Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

so Labour have got the EHRC report it seems
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/ehrc...nto-antisemitism-allegations-labour-confirms/
middle of next month hopefully for full publication
the fact that labour have now looked to settle the court case and rumours of kicking corbyn out of the party do suggest its going to be an interesting read though
tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif
 
Smores said:
You know the answer to that.

It's apparently irrelevant that Labour were advised they'd win the case. The settlement looks a lot more like payment to me.
Click to expand...

Companies don't settle because they think they won't win, they do it because they dont want the publicity of a drawn out court case, especially if they're playing the role of the bad guy.
 
sun_tzu said:
I dont - the person I quoted repeated libel allegations and suggested the court made a political decision - which would be corrupt -
Click to expand...

No he said Labour had made a political decision to settle in court. As far as I'm aware the whistle-blower bit is an out of court settlement anyway it's only the BBC claim still at court.

Which bit is libel anyway? Mentioning the existence of videos that show one of the whistleblowers lied?
 
EwanI Ted said:
Companies don't settle because they think they won't win, they do it because they dont want the publicity of a drawn out court case, especially if they're playing the role of the bad guy.
Click to expand...

That kind of settlement doesn't often come with a full and unreserved public apology though. Not saying it isn't possible, but it seems more likely that they felt like they were in a losing position. I'd definitely trust Starmer's legal instincts over the likes of Corbyn and Milne anyway.
 
EwanI Ted said:
Companies don't settle because they think they won't win, they do it because they dont want the publicity of a drawn out court case, especially if they're playing the role of the bad guy.
Click to expand...

Oh i know, my missus writes such cheques for her employer routinely. I'd probably agree 'moving on' is more beneficial to the party then winning this case. I don't like my subs going to people actively working against the party though.

My point and i don't know why i bother with the troll is his deliberate mischaracterisation of events.
 
Lawyers for Labour said they accepted that allegations made in press release issued by the party that Mr Ware had “invented quotes, flouted journalistic ethics” and had “knowingly promoted falsehoods, including by misrepresentations of fact and, by fabricating facts” were defamatory of the experienced journalist.

“All these allegations are false and the Labour Party unreservedly withdraws these allegations and is profoundly sorry for the distress caused by their publication and republication,” said the statement.

“ The Defendant is here today to set the record straight and to apologise unreservedly to Mr Ware for the distress and embarrassment that the publication of the false allegations have caused him and for the damage that has been caused to his reputation. “

.
Click to expand...

yeah if thats how they have dealt with allegations of antisemitsim this EHRC report is gonna be interesting - probably lucky for labour it looks like it will drop in the summer break

wonder if it will come up in PMQ's today

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/labour-apologises-to-whistleblowers-and-ware-1.501788
 
Kentonio said:
That kind of settlement doesn't often come with a full and unreserved public apology though. Not saying it isn't possible, but it seems more likely that they felt like they were in a losing position. I'd definitely trust Starmer's legal instincts over the likes of Corbyn and Milne anyway.
Click to expand...

It's simply an easy win for Starmer.

'The party everyone already thinks was choc full of anti semites was wrong, and I'm a departure from that and am going to continue fixing it'

The rights and wrongs of the case just don't matter.

I'd love for Starmer to get on and do some opposing now though, he could start with yesterday's report, for example.
 
Drifter said:
So what is your idea of Labour going forwards.
Click to expand...

Somebody who could come up with a credible opposition and wasn't more concerned with getting one over on his perceived enemies would be a good start. A character like Blair right now would win an election by a landslide.
 
It’s both amusing and rather sad to see how giddy people are at the prospect of Labour kicking Corbyn out (I think it’s almost impossible as for all his faults Starmer cannot be that short-sighted).
The same people who claim to care above all about electability believe that kicking out such a popular figure on the left is going to help the party somehow. Milibandism but with a nice dose of severe internal strife. The voters will come flooding back, I’m sure.
 
BobbyManc said:
It’s both amusing and rather sad to see how giddy people are at the prospect of Labour kicking Corbyn out (I think it’s almost impossible as for all his faults Starmer cannot be that short-sighted).
The same people who claim to care above all about electability believe that kicking out such a popular figure on the left is going to help the party somehow. Milibandism but with a nice dose of severe internal strife. The voters will come flooding back, I’m sure.
Click to expand...
No we just dont want anybody who allowed unlawful racial discrimination to take place in the party - so if thats what the report says (i personally feel it will but we will have to wait to see that) then I say we kick all the racists out and if that includes corbyn (again I feel it will) fine - if it does not include him then sure let him stay
 
Aren't these whistleblowers the same people the leaked report earlier this year found intentionally mislead the leadership about the scale of the problem, sat on their arses whilst the caseload built up and failed to take action in a number of cast-iron cases, sometimes because they involved people with friends in high places on the right of the party?

If so, they should be some of the first people any investigation into Labour antisemitism looks into.
 
sun_tzu said:
No we just dont want anybody who allowed unlawful racial discrimination to take place in the party - so if thats what the report says (i personally feel it will but we will have to wait to see that) then I say we kick all the racists out and if that includes corbyn (again I feel it will) fine - if it does not include him then sure let him stay
Click to expand...

We already know from the leaked report that is not the case, and that Corbyn’s office was often having to chase up anti-Semitic complaints because of how slow the process was being handled - which we know also now was in some instances deliberate, and misleading information was given to Corbyn’s office about the process. And we also know when Formby got appointed the process became much more thorough and robust, and dealt with cases far swifter than before. These are uncomfortable truths for you I’m sure, so I’m sure you’ll pretend it’s all fabricated rubbish.
 
BobbyManc said:
We already know from the leaked report that is not the case, and that Corbyn’s office was often having to chase up anti-Semitic complaints because of how slow the process was being handled - which we know also now was in some instances deliberate, and misleading information was given to Corbyn’s office about the process. And we also know when Formby got appointed the process became much more thorough and robust, and dealt with cases far swifter than before. These are uncomfortable truths for you I’m sure, so I’m sure you’ll pretend it’s all fabricated rubbish.
Click to expand...
the ehrc report has not yet been leaked in full
the 28 day process is consistent with if they have found illegal discrimination / victimisation has happened - if that happened under his leadership I want him out (a fish rots from the head etc)
I guess publication will be probably around middle of next month and we will see if any individuals are censured
Plus If guilty I guess labour will have to set aside millions for claims of discrimination and I'm not sure how much cash they have on hand?
Suspect we will see some pre-emptive action from Labour once westminister breaks up at the end of the week as they go into damage limitation mode ... hopefully with quick action they can be shown to be accepting of the report and will adopt any recommendations it makes otherwise this issue is going to hand around for a long while
 
sun_tzu said:
the ehrc report has not yet been leaked in full
the 28 day process is consistent with if they have found illegal discrimination / victimisation has happened - if that happened under his leadership I want him out (a fish rots from the head etc)
I guess publication will be probably around middle of next month and we will see if any individuals are censured
Plus If guilty I guess labour will have to set aside millions for claims of discrimination and I'm not sure how much cash they have on hand?
Suspect we will see some pre-emptive action from Labour once westminister breaks up at the end of the week as they go into damage limitation mode ... hopefully with quick action they can be shown to be accepting of the report and will adopt any recommendations it makes otherwise this issue is going to hand around for a long while
Click to expand...

Prepare to be disappointed.
 
Untied said:
Are you going to engage with the issue that we literally have leaked emails from one of the people who is getting a payout showing that what they said in the documentary was false… or are we just going to pretend that this politically motivated court settlement is the end of the matter?
Click to expand...
I think he is going to pretend that this is the end of the matter. If he doesn't look for the evidence then it isn't there.
 
sun_tzu said:
No I think its only the start of the prosecutions coming labour and corbyns way over antisemitism
I reject the ascertain that this is a politically motivated court decision - unless you have evidence as to the courts corruption which i agree would be a bigger issue (I asume you have evidence as you have just published the allegations?)
I also reject as do labour that there was deliberate misrepresentation in the panorama documentary - though if you wish to repeat those allegations please do so knowing that you will probably be committing libel on this board yourself so feel free to tag his lawyers into your allegations and you might want to give the owner of the cafe the heads up as well
Click to expand...
Wow. The lack of understanding in this post is off the scale.
 
sun_tzu said:
No I think its only the start of the prosecutions coming labour and corbyns way over antisemitism
I reject the ascertain that this is a politically motivated court decision - unless you have evidence as to the courts corruption which i agree would be a bigger issue (I asume you have evidence as you have just published the allegations?)
I also reject as do labour that there was deliberate misrepresentation in the panorama documentary - though if you wish to repeat those allegations please do so knowing that you will probably be committing libel on this board yourself so feel free to tag his lawyers into your allegations and you might want to give the owner of the cafe the heads up as well
Click to expand...

As others have responded – it's a politically motivated decision to settle. I'm not making any allegations concerning the integrity of the court.

And I haven't repeated the settled, but allegedly libellous claims. But it does strike me as ridiculous that an individual who gave an interview to The JC claiming Corbyn was the greatest enabler of anti-semitism since the Second World War, has received a payout from the Labour Party for 'libelling' him as a disaffected staffer with an axe to grind.
 
Last edited:
Shamwow said:


Thread follows ending with

Click to expand...


Wasn’t there an instance in the report where the complaints committee actually sat on one complaint that was later deemed serious enough to warrant counter-terrorism police involvement and an arrest was made of the accused? Scandalous stuff, there is unarguable evidence that factions hostile to Corbyn deliberately corrupted the complaints process to undermine his leadership. The stuff about Livingstone is a clear example of that. Corbyn’s office repeatedly pressed for action, repeatedly ignored.
 
BobbyManc said:
Wasn’t there an instance in the report where the complaints committee actually sat on one complaint that was later deemed serious enough to warrant counter-terrorism police involvement and an arrest was made of the accused? Scandalous stuff, there is unarguable evidence that factions hostile to Corbyn deliberately corrupted the complaints process to undermine his leadership. The stuff about Livingstone is a clear example of that. Corbyn’s office repeatedly pressed for action, repeatedly ignored.
Click to expand...

Yep. And we've just rewarded him nicely for his work. I thought Starmer was meant to make the party less antisemitic, not more?
 
EwanI Ted said:


Corbyn makes statement.





Now faces a libel case himself. Weird.
Click to expand...


Really cannot comprehend what is possibly libellous in that statement, but British libel laws are wild, and probably some of the most oppressive in the developed world.

Which kind of makes it annoying that Corbyn didn’t repeatedly take the UK press to court for libel. But never mind.
 
EwanI Ted said:
Corbyn makes statement.

Now faces a libel case himself.
Click to expand...
more 4d chess from corbyn...
perhaps he just loves court cases... here is another he looks like loosing
A High Court judge has made preliminary findings in a defamation fight featuring former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Corbyn has been sued by a political blogger.

Richard Millett has complained about things Mr Corbyn said in a BBC television interview with broadcaster Andrew Marr nearly two years ago.

He says Mr Corbyn defamed him by accusing him of being “disruptive and abusive” at a 2013 meeting featuring a Palestinian speaker.

Mr Corbyn disputes Mr Millett’s claims and denies defaming him.

Mr Justice Saini, who oversaw a preliminary hearing in June, on Friday made preliminary legal decisions about the meaning of words Mr Corbyn used and whether he was stating facts or expressing opinion.

Lawyers representing Mr Millett argued that the allegations were “factual”, lawyers representing Mr Corbyn argued that the “words conveyed a statement of opinion”.

The judge concluded that Mr Corbyn was making “factual” allegations “as to Mr Millett’s behaviour”.

Lawyers representing Mr Millett argued that to accuse someone of being “disruptive and abusive to the degree in issue” must have “caused him to have been defamed”.

Lawyers representing Mr Corbyn disagreed and argued what had been said did not lower Mr Millett in the “estimation of right thinking people”.


The judge concluded that the “words complained of” referred to Mr Millett and “bore a meaning defamatory of Mr Millett”.

He said what had been said suggested “conduct falling below the standards expected of citizens in modern British society”.
Click to expand...

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...ings-after-jeremy-corbyn-sued-for-defamation/
 
Last edited:
Untied said:
Really cannot comprehend what is possibly libellous in that statement, but British libel laws are wild, and probably some of the most oppressive in the developed world.

Which kind of makes it annoying that Corbyn didn’t repeatedly take the UK press to court for libel. But never mind.
Click to expand...

I assume he was advised against it because of the optics. If he'd launched a libel case over even the most obvious lie, we'd have wall to wall coverage, column inches etc. comparing it to Stalin murdering journalists.
 
sun_tzu said:
more 4d chess from corbyn...
perhaps he just loves court cases... here is another he looks like loosing


https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...ings-after-jeremy-corbyn-sued-for-defamation/
Click to expand...

Don't you think it's kind of wild, and indicative of a broken justice system, that someone is suing Corbyn for saying they were being 'disruptive and abusive' meanwhile no one faced any legal action for putting his photo on a target and shooting it, and sharing the footage. Or printing front page stories claiming he was a Czech informant. Or interviewing with The Jewish Chronicle and stating Corbyn had done more to enable anti-semitism than anyone else since WW2. Or lying about Corbyn calling the death of Bin Laden a tragedy. Or printing that he danced on Remembrance Sunday whilst walking to the cenotaph. Or printing that he was an apologist for terror.

I think they've ruled forums are more like discussion and so = slander, not libel, but let's be honest, Jez'bollah is far more slanderous/libellous than 'disruptive and abusive'. Oh well.

Oh and does anyone remember when an anonymous general briefed The Times that if Corbyn was elected there would be a coup. Yeah that was cool.
 
Untied said:
Don't you think it's kind of wild, and indicative of a broken justice system, that someone is suing Corbyn for saying they were being 'disruptive and abusive' meanwhile no one faced any legal action for putting his photo on a target and shooting it, and sharing the footage. Or printing front page stories claiming he was a Czech informant. Or interviewing with The Jewish Chronicle and stating Corbyn had done more to enable anti-semitism than anyone else since WW2. Or lying about Corbyn calling the death of Bin Laden a tragedy. Or printing that he danced on Remembrance Sunday whilst walking to the cenotaph. Or printing that he was an apologist for terror.

I think they've ruled forums are more like discussion and so = slander, not libel, but let's be honest, Jez'bollah is far more slanderous/libellous than 'disruptive and abusive'. Oh well.

Oh and does anyone remember when an anonymous general briefed The Times that if Corbyn was elected there would be a coup. Yeah that was cool.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how successful this guy will be anyway as he has boasted on his own blog about being disruptive and being removed from the kind of meetings that Corbyn was talking about. Including pissing off Wes Streeting, famous anti-Israel Corbynite, so much that Wes Threatened to have him removed.
 
The shit people believe. On the day that evidence of routine misinformation campaigns are swirling around.

I despair.
 


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
 
BobbyManc said:


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
Click to expand...


Nah she just is stupid. We've seen enough evidence of that.
 
BobbyManc said:


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
Click to expand...

In fairness, the idea of Sir Keith doing politics does seem a little bit of a stretch.
 
BobbyManc said:


Can someone tell Kuenssberg that the leader of a political party will, every now and then, make *political* decisions. She’s pretending to be stupid again (and deliberately omitting important context: Labour’s lawyers were convinced that they had a strong, winnable case). Client Journalism 101
Click to expand...


Kuenssberg often actually is quite stupid (announcing postal vote results before polling closed, breathlessly reporting every text Dominic Cummings sends her, etc) but because it’s a stupidity that serves the right powers she never feels any consequences for it
 
Untied said:
Kuenssberg often actually is quite stupid (announcing postal vote results before polling closed, breathlessly reporting every text Dominic Cummings sends her, etc) but because it’s a stupidity that serves the right powers she never feels any consequences for it
Click to expand...

But it's not stupid, is it, because she knows there will be no consequences yet her words have the desired effect. Mentioning the postal vote was clearly calculated. If there was ever any chance of her suffering for this kind of stuff I guarantee it would stop instantly. If you can get away with repeating the lie that a Labour supporter punched a Tory staffer, then any need to do due diligence or worry about overtly spinning a story in favour of Cummings and co goes out the window.
 
Untied said:
Really cannot comprehend what is possibly libellous in that statement,
Click to expand...
Mr ware gave an interview on this

Speaking to Times Radio on Wednesday evening, Mr Ware said: "There have been a couple of statements - one from Mr McCluskey, and the other from Jeremy Corbyn - which seem to me to come dangerously close to suggesting, actually, what the Labour Party said about the whistleblowers and about me was true but for the fact that Keir Starmer decided to make a political settlement.

"In other words a settlement based on politics rather than the strength of our case.

"I am advised that is defamatory, I am advised that I could continue with this (legal action) against Mr Corbyn personally.

"I am thinking about that. I don't particularly wish to continue litigating against members of the Labour Party but there's a principle at stake here.

"I'll think about that carefully."
Click to expand...
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/jere...ticising-labour-antisemitism-apology-12034070
 
Smores said:
Hope he does to be honest. It's only proper that Corbyn gets to defend these accusations rather than Labour settle it because they want it to go away. That outcome is far more defaming of Corbyn than the original claims against Ware because he's been deemed guilty without any court judgement.
Click to expand...
I hope he defends it as well
Because considering the labour party admits to fabricating evidence he will have to go up against the labour party in court as well I assume...should see him leaving the party for good i think and hopefully draw a line under the whole corban era and antisemitism
 
sun_tzu said:
I hope he defends it as well
Because considering the labour party admits to fabricating evidence he will have to go up against the labour party in court as well I assume...should see him leaving the party for good i think and hopefully draw a line under the whole corban era and antisemitism
Click to expand...

Wait are you seriously saying all the incriminating materials against the whistle-blowers were fabricated?

I'm glad anti-semtisim will stop when Corbyn leaves just like it only started when he became leader :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.