Dianne Abbott

[Rascal]

I don't agree with your first line. The hard left that Corbyn is a key proponent of is awash with antisemitism.

This is from the EHRC official report.


Our investigation found that the Labour Party breached the Equality Act 2010 by committing unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents in two of the complaints we investigated. These included using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears. As these people were acting as agents of the Labour Party, the Labour Party was legally responsible for their conduct.




Two is hardly "awash" and Corbyn is not hard left, he is a Democratic Socialist.

 

[Rascal]

That's a stretch.

Probably, but who knows with the political machinations inside the current Labour party.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

This is from the EHRC official report.


Our investigation found that the Labour Party breached the Equality Act 2010 by committing unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents in two of the complaints we investigated. These included using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears. As these people were acting as agents of the Labour Party, the Labour Party was legally responsible for their conduct.




Two is hardly "awash" and Corbyn is not hard left, he is a Democratic Socialist.

I'm not talking about the labour party. Im talking about the hard left many of whom are not members of Labour as its not left enough for them or those that have been kicked out.

 

[threespires]

This is from the EHRC official report.


Our investigation found that the Labour Party breached the Equality Act 2010 by committing unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents in two of the complaints we investigated. These included using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears. As these people were acting as agents of the Labour Party, the Labour Party was legally responsible for their conduct.




Two is hardly "awash" and Corbyn is not hard left, he is a Democratic Socialist.

I have always thought that report seemed light on an evidence base, however I did eventually get round to reading Alan Johnson's report which the EHRC references and I think relies upon. His report genuinely is awash with examples many of which I was shocked by. Even then you could argue that in an organisation of the size of the Labour that a few 100 unsavoury nutters still represents a tiny proportion of the party. However I think there were numerous instances within there of people who were at councillor or candidate level who did not seem to have been dealt with appropriately. At that point, to me, the EHRC position has legs.

You could argue that the Labour party has been singled out for special treatment amongst a whole range of large organisations who when subject to the same scrutiny might also be as viewed as having equivalent issues. You could also discuss who has driven this singling out.

However, I think it is fair to say there is/was a problem and the Labour party's failure to address it was both wrong and left an open goal for it's detractors in the same way that Abbott's comments were moronic and have made it easy for Starmer to take the action he has.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I have always thought that report seemed light on an evidence base, however I did eventually get round to reading Alan Johnson's report which the EHRC references and I think relies upon. His report genuinely is awash with examples many of which I was shocked by. Even then you could argue that in an organisation of the size of the Labour that a few 100 unsavoury nutters still represents a tiny proportion of the party. However I think there were numerous instances within there of people who were at councillor or candidate level who did not seem to have been dealt with appropriately. At that point, to me, the EHRC position has legs.

You could argue that the Labour party has been singled out for special treatment amongst a whole range of large organisations who when subject to the same scrutiny might also be as viewed as having equivalent issues. You could also discuss who has driven this singling out.

However, I think it is fair to say there is/was a problem and the Labour party's failure to address it was both wrong and left an open goal for it's detractors in the same way that Abbott's comments were moronic and have made it easy for Starmer to take the action he has.

Agree and there are two issues at play. AS by officials / candidates of Labour and AS by those who are not linked to Labour but are active in left/hard left circles.

Under Corbyn the latter was very prominent and was the underlying cause of issues such as the Luciana Berger situation and then the official Labour people get involved and did minimal to demonstrate they took it seriously. Most of that outside AS was out of scope of the report. You could argue its not his fault and he can't control the mob. But he is friends with many prominent members of the mob, and consistently looks to minimise the problems.

 

[blueinsa]

I don't agree with your first line. The hard left that Corbyn is a key proponent of is awash with antisemitism. Individually Corbyn and other lefties may not be antisemitic but to say its a recurring theme is an understatement. A quick dip in to hard left social media and antisemitism is easily uncovered, it's no surprise to me Corbyn had 'liked' a clearly antisemitic image, there are lots on there.

Their reluctance to acknowledge it is a clear problem and leads to the almost non existence of efforts to address it. They refuse to enter into the debate, but will happily discuss the oppression of the Palestinians from dawn to dusk. Abbot is clearly influenced by these views, it's a shame as she was a very good and moderate Labour MP for the main part of her career. She is ruining her legacy.

Nailed the issue mate.

 

[blueinsa]

This brings out the usual blue moon racist types pretending they're not really racist, probably the same clowns that wave union jacks and think the royal family are good for Britain

Dianne Abbott likes this post.

Thanks for that, you just perfectly explained what is wrong with the left in this country as you espoused your own bigoted views.

 

[Postman Pep]

Agree and there are two issues at play. AS by officials / candidates of Labour and AS by those who are not linked to Labour but are active in left/hard left circles.

Under Corbyn the latter was very prominent and was the underlying cause of issues such as the Luciana Berger situation and then the official Labour people get involved and did minimal to demonstrate they took it seriously. Most of that outside AS was out of scope of the report. You could argue its not his fault and he can't control the mob. But he is friends with many prominent members of the mob, and consistently looks to minimise the problems.

That's some fucking horrseshoe you clattering away at there. People were prosecuted for the abuse of Berger .... all from the far right.
The 'mob' ....

 

[M18CTID]

Because you're not allowed to be proud any more. Just Gammon, jingoistic and racist - heaven forbid don't celebrate or even reference St George's Day.

Sorry but this is pure bollocks. I wouldn't describe myself as a "lefty", "woke", or "snowflake" but nobody is stopping anyone celebrating St George's Day. There's a parade in Manchester every year and there was one on Sunday just gone. In fact, I'd say that St George's Day is celebrated more in the present day than it was 30 years ago. Back then there was no parade and hardly anyone acknowledged it. The fact is that it's simply never been celebrated that much in my lifetime compared to certain other patron saint days and that's not because we're not allowed to - it's because most people simply can't be arsed.

 

[inbetween]

Because the Union flag is a symbol of the establishment and the monarchy is at the pinnacle of that establishment, the white establishment, whose wealth and power is derived from the exploitation of black slave labour.

To support the monarchy and salute the flag is to condone the actions of the white establishment and is therefore an overtly racist act.

The wealth and power of the British does not come from black slave labour. What about India or what about those in Asia who lived under British rule? Racism alone does not explain the extension of power into places like Canada or Australia either which were already under white rule.

Unfortunately the fact is the British empire was responsible for a lot more than slavery. Slavery in itself existed as one single atrocity of British rule but it wasn't uniquely so because slavery was pretty common all over the world at that time. I'd be interested to hear your view on the Spanish, Portuguese or French flags as they were responsible for fairly similar atrocities in those time periods?

When we talk of the slavery of the past though I find it more sad that people can be ignorant to the slavery which still exists in the world. Slavery was ended in the UK over 200 years ago so we can slag off the UK for its past but it is just that, the past. What about today?

Most countries east or south of Europe still participate in slavery in some form or another, or at least they have zero laws to protect against it. The UK is not part of that and hasn't been a truly remotely racist country for over a century.

The union flag therefore does represent our grim past but you must admit that it also represents the fight and successful changes that have been over the decades. Today the UK and its union flag represents one of the most tolerant, representative and most un-racist societies in the world.