My Reply to the Labour Party About My Accusers’ Identities

I received a reply today from the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit replying to my emails calling for them to disclose just who is accusing me of anti-Semitism and bringing the party into disrepute, as would be required in a court of law. Their short reply confirms what I knew already: that they weren’t going to tell me.

“Hello,
Thank you for your response.
I can confirm the complaint has not yet been considered by the NEC as we are in the process of gathering information, part of which is getting your response to the issues raised.  
Whilst we have shared copies of the evidence with you, it is not part of our process to share who raised the complaint.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding,
Governance & Legal UnitThe Labour Party”

This is unsatisfactory, and I have therefore sent them the following reply laying out my criticisms of their refusal.

 “Thank you for your reply to my inquiries about the complaints against me and the identity of my accusers. I very much regret that it is not part of the complaints process to reveal this information. This casts severe doubt on the justice of the proceedings and the ability of the investigative process to establish the truth. For many people, this invalidates any possible claim the party may make that these investigations have been fair.

There is also the question of the personal or institutional bias of the accusers. Some of the organisations that have led the mass denunciations of innocent members of the Labour party have been Zionist, rather than just simply Jewish. I particularly note the role played by the Jewish Labour Movement within the Labour party. This is a rebranding of Paole Zion, a Jewish Labour organisation whose name means ‘Workers of Zion’. It is, I understand, an explicitly Zionist organisation. The involvement of such groups in these accusations raises the questions of their own motives. For example, do such groups or individuals understand and appreciate the distinction between Judaism and Zionism? Do they also understand that one may justly criticise Israel, or indeed any other state and political ideology without wishing to harm to its people or siding with terrorist groups who do? These are questions I feel should be answered. I understand that the party wishes to protect their identities, but I would like the following questions answered regarding the political and organisational affiliation of my accusers. If I am not allowed to challenge them directly, then I would like to be able to challenge them through you.

Yours sincerely,”

I doubt very much I shall get anywhere with this, but the criticism and complaints should be made and publicised to expose how sham and fraudulent this whole process is.

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “My Reply to the Labour Party About My Accusers’ Identities”

  1. Brian Burden Says:

    More power to your arm! I’m afraid if I was accused, my response would be of the Pressdram v Arkle variety, but I’m glad you’re fighting to stay in. I used to have a barrister friend, long since deceased, I’m afraid, who would have been a real asset in a situation like this. If you are friends with any barristers, you should certainly enlist their aid, or that of any other radical briefs. Since this whole thing is a charade, you should do anything in your power to make things difficult for your accusers. Very best wishes!

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 )

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: