Vox Political: Leaked Labour Plan on Anti-Semitism Cases Reveals Corruption of Present System

On Thursday, 31st May 2018 Mike put up a piece about the Labour party’s plans for dealing with alleged anti-Semitism cases, that had been leaked to the Huffington Post. He states that he had planned to write a glowing report of it, but instead the plans revealed just how staggeringly corrupt the existing system. Especially as applied to him.

He goes through the plan point by point, and shows how in each case these were violated when it came to the way he was investigated. Or rather, he wasn’t. The party simply rushed to suspend him, just like they have done to so many other, thoroughly decent people.

Before we deal with Mike’s case, let’s look at the ideal, and the way the document states such cases should be investigated.

It states that each case should be assigned an investigating officer, who looks at the evidence against the accused, and applies a set of tests to determine whether there is a prima facie case against them.

In almost all cases where the evidence is documentary, such as from social media or email, the plan continues, the accused person will be provided with a copy of the evidence and a list a questions within 14 days.

The plan then states that this will usually provide enough evidence to decide the issue, whether it needs further investigation, or if it should go to the next quarterly meeting of the NCC panel.

In rare cases where further information is needed, the accused may, in the words of the document, be called to be interrogated at an interview, or, more likely, simply answer a set of questions.

The NEC Disputes Panel then consider a report at their next meeting, which may be as long as 17 weeks away. If there is a case to answer, it is referred to the National Constitution Committee, who decide the case under their rules, and may judge that a hearing is needed.

The Investigating Officer then formulates the final charges, as well as the NEC’s opening submission to the hearing and the bundle of evidence and other material supplies to the NEC.

Mike states that the Investigating Officer clearly did not review the evidence against him properly. This was the smear piece run by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, published to prevent him standing in the Powys county council elections. The smear piece had links to Mike’s original article, which had they been followed by the Investigating Officer would have shown that the CAA’s piece was a smear that twisted and grossly distorted Mike’s words. But that was not done. Instead the party rushed to suspend him.

Mike makes the point that this was done for political reasons. His opponents knew that he belonged to the left of the party, and concludes on this point

and it seems that right-wingers in the party’s administrative echelons thought they could use the false allegation of anti-Semitism to get rid of me.

The next point, that he should be given a set of questions, was also not followed. Instead, they simply suspended him and kept him in the dark for five months. He goes on to make the point that the disputes panel simply weren’t interested in hearing his side of the story, and as they didn’t have any evidence they couldn’t end the investigation, although there was enough material to stop it there and then. He concludes on this point

What was going on? All I can suggest is that the process was delayed in order to keep me suspended for as long as possible.

Mike also remarks on the strange choice of the word ‘interrogation’ to refer to the interviews to which the accused may be called. He states that he was never given a list of questions to answer, and was simply called to attend a meeting in Cardiff in October last year (2017). He went with a friend, who acted as a silent witness, and spoke for 100 minutes, answering questions that were simply presented to him blind. He states that he was not told how they were related to the allegations against him. He comments further

I was never told exactly how they related to the allegations against me. At one point I asked the IO whether he had read my articles and he replied that he had not; he had merely been told to highlight passages in particular articles of mine and to ask me about them. I noticed also that he was not taking many notes. In hindsight, it seems he had been instructed to listen for particular answers and to note whether he received them or not. My guilt, I think, had been decided in advance of the evidence and he was just there to confirm it.

Mike then states that the NEC then considered his case just ten or eleven weeks late in January 2018. It was not in the main body of matters to be considered, but under any other business. This meant that they didn’t look at any of the material Mike himself had supplied, and simply relied on what they investigating officer told them. And he simply referred to the CAA’s smear piece, and described Mike’s answers as the ‘vague’. Which as, he points out, he is anything but. He comments

In those circumstances, though, it is no wonder that NEC members came to the wrong decision. As I suggested, it seems the intention was to find me guilty, no matter what evidence was put up in my defence.

Mike also states that the formulation of the final charges and the presentation of other material to the NEC also simply did not occur in his case. The NEC simply decided that he was guilty, and decided that they would lift his suspension only if he attended a training day with the Jewish Labour Movement – who Mike describes as ‘highly questionable’. Mike turned them down, and comments here

I wonder whether there was an intention to put me in a situation I could not tolerate, as an incentive for me to leave the Party of my own free will. Not likely! It would have appeared to be an admission of guilt and, as you may have noticed, I’m determined to establish my innocence.

As for the recommendations, these are

That the NCC should make greater use of provisions that allow them to decide a case without going to a hearing and simply using the supplied written information. Mike makes the obvious objection that those accused should be allowed greater opportunities to represent themselves, not less. In Mike’s case, he was given. As he remarks, that’s not justice, that’s a stitch-up.

It goes on to attack respondents for resorting to litigation and solicitors, and blames this for creating delays in judging cases. It therefore recommends that they should be made aware of their right to bring other representation to these hearings, like their trade unions representatives. Again, Mike comments that this is one-sided, as the party is lawyering-up, and it seems to be a device to place the accused at a disadvantage. If one side has lawyers, and the other doesn’t, then it’s an offence against natural justice, comments Mike.

The report also recommends that the accused in these cases should be anonymised, like those in sexual harassment cases, because of the perception that these cases are influence by political forces. Mike states that this recommendation is the best of a bad bunch. He comments on the way the Disputes Panel’s report to the NEC was skewed against him, and he wasn’t allowed to attend. Then afterwards their decision was leaked to a newspaper reporter, who then libelled Mike. He states

This was obviously not an accident. Somebody on the NEC made a conscious decision to use the findings of the NEC’s kangaroo court against me in the press. That doesn’t happen without malicious intent.

The document concludes with a stroppy comment about how some of the accused seek publicity for their cases, which the document then patronisingly claims causes further problems for themselves and Labour party members campaigning on their behalf. It goes on to state that

All parties should be reminded that public conduct may adversely impact progress of an ongoing investigation. Such conduct may appear to be grossly detrimental to the Party.

Mike’s reply to this is suitably curt:

I’ll accept no lectures from anybody in the Labour Party about public conduct.

He then goes to recall how he only found out about his suspension when a newspaper report rang him, because the Labour party had just emailed it to him. They had also just emailed it to Mike, and he had not had time to digest it. Mike rhetorically asks whether this was good public policy.

He then notes that the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism took great glee in reporting Mike’s suspension, despite knowing that their accusation is entirely false. That recommendation appears to suggest that Mike should not do anything to defend himself against a corrupt process which flouts the facts.

The Labour party then passed the defamatory information smearing Mike onto a third party – which is libel – who then passed it on to the Sunday Times and other newspapers, who then libelled Mike as a Holocaust Denier.

He also notes that there is an implicit threat in the recommendation that those, who try to publicise their cases risk causing problems for themselves and their supporters in the party. Mike asks why? Does this mean that the party’s officers will take note and then move on to persecute them. As for the comments about ‘bringing the party into disrepute’, this is a clear threat of expulsion.

Mike then concludes his article with these paragraphs

But giving newspaper reporters prior notice of a member’s suspension is grossly detrimental to the Party. What punishment was given to the officer who did that? Libelling a party member in the press is grossly detrimental to the Party. What punishment was given to the member(s) who did that? In fact, the whole manufactured anti-Semitism row is grossly detrimental to the Party but I see none of those responsible taking any punishment for it at all.

The whole case against me has been a corrupt farce from start to – well, the present day; there’s no end in sight, thanks to the current system.

It seems to me that I will be well within my rights to contact general secretary Jennie Formby, point out the huge injustices that have been done to me, and direct her to end my suspension and publish a full and frank public apology for the harm that the Party has done to me.

After that, I would want to see positive steps taken to identify those responsible and expose them to some proper justice.

That should not be too much to ask. But I’m prepared to bet it is.

See Mike’s article at:

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/05/31/leaked-labour-plan-on-anti-semitism-reveals-the-corruption-in-its-current-system-and-potential-future-pitfalls/

In fact, as I’ve pointed out over and again, it isn’t just Mike that’s suffered these terrible injustices. If you go over to Tony Greenstein’s blog, you can find innumerable cases like Mike’s, including Greenstein himself. He was finally told about his own hearing when he was in hospital recovering from illness, and was given a very limited time to prepare despite having reams of notes dumped on him. Greenstein himself is Jewish, as are very many of the other people, who have been smeared as anti-Semites, Holocaust Deniers and other Nazi filth. These have included the children, of parents who managed to survive the horrors of the Shoah. Quite apart from the fact that I think very many British Jews have lost family and relatives in the Holocaust. It is grossly offensive, as well as a violation against natural justice, to accuse these people of being anti-Semites. And this is quite apart from the gentiles, who have fought all their lives against racism and anti-Semitism, like Marc Wadsworth.

As for ‘political forces’ affecting these decisions – it’s plainly evident that they are. One lad was suspended because – dear me, how shocking! he wrote a poem satirising Tony Blair. As for trade union representation, I’m afraid that can’t be relied on. In another recent case Tony’s discussed, a man cannot use his Unison representative, because this man is the right-wing Labour council candidate, who had him suspended.

The Labour party’s process for tackling anti-Semitism is a gross farce. The procedures are ignored and circumvented at will by highly placed individuals keen to smear and libel their political opponents. These people should be brought to the light and named. This will probably sound vindictive, but this should include the person on the NEC panel, who leaked the libels against Mike to the press, the Investigating Officers, who didn’t do his job in Mike’s case, and who don’t do their jobs in so many others like him. And whoever told the IO that he wasn’t to read all of Mike’s own defence, just the bits that had been highlighted.

Only when false accusations have consequences for the accusers and libellers with there be at last a guarantee of proper justice in these cases.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: