NEC panels rather than National Constitutional Committee panels has certainly increased throughput, but whether this is a good thing from the point of view of ensuring justice is a question that cannot be answered from perusal of the data in this report.

  • John Bernard says:

    Speaking as one of the 149 who left the party in 2019 after receiving my witch hunt letter, I concluded, having looked at the “evidence” that these people simply did not understand the difference between anti-Semitism (a racist position) and anti-zionism (a political position), and so there was really no point in talking to such dullards. I ran the “evidence” past the head of my CLP a member of the Jewish community who was equally perplexed. One of the charges incidentally was that I had asserted that the party needed to get shot of McNicholl – prescient as it turned out, because some time later the party did just that! What bothers me is the transparency of both the process (who is making the allegations) and the staffing of Legal and Governance. Why for example are the names of those who have been accused regularly leaked to the Jewish Chronicle? There are numerous cases of this. I was told the other day by someone I and informed commentators respect and who comments frequently on such matters, that the head of Legal & Governance is “left wing”. I find this very surprising because for all the world, you could be forgiven for thinking L&G is staffed by JLM proxies. I think it is abundantly clear given recent developments (you refer to the Skwawkbox article) that the charge that accusations of anti-Semitism have been weaponised for political ends is entirely justified with many of the blizzard of referrals simply being vexacious. The party notwithstanding it’s flawed “fast track” procedure has a rigorous investigative procedure – I would like to see it impose that standard of rigor on those submitting screenshots and a complaint, whereby they are required to explain how (in no less [? more – jvl ed] than 250 words perhaps), what they are submitting, constitutes “anti-semitism”, with frequent vexacious complainants being barred from submitting further complaints, and themselves being investigated if a party member. That may ensure that actual cases of anti-semitism are considered and dealt with, and perhaps divert scarce funds to actually fighting the Tories rather than paying uneccessary salaries for an administratively bloated compliance function.

  • John Bernard says:

    JVL 🤣🤣🤣 sorry, I missed off a zero there 🤣🤣🤣

  • Gill McCall says:

    Good article. I find the inquisitorial methods of the Compliance team to bre particularly dubious: I was sent several pages of past FB posts, and asked to comment on why I posted them: they want me to incriminate myself! There are no names, no time limits on their responses, but a strict 7 days for mine. Their methods are intimidating, harassing, and contradict the concept of Natural Justice, one would expect from our Labour Party

  • Diane Langford says:

    I felt relief at reading your article as it perfectly reflects my own experience if being invited to incriminate myself, be party to a non disclosure agreement and answer 20 pages of multiple answer questions in 7 days, each of which could have taken several days.

  • Allan Howard says:

    In the above article it says the following:

    ‘So we do indeed have questions as to what the 45 expulsions were actually for – and why a further 104 members accused of antisemitism left the party before the hearings were determined. Because they were guilty as charged? Or because they simply could not bear to put themselves through the processes of investigation which they had come to feel were McCarthyite, vindictive and vengeful?’

    I have no doubt that many of those who left of their own accord did so because they felt the claim(s) made against them was totally unjustified AND left the party in anger at being investigated as such. But I have little doubt that some of them joined for the sole purpose of posting and making really vile anti-semitic comments on social media so as to further wreck the party’s reputation under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, knowing that they would then just leave the party once they were suspended and under investigation. I think it would be naive to think otherwise.

    I mean is it REALLY plausible that any genuine Jeremy Corbyn supporting member would come out with stuff like the following, as ‘reported’ in the Daily Mail, and no doubt most of the MSM. I mean it’s just the sort of thing you WOULD say, isn’t it, if you wanted to see Jeremy win a GE and form a government:

    LBC’s documents included details of 45 cases of alleged anti-Semitism, including one which read: ‘We shall rid the Jews who are a cancer on us all.’

    Others included a threat to throw two MPs off the top of a building and one that said a ‘Zionist extremist MP who hates civilised people’ was going to ‘get a good kicking’.


  • Gerry Glyde says:

    Allan Howard, if posting a Daily Mail piece of journalism, it is best to use a little analysis of what was written rather than letting it stand on its own merits.

    1. If the leaker of the files was actually concerned about antisemitism, why did they fail to hand over the files directly to the Met, rather than waiting until the Commissioner was doing a live interview and was not in a position to comment on documents she had not seen
    2. Euan Phillips again spinning facts. He implied that the other 40 odd files were of the same category, yet the police had the files for over 6 months of investigation and decided that no offences against the others could be established. If he knew the contents, why did he not hand over the files
    3. You suggested that the DM provided detail of alleged offences yet all was shown was a couple of sentences, isolated from the rest of the text, although yes repugnant.

    Please try and avoid giving the DM any level of credibility as source of accurate news

  • Julia Gallacher says:

    An excellent appraisal of Labour’s tragic inability to deal with the problem arising. I have always followed JVL and have heeded their concerns. I am distressed that the Leadership candidates felt compelled to sign the demand of the BoD – though believe that had they not done so they would have faced accusations of anti-Semitism from an uneducated media. I am also concerned that they were willing to be questioned by the JLM and that the two women were content to call themselves “Zionist”. Do they not realise that this term has a specific meaning that not all Jewish people are comfortable with? Am I correct in thinking that it was the BoD who some while ago entertained Mr Netanyahu here? I watched the very moving TV programme about “Holocaust deniers” by David Baddiel… I was shocked when he quoted statistics that 6% of the UK population were “deniers” – Can this be so? I was also incredulous of his claim that within the Middle East over 90% of the population were “deniers”. I am wondering where these statistics originated. Education is very much needed and I feel that somehow JVL needs to have a role in this within the Labour Party if it is to retain the confidence of the Jewish community, which, to an outsider, seems split on emphasis to say the least.

  • Allan Howard says:

    Gerry, by handing over the ‘leaked’ files to the Met Commissioner whilst she was doing a stint on LBC guaranteed that it received maximum publicity and coverage by the MSM, and I have little doubt that the so-called ‘secret dossier’ – as it was described by a number of newspapers – was put together from the the thousands of documents stolen by departing LP staff in the weeks prior to Jennie Formby taking up the position of GS, and who shredded the originals. as related in the following skwawkbox article:

    As for the ‘dossier’ being handed on to the met commissioner, it’s not as if it just happened out of the blue on air, and the CAA obviously worked with LBC prior to the ‘handover’, as evidenced by the fact that the ‘dossier’ of cases had already been ‘reviewed’ by Mak Chishty, who was in charge of dealing with hate crime for the Metropolitan police until the previous year, as detailed in the following article posted on LBCs website at the time:

    PS Had I thought for one moment that anyone would question the authenticity of the Mail’s article – which I of course completely understand – I would have also posted a link to the LBC article, which includes pictures of the original documents in question.

Comments are now closed.