Submitting evidence to the Forde Inquiry into the leaked report

The deadline for submissions to the enquiry has been extended 5 p.m on 7 August

Forde Inquiy panelists: Martin Forde QC (Chair), Baroness Lister of Burtersett, Baroness Wilcox of Newport, Lord Lawrence Whitty

The deadline for submissions to the enquiry has been extended 5 p.m on 7 August

Tight deadline to send evidence to the Forde Inquiry into the Leaked Report

The Forde Inquiry, into the leaked Labour report alleging racism, abuse, misdirection of funds, obstruction of complaint processes and undermining the party’s election campaigns by former senior party staff, is now calling for evidence.

We encourage all members and supporters who have experienced or witnessed relevant incidents to submit your evidence by email to:   [email protected]


This is open to all Labour Party members and “any other interested parties” and so should be willing to take on board the experiences of those who have left in frustration and despair and some who were expelled.  At the very least, these injustices will then be on the record. We are, for example, aware of many people who were suspended for a number of years with little or no communication, left in limbo.  We also know that some people found out about their suspensions via the media before they had the information from the Labour Party itself.

There may be scope for people to comment on the investigation process as it is described in the leaked report  and as it continues to have impact on those under investigation.

Also, we know that some CLPs will make submissions regarding the way that resources were (mis) used during the 2017 election.  We believe members and supporters will have much to contribute on points 1 and 3 of the terms of reference; in terms of outcomes,  indications are that the Inquiry itself intends to focus its report mainly on the third area.

These are the Inquiry’s full terms of reference

(With thanks to Squawkbox)

Comments (17)

  • Gilbert Markus says:

    Might it also be useful to invite anyone who wants to make a contribution to the Inquiry to copy their contribution to JVL. Given the levels of apparent duplicity among some senior members of the party over the last few years, it might be useful to have a gathering of this material independently of the Inquiry itself.

    Obviously this would be only an invitation, and should not inhibit people from making submissions without copying to JVL.

  • RH says:

    As I see it, the terms of reference are so tightly drawn as to exclude consideration of the key background issues – such as the (predictable) misuse of the IHRA definition (and the desperate need for clarity), the ineffective and contra-judicial framework of the disciplinary procedures and the role of the JLM in deliberately undermining the Labour Party, yet, as an essentially antagonistic group, remaining affiliated.

  • Philip Ward says:

    In response to RH: A person who approached the matter in good faith could possibly consider the things that you list as being part of the “background circumstances” in which the report was commissioned….

    Indeed, the whole history of the labour party- especially in relation to Israel and the past virulent antisemitism of some of its leaders – could be “background circumstances”.

    But I doubt if that is how clause 2 will be interpreted.

  • The leaked report reveals the comments of only a few individuals. How many others, in Senior Labour Party positions, might have been fully supportive of these comments? That is something on which we can only speculate! To what extent can we gage the complicity of Labour party members, who are NOT identified in the report?
    Dare we contemplate the possibility that this investigation could be influenced by persons who may be in full agreement with those who are being investigated!?

  • Shaun Pye says:

    I have to say that I am a little puzzled by one phrase in Philip’s comments.
    He refers to “the past virulent antisemitism of some of its (the Labour Party’s) leaders”.
    I have listened, over the decades, to speeches by Labour leaders from Hugh Gaitskell onwards and I can’t recall any of them making any sort of antisemitic statement. I’d be grateful if I could be guided as to where I can find the text of any of these statements so that I can check them out for myself.

  • Dave Hansell says:

    There is sufficient scope within Terms of Reference paragraph 1 to argue that such issues represent an implied term of the scope of the Inquiry.

  • Martin Read says:

    I wonder if it might not be helpful if JVL helped clarify exactly what it is that certain formerly active anti-racist (now suspended) campaigners are alleged to have said or done? After much reading and delving- watched ‘The Lobby’ and ‘Witch-Hunt (x2)- I find myself still confounded, unable to find much which is not merely opinion writing, as is too often conveyed as given fact, as frequently in the ‘Guardian.’

    If Labour members, recent members and would-be members are made more confident of the antics of Starmer’s party, or the reverse, the clarification can ultimately only be a useful thing in the fight to properly tackle genuine anti-Semitism.

  • Allan Howard says:

    I don’t know if JVL covered this at the time, but perhaps more than any other attack on Jeremy, it exposes the saboteurs for the frauds that they are (the following is a comment I posted on skwawkbox at the time):

    Regards the CAA (Campaign Against Antisemitism), it’s more-than-a-little interesting that they should have vehemently criticised JC last month for not mentioning ‘Jews’ in his Holocaust Memorial Day message. The following is from the Belfast Telegraph:

    Campaigners against anti-Semitism responded with outrage after it emerged that Mr Corbyn’s entry in a Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) memorial book did not mention Jews.

    The Campaign Against Antisemitism demanded an apology from the Labour leader, describing his message as “appalling”, while the Jewish Leadership Council said it displayed “a complete lack of sensitivity”.

    And later in the article:

    Simon Johnson, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said: “It is hard to believe anybody can neglect to mention Jews when writing a Holocaust Memorial Day message, let alone the Leader of the Opposition.

    “Mr Corbyn displays a complete lack of sensitivity to those who survived the atrocities of the Holocaust and its impact on the Jewish community.”

    A spokesman for the Campaign Against Antisemitism described it as “a disgraceful forgetting at a ceremony purposed for remembering”, adding: “We call on Mr Corbyn to apologise and issue a new statement.”

    A Labour source said: “Jeremy was clearly referring to the millions of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and their descendants.”

    The source pointed out that neither Prime Minister Theresa May nor Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable mentioned the Jews in their own messages.


    Yes, you read that right – ie neither did Theresa May or Vince Cable – but THAT’S OK cos we don’t mind at all if THEY didn’t, but we’ll attack Corbyn with all the virulence we can muster because he is critical of Israel for the way it has treated the Palestinians during the past forty years or more:

  • Allan Howard says:

    The following is an example of another fake and fraudulent attack perpertrated against Jeremy, covered by most of the corporate MSM, and the Daily Express REALLY went to town describing Jeremy in their headline as a ‘National Disgrace’, and this was for Jeremy not bowing his head to the Queen when entering the chamber for the Queen’ Speech, even though he wasn’t meant to, and no-one else did, apart from Theresa May, who since some two years ealier when she DIDN’T bow her head, had obviously forgotten the protocol in the meantime. Perish the thought that it was all a set-up so as to fraudulently vilify and attack Jeremy! Yet again!!

    The joke of it is – the joke on their readers – is that right at the very end of the ‘article’ (and the Express knew that not many of those reading it would bother reading right to the end), they say the following:

    ‘Parliamentary officials later confirmed that Mr Corbyn did not breach protocol. A House of Lords spoksman said the only people required to bow were Speaker Mr Bercow, Commons Clerk David Natzler, senior Lords official Black Rod and the Serjeant at Arms Kamal El-Hajji.’

    In other words, the author of the piece and their editor KNEW that it was a non-story PRIOR to writing it AND giving it the following headline: ‘NATIONAL DISGRACE: Jeremy Corbyn refuses to bow to Queen and then WINKS at colleagues’, and needless to say it is just a blatant black propaganda smear. BUT, they were very clever – in a devious and deceitful way – in the manner in which they constructed the ‘article’, and having dished all the dirt, they then throw in a relatively long section about the Queen’s Speech itself, knowing that the vast majority of readers would probably soon loose interest at that point and not read much further as such.

    It’s perhaps a bit late now (though maybe NOT), but maybe someone should pass these two examples on to the EHRC and ask them what it says about the credibility and the integrity of the Jewish organisations on the one hand, and the MSM on the other. OR maybe we should ALL do so en masse!

  • Dorothy says:

    The report should not only investigate the racist and sexist culture but also the misuse of funds. That is potentially a criminal matter but the party seems constant to hush it up as too embarrassing.

  • Allan Howard says:

    I posted two examples above which lay bare how corrupt and unscrupulous and dishonest and deceitful Jeremy’s attackers are, but perhaps even MORE so than these two vile and despicable and bogus attacks, the totally fake, fraudulent and fictitious attack(s) on Ken Livingstone serves to show how totally corrupt ALL of the MSM is – ie numerous so-called journalists etc and editors – AND the Jewish newspapers AND each and every one of the Jewish groups who joined in the chorus of faux outrage and condemnation of Ken.

    That said – and I’m sure someone with a better command of the English language could explain this more clearly – the difference between the two examples above and ‘Ken’ is that when you have people arguing that what Ken said was anti-semitic AND mention the Haavara Agreement themselves, it becomes like a battle for peoples minds between those who say (and know) that Ken said nothing remotely anti-semitic, and those who (fraudulently) claim that he did, which generally includes a large dose of (faux) outrage, which is part and parcel of the scam to convince people that what they are saying must be true, for why would they be angry if THAT *wasn’t* the case. And of those that haven’t been FULLY convinced that it’s true, many are left in a state of uncertainty.

    BUT, all that said, if I were putting a leaflet together, for example, to expose the Smear Campaign against Jeremy and the left, I would begin by relating the two examples I cite above, and THEN relate how the attack on Ken was totally fraudulent (and of course explain the reason why he was targeted – ie because he was the most high profile of Jeremy’s allies AND so as to get the Smear Campaign REALLY motoring). Oh, and I would DEFINITELY include the totally fraudulent claim made by Marie van der Zyl a couple of years ago that Jeremy is spending more and more time with terrorists and extremists etc, as she did in an interview on a right-wing Israeli news channel.

    Oh yes, I would definitely DEFINITELY include THAT one!

  • Allan Howard says:

    Afterthought: And I should also have included the Tories – and the Tory leadership in particular – and the LibDem leadership, as participants in the Smear Campaign.

    And it would be more than a little interesting to email every single MP and member of the House of Lords the two examples I initially cited above – ie details of – followed by the attack on Ken Livingstone, pointing out of course that he was, in passing, alluding to The Haavara Agreement, and then relating what Maria van der Zyl said about Jeremy Corbyn (not only ONCE, but THREE times in the space of a few minutes) in her interview with the Israeli news channel a couple of years ago, and ask them what they think about it all, and what they think it says about the credibility and integrity of the MSM and the Jewish organisations who have participated in the attacks AND how – despite racism (and anti-semitism) being a criminal offence – only a handful of the thousands of alleged cases of A/S (by LP members and politicians) have been reported to the police by the accusers, and ask them why they think that is, and don’t they think it rather odd that they HAVEN’T (or words to that effect).

    Perhaps JVL would consider carrying out such a ‘project’.

    PS My apologies for so many posts.

  • DJ says:

    The injustice of the whole investigation process and the malicious claims made against some party members must be a priority. Cases which lead to expulsion on flimsy evidence of anti semitism should be re-opened.

  • Doug says:

    Can someone explain how Keir Starmer can apologise to the protagonist’s in the Panorama Drama and use party funds to compensate them and
    Take the appropriate disciplinary and legal action against those implicated in the internal report
    Mark Howell is bringing a class action on behalf of members against party, he is asking for donations, can JVL update us on progress
    If Starmer goes ahead and starts to bring back vexatious members then this can be used against him in the case
    There is light at the end of the tunnel

  • John says:

    I wonder if Allan Howard has noted the following section in the leaked report:-

    Holocaust revisionism includes:

    – any claim that Zionists or powerful Jews were complicit in the Holocaust (ranging from the claims of Havara collaboration with the Nazis, to conspiracy theories about Zionists not opposing the Holocaust in order to create Israel, or even orchestrating the Holocaust, helping bring the Nazis to power, etc)
    (Pages 771-772)

    Does this mean Zionist ‘Havara collaboration with the Nazis’ is no longer historical fact – and only to be considered holocaust revisionism?

    Well, at least we can all now claim that the Labour Party has finally reached ‘1984’.

  • DJ says:

    The announcement today to pay damages to John Ware and seven staffers who appeared on the Panorama programme is a serious setback. Starmer’s decision is a political as opposed to a legal decision. He is happy to accept the scurrilous charges made in that programme. Given his desire to shut down any debate on Israel by endorsing the view that its critiques are anti semitic we can expect more attacks With regard the Forde Inquiry, it is hard to see how the saboteurs will now be “bought to book” given that they have just been exonerated.

  • To emphasis my last point on the leaked report, we must seriously consider that only a FEW people are actually identified as perpetrators of the criminal attempts to damage Labour`s election chances.
    It is almost certain that others, not yet known, were part of this treacherous cabal. They are still entrenched in the party some of them, no doubt, in senior positions.
    If I were asked as to Mr Starmer`s attitudes I would surmise that his sympathies might actually be with the accused rather than with the

Comments are now closed.