Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 73.7 % ❤ 1 % :thumbsup: 6.1 % 😯 1 % :grinning: 11.1 % 🧥 1 % 🙏 1 % 😟 1 % :cry: 1 % :shit: 3 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#618377
Abernathy wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:15 pm
The Red Arrow wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:28 pm
You won't like it. It's from an outfit on 'The List'.


???? :-/
Oh that's Micheal Wanker I mean Walker one of Aaron Bastani's hangers on from Novara Media.
#618380
Perhaps I'm having a thicko day, but I still don't fucking understand this. As usual, a modicum of context might help instead of a just couple of disembodied tweets.
Timbo, Cyclist, oboogie liked this
#618387
This article goes some way to explaining:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... tleblowers

The first case - statements made about the whistleblowers involved with tghe Panorama programme:
The former staff, Kat Buckingham, Michael Creighton, Samuel Matthews, Dan Hogan, Louise Withers Green, Benjamin Westerman and Martha Robinson all broke non-disclosure agreements to tell the BBC programme that they felt fatally undermined by senior Labour bosses in their attempts to tackle antisemitism, alleging consistent interference in complaints.

Along with the Panorama journalist John Ware, they were paid “substantial damages” by the Labour party amounting to between £170,000 and £180,000.
Lansman’s apology ... is in stark contrast to Corbyn, who issued a statement after the high court hearing claiming the settlement was a “political decision” against legal advice.

Corbyn’s statement caused astonishment among the litigants in the libel action, with Ware confirming to the Guardian that he was “consulting his lawyers” about a libel action against the former Labour leader, raising the prospect of another costly court battle over Labour and antisemitism.
Second case - the 'Leaked Report'
The media lawyer Mark Lewis said he had been instructed by 32 individuals including Lord McNicol, the former general secretary of Labour, to sue the party in the wake of the leak.

He was pursuing “five or six courses of action” including potential breaches of the Data Protection Act, breaches of confidence, misuse of private information, libel and employment law in relation to the responsibility of an employer to protect its staff regarding work issues.
The 'leaked report' quotes statements from McNicol which he avows never to have made.
#618438
The leaked report is anonymously authored, though it carries Labour branding. The lawyer handling the various libel actions has desribed it as "slanted, distorted, and (in the case of Iain McNicol) just made up."

The Cult treat it as gospel, of course.
oboogie liked this
#618442
It's patently obvious that the only thing that matters is not the potentially fatal harm done to Labour in a time when strong opposition is vital, not the abuse dished out to staff, not the falsification or embellishment of content, not even the antisemitism or defending of/turning a blind eye to antisemitic acts itself, but ensuring that one old man is allowed to continue to believe that he has never, ever done anything wrong - even inadvertently.
 
By Boiler
Posts
#618445
This is why Labour is still behind in the polls; it's not because Jeremy isn't in charge any more.

The press will milk this for all it's worth. I don't know who'll be leading the party in 2034 but I now believe that's the earliest date Labour will possibly score a victory. This assumes that (a) there's still a Labour Party in 2034 and (b) we still have general elections.
#618458
It just gets better, doesn't it?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ak-reveals
Labour’s most senior lawyer under Jeremy Corbyn formally warned the party that an internal report on antisemitism was deliberately misleading and relied upon improperly obtained private correspondence, leaked documents show.

Thomas Gardiner, Labour’s director of governance and legal until last month, wrote that the report should not be circulated because party employees’ emails and WhatsApp messages had been “presented selectively and without their true context in order to give a misleading picture”.
#618465
In a sense, yes - because the more people who come forward and say the former leadership were warned and refused to listen, the more ridiculous the Corbynista claims look. They knew this was bullshit and ran with it anyway because they wanted something to point to as their version of the truth, no matter how flimsy or dubious.

I suspect this is all going to end with Corbyn leaving a court protesting “I didn’t do anything wrong!” after losing a huge libel case.
  • 1
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
The Tories, Generally

Even Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council ([…]

Labour, Generally.

On the "spending carefully" note, i wond[…]

Matthew Hancock

Meanwhile... Hancock, ably assisted by Prue Leith,[…]

US election 2020

Certainly a Texan teacher I'm in occasional corres[…]