why did you black out the date? Is it because it is from 3 months ago?
-
-
-
@aaronbastani You've probs read Skwawkbox claims but I actually blanked out the address, not the date. Happy to prove that to you. Also this letter is 1st of many, part of a months long legal back and forth extending until the present day. Didn't publish others for legal reasons - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Just leaving this here. Evidently Jeremy is not just a fan of leaks or free speech when it exposes his own misdeeds...pic.twitter.com/Bcf14okDVQ
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This, by the way, may be a by-product of the
@EHRC investigation. By pursuing a statutory investigation, I believe they render NDAs unenforceable as a means to cover up criminal activity -- such as, say, institutional racism by the Labour party. \1 -
Matthews (or his counsel) may have decided that, if the NDAs are unenforceable against spilling the beans to the EHRC, then the NDAs are unenforceable altogether. I was hoping that this would be a result of the EHRC decision, and it looks like it has been.
-
(continuing thoughts) The letter is specifically about, not antisemitism revelations, but about something else -- about Derek Hatton. The letter says -- in almost as many words -- that Labour knows that NDAs about the antisemitism issue are no longer in force. \3
-
The argument then becomes about whether the Hatton fiasco is relevant to the EHRC investigation. On one hand you could say no, this is not about antisemitism, and this is the position that Labour is using Carter-Ruck to pound the table about. \4
-
On the other hand, you could say yes, because this demonstrates that the disputes process was in the pockets of the inner circle, a necessary precursor to the argument that Labour disputes proceedings were used to protect antisemitic friends of the Corbyn project. \5
-
I think Labour knows they're on thin ice with that argument, but will look for any possible way to change the conversation away from what it clearly is and clearly should be --about the use of a corrupt disciplinary process to protect Jeremy's Jew-hating friends. \end
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sadly, the documentary will change little. The Corbynites will still keep doing the same thing, because they see no wrong in what they're doing. The only way to massively cut anit-semitism in Labour is to cut out the leadership, and that won't happen, so moderates MUST leave.
-
Bollocks. 0.08% is not institutional like you trolls would have people believe. It's closer to 4% in the Tory party. How come you trolls never mention that. 60 followers in 7 years. Another statecraft troll.
-
Panorama won't even mention the Tories or the fact that anti-Semitism was a bigger problem in Labour under previous leaders and it took Corbyn to finally address it.
-
That's the massive elephant in the room. They won't discuss the rampant islamaphobia within the Tory party, nearly half! Also the 5% Tory anti-semitism, that will get a dive to focus on 0.08% anti-semitism within Labour.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Excellent Finally some backbone from
@UKLabour Any further breaches and they should take these bent people like Matthews to the cleaners Will help with our campaign expenses A good way to get ready for the GE -
As far as I can see, this letter could have been sent in March shortly after Matthews leaked his pre-Formby compliance emails...
#JustSayin -
Indeed As I see Gabriel has, quite cleverly, not included the date in his screenshot!
-
It doesn't matter anyway, the Party is required in law to protect private data, so it is incumbent on them to take steps, legal if necessary to do that. If that man still has possession of any he is committing a crime.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.