The curious case of Kevin Higgins, suspended for writing this poem

Like and share this post:

Poet Kevin Higgins has been suspended from the Labour Party for over 18 months, apparently for writing this satirical poem about the Blairs. For background to this case see here.  

What Did The Politician Get His Wife?

after Bertolt Brecht

And what did she get, the girlfriend,
from the student union meeting
at which he rose to his feet
and realised he could speak?
From that meeting she got
the Snickers bar he forgot to eat
so busy was he watching them listen;
and that speech, unabridged,
every other night for thirty five years.

And what did she get, his new wife,
from the time he first used a party
conference microphone to agree with both sides?
Those okay with the Moslems/Mexicans/Gypsies being here,
and those who want them kept over there.
From that microphone she took away their
invitation to dine with the Deputy Mayor
and his not new wife.

And what did she get, his no longer new wife,
when, at the second attempt,
he won that seat on the City Council?
From his election she got to drink Pinot Noir
and go swimming in their private club
with the no-so-new wives
of those who got the contracts
to make the paving stones and install
the pay-and-display ticket machines
during his years as Chairman
of the relevant committee.

And what did she get, his well-maintained wife,
the night he was elected to the big shiny
parliament? From that night she took away
an architect to re-design their new three storey pad
in the priciest possible part of the capital,
and an article about herself
in the Daily Express lifestyle pages.

And what did she get, the no longer new MP’s
no longer new wife, the morning
they made him Minister?
That morning she got to go horse riding
with the Leader of the House of Lords’
fourth (or fifth) wife..

And what did she get, the no longer new
Cabinet Minister’s wife, the night the landslide
made him Prime Minister? That night
she got to hold to her breast
invitations to break foie gras
with the Sultan of Brunei, the President of China;
and the chance to write husband’s speech
announcing the crackdown on beggars
who accost hard working
families who stop to ask for directions
en route to the nearest funeral parlour.

And what did she get, the ex-Prime Minister’s
no longer new wife, from all the depleted uranium shells
he had dropped during the Battle of Basra, all the soldiers
he sent to meet improvised explosive
devices in far Mesopotamia in the hope
of getting rid of something bigger
than the beggars and prostitutes
at Kings Cross. For these she got
white night terrors
of him on trial for all their crimes,
and the desire to never again
look out the front window of their fine
Connaught Square house
at the tree from which, it’s said,
they used to once string
traitors.

KEVIN HIGGINS

30-12-2017

To whom it may concern,

On June 27th 2016 poet Kevin Higgins was suspended from the British Labour Party, of which he is an overseas member in the Labour International CLP (http://www.labourinternational.net/).

Kevin’s offence was, apparently, that he had written satirical poems about several of Jeremy Corbyn’s then critics in the Parliamentary Labour Party. This occurred at the start of the unsuccessful attempt to force Corbyn to resign as Leader in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum.

After receiving what he describes as a “peculiar series of emails” from UK Labour HQ in early 2017,  on March 15th last Kevin wrote to the party’s Governance & Legal Unit informing them that he wished to make a Subject Access Request under current UK Data Protection legislation. Under this legislation the UK Labour Party are legally obliged to disclose to Kevin, within forty days, all documents relating to him in their possession. Nine months later they have yet to respond to Kevin’s request, putting them in clear violation of their legal obligations.

In April UK Labour HQ invited Kevin to be interviewed by telephone about the accusations against him, one of which was announcing on social media that he had rewritten Bertolt Brecht’s poem ‘Ballad of the Soldier’s Wife’ and turned it into a satire on Tony and Cherie Blair. Kevin’s interview was to take place on Tuesday April 18th but was cancelled by UK Labour HQ when Theresa May called a General Election that morning. Continue Reading “The curious case of Kevin Higgins, suspended for writing this poem”

LAW submission to the Labour Party Democracy Review

Like and share this post:

Background: 

The so-called Corbyn Review aims to produce a report to the 2018 annual conference in Liverpool. It is not a blue-sky-thinking exercise, however: Submissions invited on https://labour.org.uk/democracy-terms-of-reference/ are limited to answering 32 pre-set questions on six themes with a 250-word-limit on each of the questions.

None of these deal with the compliance unit (Disputes) or the fate of expelled and suspended members per se (or, for that matter, with the important demand for mandatory selection). We have therefore picked a relatively open-ended question that we think it worthwhile filling with some of LAW’s demands.

We call on Labour branches, CLPs and other party units to submit something along the following lines to the review asap.

Section 1: Building a Mass Movement (part of phase 2, submissions by March 23 2018)

Question: How do we get our increased membership more involved in the Party?

Answer: The automatic and instant expulsions and suspensions – especially those based on alleged anti-Semitism and those based on members’ alleged “support for other organisations” using rule 2.1.4.B – have brought the party into disrepute: They have prevented and discouraged new members from getting involved in party life, while valuable resources have been wasted in persecuting some of the most energetic and effective campaigners for social change.

We believe that the party should end these practices, and that:

  • the recommendations of the Chakrabarti report should be implemented immediately,
  • all those summarily expelled or suspended without due process should be immediately reinstated;
  • an accused member should be given all the evidence submitted against them and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty;
  • membership rights should not be removed until disciplinary procedures have been completed;
  • disciplinary procedures should include consultation with the member’s CLP and Branch;
  • disciplinary procedures should be time limited. Charges not resolved within three months should be automatically dropped;
  • the first part of Rule 2. 1. 4. B (‘Exclusions’) should be deleted: it currently bars from Labour Party membership anybody who “joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party”;
  • the party should reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism which, in its list of examples, conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and support for the rights of the Palestinian people;
  • the party should immediately abolish the ‘compliance/disputes unit’. Disciplinary decisions should be taken by elected bodies, not paid officials.

 

 

Model motion: Review suspensions policy

Like and share this post:

Model Motion to Labour NEC

Review suspensions policy

This branch/CLP notes the August 9 report by online political news journal Skwawkbox revealing the Information Commissioners Office ruling that Labour headquarters cannot trawl through members’ social media accounts for disciplinary purposes, as this was a breach of the Data Protection Act, because, as a ‘data controller’ under the act, it does not have permission from the members to use their data for that purpose.

We recognise that in the past two years, particularly during the Labour leadership contests of 2015 and 2016, a number of Labour members were suspended, excluded or expelled from the party. There is a great deal of evidence that many of these members and applicants were treated as such for unclear and sometimes seemingly arbitrary reasons, and often without the transparent, time-limited process based on natural justice, recommended by Labour’s Chakrabarti report into anti-Semitism and racism.

We deplore the malicious and vexatious accusations against Labour Party members and others that has resulted in their suspension from the party. And, while these accusations have sometimes been overturned, they caused a great deal of distress to the individuals involved and damaged their reputation and standing within the party and the wider community.

We call on the NEC to review the suspensions policy so that, except in exceptional circumstances of credible accusations of hate speech, violence or threats of violence or intimidation, all outstanding exclusions and suspensions should be lifted and this course of action publicly supported by the party leader.

Why the Steering Committee are proposing that Socialist Fight [SF] should be excluded from Labour Against the Witch-hunt

Like and share this post:

UPDATE (January 7 2018): The overwhelming majority of attendees at our January 6 meeting voted for the steering committee’s motion to exclude Socialist Fight. 

Statement from Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein

At the last meeting of LAW, the Steering Committee [SC] motion excluding SF from the campaign was narrowly defeated.  Also defeated was a motion from SF and a third motion by John Bridge.  Subsequently the SC decided to renew its call for the exclusion of SF.

  1. The reason that the SC is moving a resolution calling for the exclusion of SF is because the campaign cannot develop as long as SF, which advocates anti-Semitic politics, is allowed to remain. It really is that simple.  None of the 3 people whom the Right are intending to expel next – Tony Greenstein [TG], Jackie Walker [JW] or Marc Wadsworth [MW] – want anything to do with SF.  Nor will any Jewish anti-Zionist group will have anything to do with LAW if SF remain a part of it.
  2. The Right is waging a witchhunt which is primarily based around the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. We are falsely being accused of anti-Semitism because we are anti-Zionists. It makes no sense whatsoever for us to therefore include a political group in LAW which is anti-Semitic. This is playing into the hands of the Zionists and undermines the position of those who are facing expulsion.
  3. The only question to be decided is whether SF is anti-Semitic. By that we don’t mean that Gerry Downing [GD] or Ian Donovan [ID] are personally anti-Semitic but whether their politics are anti-Semitic.
  4. ID writes that ‘Today, he [Greenstein] and his bed mate Jack Conrad are in a bloc with the same Iain McNichol who is framing him up for anti-Semitism. This is class treachery at its most pathetic.’  If ID really believes that TG and presumably JW and MW, all of whom agree about SF, are in a bloc with Iain McNicol, what the hell is he doing in LAW in the first place?
  5. Yes we have moderated their lengthy contributions on the FB page, not because we wished to censor them but because the group is there to fight the witchhunt.

Why Socialist Fight is espousing anti-Semitic politics

  1. It is a standard tactic of Zionism to accuse anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism. In 99% of cases this is false but occasionally they are right. Making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the United States or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.
  2. Anti-Zionists have taken great care to make the distinction between Zionism and being Jewish crystal clear. SF make no such distinction. US support for Israel and Zionism has nothing to do with the ethnic composition of the US ruling class and everything to do with their own perceived interests. There is no evidence of a clash between Jewish and non-Jewish members of the ruling class over this.
  3. ID states that ‘It is factually demonstrable that there exists a Jewish component within the ruling classes of Western countries… and that this part of the ruling class is overwhelmingly loyal to Israel. This does not determine the bare existence of a Western alliance with Israel.
  4. What it does, however, is play an important role in transforming what would otherwise be a ‘normal’ relationship… into a servile relationship
  5. The idea that the United States is ‘servile’ to Israel is anti-Semitic. What lies behind this is the notion of an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy.
  6. ID is the main theoretician of SF and he is a critical supporter of Gilad Atzmon. Atzmon is deeply anti-Semitic. He believes that the Jews control the world and that it is irrelevant if the Protocols of Zion are a forgery because they are true anyway.  He doubts whether Auschwitz was an extermination camp.  In his essay ‘On anti-Semitism’ he wrote ‘we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.’  See A Guide to the Sayings of Gilad Atzmon, for more examples of Atzmon’s anti-Semitism.  
  7. In March 2012 twenty leading Palestinians including Ali Abunimah, Joseph Massad and Omar Barghouti penned a call to exclude Atzmon from the Palestine solidarity movement Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon yet in Third-Camp Stalinoids bring Witchhunt into ‘Labour Against the Witchhunt’ ID describes Atzmon as an ‘Israeli dissident’ and denies that he is anti-Semitic.
  8. ID in Defend Marxism and Labour Movement democracy against capitulators to Zionism describes the campaign of Jews Against Zionism and J-Big to get the SWP to cut their links with Atzmon, as an attempt ‘to witchhunt the Socialist Workers Party’. ID subscribes to many of Atzmon’s pet themes, especially his hatred of Jewish anti-Zionist groups whom he says subscribe to notions of ‘Jewish moral superiority’.
  9. ID accuses, without an iota of evidence, Jewish anti-Zionist groups of operating as a 5th column inside Palestine solidarity groups, whose ‘opposition to Israeli crimes is suspected to be anti-Semitic unless validated by a special Jewish endorsement.’ Indeed ID goes further. ‘These groups are indirectly a transmission belt for Zionist influence into the left, despite their subjective intentions as anti-Zionists.’ ID accepts Atzmon’s racist lie that it is impossible to be a Jewish anti-Zionist because to be a Jew politically is to be a Zionist!
  10. Jewish anti-Zionist groups are welcomed by Palestinians because they give the lie to the argument that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Jewish groups play the same role in respect to Palestine that White Anti-Apartheid groups played in South Africa. Our role as Jews is one of solidarity.  Donovan’s calumnies come from the pen of Atzmon.
  11. ID’s whole language is becoming anti-Semitic. He talks of ‘the indulgence of Jewish sensibilities’.  There is no collective Jew except in the minds of Zionism and anti-Semites.  The whole concept of Jews having become an ‘oppressor people’ is also anti-Semitic as well as anti-Marxist.
  12. Finally there is the appeal to liberalism, by asking how an anti-witch hunt group can exclude SF. In the same way that we exclude the Zionist AWL.  We are a campaign not a party.  If SF’s presence hinders our work, as it does, then we have the right to tell them to go their own way.

Tony Greenstein and Jackie Walker

Jewish Palestine activist to sue charity for “anti-Semitism” defamation

Like and share this post:

This article first appeared on the blog Electronic Intifada

Jewish anti-Zionist and veteran Palestine solidarity campaigner Tony Greenstein says he is going to sue pro-Israel charity the Campaign Against Antisemitism for defamation, after it called him a “notorious anti-Semite.”

Greenstein has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover legal costs, and is aiming to raise about $34,000.

Libel cases in UK courts are notoriously expensive.

“I am not suing the [Campaign Against Antisemitism] on behalf of myself but on behalf of all those who have suffered from its libelous attacks. It’s not just my fight but yours too,” Greenstein wrote on his blog this week.

He told The Electronic Intifada on Tuesday that if he won it would be “an immense setback” for this smear used by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, and many other pro-Israel groups.

The Israeli government and its supporters around the world have a long record of misrepresenting concern for Palestinian human rights as anti-Semitism.

Greenstein told The Electronic Intifada that the organization had also been quoted in a 189-page dossier by the Labour Party bureaucrats who are currently trying to expel him from the party. Continue Reading “Jewish Palestine activist to sue charity for “anti-Semitism” defamation”

Tony Greenstein: Anti-Semites not welcome

Like and share this post:

Tony Greenstein explains why Socialist Fight must be excluded from Labour Against the Witchhunt

This article first appeared in the Weekly Worker.

On December 2 a Labour Against the Witchhunt meeting was effectively ambushed by a small Trotskyist grouping, Socialist Fight. A series of close votes was taken, the result of which meant that the previous decision of the steering committee, that Socialist Fight should no longer participate in meetings of LAW, was overturned.

Stan Keable, the secretary of LAW, had written to inform SF that it was no longer welcome at our meetings, but despite this their comrades turned up. For various reasons – not least that most people were unaware of the full extent of the anti-Semitic positions of Socialist Fight – those present voted against the steering committee position.

It is now incumbent upon LAW to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that it wants to have nothing to do with Socialist Fight. Not only because its positions are anti-Semitic, but because a campaign whose purpose is to reject the false anti-Semitism campaign of Iain McNicol, the compliance unit and the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement cannot retain any credibility if it includes a group whose positions are anti-Semitic.

I was not aware, at the time of the last meeting, that Ian Donovan – a ‘left’ supporter of the overtly anti-Semitic Gilad Atzmon – had penned an obnoxious and anti-Semitic article the day before, entitled ‘Third-camp Stalinoids bring witchhunt into Labour Against the Witchhunt’.

There is no future for Labour Against the Witchhunt if Socialist Fight and its members remain an integral part of the organisation. For that reason I believe that it is essential that the next meeting, on January 6 should overturn the previous decision. If my views do not prevail, then I will resign from the organisation – as I believe will Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth of Grassroots Black Left. Continue Reading “Tony Greenstein: Anti-Semites not welcome”

Jackie Walker: A reply to “Lucy Lips”

Like and share this post:

At the heart of Labour’s witch hunt problem……people who twist the truth for their own political ends

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/12/09/at-the-heart-of-labours

There’s a writer who calls herself Lucy Lips. I’ve been reliably informed Lucy is in fact a man, Harry Toube — who writes at times for the Guardian (no wonder it’s going bust) who used to be on the Pro Pal side of things, till he saw the light — or the dark, depending on your point of view. Anyway, whatever the reality, Luscious Lucy has made a number of truth claims to justify her smears of me and a number of other suspended comrades. Let me be clear, I have no problem with gender bending, in fact I’m all for it, but bending the truth for political purposes, in particular, when it not only affects the reputation of individuals but the Party you claim to support — that is a deviation too far and worse, it’s just plain intellectually LAZY Lucy.

After all, it would have taken little research to know that I was not the first, but the third person, to ask what definition was being used by the Jewish Labour Movement’s so-called trainer Mike Katz (for goodness sake, why would I say there was not ANY definition of antisemitism I could work with? I earned my living as an anti-racist trainer for years). Mind you, the coyness of Katz in defining his terms was understandable. Having taken participants through a session that was remarkable only for its lack of theory or evidence to back up his sweeping claims of antisemitism, not just in the Labour Party but in the country as a whole, Katz knew the IHRA definition he was reluctant to confess he was basing his session on, would be torn to shreds by a significant and well informed proportion of the audience.

By the way, the IHRA definition being touted by every Israel supporting and right wing hawk in town at the moment, is in fact a re-hash of an earlier definition which had been rejected by …. virtually everybody, and for good reason; it makes neither legal or ethical sense. Having understood what an effective tool false accusations of antisemitism might be, some bright sparks realised that if the tried and tested definitions of antisemitism (you know, for example, hatred of Jews for being Jews) was not doing the job of protecting Israel and its Zionist friends, they would just have to come up with — yes you guessed it — a ‘New Antisemitism’. And this ‘New Antisemitism’ could then be backed up by a new definition that could be as self-serving to the interests of Israel as they needed. Personally, whenever people stick a ‘new’ in front of a term, I shudder — you know, New Labour and all that! But for those from that ‘New’ neck of the woods, they took to this New Antisemitism like ducks to water.

Now it seems there’s an issue in Labour, for while the Compliance Unit of the Labour Party, for example) has adopted the full IHRA definition, including all the ‘we mustn’t criticise Israel’ nonsense, the leadership of Labour appear to have only adopted the first paragraph, something that all good people should be happy to sign up to. But let’s leave this drivel for the moment where it should be — dripping out of Lucy’s I suspect not so luscious lips.

And Lucy, you naughty girl, not satisfied with bending the truth with your rendition of the training session (if you haven’t, I suggest you watch/read at least one of the alternative narratives to the Zionist propaganda you have been so enthusiastically wrapping your lips around, the Aljazeera documentary The Lobby for example http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/lobby-episode-2-training-session-170112085805744.html or the statement by Free Speech on Israel made by witnesses who were actually at the training session http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/jewish-labour-activists-defence-jackie-walker/#sthash.uauWqafU.dpbs.) you then turn your doubtful vision on the workings of the Steering Group of LAW … and vision is the right term isn’t it Lucy unless you have been, or are, a member of the LAW Steering Group?

Because the truth is Lucy, whatever you have been taking, whoever has been feeding you this narcotic brew of smear and half-truths, you actually have no idea of the reasoning of the Steering Group or the discussions that led to the request for exclusions do you? And in any case, anyone with any knowledge of me knows my antipathy to Gerry Downing in particular is long standing. I will not share a platform with Downing or Donovan because their ideas lead in the direction of anti-Semitism, as well as to ‘the socialism of fools’.

Now you could say, why didn’t you leave LAW straight away? Well, some of us believe, when we are part of a group, we should allow democratic and political process to go forward before making any such decisions.

And by the way, what makes you think I love the Labour Party ‘the most’? Most of what? Or is that just another meaningless rhetorical flourish? As for your take on my record — jeez — as football supporters might chant, “who the f….ing hell are you?”.

I have nothing to justify, certainly not to you, a true non-entity, someone who won’t even apply their real name to the nonsense they write. I’m more than happy with what I’ve achieved. I continue to serve the agenda I began with. I’m not stoking the fires of a witch hunt that is benefiting the enemies of our movement. Not helping to silence the voices of minorities who are not just the victims of bigotry but are excluded at all levels, not only of the Labour Party but of British society as a whole. I’m not backing a settler colonial regime that seeks protection behind a wall of the most offensive allegations and devious actions. I’m not supporting a disciplinary system that would be laughed out of any British court or industrial tribunal.

But hey, why would you, or people of your ilk Lucy of the Lips, concern yourselves with the oppressed when you have the poor, browbeaten, friendless Israeli state to defend? Especially when, according to Labour Friends of Israel Chair Joan Ryan, there is in fact no other racism in the Labour Party except … yes you guessed it… anti-Semitism http://www.lfi.org.uk/analysis-thornberry-lays-out-labours-israel-agenda/.

Mind you if, as a (Jewish) comrade said at the launch of Jewish Voice for Labour this year, Labour is so riven with antisemitism, I would say, given the level of representation of Jewish MPs, given that the last Leader (a Jew) had to defeat his Jewish brother for the post, that the present leader is a life long anti-racist well known for his good relations with Jews in his constituency, that there are Jews in key positions as advisers in the Labour Party and of course, as you noted, as Chair of Momentum, given all that, if the Labour Party is rife with antisemitism, it’s really not doing a very good job of Jew hating is it? Whereas the witch hunters — they seem to be victimising anti-Zionist Jews very nicely indeed.

By the way, you have no idea of me, my record. And you — I say again, who are f***ing hell are you? I suggest until you have the courage to put your name to the crap you write, until you manage to grow a pair (of ovaries or balls) Lucy, you should just crawl back into the incognito hole you came from.

LAW modus operandi – to be discussed at next LAW organising meeting, January 6

Like and share this post:

Motion adopted by the LAW Steering Committee, to be considered and voted upon at the LAW organising meeting, Saturday January 6:

Labour Against the Witchhunt (LAW) is a Labour Party campaign. We urge all those who oppose Labour’s witchhunt against Corbyn supporters and critics of Israel/Zionism to stay in the Party and fight.

LAW reaffirms its three key demands:

1.    That the Labour Party ends the practice of automatic, instant, expulsion or suspension of Labour Party members without a hearing, with no right of appeal.

2.    That the Labour Party rejects the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance (IHMA) definition of anti-Semitism, which conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

3.    That the Labour Party immediately abolishes its ‘compliance unit’. Disciplinary decisions should be taken by elected bodies, not paid officials.

As shown by the September 2017 Labour Party conference, the formation of Free Speech on Israel and Jewish Voice for Labour, and by the surge of support which quickly achieved the reinstatement of Moshé Machover, we believe our campaign is capable of stopping the witchhunt.

LAW campaigns for the immediate lifting of all suspensions and expulsions from Labour Party membership which were

  • connected with the rightwing witchhunt of Corbyn supporters;
  • carried out “automatically”, without a hearing, without the right of appeal;
  • connected to the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign.

LAW rejects the view, promoted by the Zionist movement and the Jewish Labour Movement, that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. Those, such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty, who conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are not eligible for membership. Those who regard Moshé Machover, Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker or Ken Livingstone as anti-Semitic or who regret the reinstatement of Moshé Machover and/or support the expulsion of Ken Livingstone, are not welcome in LAW.

However, our support will be weakened if we allow the campaign to be associated with those who promote views which are anti-Semitic. LAW condemns anti-Semitism and all forms of racism. Those groups or individuals, such as Socialist Fight, who promote a form of anti-Semitism, for example the view that imperialist support for Israel has any connection to the “overrepresentation” of Jews in the ruling class; or that Jews are “an oppressor people”; or that Jewish campaigns in support of the Palestinians such as Jews Against Zionism, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods or Jewish Voice for Labour are racist because they operate on the basis of a supposedly “Jewish moral superiority”, are not welcome in LAW.

Update: High Court judge rules in Tony Greenstein’s favour!

Like and share this post:

Good news: Tony Greenstein’s expulsion hearing – scheduled for Monday 11 – cannot take place before January 8, giving Tony more time to prepare.

The Labour Party’s lawyers “sent me a bill of costs for 7.5K but instead I applied for £100 costs which I’m donating to Labour Against the Witchhunt”, says Tony.

This (small) victory also means they are unlikely to pull similar tricks when it comes to the forthcoming hearings of Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and others.

Congratulations!

Click here to read Tony’s article: McNicol’s Puppets waste £10,000 of Member’s Money – How Long are Momentum and Lansman going to remain silent?

Please Contribute to the Legal Appeal to Help Iain McNicol understand the meaning of Natural Justice

Like and share this post:

The Right and the Zionists are determined to expel me and others from the Labour Party on trumped-up charges of ‘anti-Semitism’.  Natural Justice Goes Out the Door as Labour’s Expulsion Circus Rolls On.  Examples of their contempt for the most basic rights of the accused include the following:

i.  I am not allowed to know who my accusers are

ii. I am not allowed to know who the Panel judging me are

iii.  After being suspended for 20 months I am given 4 weeks to respond to a 189 page bundle including over 50 charges.  I was in hospital on November 2nd when I was informed of the decision to bring charges. Continue Reading “Please Contribute to the Legal Appeal to Help Iain McNicol understand the meaning of Natural Justice”