Simply proof that his leadership structure endorded illegal discrimination that he should have stopped should be enough to see him kicked out thanks
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Evidently there are already far too many in or around labour who are unable to recognise anti Semitism. In fact it is bizarre to me that the kind of antennae they have developed for detecting the fine shades of bigotry you see in other areas, is missing when it comes to Jews. A clear judgement of institutional racism would be enough and I hope trigger some much needed reflection on this. (But I expect the real reaction will be more like a bunch of climate deniers reactions to the latest IPCC report.) We will see.
Seems the leaked internal report won't wash as a cover up either...
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...port-was-deliberately-misleading-leak-reveals
I hope the enquiry properly identifies these "sources close to formby" so that they can personally be held liable for the seemingly inevitable legal claims
It's not a stretch to conclude that you are making stuff up. He is saying in effect that Parties most likely to form the government deserve the most scrutiny. That is so obviously the case that it take a special talent to twist that into evidence of bias against Labour. The same thing would apply to the Tories if Labour was in power.
You miss out the key bit, the comparison with the likes of The Canary. But your selection betrays your own bias (again). Why not choose organisations that are the real peers of the BBC - Reuters, or AP, or Sky News? And the article you cite specifically says that the finding was that the BBC made an error but did not set out to deliberately mislead, which is the exact opposite of what you are saying that Ware did.
I didn’t say bias against Labour. I said bias against the opposition in favour of the government/establishment. Which anyone who has followed the BBC’s output through Iraq, Brexit, Coronavirus, etc knows is 100% the case. The job is to scrutinise the opposition not the government.
Because he’s defending the “mainstream media” and you are also off your rocker if you think that the AP and Reuters are more mainstream than the highest circulated papers in the UK.
Also, on the Ware documentary, and whether he deliberately set out to mislead. The Panorama documentary featured two “victims” of antisemitism, both unnamed. Both appeared in the Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby, one working for the Israeli embassy, one sitting alongside Joan Ryan as a representative of the Israeli embassy talks about donating 1 million to the the cause of Labour Friends or Israel. But I’m sure he had good reason for not naming them in his documentary. Like it definitely wasn’t deliberate.
Labour warning of cash crisis over this.
Really this is looking like a clusterfeck of incompetence from Corbyns old team. The damage the extreme Left has done to labour during their time running the party - reputationally, financially, electorially - is extraordinary.
Exaggerate much?
*pretends to be shocked*
Labour was flush with cash and members under Corbyn. They are probably haemorrhaging members right now, but we don't know because curiously the Party has stopped announcing membership figures. They would quite possibly be in government right now if it weren't for the centre-right faction of the party. And somehow a report that leaked after Corbyn ceased being leader, and the message sent by Starmer that he will settle any and all claims regardless of their merit is Corbyn's fault?
It’s clear, as the evidence in this article shows, that Ware’s “journalistic integrity” is non existent. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/labo...5mUdizzqv_sngvqjhQK8CV18NCPoaLhyBCO8Adg67sn4c
Yeah there’s so much wrong with it but the selective quoting of emails from the likes of Formby and Milne to strip them completely of their actual meaning is the most damning. Quite simply, any claim to credibility or impartiality evaporates once you start doing that. That alone would be damning but as the article points out there’s plenty more evidence against it.
Funny because the advice to formby at the time was that was exactly what happened in the report that "sources close to formy" then leaked
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...port-was-deliberately-misleading-leak-reveals
“Those looking to take legal action against [the] party for the leaked report have long argued that the messages have been edited to create a misleading and damaging impression. What this email suggests is that this is exactly what Labour knew it was doing"
Last edited:
And those same people created a secret office and fund to inappropriately funnel Labour Party funds to the safe seats of factional allies. Let’s just say they are *allegedly* a bunch of odious liars and it’s hilarious that they are basing *their* defence on a leaked email
I'm not sure who all the 32 are...at least 7 of them are the ones who were completely exonerated on open court last week
Though its gonna be hard to keep up with the lawsuits once the ehrc report is published... as I say i hope the individuals who leaked the report can be identified and held personally accountable for the semingky inevitable millions thats going to be due... if only "sources close to formby" can be identified ...
You’re wrong again, quelle surprise. The advice was not ‘at the time’ but two days after it was already leaked. Gardiner had no issue until then. How convenient.
It also makes an incorrect claim about the access of the WhatsApp data as that was included in the emails by an individual and there was no breach in Labour accessing it. If I upload all my WhatsApp messages to my work email like an idiot they’d be perfectly entitled to look at them.
As for out of context, unlike Labour’s Panorama emails, we cannot know for sure unless the proper context is released of all communications. But a lot of it seems indefensible e.g. the issues of these same “whistleblowers” taking no action and sitting on egregious reports of anti-Semitism, and how Formby once in charge of the process did indeed deal with matters more swiftly and on a far more comprehensive basis. Inconvenient facts for you, but they never seem to matter to you anyway.
They weren’t exonerated sun. Everyone knows that.
They were and this is a matter of public record
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/labo...s-substantial-damages-in-panorama-libel-case/
The last X number of pages in this thread basically boil down to the fact that you don't understand the legal system.
To be exonerated means to be cleared of a legal charge.
e.g -
"Labour would likely have been exonerated had they followed legal advice rather than choosing to settle."
The claimant in a case, by definition, can't be exonerated. Spouting irrelevant legal terms (or quasi-legal language you got from an American courtroom drama like 'in open court', 'a matter of public record') won't magic up a legal basis to your opinions surrounding this libel case.
You don't work in the legal sector do you?
*pretends to be shocked again*
Suing Jewish organisations to fight anti-semitism.
Wrong type of Jews in your eyes then?
Not at all...but if an organisation regardless of its religious affiliation or indeed any other affiliation has broken the law they should imo opinion be sued ... you know like when labour made false and defamatory statements about the whistleblowers... or like when "sources close to formby" released lots of private information without consent or you know like labour is setting aside millions waiting to be sued for all the antisemitic shit corbyns leadership oversaw
Clearly from the quote above though a large number of jewish organisations have a disagreement with that particular corbyn mouthpiece set up in 2017
Has sun-tzu admitted yet that under Formby the process was actually sped up and more cases processed than any prior period? Something Ware himself has accepted.
He's so obsessed i wouldn't be at all surprised if he was the individual that raised 50% of all cases in 2019. The one where loads of people weren't even Labour members but proved useful to bump the numbers and then anger Watson.
He's so obsessed i wouldn't be at all surprised if he was the individual that raised 50% of all cases in 2019. The one where loads of people weren't even Labour members but proved useful to bump the numbers and then anger Watson.
Sounds to me like you have just repeated the libel. Not sure that's a wise place to be.
People really need to stop with the bollocks interpretation of libel laws 
Yep. It stinks of just trying to stifle the conversation.People really need to stop with the bollocks interpretation of libel laws
Tell that to the site owner.People really need to stop with the bollocks interpretation of libel laws
You'll have to expand your thought process there I'm afraid because it sounds like you're suggesting they agree with you but i don't know on what grounds you think that.
I'm not saying no one should consider libel if that was your take. I'm saying people are mistakenly calling things libel that aren't especially not in the context applied.
That's exactly what it is.
Given that a legal judgement was never reached in the libel case, is it not libellous to label the alleged libel libel? By insinuating that Raven is a libeller, you yourself could be liable for libel!
I was going to reply but it seems what I was going to say has already been said. Its called having a discussion, stop trying to muzzle people.
Libelception.
Top marks on this one.
Wonder what wiley and corbyn have in common?
They are both into grime?