Jim Carroll - 29 Jul 16 - 05:03 AM

"Noe nof those recommendations refer to serious anti Semitism"

None of them had to did they Jom?

What was Baroness Royall's remit from Labour's NEC? She mentions it in her opening sentence of her Report:

"I was asked by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to examine the allegations of antisemitism that arose surrounding Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) after the resignation of a former co-Chair."

Where in that does it say that she was asked to look into allegations of "serious" anti-Semitism Jom? "Serious" anti-Semitism, "Semi-Serious" anti-Semitism, "Mild" anti-Semitism, how many differentiating categories apply in your rather warped mind Jom? Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism and THAT was what Baroness Royall was asked to look into.

So what else do you think, after having been given that remit, she would refer to in her Report? Having been specifically requested to examine allegations of anti-Semitism you would think that she would not have to pre-fix everything with the word anti-Semitism - would you?

Anti-Semitism is however specifically mentioned in five out of the seven issues she recommends Shami Chakrabarti to look into.

Of the eleven recommendations she urges immediate and sustained action on specifically mentions anti-Semitism are seen in six of them, others relate to racism (Which includes anti-Semitism), criminal activity and equality.

Labour's NEC have decided that the Report will not be made available to the public, they have decided that the Full Report will not be published - care to suggest why, if there is nothing to hide? Just because no names have been named under these circumstances does not mean there was no problem - the whole things absolutely reeks of cover-up.