Steve Shaw - 07 Aug 16 - 05:21 PM

The report was spot on. There were ignorant attitudes and there were remarks made that were unwise. Making remarks about Israel and the Nazis in the same breath is not appropriate. All matters that must be addressed, but the party is not overrun by antisemitism. That is no whitewash. You wouldn't have been satisfied unless every member of the party had been named by her as a rabid antisemite. To you and your ilk, anything less is a whitewash. Sorry, but you are not entitled to make accusations that you can't support. Think all the evil thoughts about her you like, but you have NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE ACCEPTED A PEERAGE IN RETURN FOR A WHITEWASH. To make that accusation without evidence makes you a nasty little shit.

1: The report was spot on

If the report was spot on Shaw so were the reasons that not one but two investigations were commissioned by Labour's NEC the first occasioned by leading members of the Oxford University Labour Club resigning because they felt that they could no longer participate and attend meetings in safety - This Inquiry was conducted by Baroness Royall, she too found that anti-Semitism was not institutionalised but she did state that there were serious concerns that required immediate and sustained action. She also found that this was not only a problem for the University Labour Club but that the same situation existed throughout the Labour party to varying degrees. That is what gave rise to the Inquiry entrusted to Shami Chakrabarti.

Royall's recommendations included seven additional points that she suggested Chakrabarti's inquiry should adopt. Three of the seven were ignored making the key difference between the reports is that Chakrabarti offers amnesty to antisemites while Royall recommended robust vetting and expulsion if prior bad acts are found. The submission of the Chakrabarti Report, by it's own recommendation, acts as a "shut-off", a watershed if you like, as the NEC will not investigate any incident that predates the date of submission of the report.

Now does anyone want time line for all of this?

15th February, 2016 - The letter to the OULC following the resignation of Alex Chalmers as co-Chair.

18th February, 2016 - Minister for Universities calls for an Inquiry into the allegations of anti-Semitism

February 2016 - Baroness Royall appointed to conduct an Inquiry into anti-Semitism within Oxford University Labour Club

27th April, 2016 - Naz Shah suspended by the Labour Party for anti-semitic comments

28th April 2016 - Ken Livingston suspended by the Labour Party

29th April, 2016 - Shami Chakrabarti appointed to conduct a wider inquiry into anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

16th May 2016 - Shami Chakrabarti joins the Labour Party.

17th May 2016 - Baroness Royall's recommendations and conclusions are made public the actual report is suppressed by Labour's NEC

23rd June 2016 - EU Referendum

24th June 2016 - David Cameron resigns, shortly thereafter his resignation honours list is compiled. Jeremy Corbyn has a member of his staff contact No 10 to get Shami Chakrabarti's name added to the list.

30th June 2016 - Shami Chakrabarti submits her Report

27th July 2016 - Shami Chakrabarti appears on Newsnight

4th August 2016 - Shami Chakrabarti receives peerage as Jeremy Corbyn's sole nomination in David Cameron's resignation honours list, having been a member of the Labour Party for roughly fourteen weeks.

Now what do you think she had done to deserve that unique honour Shaw?

Showed unswerving and unfailing loyalty to him "Momentum" rather frighteningly refer to as "The Leader"?

For delivering the Report "The Leader" required?

Shami Chakrabarti appeared on national television and was asked a question:

Kirsty Wark: Is there a peerage in the offing? It has been discussed a Labour peerage might be in the offing for you?

Shami Chakrabarti: I don't know Kirsty, are you going to take one?

KW: I haven't been offered one, have you?

SC: Many times

Her last offer came from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - she turned them down. But on that Newnight programme Chakrabarti lied, because on the 27th July she would have had to have already been offered the peerage and accepted the honour if it was announced on the 4th August.

Stinks to high heaven Shaw and "guilty" or "innocent" neither the Labour Party, "The Leader", Labour's NEC or Shami Chakrabarti have come out of this very well, their timing and judgement has been terrible and as a result of being the opposite of transparent their integrity is in tatters.

2: "There were ignorant attitudes and there were remarks made that were unwise. Making remarks about Israel and the Nazis in the same breath is not appropriate. All matters that must be addressed, but the party is not overrun by anti-Semitism."

Not yet Shaw, not yet.

Oh and before you launch into another diatribe about how this was all some figment of the imaginations of Teribus, Akenaton, Keith A of Hertford and bobad, I would suggest that you read that letter sent to the OULC on the 15th February 2016 that kicked all this off and pay particular attention to those who signed it.

While Baroness Royall stated that anti-semtism was not institutionalised within the OULC and in Labour she did say that there was a "culture of anti-semtism" - care to enlighten me as to what the difference is?