Dave,
Do you still dispute that the statement that it is rampant in the Labour party has been used?

Yes. It may have appeared in some article but no-one in this debate has claimed such a thing.

Let us make our own minds up whether it is antisemitic, rather than rely on the words of journalists.

I do not rely on the words of journalists.
I rely on the words of the NEC, the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Sadique Khan and other insiders.
Why would anyone disregard their statements?
Do any of you three think you know better, or that they are all lying?

Post what they say not what other people say

No need. I can prove my case using the statements of the NEC, the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Sadique Khan and other insiders.
Why would anyone disregard their statements?
Do any of you three think you know better, or that they are all lying?

There are many people who dispute the definition of antisemitism being used.

That was not the issue.
You claimed, "Naz Shah is not of the far left and that seems to be the only example that can be verified and even that is disputed." and I replied,
"Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think.
Can you quote anyone else disputing it. "

Once again you have failed to answer the question. If you do not know the answer, fine, just say so.

The reason for Labour's problems are unknowable. We can only speculate and I already have.
The fact that they have a problem is indisputable though.

Steve,
If you think that anything you said in that post proves you right,

On the EUMC definition being defunct, I have been proved right and you wrong.
On the Labour Party having a serious issue with anti-Semitism, I have been proved right and you wrong.