Good question, you’d have to ask the complainant. Equally, you could ask why didn’t they face allegations if they were innocent? I’ll reiterate: they’re innocent until proven guilty in my eyes.
This is detracting from the issue that they didn’t leave because of Corbyn, because party leaders come and go, they left because of the allegations against them and their subsequent investigations.
The result of the by-election will be interesting, yes.
Allegations of something that wasn’t deemed so offensive that it wasn’t referred to the police - ok
Given the way chakrabati swept anti semetic behaviour under the carpet and the many unsavoury characters who’ve been allowed to remain in the party as long as they align to momentum it’s very conceivable these were made up allegations to present to a kangaroo court.
Sounds a bit like the Carl Seargant witch hunt
So how come he has been using his voice about antisemitism and Corbyn for years yet now you say it is to deflect. Why wouldn't those chasing him in the Labour party put it to a neutral person like it should be? And why has he reported it himself for a neutral person to investigate?So the allegations into his alleged sexual harassment of a colleague has nothing to do with it whatsoever?
Woodcock is the one who politicised the issue around a Corbyn-led Labour in a classic ‘deflect attention away from me’ manoeuvre. Ask yourself, how you would feel about this had you not been close to this man?
Jared O’Mara was caught out posting homophobic comments online, he resigned the whip. As did Fiona Onsanya for getting caught speeding and lied about who was behind the wheel. It’s commonplace for MPs to resign the whip (becoming independents) to avoid being disciplined by their party. It’s not political.
Wrong again. As I continually say to you he has reported the allegation himself to someone independent to investigate and not Labour and Corbyn who have been trying to silence him. And while he is still an MP he will continue to inform the public about everything that is wrong with the party he has been involved with for many years. He isn't like you. He has morals.You’re right actually, I got mixed up with a few MPs who are now ‘independent’ and their circumstances. Ivan Lewis was also suspended for similar allegations than Woodcock and he also left the party.
Investigations against them won’t be conducted by the Labour Party if they’ve resigned the whip because they can’t be sanctioned.
I take the line that Woodcock and Lewis are innocent until proven guilty, for what it’s worth. But, these two MPs have effectively silenced complaints against them by resigning the whip.
These allegations where no proof has ever been shown. They were supposed to be text messages. So she would still have these text messages.They weren’t kicked out of the party, they left it. Big difference.
Tale the example of Jared O’Mara, he was caught making homophobic as well as comments online in 2009 and earlier. He was reinstated into the party, but chose to resign the whip anyway.
I actually agree with you, people should take these kinds allegations to the police and dealt with in accordance to the law.
These allegations where no proof has ever been shown. They were supposed to be text messages. So she would still have these text messages.
So how come he has been using his voice about antisemitism and Corbyn for years yet now you say it is to deflect. Why wouldn't those chasing him in the Labour party put it to a neutral person like it should be? And why has he reported it himself for a neutral person to investigate?
It is you that is trying to deflect. But strangely enough if he had shouted for Brexit to end instead of abstaining from the vote you would defend him like the others you do.
These allegations where no proof has ever been shown. They were supposed to be text messages. So she would still have these text messages.
Wrong again. As I continually say to you he has reported the allegation himself to someone independent to investigate and not Labour and Corbyn who have been trying to silence him. And while he is still an MP he will continue to inform the public about everything that is wrong with the party he has been involved with for many years. He isn't like you. He has morals.
To echo @skybluetony176, if there was no proof, surely he wouldn’t have to fear an investigation because he would be found innocent. He may been disgusted by antisemitism (as is any reasonable person) wherever it appears, he may also disagree with Corbyn politically too. But, he wouldn’t have left the party had he not been placed under investigation.
Why would he have been found innocent if say a member of momentum just lied to shut him up?
A bit more evidence is needed than ‘he said, she said’, don’t you think?
Considering the accusations are from a former aide, between the years 2014 to 2016. This started before Corbyn’s rise to power and before Momentum got off the ground. Therefore, I don’t suspect it’s a witch-hunt lead by Momentum.
A bit more evidence is needed than ‘he said, she said’, don’t you think?
Considering the accusations are from a former aide, between the years 2014 to 2016. This started before Corbyn’s rise to power and before Momentum got off the ground. Therefore, I don’t suspect it’s a witch-hunt lead by Momentum.
I doubt it I’ve already mentioned another witch hunt victim
Allegations of something that wasn’t deemed so offensive that it wasn’t referred to the police - ok
Given the way chakrabati swept anti semetic behaviour under the carpet and the many unsavoury characters who’ve been allowed to remain in the party as long as they align to momentum it’s very conceivable these were made up allegations to present to a kangaroo court.
Sounds a bit like the Carl Seargant witch hunt
It was a kangaroo court. Don't you understand? He should have been allowed someone independent to investigate but Corbyn denied him this right.To echo @skybluetony176, if there was no proof, surely he wouldn’t have to fear an investigation because he would be found innocent. He may been disgusted by antisemitism (as is any reasonable person) wherever it appears, he may also disagree with Corbyn politically too. But, he wouldn’t have left the party had he not been placed under investigation.
One question for you.Anti-Semitic behaviour needs to be wiped out of all political parties there is no doubt about that. The appointment of a new general secretary to deal with the shamblolic process and the backlog that arose means that these are now being dealt with, albeit not as quickly as people would except, so that criticism is certainly valid. There is also a matter of education on this matter, so those that wish to be supportive of Palestine do not slip into anti-Semitic remarks in doing so.
However at least Labour have finally recognised there is an issue over intolerance in a political party.
Your beloved Tories have a massive issue in terms of Islamaphobia, far bigger than Labour’s problem with anti-semitism. In fact independent research suggests that the Tories have a bigger issue with anti-semitism than Labour do.
Your former chairwoman has come out and called for an inquiry into it. The Muslim council of Britain have called for an inquiry into it, and you as a party can’t even acknowledge that it is an issue.
Perhaps it’s always more indicative of good leadership to recognise and deal with your own issues rather that simply ‘deflect’ onto others.
No doubt you’ll be back to deflect shortly.
It was a kangaroo court. Don't you understand? He should have been allowed someone independent to investigate but Corbyn denied him this right.
Is this you defending Corbyn?
One question for you.
Look at an MP we are talking about. He has been fighting against antisemitism in the Labour party for a long time. They are trying to silence him. So he left the Labour party as they wouldn't let him have someone independent to investigate and allegation. Yet you haven't mentioned it once. Why not?
So you are seriously saying that he had allegations against him for something completely different because he was trying to raise awareness of anti-Semitism?
The process for dealing with claims of anti-Semitism is clear. It is dealt with by the General Secretary, not the Leader of the Party. Everyone in the party knows that. The media know that. It's clear that the previous Gen Sec was not doing this properly, and as such created a huge backlog which even now is still being dealt with.
The press have made out that anti-Semitism didn't exist prior to Corbyn. Chuka Umanna said in 2016 that he saw no evidence of anti-Semitism being a major problem in Labour. A year later it was endemic according to him.
There are clearly 3 issues that are going on:
A small amount of Labour activists/members that are anti-Semitic. They need to be removed from the Party.
A larger amount of Labour activists/members/supporters that are straying into anti-Semitism through lack of understanding and knowledge. This also would pick up those who are inadvertently making anti-Semitic comments in their defence of Palestine, and their criticism of the Israeli government and their actions. This group need educating on what they are doing wrong so that they don't do it again.
A small amount of people that use the notion of anti-Semitism as a political tool (mostly in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict). MP Joan Ryan was filmed discussing with the Labour friends of Israel (as the chair) how she could use £1m to take down the leadership of the party and also some Tory ministers that were not sympathetic to the Israel cause. Rachel Riley has been prevalent on social media 'combatting' anti-Semitism. Yet 2 weeks ago she said on Channel 4 'I don't look like your average Jew' - Is this not the very definition of ignorant anti-Semitism??
There is a reason why we largely haven't discussed Anti-Semitism on here. It's bloody complicated, and a lot of us don't know about the complexities of the situation both here in the UK, but also in the on-going Israel/Palestine conflict.
But to go back to your original question - it's not a case of not mentioning, it's a case of not knowing a lot of detail in what is a complex situation.
That was a lot of detail for a subject you say you know nothing about.But to go back to your original question - it's not a case of not mentioning, it's a case of not knowing a lot of detail in what is a complex situation.
That was a lot of detail for a subject you say you know nothing about.
And yes you can ask for someone neutral to look at a case. But it was refused. What it dies show is when someone speaks up against antisemitism they get turned on by other members.
I suppose some would be happy if we just ignore it though.
If you want a debate can we keep to what we know as the truth?The norm for these kinds of issues is to deal with it internally using the party processes and mechanisms. The fact of the matter is, your MP is breaking the norm in asking for an independent inquiry. Whilst I'm not saying he is fundamentally wrong in asking for that, it is breaking ranks with traditional party discipline. Considering the general secretary deals with this, and not the leader of the party, this idea of Corbyn forcing him out and it being a way to silence him isn't that credible. The fact that because he's resigned the whip, he can no longer be sanctioned by the party is suspicious in my view, but not tantamount to guilt.
He clearly had some fundamental disagreements with the leadership over the direction the party was taking and was clearly abhorred by anti-semitism in the party. It is also clear that he would have remained had it not been for this investigation.
It's worth bringing up that these allegations started in 2014, this is a year before Momentum was founded and before Corbyn was elected leader.
That was a lot of detail for a subject you say you know nothing about.
And yes you can ask for someone neutral to look at a case. But it was refused. What it dies show is when someone speaks up against antisemitism they get turned on by other members.
I suppose some would be happy if we just ignore it though.
If you want a debate can we keep to what we know as the truth?
Point out where I have said that antisemitism is the fault of Corbyn. What I have said is Corbyn is trying to hide all bad news and silence people.
Labour trying to purge Corbyn antisemitism critics, says Hodge
Labour activist: it would be deeply unhealthy to silence Corbyn critics
Jeremy Corbyn wants to gag us over anti-Semitism, say his own MPs
Labour MP reported to party officials by Jeremy Corbyn's office over communications criticism
Lawyers brand Labour probe into Corbyn critic ‘a farce and disgrace’
Would you like more?
If this guy wants an independent enquiry is there not a parliamentary committee on this subject he can refer himself to? There seems to be one for everything else and given the amount of accusations flying around Westminster I’d be surprised if there wasn’t for this.
The claim of it being directed against Corbyn's enemies is also fantasy. Kelvin Hopkins a 'lifelong socialist' and even served in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn was also suspended by the party because of allegations of sexual harassment.
It’s like you said in a previous post as well. An internal investigation is the norm. It would have been more worrying if he had have been given special privileges. Sounds like he’s killed his political career to avoid an investigation to me. Barrow is an extremely safe labour seat and I can’t see him retaining the seat as an independent but who knows. If he was innocent as claimed I don’t know what he had to fear. It seems he’s done more to smear his name doing it this way than if he’d let it take it’s course. If he feels that strongly about Coybyn stand your ground and save your career, Corbyn isn’t going to be labour leader forever.
It used to be a safe seat, but he only won by 200-odd votes in 2017 and came close to losing in 2015 too. To me, his actions suggest he believed he would lose for whatever reason. But, my stance is that John Woodcock MP is innocent until proven guilty. There had been many people across the political spectrum accused of sexual harassment, Sir Michael Fallon resigned from cabinet and Alex Salmond is under investigation too. To my knowledge, only Alex Salmond has been taken to court. High profile Tories are being dealt with internally.
But they won't as it either puts their future as an MP for Labour or whatever they do with Labour in doubt. Look at how many will defend them whatever.What I mean is that I don't understand the complexities of what is/isn't anti-Semitic statements, as Jewish people can't seem to even agree on this. Having an understanding of the overview of what has occurred is not the same.
I think you are misconstruing here a little bit. He should not be vilified for speaking out against anti-Semitism. Members or activists that have given him abuse should be disciplined accordingly via the correct routes. Will he have reported them?
He has also been let down by his fellow MP's who have weaponised what is a legitimate fight for their own personal interests.
But they won't as it either puts their future as an MP for Labour or whatever they do with Labour in doubt. Look at how many will defend them whatever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?