Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

Home Forums Discussion Forum Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

Kim Sanders-Fisher

In a last ditch attempt at damage control this Skwawkbox Article entitled, “BBC reveals Panorama hatchet-job is embarrassingly thin misdirection” they said, “Antisemitism is a deadly serious issue – but ‘allegations’ relating mostly to actions of old, right-wing regime and some as thin as ‘interpretations’ and disagreements about definitions do nothing to help the fight against it.” They said that information on the claims to be broadcast in that evening’s Panorama attack on the Labour Party revealed, “a distinct lack of substance in the programme’s claims and the distinct misdirection of attempting to use it against the current administration. In fact most relate to the party’s old right-wing regime under its unlamented former general secretary, Iain McNicol – and those that don’t are as thin and insubstantial as someone being grumpy or a disgruntled ex-staffer’s ‘interpretation’ of an email.” This just wouldn’t reach the high standard of ‘evidence’ for presentation in a Court which is why Labour Lawyers were so confident they would win.

If fact when you break it down, the much hyped expose looks more like tittle-tattle in the detailed Skwawkbox analysis of what the broadcaster had written in their BBC article promoting the documentary before it aired. According to Skwawkbox it, “reveals what the programme offers in terms of support for its much-trailed ‘revelations’, saying of the supposed whistleblowers – who almost all quit the party as soon as Jennie Formby was appointed to replace McNicol and the rest soon after: They claim:
• The leader’s office was “angry and obstructive” when it came to the issue
• Officials brought in by Ms Formby “overruled” disciplinary decisions and “downgraded” punishments to a “slap on the wrist”
• Mr Milne laughed when advised by a long-serving party official about what Mr Corbyn should do to tackle anti-Semitism in the party
• On one occasion, Jeremy Corbyn’s office ordered batches of anti-Semitism complaints to be brought to his Commons office for processing by his aides”

The Skwawkbox report, “Dealing with the ‘claims’ in order: ‘Angry and obstructive’.” This would not be an admissible charge in a Court case and Skwawkbox explain why, saying, “Apart from being so entirely subjective – and so unverifiable – an assessment as to be meaningless, these poor, sensitive ex-staffers seem to have been upset at a grumpy response from overworked aides in the leader’s office.” This reminds me of the ridiculous ‘offences’ I was falsely charged with when I was ousted from Johns Hopkins as a Whistleblower. Temporary staff were bullied into writing complaints that under questioning amounted to “she had her hands on her hips in an aggressive posture” and “she had her arms folded and I felt threatened;” so I was fired for “disruptive behaviour in the OR” which amounted to alleged “aggressive posturing.” Disruptive is often used to fire people in the US and it will be coming to a workplace near you after crash-out Brexit: I adopted it for my business card that says: “Disruptive Concept and Design Innovation!”

Vague terms like this do not work in Court which is why Ware has used smoke and mirror threats and will try hard to avoid Court. Skwawkbox say that in contrast, “Many of the same ex-staff, incidentally, were more than happy to participate enthusiastically in the suspension of members during successive ‘purges‘ of left members before each of the two leadership elections. Many of those same ‘whistleblowers’ were also so determined not to contribute to any solutions that they quit as soon as their old boss was replaced. One quoted by the BBC, Sam Matthews, managed to cling on for around three months and then quit. Most crucially, departing ex-staffers also destroyed thousands of documents relating to complaints, while taking copies to release to the media, hampering Labour’s attempts to deal with them. Corbyn’s aides may well have had ample reason to be angry and uncooperative toward those ex-staffers.” However most of the above points are provable facts that discredit the claims of the fake Whistleblowers.

Before addressing their response to the next point it is worth reviewing information from an earlier Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Hodge’s 200 ‘Labour’ complaints – 90% were NOT Labour members.” This from Hodge and others, disproportionately swelled the number of complaints to a shocking level. They say, “Formby’s email reveals that of the two hundred cases ‘put in’ by Margaret Hodge, only twenty instances concerned Labour members – the rest of Ms Hodge’s examples concerned people who had no link to the Labour Party.” While Hodge was certainly entitled to voice her concern and report vile anti-Semitic comments and offensive internet tweets, she should have modified her own deeply defamatory conduct that presented an ugly picture of Labour disunity. People reported for discipline over unacceptable conduct couldn’t be removed from the Labour Party as they were never members in the first place, but Hodge should have been disciplined for her very public attack on Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons.

The huge number of people joining or rejoining the Labour Party inspired by Corbyn would have increased the volume of vetting necessary to adhere to a non racist message across the board. The next complaint that the Skwawkbox examined was “Overruled decisions, slap on the wrist.” Here they say, “Again, context is key. Right-wing staff under McNicol were recommending summary expulsions and the referral of cases to the NCC (Labour’s ultimate disciplinary committee) that were found to be without evidence or substance.” Totally aside from the non-member issue there were comments and criticisms of the Israeli Government that were judged anti-Semitic. Skwawkbox cite, “Shami Chakrabarti’s report on the handling of antisemitism cases made recommendations to the party that were meant to be completely implemented by the McNicol regime. The report specifically stated that, “offences of varying seriousness should be handled in a range of ways, in a section on sanctions for members found in breach.”

Skwawkbox say that, “the report states: ‘In the event of a member being found in breach, the NCC should be encouraged to consider greater use of a wide and creative range of sanctions. These may include a warning, the requirement for apologies and/or some other form of sensitive reparation to another member or person or persons, a public warning or reprimand, suspension from the Party for up to two years, and expulsion. Chakrabarti report, page 19” They say that, “However, Chakrabarti was almost entirely ignored by the old right-wing machine. The ‘overruling’ of recommendations by that right-wing machine was entirely appropriate in those circumstances – and disgruntled ex-staffers busy ignoring Chakrabarti’s process clearly regarded anything short of summary expulsion as ‘a slap on the wrist’.” When examined by the Court for a fair, reasonable judgement, the ‘ignored’ cases highlighted in the leaked report will demonstrate the skewed logic, intense anti-Palestinian bigotry and bias of those who were handling them.

Regarding the third point that “Mr. Milne laughed” is another accusation that would be laughed out of Court. The Skwawkbox say, “See the previous section. ‘Long-serving party officials’ were the very people who had been ignoring the Chakrabarti report – a report that even Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis had said should be implemented in full and without delay.” They say, “Laughing at the pronouncements of obstructive right-wingers who had failed to implement any of the Chakrabarti report would be an appropriate response, when the Labour left was working hard to try to improve the mess left by the old regime.”

The forth accusation as detailed by the BBC was as Skwawkbox reported, “Ordered batches of complaints to LOTO.” They say, “Here the claims fly off into fantasy. A significant number of the McNicol apparatus had simply quit in pique when he was removed. Some had shredded thousands of documents relating to live disciplinary cases to hamper the party.” The shredding of documents by the rogue team must have been witnessed and appropriately documented or this rumour would not be circulating so widely. There is also proof of these documents being leaked to the right-wing press which I would have thought was a criminal violation of data protection. I believe this would be provable in Court in a way that would damage the claims of the rogue staff members.

Skwawkbox try to explain the reality Labour were faced with under extreme public pressure, “Short-staffed and deprived of vital documents, Labour went into an ‘all hands to the pumps’ mode to attempt to manage the chaos. As part of that effort, some of Corbyn’s staff, along with others, were temporarily allocated to trying to get things back on track until new staff were recruited. These staff were not demanding documents, they were requesting them to help deal with a backlog created by the actions of the same right-wing quitters who had shredded documents on their way out.” It will remain to be seen if it can be proved that the disgruntled staff shredded documents or released them to hostile press, but there is no better demonstration of them having “an axe to grind” if this was the case; thereby justifying what Labour said regarding their pathetic contributors to the documentary.

Skwawkbox were very clear about what would not be mentioned in the Panorama documentary, “The fact that departing staffers destroyed thousands of documents to hamper Labour, while taking copies they could leak to the media, was exclusively revealed by the SKWAWKBOX almost two months ago, but is easily checked by any journalist contacting the right party officials. In spite of having plenty of time to investigate this right-wing, antisemitic vandalism, it is unlikely in the extreme that Panorama will mention it at all, let alone challenge any of its ‘whistleblowers’ on whether they played any part in it. The BBC also omitted the fact that ‘interference’ alleged by Jennie Formby in one case was actually Formby asking for the case to be sped up, selectively quoted emails – and left out that ‘witness’ Matthews had dismissed another case:”

Skwawkbox included, “A series of Twitter posts seem to refute claims made by Panorama in one: “Alex Wickham @alexwickham – In other emails released by Labour tonight it emerges that it was former staffer Sam Matthews who actually wrote, “I don’t think it’s a particularly strong case” re alleged anti-Semitism case… Labour says the BBC is reporting the ‘opposite’ of the truth in this case.” In another he says, “Alex Wickham @alexwickham BBC press release claims Jennie Formby intervened in Jackie Walker’s case, but it doesn’t say how they intervened… turns out according to Labour Formby actually asked for the process against Walker to be sped up… not mentioned by Panorama…” In a third he says, “Alex Wickham @alexwickham Wow… Labour says the BBC edited a Milne email to delete a line showing he was referring to Jewish members accused of AS ‘But if we’re more than very occasionally using disciplinary action against Jewish members for anti-Semitism…’ doesn’t appear in BBC press release.”

The Skwawkbox report on the issue of NDAs saying, “The BBC article this evening also attributes significant weight to NDAs (non-disclosure agreements). Sam Matthews, who appears to be a key ‘witness’ in the Panorama programme, released a letter to the Sunday Times that he had received from the party’s lawyers, referring to the NDA he signed. The Times claimed the letter had been sent by Labour in the run-up to the Panorama programme in an attempt to curb his participation. In fact, the letter was three months old and dated to the time Matthews first started feeding information to the media for attacks on the Labour Party. The date of the published letter was blacked out, disguising its age.” This would not support Matthews credibility as evidence in Court, in fact it would very clearly demonstrate an obvious attempt to deliberately deceive those filming the Panorama documentary.

The Panorama program relied heavily on strategic screen shots and dramatic background music. The Skwawkbox ‘Interpretation’ states that “The programme appears to be aware of the thinness of its material, adding in the frankly feeble in an attempt to pad it out. In an attempt to support a claim of interference by Corbyn aide Seumas Milne, the BBC article reports: But Sam Matthews, the party’s former head of disputes, said he interpreted an e-mail sent by Mr Milne – the Labour leader’s communications chief – in March 2018, calling for a review into how complaints were handled, as ‘an instruction’.” They point out that “A ‘call for a review’ – no doubt driven by the determination of the previous right-wing administration not to implement the Chakrabarti processes – was ‘interpreted’ by Matthews as ‘an instruction’. A disgruntled ex-employee says something with its own clear meaning was in fact something else – and Panorama is so short of substance for its programme that this merits mention as an allegation.”

Heavily reliant on setting the tone with sinister music and the subjective histrionics of allegedly aggrieved staff, the conclusion drawn by Skwawkbox isn’t at all supportive of Ware or his pathetic amateur dramatics cast. They said that the, “Panorama programme has been trailed by the BBC as a major exposé – and treated by other media and assorted enemies of Labour’s leadership as some kind of ‘Holy Writ’. Instead, the BBC itself seems to have revealed that it is so thin and so transparently political that any embarrassment should be on the faces of those responsible for it – and of those demanding that the rest of the country treat it as substantial. The issue of antisemitism anywhere is a deadly serious one – but Labour has done more to tackle it in the past year than previous leaders did in the previous century. And the misrepresentation of claims by disgruntled former staff at political odds with the Labour leadership will do not one thing to advance the genuine fight against the horror of antisemitism.”

In their damage control Article Skwawkbox hail “the progressive Labour Leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and his team,” saying that by contrast, they, “have taken Labour to a place of genuinely world-leading processes and policies that make the party the safest place for its members of any ethnicity or religion. He meant what he told the party’s annual conference last autumn: But you won’t hear that on tonight’s Panorama.” Press Gang criticized the Panorama program with a well researched review of the evidence and the relevant facts as did the Jewish Voice for Labour: they are now both being sued by Ware for daring to criticize his hatchet job polemic. Even Ware admits that his legal action has broken an unspoken rule about the sanctity of free speech, but he just doesn’t care as he has this opportunity to destroy the progressive Socialist Left, protect Zionist apartheid and rake in a bunch of cash at the same time. He deserves to be run out of town by Journalists and never work as a press professional again in future.

How dystopian could we get with Ware’s assault on free speech? You have heard about a new Restaurant that has just opened near you, what is it like? Surely a food critic has checked it out and written a review of its fare: tasty or terrible, cosy atmosphere or dull and drab, good value or a total rip off: you want to know? But sadly there are no food critics willing to risk being taken to Court for offering an honest opinion! A rather controversial author has just published a new book and you want some insight into whether it is really worth reading or if it is just ho-hum boring. You go online to search for a book review, but you draw a blank, because no one wants to stick their neck out with a critique that could cost thousands in a Court settlement! Free press and the right to criticize a body of work or a venue is an important component of our way of life. John Ware wants to take us down a slippery slope to end all that, where only the most disreputable scoundrels are able to protect their hate speech by threatening legal action: I think not!

Starmer had hoped to end the attacks by betraying Labour Party members, squandering their dues on a massive settlement to Ware and his gang of deceitful wreckers, but instead he has split the Labour Party wide open to be played like a slot machine. As an experienced Lawyer Starmer really should have known better given the overwhelming evidence against Ware, but buying him off has not even managed to silence the debate. Ware was betting on another easy score from Corbyn without going to Court, but with Jeremy’s Legal Fund, Corbyn has both the money and the moral support to refuse a settlement and countersue, which he absolutely must be persuaded to do to expose the truth. Williamson also has the support to challenge the EHRC and their Lawyers will know the game is up for their corrupt judgement of Labour. The greatest constraint on Justice is time as there is so little time left to expose the truth, but we must proceed at speed to challenge the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and Demand an Investigation. DO NOT MOVE ON!