Steve Shaw - 03 Aug 16 - 04:45 AM

I would suggest that you read Chakrabarti's Report and her recommendations. Then read the eleven recommendations that Baroness Royall made plus the seven additional recommendations she advised Shami Chakrabarti to address. Regarding those, Shami Chakrabarti did exactly the opposite of what Baroness Royall recommended. Those concerned a time limit in which any complaint can be made whereas Royall suggested that there should be no time limit and the second that subsequent to her Report being submitted Chakrabarti states that no retrospective investigations will be undertaken. But then of course Shaw you would have known all that had you read any of it.

Simple question that requires only a yes or no answer:

1: Is it racist to state the fact that someone's father happens to be Kenyan? Personally I would say no it is not.

2: Like it or not, it doesn't matter a jot. The word "piccanninnie" is in commonplace usage in a number of cultures in the Commonwealth of Nations that is a fact. It's use in those cultures is not racially slanted in any way shape or form, so stop pretending or trying to convince us that it is. You talk about context - In Boris Johnson's case he was talking about the "Head of the Commonwealth", her love of that Commonwealth, and the fact that on official visits the streets are normally lined with small children ("Piccanninnies" as their own parents would describe them) waving flags in greeting. Is it racist to describe that? No it is not.

To get back on track do you deny that Labour's NEC read Baroness Royall's Report and decided that it was in the Labour Party's best interest that the British public should not know the contents of that report into anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club and within the larger arena of the Labour Party itself?

As with everything about the Labour Party at present I think that certain things are being done to protect Jeremy Corbyn from censure.