#4860

I’ll be honest, I’m 99% sure it was the Deliveroo riders fault.

#4861

While doing a U-turn/swerving right*

*or parking, maybe

1 Like
#4862

the name of his chauffeur?

Jeremy Corbyn.

5 Likes
#4863

Daily Making up that he was on his way to his tailor :smiley:

1 Like
#4864

That’s a lovely touch

#4865

Daily Mail* whoops

#4866

who are the goodies and the baddies for the NEC vote please?

thank you!

2 Likes
#4867

don’t feel sorry for Devon ffs

#4868

Devon must be missing an angel. And going out for a pint.

1 Like
#4869

also would like to know this please

1 Like
#4870

Bit of a brief discussion from here down, but I’ll need to do some reading up over the weekend.

I’d say none of the ones endorsed by Luke ‘Nukem’ Akehurst’s LabourToWin trojan horse group, so none of these:

1 Like
#4871

Me too

1 Like
#4872

So the EHRC report is out. Haven’t read every page but it seems to point to a shambolic (whether wilfully so or not) complaints procedure.
Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley’s cases are the only ones laid out in detail in the annex, and the majority of the detail in the latters case are from when they were already suspended from the party. Evidently they should have both been suspended/expelled much sooner.

#4873

Apparently Pat Bromley was suspended the day after Jenny Formby became General Secretary, and one of the things Labour are being criticised for is LOTO trying to influence Complaints to speed up Ken Livingstone’s case and suspension.

From what people are saying it’s not difficult to read between the lines and see that the vast majority of criticisms of the party come from the incompetence and deliberate actions of staffers with an antipathy towards Corbyn and the left. But it sounds like you do need to read between the lines, and it’s a question worth asking why it’s not explicitly stated. Feels like a classic bureaucratic move, limiting the scope of possible conclusions (“we’re not interested in why things happened, we’re just establishing that they happened”) in order to favour a particular interpretation of your conclusions.

Oh well.

#4874

This is what the report means when it says the LOTO’s office tampered with 20 or so cases out of the 70 or so it looked at, right? Seems like a classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

I remember at the time Watson saying he wanted all confidential complaints of AS going directly to him lol. What larks would have transpired if they’d let that happen.

1 Like
#4875

Was that before or after he said that Corbyn should personally interfere in the process?

#4876

Haven’t read in full yet, but the report does also cite interference in cases that ended up not being investigated (including a complaint about Corbyn’s comment on facebook about the mural).

The point they’re making seems fair to me - that any political influence whether from LOTO or elsewhere on how complaints are handled is unlawful, and the Labour party fell foul of that on a number of occasions.

The problem is that to solve the underlying problem of trust, you need to go much further into what actually happened than this report seems to from what I’ve read so far - it’s only interested in the high level question of “was this unlawful”, not “what actually happened and why - was it good intentioned, but misguided or was it malicious”. That’s probably where Labour’s 850 pager would be more valuable.

2 Likes
#4877

One other thing that I’m not convinced is particularly helpful is that while there’s some focus on how more is done for sexual harassment claims (i.e. Labour could and should do more in terms of how they handle antisemitism complaints, particularly given it’s one of the most common complaints in recent years), there’'s little so far outlining that the processes haven’t just been bad for handling antisemitism, they’re not fit for purpose - even post Fornby reforms - for handling almost all forms of discrimination.

#4878

The suggestion in the report seems to be that the complaints process should be made independent (justifiable), and that complaints relating to antisemitism should be dealt with on a separate pathway than others, which to me sounds incredibly dangerous and easily challenged in the courts.

#4879

Not seen any indication of that myself yet, but if it’s suggested in the report or required of Labour’s response, then yes it’s going down the wrong path.