[The Red Arrow]

[Tubby Isaacs]

She's one of the main ones in JVL. I'm not quite clear from this what she's supposed to have done

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/labour-su ... g-1.509331

The Chair of her CLP is also under investigation.

Meanwhile in his own speech at Monday’s meeting, chair Mr Lafley openly attacked the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in his speech.

He said: “It is Keir Starmer, not Jeremy Corbyn, who is in breach of party rules. It is Starmer, not Corbyn, who is in breach of the EHRC report, where Ch3 page 27 explicitly defends the rights of party members to question the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their experience.

“It is Starmer, not Corbyn, who is in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is Starmer, not Corbyn, who is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. And it is Starmer, not Corbyn, who has plunged the party into internecine warfare, when we should be exposing and combatting this vile class-driven, corrupt government, something we should have been doing for 11 months.”

Starmer didn't suspend Corbyn, the General Secretary did, and he's back in anyway. What Starmer has done is not admit him to the PLP. Of all the politicians to lose the whip over the years, I've never heard one of them try to get readmitted by citing the European Convention on Human Rights. There's surely no human right to have the Labour whip?

So I don't rate him, but not sure what he's done from a disciplinary point of view.

[The Weeping Angel]

She's one of the main ones in JVL. I'm not quite clear from this what she's supposed to have done

Marlon Solomon has a good thread on how nasty and poisonous JVL are.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah, I'm no fan of theirs, but can't see the immediate issue.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

So I don't rate him, but not sure what he's done from a disciplinary point of view.

All CLPs were told that passing motions demanding Corbyn's reinstatement would lead to suspension, so they've been doing it anyway.

[The Red Arrow]

[Tubby Isaacs]

So I don't rate him, but not sure what he's done from a disciplinary point of view.

All CLPs were told that passing motions demanding Corbyn's reinstatement would lead to suspension, so they've been doing it anyway.

Did they table a motion though?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Either that or a statement. That's my understanding.

[oboogie]

From the article Tubby posted:
"At Monday’s meeting of the local party, the JVL media officer had backed claims about the “weaponisation” of antisemitism allegations within Labour."

"A further transcript of her speech at the online meeting confirms that she also criticised General Secretary David Evans’ move to protect Jewish members of the party by banning the discussion of pro-Jeremy Corbyn motions and discussion of the EHRC report in meetings, after reminding CLPs that the party had accepted the recommendations in full."

She continued:
"I feel bloody uncomfortable seeing damned good comrades and friends of mine being suspended from this party for doing nothing more than trying to discuss the questions which led to Jeremy Corbyn’s unjust suspension – we know it was unjust because he was readmitted – and then the question of the whip being taken from him which is almost certainly unconstitutional in the party.”

"Meanwhile in his own speech at Monday’s meeting, chair Mr Lafley openly attacked the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in his speech.

He said: “It is Keir Starmer, not Jeremy Corbyn, who is in breach of party rules. It is Starmer, not Corbyn, who is in breach of the EHRC report, where Ch3 page 27 explicitly defends the rights of party members to question the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their experience.

“It is Starmer, not Corbyn, who is in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is Starmer, not Corbyn, who is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. And it is Starmer, not Corbyn, who has plunged the party into internecine warfare, when we should be exposing and combatting this vile class-driven, corrupt government, something we should have been doing for 11 months.”

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's no record of her trying to put a motion or make a formal statement though. That quote there isn't much more than sounding off in passing. OK, it's a Labour Party meeting, but is everybody who does that being suspended? What did the General Secretary actually rule was out of order?

As I say, I'm no fan of JVL, but are their members worth this amount of effort?

[oboogie]

What did the General Secretary actually rule was out of order?

Again, I refer you to the article you posted. Or if you prefer, my quotation from that article in my previous post.

[oboogie]

Labour have published their Action Plan in response to the EHRC. Not had time to read it properly yet, but at first glance, it looks sensible.
https://labour.org.uk/ehrc-action-plan/ ... 82_eyaj1kw

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Looks good at a quick glance. Professional.

[Tubby Isaacs]

You'd expect Starmer to be good at this. Whatever you think of the EHRC report, surely someone like him gripping it like this was the only way out of the corner Labour was in?

I've noticed a bit of " X is a good socialist suspended without explanation" doing the rounds. I assume those people defied the order not to discuss the report at meetings, and are therefore deemed to have suspended themselves?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I think they mostly proposed or accepted motions demanding that the Jezziah get the whip back.