Sir Keir Starmer - Establishment stooge opposition leader

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Sir Keir Starmer’s Leadership Funders
http://www.unitynews.co/starmers-private-donors/

As we look at Keir Starmer’s first weeks in leadership, it seems to many that there has
been something of a shift from the promised agenda to make Party unity his primary objective. For example, some of his appointments, especially of junior ministers, looked almost as though made in order to provoke a negative reaction from those who supported Corbyn’s leadership. In particular, it was disappointing that he appointed PLP members who had not only relentlessly briefed against the leadership, including during election campaigns, but had also been personally abusive to and about fellow MPs and Labour ‘grassroot’ members.

Another cause for concern has been Sir Keir’s refusal to name the majority of his
leadership donors until most of the members had cast their leadership votes.
An update of the Parliamentary Register of Financial Interests on 30th March, whilst not providing the whole picture, does allow more clarity. At that point, the list of individual donors of £5,000 or more read as follows:

Robert Latham – £100,000
Robert Latham is a retired barrister and former colleague of Sir Keir. He is one of the two individual donors whom Sir Keir had already named.
This announcement prompted a letter to the independent London newspaper, West End
Extra, under the title, “Belief in the betterment of society seems to have gone”
“I SAW lawyer Robert Latham “donated” £100,000 to Sir Keir Starmer’s bid for the Labour
leadership, (Looking back with Starmer man Bob, March 12). Well, I am not surprised that the ‘lawyers’ wing of the Labour Party has closed ranks to
seize power. I wish I had a spare £100K to “assist” a friend’s leadership bid.

The UK political scene is getting like the USA where the biggest spenders, donators and affluent seem to get elected to high office, as witnessed in the current Conservative government.

“Political ideology and aims with a belief in the betterment of society for its people seem to have moved aside for the biggest donors and ambitious power-hungry with democracy becoming irrelevant.”
http://westendextra.com/article/belief-in-the-betterment-of-society-se ems-to-have-gone

Robert Latham has been outspokenly anti-Corbyn and is an admirer of Tony Blair.

Perhaps more worrying for those who were critical of Tony Blair’s relationship with the
mainstream media will be the revelation of substantial donations by an influential media figure.

Clive Hollick – £25,000
The media-related backer is Clive Hollick.
Starting his career as a merchant banker/moneybroker, Hollick subsequently turned his attention to the media sector to rescue the banking group of which he was CEO, which was failing because of the secondary banking crisis in 1973/74. The group, re-named Mills and Allen, thrived, expanding to cover areas across the media spectrum.
Following a merger in 1996, Hollick became CEO of United Newspapers, publishers of
The Express. Once Hollick was in charge, the paper changed its historic political
allegiance to the Conservative Party, instead choosing to wholeheartedly back Tony Blair’s New Labour.
After retiring from the media group, Hollick became a managing partner in the private
equity company, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. He has held a number of other directorships, including at Hambros Bank, investment bank GP Bullhound and he is a member of Jeffries Bank’s Global Senior Advisory Board.
At one point, he served as a special advisor to Peter Mandelson and was a founding
member of what was reported to be Tony Blair’s favourite think tank, the IPPR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Hollick,_Baron_Hollick

Martin Clarke – £25,000
The second backer is Martin Clarke. Finance boss of AA, in 2015 he declared Jeremy Corbyn would be a disaster if he were elected leader and went on to quit Labour to join the anti Brexit party Change


Sonny Leong CBE – £5,000
Sonny Leong was executive of a membership group called the 1000 Club, which was exposed in an article in The Times in November 2002 . “Internal Labour documents reveal that the party is receiving a steady income from the 250
well-connected donors whose names have never appeared on a public register of political donations. They are members of Labour’s 1,000 Club, a fundraising body that offers privileged access to leading government figures in return for an annual gift of £1,000 or more. Tony Blair regularly attends the club’s functions. The list, obtained last week, includes a number of leading professionals and civil servants. Some have been promoted to senior positions on quangos, others are members of the judiciary and several have
received honours. The club’s members include an assortment of property developers, lobbyists and businessmen who are keen to mix in government circles.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/named-labours-secret-club-donors-gs w0m8hdtjc

Lady Katharine Gavron – £5,000
Lady Katherine Gavin is the widow of British printing millionaire Baron Gavron, who was also a funder of Tony Blair’s Labour Leader office fund, donating £500,000 to New Labour in 1997. Baron Gavron has been described as part of the ‘Blairite Aristocracy’, having been
appointed as a life peer in 1997. He died in 2015, with a personal wealth estimated at £40 million. Baron Gavron was very much a ‘self-made’ man, starting his St Ives Printing Group with a loan of £5,000 and growing it to a value estimated between £350million and £400million by the time of his retirement from the company. He was also Chairman of the Guardian Group and held other directorships. There can be no doubt of Baron Gavron’s idealogical commitment to reducing inequality and his ‘quiet’ approach to philanthropy is admirable. Equally, though, it is very much specifically the New Labour approach that he
backed. Baron Gavin has been credited with persuading Blair not to reverse Tory trade union legislation and he was Treasure of the IPPR think tank mentioned earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/08/lord-gavron

Stephen Kinsella – £5,000
Stephen Kinsella is a current Conservative Government Advisor with the title of Chief Land and Development Officer.
“Stephen is experienced in delivering major housing developments on public land
nationally, having spent the last 11 years as the growth and partnerships director of Barratt Developments. He led the significant growth of the company’s partnerships with the public sector, generating a large portfolio of developments comprising around 27,000 homes and a gross development value of over £6 billion.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/stephen-kinsella

Richard Hermer – £5,000
Richard Hermer is the third barrister on the list. He is a director-trustee of the Harbour
Foundation, a trust with holdings of around £20million which awards grants, including to individuals & organisations helping displaced persons.

It is not suggested that any of the above donors has anything but (what they see as) the best intentions for the Party. What is certain, however, is that the revelation of this list of donors at an early stage of the leadership election campaign would have raised questions for members, especially those committed to the policy programme of the previous leader, as to the extent to which Sir Keir’s stated ‘direction of travel’ during the campaign was credible.
Whatever one’s political ideology, it is valid to ask whether it might have been more
honourable for Sir Keir to have been open about this list of backers at an earlier stage – and certainly when that request was specifically made of him.

Credit: Eric R Scott

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Jimmy Savile scandal: Chances to prosecute 'were missed'
DPP Keir Starmer has apologised.
11 January 2013
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20992789

Jimmy Savile
The CPS admitted it had missed chances to prosecute Savile
Opportunities to prosecute Jimmy Savile for sex offences were missed because police and prosecutors did not take allegations seriously, a report says.
A review of the decision not to prosecute the TV presenter in 2009 was published by the legal adviser to the director of public prosecutions (DPP).
Alison Levitt QC found that had police and prosecutors "taken a different approach" prosecutions could have been possible in relation to three victims.
DPP Keir Starmer has apologised.
The review comes on the day the Metropolitan Police and NPSCC outlined details of the sexual abuse Savile carried out over a period of 50 years.
ADVERTISEMENT

Savile committed offences at 13 hospitals and a Leeds hospice, the BBC and a number of schools, their report said.
The former presenter of BBC's Top Of The Pops and Jim'll Fix It, who also worked as a Radio 1 DJ and received a knighthood in 1990, died aged 84 in October 2011 - a year before the allegations emerged in an ITV documentary.
In May 2007 Surrey Police received an allegation that Savile had sexually assaulted a teenage girl at Duncroft Approved School in the 1970s.
During a police investigation two more allegations emerged - one from a girl who had been at Duncroft and the other from a girl who claimed he had sexually assaulted her at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
In October 2009, Savile was interviewed under caution and said all three allegations had been invented by the complainants, who he claimed were after money.
'Watershed moment'
He threatened to take legal action against the police and mentioned that he had sued five newspapers in the past.
Ms Levitt QC found in her report that prosecutions could have been possible "had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach".
Mr Starmer said he wanted the case to be "a watershed moment".
Ms Levitt said there was nothing to suggest the three victims who made allegations against Savile had colluded or were unreliable.
She said the police and prosecutors treated their claims "with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required".
Sussex Police received a complaint in March 2008 that Savile had sexually assaulted a woman in a caravan in Sussex in 1970.
This was passed on to Surrey Police, who consulted with the CPS about all four allegations but decided in October 2009 no prosecution could be brought because the victims would not support police action.
Ms Levitt found Surrey Police did not tell the victims other complaints had been made.
The victims told Ms Levitt that if they had known others were making complaints they probably would have been prepared to give evidence in court.
Surrey Police Assistant Chief Constable Jerry Kirkby said: "At the time, there was nothing to suggest the level of offending now being reported on a national scale."
Deputy Chief Constable Giles York, from Sussex Police, said: "We welcome the DPP's statement, including the finding that the Sussex Police case was handled by experienced and committed officers, who acted in good faith, seeking to apply the correct principles.
"We also recognise that we could have done better and are committed to honest reflection and learning lessons for the future."

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

MI5 and MI6 cleared of torture allegations after more than three years - but further inquiry is launched
MI5 and MI6 were today cleared of allegations that they were complicit in torture but now face a further investigation concerning the treatment of former alleged Libyan terrorists.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9010223/MI 5-and-MI6-cleared-of-torture-allegations-after-more-than-three-years-b ut-further-inquiry-is-launched.html
Photo: GETTY
Duncan Gardham By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent2:13PM GMT 12 Jan 2012Follow
The announcement concludes an inquiry lasting more than three years into Britain’s intelligence and security services which has resulted in no charges.
Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens of the Metropolitan Police said in a joint statement that there had been a “painstaking” investigation which has involved interviewing officers from MI5 and MI6 along with other government officials, alleged victims of ill-treatment and witnesses, searching through a large number of records and collecting evidence from abroad.
“Given the serious and highly sensitive matters involved in these operations, and the nature of the investigation called for, the exercise has inevitably taken some time,” they said.
Mr Starmer and Ms Owens said the question had been addressed whether there was sufficient evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of a criminal conviction against an identified individual in relation to these specific matters.”
But they added that “wider allegations of ill-treatment” would be examined by the Detainee Inquiry, chaired by Sir Peter Gibson, and announced by the Prime Minister in July 2010.
Related Articles
MI6 officers told to ignore Geneva convention breaches, Gibson report finds 19 Dec 2013
Government 'risks accusations of burying bad news by publishing Gibson on day of Woolwich verdicts' 19 Dec 2013
MI5 and MI6 expected to be cleared of torture 11 Jan 2012
Moazzam Begg: 'Torture crimes must be investigated' 12 Jan 2012
However Scotland Yard has decided that the allegations raised in two cases referred to them by Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, last December concerning the alleged rendition of individuals to Libya and the alleged ill-treatment of them in Libya were “so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now rather than at the conclusion of the detainee inquiry.”
The statement did not name the cases but they are thought to refer to Abdel Hakim Belhadj and Abu Munthir al-Saadi, the leader and religious leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist organisation linked to al-Qaeda.
The Daily Telegraph reported last year that MI6 received ministerial approval arrange for their detention in the Far East and return to Libya in a procedure called “judicial rendition” because it is considered within the law.
The statement by Mr Starmer and Ms Owens said they would also consider re-opening Operation Hinton into MI5 and Operation Iden into MI6 if further evidence were to become available.
The first, begun in November 2008, looked at whether Binyam Mohamed, a British resident originally from Ethiopia, had been tortured with British knowledge after his arrest in Pakistan in 2002 or after he was in Morocco between July 2002 and early 2004 when he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
The statement by the Crown Prosecution Service and Scotland Yard, said Mr Mohamed had “never alleged that any member of either the Security Service or the Secret Intelligence Service was directly involved in the torture and ill-treatment he alleges.”
They said the investigation had focused on whether there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting any member of either service for offences of aiding and abetting torture, aiding and abetting war crimes and misconduct in public office.
It concluded that members of MI5 provided information to the US authorities about Mr Mohamed and supplied questions for the US authorities to put to Mr Mohamed while he was being detained, including at times when Mr Mohamed’s precise whereabouts was not known to them.
But they said there was insufficient evidence to prove that any identifiable individual had provided information to the US authorities at a time when they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a serious risk that Mr Mohamed would be tortured.
“Nothing in this decision should be read as concluding that the ill-treatment alleged by Mr Mohamed did not take place or that it was lawful,” the statement added.
The second inquiry, into MI6, began in June 2009 into an incident involving a detainee at the US-run Bagram prison in Afghanistan, after it was referred to them by the chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers.
Despite “strenuous efforts” Scotland Yard detectives have been unable to gain access to the prisoner or take the prisoner’s account of events, the statement said.
They also said they had been unable to identify potential eye-witnesses to the incident, who, the statement says, are “not British officials”.
“Although not necessarily fatal to any prosecution, this inevitably gives rise to very real difficulties in prosecuting,” the statement said.
Sources have told the Daily Telegraph that the prisoner was allegedly mistreated by US interrogators and that the MI6 officer reported the incident to his superiors.
“A full account of his actions has been given by the member of the Secret Intelligence Service in question and such evidence as the investigating team have been able to obtain from other sources and individuals is not capable of contradicting this account to the criminal standard,” the statement added.
The CPS and Metropolitan Police also announced a joint panel, including Mr Starmer and Cressida Dick, head of the special operations directorate at Scotland Yard, who will examine whether to launch further investigations.
It has decided to go ahead with the Libyan investigation and will consider other allegations of ill treatment made to the police in relation to other named individuals detained in similar circumstances “in due course.”
Mr Belhadj, who is now a leader in the Libyan National Transitional Council, was arrested in Malaysia after a tip-off by the British in 2004.
MI6 officers tape recorded an interview with Mr Belhadj after he had been imprisoned in Tripoli in which he told them he had not been tortured, sources said.
Mr al-Saadi was detained for immigration violations in Hong Kong with his wife and children after a similar tip-off and also sent back to Libya.
Sir John Sawers, the chief of MI6, said: "I am glad that the outcome allows the courageous individual at the centre of the investigation to continue his work in support of national security.
"He has dedicated his life to public service and I have full confidence in him."
Sir John said they would cooperate fully with the police on the Libyan investigation and added: "It is in the service's interest to deal with the allegations being made as swiftly as possible so we can draw a line under them and focus on the crucial work we now face in the future."
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said: "This Government condemns torture and inhumane treatment.
"We will never support it, we won't ask other people to do it on our behalf.
"The CPS has now said that it will not be pursuing criminal charges in two cases which have been under investigation, but that there are further cases which require more investigation.
"The Government and the security services will give complete and full cooperation to those investigations so that the police can get to the bottom of them as well."
The decision comes almost exactly ten years after the opening of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
The government has paid out £14m to 16 Guantanamo detainees, including Shaker Aamer, who is still in the US military prison.
The payments were made because MI5 and MI6 felt secret intelligence would be made public in court and resources were being diverted from saving lives.

[Life]

Sir Kier Starmer Just Another Crown Wizard Offering Piffle

Keir Starmer will call for greater powers for Scotland, Wales and the English regions within a “federal UK”, as he returns to the Labour leadership campaign trail.
Federal means banks and if you do not understand what that means look at the United States Federal Reserve system which operates under the protocols of the Rothschild Bank of England.
Keir is claiming Britain’s archaic and confusing conventions must be replaced with a written constitution that would set in stone a new devolution settlement.

https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/british-politics/sir-kier-starmer-c rown-wizard-offering-piffle/

[TonyGosling]

Part 1 – Labour’s Leaked Report & Starmer’s Search for a Whistleblower Raises the Question WHY is he so eager to protect those who sabotaged Labour’s 2017 Election Campaign?
Part 1 – Labour’s Leaked Report & Starmer’s Search for a Whistleblower Raises the Question WHY is he so eager to protect those who sabotaged Labour’s 2017 Election Campaign?
https://tonygreenstein.com/2020/04/part-1-labours-leaked-report-starme rs-search-for-a-whistleblower-raises-the-question-why-is-he-so-eager-t o-protect-those-who-sabotaged-labours-2017-election-campaign/

Part 1 – Labour’s Leaked Report & Starmer’s Search for a Whistleblower Raises the Question WHY is he so eager to protect those who sabotaged Labour’s 2017 Election Campaign?
The Moral Turpitude, Racism & Corrupt Vendettas of Iain McNicol’s aides didn’t stop them Fraudulently Living off Members’ Subscriptions Whilst ‘Going Slow’

* Numbers in (xx) round brackets indicate page numbers in the Leaked Report** You can also download a précis of the report.
Dramatis Personae
Iain McNicol (General Secretary)
Tracey Allen (Manager, General Secretary’s Office – GSO)
Julie Lawrence (Director, GSO)
Emilie Oldknow (Executive Director – Governance, Membership and Party Services)
Patrick Heneghan (Executive Director – Elections, Campaigns and Organisation)
Simon Mills (Executive Director – Finance).
John Stolliday (Director, Governance and Legal Unit – GLU)
Mike Creighton (Director of Audit, Risk and Property)
Claire-Frances Fuller (Head of Internal Governance)
Simon Jackson (Director of Policy, Research and Messaging, Briefing and Rebuttal)
Fiona Stanton (Regional Director, Labour North)
Neil Fleming (Acting Head of Press and Broadcasting)
Carol Linforth (Director of Conference and Events)
Sarah Mulholland (PLP Secretary)
Holly Snyman (Director – Human Resources)
Greg Cook (Head of Political Strategy)
Anna Hutchinson (Regional Director, Labour North West)
Tom Geldard (Director of Digital).Jo Greening, (Head of International Affairs)Karie Murphy (Chief of Staff, LOTO)
Seumas Milne (Executive Director – Strategy and Communication)


This is the first of a 2 part article on Labour’s leaked report. The Report demonstrates in all its sordid details the amorality of Labour’s senior officials up to an including General Secretary ‘crooked’ Iain McNicol. They say that a fish rots from the head down. It is clear, with the 56% vote for Keir Starmer, that the rot has spread to much of the rest of Labour’s body.

This Report is not some neutral investigation of the misdeeds of Labour’s senior officials. It is a highly politicised and factional document. The fault line running through this Report is its acceptance that the false and malicious anti-Semitism campaign waged against Corbyn’s supporters, anti-Zionists and the ‘wrong sort of Jews’, was genuinely concerned with anti-Jewish racism.


This Report is based on the assumption that this ‘disinformation paradigm’ had some basis in fact and was genuinely concerned with rooting out racism. The Report rejects the suggestion that this campaign, waged for four years by the BBC and establishment journalists, from the Guardian to the Sun, was a cynical weapon deployed by opponents of Jeremy Corbyn.

This is the first of a two-part analysis of the Report. This is a Report in 2 parts – one good and one bad. It is a report that contains a unique window into what Labour’s senior officials were thinking and what they were up to and. At the same time it is both mistaken and dishonest.

This Report also highlights the real tragedy of Corbyn’s leadership. The fact that he and his supporters in Momentum came to believe that if they embraced the weapon of their adversaries that they could turn it against them and thus defeat anti-Semitism which had been directed against them. Instead they signed their own death warrant.

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Corbyn and McDonnell that the more socialists, Black and Jewish anti-racists they expelled the more imperilled their own position became. They never sought to ask why it was that the Labour Right, which had introduced the ‘hostile environment’ policy, and the Tories who introduced the 2014 Immigration Act, were so concerned about anti-Semitism.

I will begin with the good part. This is a Report which resembles George Elliot’s Daniel Deronda, which was a book in 2 parts –brilliant novel and awkward Zionist sub-plot.


Who Was The Report Commissioned By?

This Report was almost certainly commissioned by Jennie Formby or those close to her. Its aim was to pin the blame for the failure to investigate ‘anti-Semitism’ on McNicol, Stolliday and above all Sam Matthews. Presumably the intention was to submit it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Inquiry into Labour ‘anti-Semitism’.

Bogus allegations of breaches of the GDPR regulations on data protection and confidentiality are being used by the Party leadership to try and suppress this Report. I’ve taken a brief look at the Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR Regs. Section 15 of the DPA 2018 makes provisions for exemption from the scope of the GDPR, e.g. Article 6 1(e) refers to the public interest. Articles 6(3) and 23(1) of the GDPR provide for exemption from its provisions.

There are a number of excellent articles on the Report which I’ve listed at the end of this article.

Craig Murray’s Report raises the importance of storing the mass of data involved in compiling this report, the thousands of Whatsapp and email messages, of which this Report is only a selection.


Asa Winstanley’s excellent article identifies the author of the report as Harry Hayball, a senior officer in the GLU and Patrick Smith, a former organiser for the Alliance for Workers Liberty, a former Trotskyist Zionist group that provided the ideological basis to the witch-hunt, in particular the concept of ‘left anti-Semitism’.


Why is Starmer so intent on suppressing the leaked report and avoiding any discussion of the issues raised in it?Before retiring I used to be the legal advisor to a charity. I specialised in Employment Law and represented workers at Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I specialised in Whistleblowing see e.g. Lucas –v- Chichester Diocesan Housing Association which set a precedent on ‘good faith’.

In every single Whistleblowing case I fought, the employer, instead of dealing with the Protected Disclosure (such as dangerous conditions in a private hospital, fraud etc.) targeted the Whistleblower. Why? Because they were complicit in the wrongdoing and they were seeking to cover it up.



The Zionists are furious at the ‘flagrant’ Labour Party Data Breach – strangely enough they weren’t outraged when the Compliance Unit leaked details of its victims
It is widely accepted that employers should not to try and identify the whistleblower because that acts as a deterrent to whistleblowing. In some situations anonymity is guaranteed. For example in the Administration of the United States. The first thing that Donald Trump did during his impeachment hearings was to try and find out who blew the whistle on him so that he could be victimised.

Keir Starmer was involved in the PLP coup against Corbyn in 2016. There is no doubt that McNicol and others were in touch with the coup leaders and Tom Watson. Starmer’s reaction and his instructions to Formby to act as his lapdog have but one explanation – he was fully aware of what was going on at Labour Party HQ in Southside.



McNicol – the Spider at the Centre of Labour’s Corrupt Web
Reading through the Report the overwhelming impression was that Labour’s senior staff, Matthews, McNicol, Oldknow etc. simply had no code of ethics or moral compass. They were both personally and politically corrupt. It is also clear that they should never have been employed as they are as far from socialism and the fight for a better society as it is possible to be. It is no surprise that such was the hostility of Labour’s staff to socialist activists, who they contemptuously referred to as ‘Trots’, a term embracing anyone from Marxists to left-Social Democrats and indeed anyone who is a democrat, that they would have felt comfortable working at Tory Party HQ. The pity is that they weren’t.


Supporting Anybody but Labour

Simon Jackson, the Acting Director of Policy and Political Research said about Iain Duncan-Smith that he was ‘better than most of our shadow cabinet”(42) This is the man responsible for the deaths of thousands of disabled people through his benefit cuts.

Lisa Forsyth believed that Corbyn had nothing to do with the victory in the Oldham by-election in December 2015 and hoped that Theresa May would give him ‘the boot’ at the local elections in May 2016:

It’s in spite of him tho. Hopfullly May will be the boot (62)


Simon Jackson, had previously suggested to Anouska Gregorek, Head of Policy Development, that he would not vote for Labour in a general election when led by Jeremy Corbyn. (8

‘Ultimately though, who votes for JC? If it’s a choice btwn him & TMay how do WE vote for him?? I mean we’re not * mad.’(42)


People have been expelled for previous membership or support of the Green Party or sharing tweets in support of George Galloway yet opposition to Labour was rife amongst Labour’s senior officers. To oppose your own party and yet live off its members’ subscriptions is the epitome of personal corruption.

This principle of not supporting another party did not extend to the Right of the party, still less Labour Party staff themselves, one of whom remarked that ‘with a bit of luck this speech will show a clear polling decline.’(96)

Senior staff in “SMT Group” spoke openly with one another about hoping that the Liberal Democrats “can do it” in the Manchester Gorton by-election: (63)

Jo Greening hoped that ‘with a bit of luck this speech will show a clear polling decline.’(57)

John Bigham – being the admin of a Conservative Party Facebook Group is not enough to suspend

In January 2017 Rob Reddan complained about Bigham, attaching screenshots in which Bigham wrote that he did not support the Labour Party:

“I will always be a member but i will never get behind the party [while] Corbyn is leader”“I will never allow Trotskyite and Marxist scum to drive me out of the party”

Reddan’s complaint was forwarded from “Legal Queries” to “Disputes”. The complaint was not logged anywhere, and no action appears to have been taken. (537)

In March 2017 another staff member flagged Bigham to Louise Withers-Green, attaching screenshots of him attacking Corbyn and numerous members of the shadow cabinet. Withers-Green responded “This, although not nice isn’t bad enough for us to do anything about”.(538)


Further complaints were received about Bigham on 18 and 21 December 2017, concerning posts in which he called Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser and, about Diane Abbott, wrote:

It’s about time she got put in a box with the lid fastened firmly

On 21 December 2017, “Skwawkbox” published an article on Bigham’s comment about Abbott, noting that:

Andy Bigham is a well-known poster to members of political discussion groups on Facebook. He posts anti-Labour comments and articles so frequently that members of non-Labour groups often assume he is a Tory.

Julie Lawrence emailed the Head of Internal Governance Claire-Frances Fuller:

Hi CF, can you take a look and advise on action we should take?

Fuller replied to Lawrence

I don’t think this would be considered a death threat by the police or would warrant a suspension.,, Unless there is any further evidence of addition posts/comments (539)

At 11.28am, Fuller emailed saying “Cancel that. We can suspend.” Oldknow messaged in “SKEI”:

Emilie Oldknow: We’re suspending this character. It will go out later today. Please don’t brief until he has been told

Which suggests that it is common practice, as in my case, to brief or leak to the press before the person suspended had been told.

Bigham was then suspended on the basis of his post about Abbott.

When Disputes Officer Megan McCann followed up in February 2018, however, she noted that “a warning seems to me most appropriate”. A series of questions about the post were then sent to Bigham, including:

Are you intending you stir up violence towards Diane Abbott?How do you think you would feel if someone posted a comment like this concerning you? (539)

McCann then lifted his suspension and two days later Reddan submitted further evidence about Bigham, with screenshots of over 100 posts showing Bigham·

* saying he had voted Conservative
* supported Conservative Party policies·
* and posting a racist image that listed “Islamisation of the UK”, “Back the IRA & Muslim terrorists” and “open borders to ‘refugees’” as “Jeremy Corbyn’s 10 pledges to rebuild and transform britain”.

No action was taken. Further evidence was also sent to “Disputes” that Bigham supported Conservative Party posts encouraging people to join the Conservative Party. On 19 April 2018 Reddan submitted another complaint but Martha Robinson in Complaints replied that it did not warrant action. Reddan responded that:

People were suspended for ‘liking’ or sharing green party tweets, or agreeing with other parties tweets on twitter in the run up to the 2nd leadership election.

This individual has openly stated that he voted conservative at the last election… posted an offensive article about Diane Abbott, is forever praising conservative policies on social media… accusing anyone who voted for Corbyn of being as good as anti-Semitic and stating that anyone who speaks out against the state of Israel is also anti-Semitic and yet is happy to support his wife making remarks about Muslim immigrants as if it is ok to target Muslims and still nothing is done.

Reddan did not receive a reply. No action was taken. (541)

After a complaint was emailed to Jennie Formby, she forwarded it to Sophie Goodyear, Head of Safeguarding and Complaints who argued that being an admin of a Conservative Party Facebook group was not sufficient grounds for an auto-exclusion, but his statement that he supported the Conservative Party and had voted for them was. Finally on 11 June 2018, Bigham was auto-excluded from the party (541-542)



Labour Party headquarters where the plotting of the Blairite sabotagers took place
Emily Benn

The GLU declined to act on complaints about Emily Benn, who had retweeted and posted on Facebook a tweet saying that

“Anyone disappointed by Corbyn’s male dominated line-up should consider joining the Women’s Equality Party [WEP]” (204/5)

On 6 November 2015, as criticism mounted, Oldknow wrote:

We are going to have to get some specifics on the Emily Benn tweet and quick.We need to put to bed this in relation to not suspending her.(205)

Stolliday maintained that the post may have been from “some over-enthusiastic local volunteer running [the account] on her behalf”, and suggested that “next week we write to Emily asking her to clarify that point.” He added that he thought the cases were “entirely different”. Oldknow agreed arguing that “we aren’t dealing with sane people here” although complaints had come from numerous Labour members, and members of Labour’s governing NEC.

Oldknow dismissed the complaints on the grounds that those making the complaints were insane. Such a comment by a member would, in itself, be grounds for investigation or suspension.

On 12 November, Iain McNicol wrote to Benn about her tweets.:

“In order to help me consider whether a formal investigation is required in this matter I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions”

No one else was sent questions from the General Secretary prior to a suspension or investigation. I certainly wasn’t. (206)


Owen Smith Challenges Corbyn in the Summer of 2016 – McNicol Did His Best To Stop him Standing

In July 2016 Owen Smith challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership. To do this he needed the nomination of 20% of the combined total of MPs and MEPs. The Right argued that Corbyn also needed to be nominated by the same number of MPs.



Solicitors letter to Crooked McNicol reminding him of his responsibilities
Prior to the NEC meeting of 12th July McNicol did all he could to stop Corbyn standing, necessitating a letter being sent from solicitors acting for Jim Kennedy of Unite to McNicol telling him he had a duty to act in good faith. It was like asking a fox to become a vegetarian.

McNicol sought advice from James Goudie QC, whose opinion was that Corbyn needed to be nominated. Mark Henderson QC advised to the contrary. Goudie proved that lawyers, like prostitutes, could always be bought if the price were right. Rule 2.Bii stated that:

‘where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attracting this threshold shall be null and void.

The rule was crystal clear. There was no vacancy as Corbyn was the incumbent not the challenger. Crooked McNicol invited Goudie not Henderson to the NEC meeting. Notwithstanding this the NEC voted 18-14 to allow Corbyn to stand. A subsequent legal challenge by a rabid Zionist, Michael Foster, failed and Corbyn went on to win.

On 15 July 2016, the Director of GLU, Stolliday, who was responsible for overseeing the Party’s legal defence, said he was “praying we lose in court”. (119) McNicol said “this is the first time the unions have actually chosen to f*** the party rather than support it”.

Judge Foskett took the unusual step of allowing Corbyn to have his own legal representation separate from the party. This was because Corbyn suspected McNicol might concede the case. The High Court acknowledged that Corbyn could not trust the party apparatus and McNicol to represent his interests fairly.

The staff got to work purging as many Corbyn supporters as possible. Staff boasted privately about creating a “new stasi system”, the scale of the operation was initially hidden from the NEC, with one staff member admitting “we don’t want the NEC to have much of an idea how many there are to review (we’re worried they’ll get scared)”.(119)

One way of purging the left was to draw up a list of 68 MPs and their twitter handles. A list of banned words was drawn up for example. ‘traitor’ and anyone using these words to attack the MP was suspended. However no MPs from the party’s left was included so any attacks on them were deemed fair game. There was just one Asian MP and no black MPs on McNicol’s list. Despite high levels of online abuse directed at Corbyn, who in the 2017 general election received more abuse on Twitter than any other politician, he was not included in the list of MPs. (130/131) Right-wing abuse was acceptable.

The same day, Richard Shakespeare, Labour’s lead developer, suggested that Labour reject membership applications from anyone who came to the join the Labour Party via Momentum:

The appropriately named Councillor John Ferret, leader of Portsmouth Labour Group, was reported by numerous people for a string of abusive comments, including referring to Unite as “Stasi”; saying he would “rather vote Tory” than for “any… Trot outfit aligned to Momentum”; calling Corbyn a “terrorist(138/9)


John McTernan, a former Blair adviser, whom Jon Lansman welcomed into Momentum, whilst expelling me, was reported from 25 July onwards for abusive language on Twitter including describing Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn as “morons”; tweeting twice that Corbyn was a “traitor”; describing “Corbynistas” as racist; telling an SNP MP that he should “Come down to Peckham and try saying that, mate”; and writing in the Daily Telegraph that Corbyn’s supporters were “online trolls”.

McTernan actually attacked the Tory government for not ‘crushing the rail unions’ in that well known Labour supporting newspaper, The Telegraph on 10th August 2016.

No action was taken against him and the staff decision was “No action – removed at referral”. On 18 August, however, Dan Hogan did report a member of McTernan’s CLP, Omar Baggili, who – in response to an article by McTernan in “The Telegraph” urging the Conservative government to “crush the rail unions once and for all” – tweeted at him

“seriously John why haven’t you got yourself a Tory membership card. They’re anti unions & pro privatisation like you.”

Baggili though was suspended for “abuse”. (140)



Jeremy Corbyn greeting people after the 2017 election
General Election – Protecting only Right-wing MPs

Protecting Tom Watson during the 2017 election was a high priority. £50,000 of members’ money was conjured up whereas Labour candidates in Tory marginals were denied any help whatsoever because McNicol and Labour’s staff worked on the assumption that Corbyn woud lead the Labour Party to disaster.


On 22 April Patrick Heneghan declared that ‘we need to throw cash at Tom’s seat, Even if just 50k for that. We can’t let him lose for want of money’ to which McNicol responded: ‘Am off to bed. But obviously protect toms seat.’ (87)

Operation Cake – Launching a Coup Against Corbyn

Julie Lawrence, a former NALGO official in the South-East set in train what they hoped would be a new coup. Two parliamentary by-elections were coming up in Copeland and Stoke-on-Trent and the staff were praying that Labour would lose.


Julie Lawrence, Director, GSO described Corbyn as ‘a proud and selfish man with a team to match.’ (so selfish that Corbyn was one of the few MPs not caught up in the expenses scandal) She hoped that if Labour lost the elections ‘we could have another leadership election.’ This was ‘Operation Cupcake’.(85)


However Labour held Stoke-on-Trent North though it lost Copeland. To Katy Dillon, a Press Officer and later Broadcast Officer ‘ the result on thursday was bittersweet’. She would much have preferred if the Tories had won both seats.(62)

It is clear that Tom Watson was kept informed about developments and was part of the planning for Operation Cupcake. McNicol told Oldknow told to ‘pull together. Operation Cupcake’. Oldknow told Lawrence and Heneghan that ‘Iain told TW to prepare for being interim leader.’ (85)


June 2017 General Election Campaign

‘The people have spoken. b******’ (103)

The General Election was a difficult time for Labour’s witchhunters. Most of them were desperate to see the back of Corbyn and if that meant supporting the Tories then so be it. You can imagine their reaction when Corbyn achieved the largest swing since 1945 and gained about 30 seats.

Even worse everyone else at Southside was celebrating. Labour’s witchhunters could hardly turn up looking as if they were in mourning (which is what some staff did when Corbyn first won the leadership). Fortunately Julie Lawrence was on hand to offer ‘some safe space time’ to these sensitive souls before they had to go and pretend to share the joy. (102)


However Iain McNicol made it clear that ‘I’m not in smiling and mixing and doing the 2nd floor…. It’s going to be a long night’. Tracey Allen spoke for everyone when she declared that

‘We will have to suck this up. The people have spoken. b******’. (103)


Teddy Ryan, a Regional Organiser was extremely unhappy now that Corbyn was back. He poured out his heart to Kat Buckingham:

I don’t like living in a world where I’m not allowed to go round threatening people as I see fit (108)


You can see this point. Even worse they had to reinstate Christine Shawcroft, a left-wing NEC member who had been suspended for supporting the Independent Muslim Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lotfhur Rahman, whom the High Court, in an openly racist decision, basing itself on anti-Irish laws a century ago, had removed. (106/107)

In May 2017 Labour HQ assigned staff to a “secret key seats team”, based in a separate building, Ergon House – “all secret to LOTO”.(92)




Hundreds cram into Momentum meeting before Brighton Labour Party’s AGM
The Suspension of Brighton and Hove Labour Party

On July 9th 2016 at a packed AGM of Brighton & Hove District Labour Party, over 600 members voted for a new left Executive by a 2-1 majority. Momentum, which was then on the left, had held a monster meeting at Brighthelm Community Centre. I have never seen so many people at a meeting there. The large hall was packed, so was the cafe behind it and still people could not get in.



Warren Morgan, Progress Leader of the Council coordinated the making of false allegations of spitting against an innocent party member


Another member of Labour’s right-wing mafia, Sue Teddern, was prepared to lie and frame an innocent member, Matt Tully – the staff member denied that he was spat at and the CCTV confirmed that
As soon as the AGM was over Council leader Warren Morgan and former Councillor Emma Daniels lied about a spitting incident that never happened. They were backed up by Morgan’s successor, Daniel Yates. The allegations were bare-faced lies, invented to defeat the democratic will of the largest meeting in the history of the local Labour Party. Brighton City College where it was held had CCTV which proved that there was no spitting incident. The investigator, Karen Buckingham, who had made up her mind before even leaving her office, refused to look at the video of the incident because that would have put her in a difficult position. Her excuse was that looking at it would have been a breach of the Data Protection Act! Today ‘Confidentiality’ is the go to pretext for official liars.



Nonetheless the party was suspended courtesy of Ann Black, the then Head of Disputes. I have covered this in depth here and here. Three days later Stolliday discussed overturning the result with Katherine Buckingham who was sent down to Brighton by Anne Black to ‘investigate’ what happened. The only problem was that she had already made up her mind.



Morgan even called for the innocent victim of his lying allegations to be expelled – there were no depths to which he wouldn’t sink
The lies and deception of Labour’s senior officials beggar belief. Warren Morgan asked in mock horror whether he was being accused of engaging in a conspiracy. The answer is a resounding ‘yes’. Stolliday discussed overturning the result without even a cursory thought as to such minor questions as the morality of overturning the democratic will of 600+ Labour Party members. These people had the mentality of General Pinochet staging a coup d’etat against Allende.


The allegation that the ‘SWP and Trots’ marched to the meeting and stuffed the ballot box is an absurd lie. Membership cards were carefully checked. The meeting was so big that it had to be held in 3 separate sittings. Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who is now an MP, chaired the meeting. Stolliday wanted to overturn the AGM. Buckingham wanted to ‘act now and worry about the rules and legalities later.



Buckingham going through the motions of holding an Inquiry when she had already decided that the Left was at fault
The Labour Right engaged in a war against democracy with the support of Iain McNicol and the Labour Party apparatus including the local right-wing Council leadership under Warren Morgan. Corbyn and McDonnell didn’t speak out once. Their silence was deafening.

Anne Black, the Head of the Disputes Committee, agreed to suspend Brighton and Hove Labour Party on the say so of unelected officials. She paid the price when she was lost her place on the NEC. I have written to her to ask whether she now has any regrets.



Wallasey CLP was also Stitched UpWallasey CLP was also suspended in July 2016. A year later, 7 July 2017, Oldknow emailed Sam Matthews and Stolliday listed a number of allegations of “people selling socialist worker” then participating in a CLP meeting which was an absurd lie. Oldknow noted that the local MP Angela Eagle felt that, if the CLP’s suspension was lifted in the coming months, this would “not give her time to organise etc.”(114)

The SWP was a phantom. It doesn’t operate in the Labour Party. The SWP was mentioned in order to frighten the children. This lie was equivalent to the myth of the ‘stab in the back’ so beloved of German revanchists after WWI.

The allegations included bullying, homophobia and a broken window! The BBC swallowed the lies. Unsurprisingly it’s not reporting on the contents of the leaked Report. Once again Corbyn failed to speak up.



Sam Matthews
This was an open discussion between senior GLU and GSO staff and Labour Party Executive Directors about ensuring that Angela Eagle and her allies were able to win the AGM and other votes at the CLP. They discussed how they had been “giv[ing] Angela “time” to “organise” to win those votes against the local Labour left.’ (114)

In theory the job of officials is to take orders from elected officials and the party membership but in practice the officials saw their job as policing the membership and protecting the Right.

Sam Matthews had ‘every sympathy for the fact that Angela is still in a difficult situation’. His worry was that ‘based on track record, no matter how much time we give Angela’ she would be unable to turn the party around. She was so unpopular that no amount of time could change the desire of her party to be rid of her. (114)



‘Crooked Iain McNicol’ – I was expelled for telling the truth!

The Report exonerates me of the charge of abuse made at my expulsion hearing in February 2018

My references to ‘Crooked McNicol’ had clearly annoyed the Compliance Unit. But it wasn’t abuse. It was blindingly obvious to me that when a purge of Corbyn supporters began in the summer of 2015 and again the following year, that the intention was to deprive Corbyn of a majority. This was so clearly a crooked act I wondered why others were unable to see it. Their behaviour was no different from Republicans in the United States who engage in voter suppression, seeking to keep Black people off the voters’ roll.



Part of the skeleton argument of Labour’s barrister – it seems they didn’t like my comments about McNicol’s underlings!
Over 4,000 voters including me, voted in 2015 for Corbyn and we had our votes fished out of the electronic ballot box. If anyone engaged in a similar exercise in local or national elections they would be arrested for electoral fraud and be doing time at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

With hindsight it is clear that my assessment of Crooked McNicol was spot on. On those grounds alone I shall be submitting an appeal against my expulsion. My only ‘crime’ was to say what was blindingly obvious when others preferred to turn a blind eye.



All the allegations of ‘abuse’ happened to be true!
Part (4) of the Second Charge against me, paras. 64-66 in Labour Party barrister Thomas Ogg’s skeleton argument was devoted to ‘Crooked McNicol’ (21 February 2017 [121] The charges were based on a blog of 21st February 2017, Crooked Iain McNicol, Labour’s General Secretary, Rides Again.

Ogg complained that I had ‘used the word “crook” or “crooked” to describe Mr lain McNicol no less than 17 times’. (para 64). Ogg explained that ‘A crook is a dishonest or criminal person. Mr Greenstein uses the work to abuse.’ I have never disputed the meaning of the word ‘crook’ but it wasn’t to abuse. Can anyone now seriously dispute that McNicol was crooked? Ogg described the word as ‘insulting and abusive.’ Maybe, but it was also true.

Ogg also complained that I had insulted Tom Watson ‘by saying that his behaviour reminds him of the comment that he has “every quality of a dog except loyalty”. Can anyone dispute this? It is clear that he knew of the activities of the staff and was in close contact with them, to the extent of having them leak confidential Labour Party documents. Watson, contrary to the promise he made to Corbyn when elected, was seriously dishonest. It is clear that I was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.


Corruption and Nepotism

On 22nd September 2015 Stolliday, who resigned shortly after McNicol, openly incited Jo Green, the Head of Broadcasting, to come to work and do nothing in order to qualify for redundancy.

‘You’ll be entitled to a decent chunk. Worth staying for it even if it means coming into the office & doing nothing for a few months’

Staff discussed jobs being “stitched up” for fellow right-wingers. In January 2016 Sam Matthews, was encouraged to apply for a job by a staff member, but Matthews expressed concern that“I’m mediocre (at best) at copywriting and got rejected from that job the last time I went for it”.

However ‘Matthews was reminded that the team “know you” and

all of the other people who apply will probably be internal Labour hacks with not that much legit copywriting experience outside of producing campaign materials or stuff for Labour students.’

Matthews asked ‘Won’t it be a stitch up for a Labour Student though?’ The response was: “Maybe under the Sarah regime, but now we’re under Tom management”. Matthews said he would apply for a role, but added:

As an aside, could you give me a heads up if it does end up being a stitch up for someone? I’ll probably go through with it anyway to pop back up on their radar that I want back in, but it would be useful to know.’



Mike Creighton – his incompetence was legendary, as I found out when I took the Labour Party to court over a data protection breach – I was sent 2 responses to an SAR because he had kept no records when he left!
Sam Matthews, because of his worries that he was “mediocre” and didn’t “have the skills on paper” arranged in February 2016 to meet Mike Creighton, the Director of Audit, Risk and Property, for a coffee. He needn’t have worried. The corrupt nexus at Southside would look after him. After chatting with Creighton he applied for the new role of “Compliance Officer – Investigations”.

The only problem was that there was another more highly qualified applicant, Max Lansman, who had scored higher than Matthews on the pre-interview scoring matrix.

Lansman was a qualified barrister with an MA in “Legal and Political Theory”, with a wide range of compliance and legal experience. Lansman, a barrister with “specialisms including employment, family, housing, landlord and tenant, and civil law” might have been thought a shoe-in. However he was on the left of the party, notwithstanding his father Jon Lansman. On 21 March 2016, Creighton messaged Oldknow: Going to offer the job to Sam Matthews’, (115-116) So much for equal opportunities and anti-discrimination policies.


Another Labour refugee who has been inducted by Prentis’s corrupt regime at UNISON was Emily Oldknow. In a conversation with Emma Meehan she said: ‘Sarah tells me that your sister is looking for a job?’ Emma responded ‘Yeah she is’. Oldknow informed her that

‘We have an admin role coming up in the compliance unit.. but it gets her in the door and gives her some experience? On being informed that she would be interested Oldknow comments ‘That means she will be completely maleable….’



Caption from Panorama programme when Withers Green and others lied to the BBC and other enemies of Labour
On 13 February 2017 Louise Withers-Green started as Disputes administrator. Formerly active in Labour Students, Withers-Green had, like Matthews, been a “Field Organiser” for “Britain Stronger In Europe” and he had then recruited her as a “Validation Assistant” during the 2016 leadership election. She had previously been an intern at Amnesty International and a self-employed English tutor.

Other candidates had worked for law firms, the police and other organisations, in roles that included administration of complaints and case management systems. However, Stolliday noted in advance of interviews that “there is one applicant who Sam would be more than happy to recruit for Disputes administrator”.


On 1 May 2017, Labour HQ press staff, including Head of Press Neil Fleming, established a chat to

“communicate through… so we arent on our phones all the time” – “And yes, tap tap tapping away will make us look v busy”. (193)

When it came to appoint a Head of the Governance and Legal Unit John Stolliday applied. He too had no skills or legal knowledge. His only expertise was in ‘political fixing’. But he too needn’t have worried. As Stolliday reported on 29 July, GLU staff were “actively helping me with my interview”. The requirements for legal knowledge, including of the Equalities Act, made him “gulp”. (113)


Before his interview in September 2015, Stolliday commented that the appointment was a “Bit of an Emilie stitch up”. Discussing how to bond with Stolliday in December 2016, staff noted that he “doesnt like trots”. (113)

Ben Jameson, the Safeguarding Manager, was assigned to be Jeremy’s Police liaison. He was given an explicit threat by Sophie Goodyear, his Head.

We’ll know if you tell them what we do, you’ll be out. They’ll be gone soon. I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t tell you this.” I believe Sophie was referring to her work on complaints and the work of the disputes team and she was making an explicit threat that I would lose my job

Going Slow

“tap tap tapping away will make us look v busy” (30,57, 8

Staff also considered “go slow” tactics, making the election more difficult to win. On 21 April 2017, Labour staff joked about “working hard or hardly working”.

Sam Matthews – Asked to be paid more backdated

After the general election, Matthews asked to be back-paid at a higher pay rate, reflecting – although his “new role did not have a formal title” – Sophie Goodyear suggested it “might be worth mentioning the level of budget management”, but Matthews responded that he did not want to put the scale of budget in writing. He did note, though, that the party could “afford this”, and “I left 100k in that budget”

Helping Tom Watson leak confidential Party documents

Senior staff also spoke of facilitating Deputy Leader Tom Watson leaking confidential Party documents: (65)

Trot hunting and Comparing Corbyn to Hitler

As it became clear that Corbyn might win in 2015, it became necessary to ‘validate’ applications for membership and registered supporters. “priority right now is trot hunting” (70)

Labour staff resorted to the all-purpose insult ‘Trot’ because these apparatchiks had nothing to say. It demonstrates their poverty of imagination and thought. On being appointed on 27 June 2016 Matthews first major task was to organise a second round of “Trot hunting” for the 2016 leadership election. (116)

Senior staff employed the very abusive language that was used to suspend Labour members during the 2016 leadership election. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. After retiring in March 2017, Mike Creighton, the Director of Audit, Risk and Property tweeted that antisemitism in Labour was a“Direct consequence of [Ed Miliband’s] decision to allow the Labour Leader to be selected by Tories and Trots’ (48

Factionalism – Fixing and Annulling Elections

On 22 June 2016, Sarah Mulholland and Stephen Donnelly discussed organising NEC Youth Representative elections on a one-year cycle to ensure that a left-wing candidate would not win – which Mike Creighton was “happy with” – and making sure they had time to find a “decent person” to stand (109)



Dan Hogan lied to a willingly gullible BBC Panorama about his concern over ‘antisemitism
Dan Hogan, who presented the expulsion case against Cyril Chilson, both of whose parents were survivors of Nazi concentration camps, told Maggi Cosins and the NCC that the fact that Cyril had asked me to be his legal representative should be held against him. In any judicial proceedings such a comment, about a Defendant’s choice of legal representative would have been ruled out of order but in Labour’s Kangaroo Court anything went

Hogan had first started in Labour Students before becoming a Disputes officer in late 2016. His factional behaviour, including recruiting people to “Labour First” in staff time and saying that a staff member who cheered Corbyn’s speech should be “shot”. (116)

In December 2016 Fraser Welsh, Deputy General Secretary for Wales, explained that part of his work as involving “not conceding CLPs to Corbynite bullies”. (6

On 22 July 2015, Stolliday told Claire-Frances Lennon, a Press Officer and later Head of Internal Governance that he was leaving press for GLU, describing his new role as “political fixing”, selections and “legal stuff”, and noting that they needed “to completely overhaul selections to stop the useless trots getting selected”.(112)


This wasn’t a joke.

These people represented the undemocratic core at the heart of Blairism. Their job was to make Labour safe for capitalism. The tragedy is that the Left did not rise to meet the challenge and instead got diverted into fighting the ghost of ‘anti-Semitism’.



UNISON’s Corrupt General Secretary Dave Prentis recruited the corrupt Stolliday and Oldknow to key unelected positions
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most corrupt of them all – UNISON’s Emily Oldknow

In the competition to find the most corrupt witchhunter one is spoilt for choice. If a fish rots from the head down then that was certainly true of the Labour Party.

Imagine the highest official of a political party feeling down and depressed at their party’s magnificent performance in the 2017 election? A man who consciously engaged in deceiving his own leader, set up a secret seats team and refused to put money or resources into Tory marginals. McNicol is a very strong candidate but it would be too easy to lay all the blame at his feet.

It was the Defence of Nazi War Criminals at Nuremburg that they were only obeying orders. But this was untrue. Ordinary Nazis set about their tasks with relish and enthusiasm. And so the International Military Court ruled when Streicher, Keitel, Rosenberg and others were hanged in 1946. The Final Solution was not all Hitler’s doing.



Emily Oldknow – her ability to fabricate a case against members must have appealed to UNISON’s Dave Prentis
McNicol too cannot take all the blame. He was served by enthusiastic underlings. Undoubtedly the mediocre Matthews, who told such a compelling story to BBC Panorama, that he had considered suicide, was culpable. John Stolliday, who has since become Head of UNISON’s Members Relations Unit, is also a strong candidate but in my opinion it is Emily Oldknow, UNISON’s unelected Assistant General Secretary, who wins first prize.

UNISON is a union from which I was suspended for criticising Steve Terry, London Regional Organiser, for failing to support the unfair dismissal of Stan Keable. It has a ‘corrupt political culture’. Stolliday must feel at home working for UNISON since that is exactly the description of the atmosphere in Southside, the Labour Party’s HQ.


On 14 December 2016 Ben Westerman told Sam Matthews that Emilie Oldknow was

‘going for people that she doesn’t like/her friends don’t like and expecting us to be able to fabricate a case because politics which is ludicrous’

Oldknow was in a class of her own and despite strong competition she is the worthy winner of the most corrupt of the Labour Party’s staff.


Sexist Abuse and Comments About Other Staff

On 29 July 2015, staff said there would be “rampaging trots” at Labour annual conference, and “stewards [will] need pepper spray” or “body armour”.(4



On 22nd November 2016 Tracey Allen described Karie Murphy as ‘pube head’ before Oldknow, who is now UNISON’s Assistant General Secretary described her as a ‘Smelly cow’ before saying that ‘Karie is actually fat too’ ‘There’s a good old roll in that photo .’ (55)


On 9 March 2017 Sarah Mulholland, Julie Lawrence and Tracey Allan made lewd comments on a WhatsApp chat about the clothing of women Political Advisors, naming individual staff and mocking their appearance: (53-54, 93/4)

UNISON is a union has plenty policy on discrimination and opposition to sexism yet it has a bigot as its second most senior official. 20 members of UNISON National Executive and hundreds of members have written to General Secretary Dave Prentis demanding an Inquiry. Prentis is standing by Oldknow as opposition to discrimination has always been tokenistic in UNISON.


On 18th April 2017 Patrick Heneghan, Executive Director (Elections, Campaigns and Organisation) pulled no punches over what he thought of Karie Murphy, Director of LOTO (Corbyn’s office).

* u karie u silly cow (86)


During the same conversation Oldknow, Julie Lawrence and Tracey Allen shared abusive messages regarding LOTO chief of staff Karie Murphy. Allen called Murphy “Medusa”, Lawrence called her “crazy” and said her face “would make a good dartboard”:


On 21st May 2017 Oldknow and Allen made sexist and derogatory comments about Laura Murray, a member of staff in LOTO, following a negative story about her in the media: (53/54) According to Teddy Ryan, ‘clive lewis is the biggest c*** out of the lot’.(53)


Simon Danczuk was the MP for Rochdale who had sexted a teenage woman under 18 who had applied for a job. As he was in a position of trust this was a criminal offence. He had also offered to spank her. Danczuk had a long history of violence against women. But Danczuk was on the right of the party so he was acceptable.

Danczuk had been suspended by the party but on 18th April Tracey Allen informed people that:

‘I am expecting a call from Simon Danczuk in person to confirm he is restanding. Once I have it from ‘horses mouth’ will be handled by Governance.’(111)

As long as someone wasn’t on the left it didn’t matter to these sociopaths if they were a rapist, a wife beater or a serial abuser.


Ian McKenzie

On 20 May 2018 a Twitter storm arose after the comments of Ian McKenzie, the Secretary of Lewisham East CLP and an activist with “Labour First”, were revealed.

“Emily Thornberry is too old for ISIS. They won’t make a sex slave of her. They’ll behead her and dump her in a mass grave.”“

Maybe she’d agree sex slavery to one man only, provided he didn’t sell her on or insist on gang rape.”

“Islam/Islamism learned the trick from Israel: to criticise Israel is anti-semitic. No, religion is propositional. (158)

Matthews however opposed suspending him:

“I don’t think that two tweets, both from over two years ago would ordinarily warrant an administrative suspension (159)

Hogan did not declare a conflict of interest arising from his familiarity with and favourable views of McKenzie, which he had expressed in 2016 or his activism in “Labour First”, and he did not recuse himself from the case. Nareiser Osei told Hogan that “you need to be objective”. Hogan was not amused:

I do not need to be told to be objective or look at both sides of a case – I have been an Investigations Officer for longer than Nareser has. I reacted with muted anger and told Nareser that ‘I’m a professional, thanks. (161)

I am told that there are regimes in the world where torturers also consider themselves ‘professionals’.

The problem was the widespread support for Labour First amongst the investigative staff. In April 2016 Francis Grove-White, Labour International Policy Officer, met Luke Akehurst from “Labour First”, and commented to Greening that it was “very encouraging to hear how organised they are regarding conference.” (62)

Ignoring Islamaphobia and Homophobia

Islamaphobia was of no concern to the witch-hunters. In August 2017 a member emailed racist abuse about Naz Shah MP:

“Sack the Muslim MP Shah… get her out! She has no place in the country let alone the LP”.

This was forwarded to Sam Matthews who did nothing. Naz Shah was seen as on the left of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

In October 2017, a CLP Executive Committee reported a member for threatening and bullying behaviour. This was submitted to Disputes. In December 2017 further complaints were made to John Stolliday, the Head of the Compliance Unit, about Islamophobic posts such as:

“What do you call a man in his 50s who has sex with a 9-year-old girl? 1.6 billion people call him the Prophet of Islam”

Again, no action was taken. (301)

In November 2017 a member was reported for homophobic comments such as saying that Labour “look like the Gay party”. The complaint was forwarded to Dan Hogan who did nothing. In March 2018 Megan McCann, sent the member a Notice of Investigation (NOI). The case disappeared when she left in mid-2018. (302)

The number of virulent Islamaphobes was far higher than the number of anti-Semites yet, almost without exception, they were ignored. In the case of Manjit Panesar & Syed Siddiqi (see below) it was the victim of Islamaphobic abuse who was suspended.


Sarah Mulholland and Dianne Abbot

Sarah Mulholland was the main liaison between MPs and the Labour Party. She believed that ‘Death by fire is too kind for LOTO.’ (91

In February 2017 she said Diane Abbott “literally makes me sick”. Senior staff discussed Abbott crying in the toilets and telling Michael Crick, a Channel 4 reporter, where she was: (43)

Victimising the victims of racism Manjit Panesar & Syed Siddiqi

“We have spoken about this one before but could you update me in writing please so I have it on record? Has any action been taken against Manjit Panesar?”

Head of Complaints Sophie Goodyear to Dan Hogan, the day before he stopped working for the party”

Syed Siddiqi received a racist and abusive call from Manjit Panesar, saying “You need to restore me to that group chat, or you and me are going to have a * big * battleground here”. Panesar threatened Siddiqi and engaged in Islamophobic abuse

“you and me, it’s war now” and “You cannot give me this * Islamic bs… Islamic fundamentalist lunatic”. (164)

All investigative attention however was focussed on Siddiqi, with Dan Hogan proactively collecting and investigating even minor complaints against him. It was Siddiqi who was suspended, not Panesar, meaning he could not restand for the Council.Eventually the NEC suspended Panesar and referred his case to the NCC, at which point he resigned. However the victim of racist abuse Siddiqi remains suspended.


James McBride – a vicious anti-Muslim racist

On 24 May 2017, after the Westminster Bridge attack, James McBride, who was in Labour’s Policy Unit, shared a clip of Douglas Murray, who was appearing on BBC Daily Politics, saying that all political parties were refusing to confront the reality that terrorism “comes from the religion” of Islam. McBride commented “find it difficult to disagree with this”: (46)

we can’t ignore the fact that while one might be more typically ‘terrorist’ behaviour they still derive from the same ideology. And western liberal idelogy is reluctant to take it on And expose its roots. Which innevitabely involve hard questions- even for so-called moderate islam (46)

Douglas Murray, an Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society in a 2006 speech demanded that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.”: He authored a book ‘The Strange Death of Europe’ whose message was that Europe is dying — being murdered – by hordes of Muslim immigrants, aided in their task by craven liberal politicians. It is part of fascist and neo-Nazi discourse, the so-called replacement theory.

The fact that Labour staff found someone like Murray appealing speaks volumes. Even the Tory front bench under David Cameron cut links with Murray.

Alec Henstock

In February 2016 the party received a bundle of “about 150 pages” of Facebook posts by a Labour councillor, Alec Henstock. They were summarised by Regional staff as “posts by Britain First and UKIP, and posts which could be considered racist, sexist and not consistent with Labour Party values”. They included a range of openly racist, Islamophobic and anti-immigrant content, including a meme from far right group Pegida saying Britain should “BAN the burqa on security grounds” and an image of a train overflowing with BAME people, described as the Eurostar arriving at St Pancras, with the text “Don’t blame me, I voted UKIP!” (207) Stolliday responded

It’s horrific, nasty stuff & not in any way acceptable. However don’t we treat “sharing” content on Facebook in the same way as a retweet on Twitter? (cf Emily Benn) If so I’d think it’s hard to suspend, unless within the greater bundle there are actual comments or posts from this person, rather than sharing other people’s content.

If we can make the argument that this is different to a retweet for X reason, and that therefore we should suspend, then great.

Stolliday did not seem to distinguish between retweeting and sharing an item expressing support for another political party, and sharing twenty pieces of Islamophobic, racist and sexist content. According to Stolliday sharing racist posts did not merit suspension.

Informed that Region had interviewed Henstock, and he had refused to apologise, Creighton asked: ‘What does the region want us to do?’

I would be happy to suspend given he has endorsed the stuff, but I think we can take advice from region on this one. (208)

This discussion of a “potential suspension” ended there and no further action was taken and it appears that the case, which existed as an email exchange alone, was not logged anywhere and was forgotten about.

Henstock remained a full member until autumn 2018, when he was auto-excluded for supporting an “independent (ex UKIP)” candidate against Labour. (208)

Rod Liddle

Rod Liddle, a ‘journalist’ at the Sunday Times, was a notorious Islamaphobe. He suggested in The Spectator that elections should be held on days that Muslims couldn’t vote.

An ardent Zionist, Liddle suggested in his column that suicide bombers should blow themselves up in Tower Hamlets, which he described as being a “decent distance from where the rest of us live”.

In May 2016, Rod Liddle wrote in The Spectator that antisemitism was “absolutely endemic” among “Muslims”.

For many Muslims the anti-Semitism is visceral, an ingrained part of their unpleasant ideology… [based] as much upon envy – at Jewish success, worldwide and in Israel – as anything else. If you handed over Israel to the Palestinians they would turn it into Somalia before you could say Yom Kippur

Only after 3 May did Stolliday recommend his suspension. But even then Oldknow sent this recommendation to LOTO chief of staff Simon Fletcher as Liddle was a journalist

It is my intention to agree with John on this one. He would be suspended under “bringing in the party in to disrepute”.(186/187)

However on 6 May 2016, Stolliday emailed Oldknow:

‘Apparently Rod Liddle is chummy with Ian Austin & by extension TW [Tom Watson]. I still want to do this but we’re not under pressure to do it – so may just sit on it for now (173, 184)

Oldknow replied: “Ok. I will speak to Ian”, presumably a reference to Ian Austin.

Liddle was suspended a week later, on 12 May 2016. In September 2016 he resigned. (187)

The Racism of Senior Labour Party Staff

This Report demonstrates that the concern about anti-Semitism had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with Israel and Zionism. Hence why they redefined anti-Semitism. That should have been obvious to anyone with a few brain cells, even Jon Lansman!

If it was really about racism then why would the Tories, who presided over the ‘hostile environment’ policy and the Windrush Scandal, to say nothing of Britain’s racist tabloids, be so concerned by Labour ‘anti-Semitism’. Why were tabloids such as the Sun and Mail, who had employed Katie Hopkins, who described refugees as cockroaches, so disturbed about ‘anti-Semitism’?

Why indeed were the Tories so exercised about ‘anti-Semitism’ when they sat in the European Parliament, in the ECR group alongside people like Roberts Zile who took part in demonstrations every March with veterans of Latvia’s Waffen SS?


Why indeed was Tom Watson, who had ‘lost sleep’ over the decision of the High Court to remove racist Labour MP Phil Woolas from Parliament, after an election campaign in 2010 that was based on ‘making the White folk angry’ determined to remove every last ‘anti-Semite’ from the Labour Party? All but 6 Labour MPs had abstained on the 2014 Immigration Bill which introduced the ‘hostile environment’ policy. Indeed it was the Blairite Home Secretary Alan Johnson who first introduced the ‘hostile environment’ policy.

Why were Zionist groups such as the Board of Deputies, which have never fought the anti-Semitism of the Right, and which defend every abomination of apartheid Israel, concerned about anti-Semitism? Zionism arose from the belief that anti-Semitism could not be fought?

Using Disablist & Hateful Language

Stolliday described Corbyn’s adviser Seumas Milne as a “total mentalist” and “nutter” who he had previously told to “c*** off”. Simon Jackson referred to new Labour members who supported Jeremy Corbyn as “nutters” who had “Invaded” the Party, while Head of Policy Development Anouska Gregorek joked about them getting “F U JC” – “* you Jeremy Corbyn” – tattoed on their foreheads.(55)

On 10 April 2017, Tracey Allen, the Manager of the General Secretary’s Office described people who were joining the Party at the time as ‘Mentalists’.(53)


Senior staff including Mike Creighton said of a Young Labour member and Corbyn supporter who was suffering from mental health problems that they would like to see him “die in a fire” or “wouldn’t piss on him to put him out”:(55) and Sarah Mulholland wished there was a petrol can emoji (56)




General Abuse

On 15 June 2015, Head of Press and Broadcasting Jo Green suggested to Simon Jackson that “anyone who nominates corbyn’to widen the debate’deserves to be taken out and shot”. Jackson agreed: “quite.” On 15 September 2015 Dan Hogan said that a staff member who had “whooped” during Corbyn’s speech “should be shot”. (51)

On 13 August 2015 Ali Moussavi, Economic Advisor in the Leader’s Office and Sarah Brown (Press Officer) discussed “hanging and burning” Jeremy Corbyn: (52)


On 15 September 2015, Greg Cook sent Jo Greening a spoof video of Jeremy Corbyn as Hitler. “Love this”, Greening responded.(39) Other staff, such as Dan Hogan were also watching and sharing the video (51) Yet if you had compared Tom Watson to Hitler then you would have been expelled for ‘anti-Semitism’.

On 17 September 2015, shortly after Corbyn had been elected Leader, Anna Wright, a Labour Press Officer and Stolliday discussed saying “c*** more in the last 48hrs than you have in your life up until that point”. Wright noted that “yesterday I called the Leader of the Labour Party a sexist c***”. She remarked that this may have been “uncomradely” but Stolliday assured her “It’s not your job to be comradely to the leader”:


Steve Howell

Soon after, Corbyn appointed Steve Howell to work on strategy and communications in the 2017 election. Campaign staff were derisive of Howell, describing him as an “amateur” and suggesting it was a good thing he remained on the second floor of the office, where a plumbing problem had caused a smell of sewage to spread: (89)

At the final rally of the campaign in Islington staff joked about potential violence against Labour members and supporters and the use of “water cannons” and “truncheons” to “knock some trots”: (102)

Jeremy Corbyn appointed Steve Howell to work on communications and strategy in the 2017 election campaign. Staff at Labour HQ were immediately derisive of Howell suggesting it was a good thing he remained on the second floor of the office, where a plumbing problem had caused a smell of sewage to spread: (8

28/04/2017, 12:24 – Carol Linforth: I am told ‘steve’ has moved upstairs already because of the smell …….

28/04/2017, 12:37 – Simon Jackson Mobile: Can we make the smell worse? 90

28/04/2017, 12:38 – Simon Jackson Mobile: Urgent action points: don’t empty 2nd floor bins; buy Simon nose pegs. (89/90)


The Contempt of Labour’s Staff for Socialism

Staff hatred of what they term ‘trots’ i.e. socialism, is evidenced by their adoption of Tory economics: They opposed increasing Corporation Tax, Rail Nationalisation and higher taxes. As

“All [public ownership of rail] looks like is trots doing what trots do”.
Dan Hogan 11:42:

brace yourself. McDonnell just called for corporation tax to go upAmy Fowler 11:42:
you’re kidding me

On 27 April 2016, Collete Collins-Walsh, Education Policy Officer, and James McBride, who led on economy and business policy, discussed a Conservative Party critique of left-wing economics. Collette was of the opinion that ‘the UK is actually becoming more equal.’ To which McBride replied ‘very true.’(44)

What is staggering is that these people were in charge of developing Labour policy. 44% of the UK’s wealth is owned by just 10% of the population, five times the total wealth held by the poorest half.

During the 2017 General election, General Secretary Iain McNicol responded to the announcement of a policy of free school meals with ridicule. (45) Senior staff also wrote how they could not understand Corbyn’s decision to oppose the widely-panned “dementia tax.” (45) which goes to show what a waste of space and money these officials were since the demolition of the Tory’s policy on social care marked their and Theresa May’s downfall.


Catherine Bramwell, Communications Officer for South East Region, said “i hate the trots, i hate the trots, i hate them x a million”, and claimed that the idea of rail nationalisation was not popular in South East England – “all it looks like is trots doing what trots do”.

Conclusion

Labour’s senior officials waged war on Corbyn from the moment he was elected. Corbyn’s appeasement of his enemies with his ‘kinder politics’ began from the moment he declined McNicol’s offer to resign immediately after his election in September 2015. Instead of appeasing his officials and his treacherous deputy Tom Watson he should have waged war on a Right that never accepted the legitimacy of his leadership.

Instead of accepting the false ‘anti-Semitism’ narrative he ended up adopting it and the harder he tried to appease his Zionist critics the higher he built his own funeral pyre.

It is no surprise that the Right and Keir Starmer are desperately trying to avoid discussing the contents of the Report. Instead they are trying to scare people with bogus threats that they will be prosecuted if they circulate or discuss the contents of the Report.

It is therefore disappointing that John McDonnell still does not get it. He writes in Tuesday’s Guardian that not only should the Report not have been made public without redactions but that

‘I fully support Keir Starmer’s decision to launch an investigation – one which, he has been clear, must be independent and swift.

McDonnell also declares that ‘attempts to root out antisemitism in the party were also undermined’ by the Compliance/Disputes staff. He still does not seem to understand that the Fake Anti-Semitism Campaign was not, and never was about combating anti-Semitism. It was always about getting rid of him and Corbyn.

Starmer has made it clear that his main priority is discovering the circumstances of it having been leaked. He has not displayed the slightest concern over its contents.

Anyone on the Left with a backbone will face this blackmail down and treat it with the contempt that it deserves. The officials named in the report do not deserve confidentiality. They conspired against the party and if Labour was a socialist party they would have been shown the door.

It is a sign of how much Jennie Formby has capitulated to the Right that she is leading the charge against discussing or distributing the Report instead of standing up for members of the Labour Party. It is the duty of the left to face down the Right’s attempt to close down debate on their treachery.

Part 2 of this article will follow shortly and concentrate on the part of the Report dealing with the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign. It will be far more critical of the leaked Report and the motives of those who wrote it.

Tony Greenstein

Below are Other Reports that I Highly Recommend

That Leaked Labour Party Report Craig Murray
Leaks show how Labour sabotaged Corbyn Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada
‘It’s going to be a long night’ – How Members of Labour’s Senior Management Team Campaigned to Lose, Aaron Bastani, Novara Media
How top Labour officials plotted to bring down Jeremy Corbyn Jonathan Cook

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Israel lobbyist funded Labour’s new leader
Asa Winstanley Lobby Watch 22 April 2020
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-lobbyist-fu nded-labours-new-leader

Trevor Chinn (left) at an event he co-hosted in 2018 with Israeli ambassador Mark Regev (second left). Chinn for years funded anti-Corbyn efforts. (UJIA)
A multi-millionaire pro-Israel lobbyist donated $62,000 to help Keir Starmer win the UK Labour Party’s leadership election, it was revealed last week.

The official register of lawmakers’ financial interests shows that Trevor Chinn donated the sum as part of Starmer’s leadership campaign.

During the campaign Starmer said “I support Zionism without qualification.” Since his election he has tilted the party sharply towards Israel.

Starmer came under criticism for not disclosing all his donors during the campaign itself, when Labour members were deciding who should replace Jeremy Corbyn.

The donation from Chinn was not registered until five days after Starmer won the election, although it was received in February.

Although there is no suggestion of illegality, Labour members may consider this a violation of their trust.

Trevor Chinn

A retired auto industry mogul, Chinn has in the past funded both Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel.

He also plays a leading role in the Israel lobby groups BICOM and the Jewish Leadership Council.

In 2018, Chinn co-hosted a high-profile celebration of the life of late Israeli president Chaim Herzog, attended by Israeli ambassador Mark Regev.

Published photos show that Tony Blair also attended.

He donated to the Labour Party during the Tony Blair years, but mostly ended that relationship after Corbyn, a lifelong Palestinian rights supporter, won the leadership in 2015.

The exception to this was Chinn’s funding of anti-Corbyn Labour members of Parliament, including deputy leader Tom Watson, former BICOM staffer Ruth Smeeth and Labour Friends of Israel’s then chair Joan Ryan.

All three played key roles in promoting the smear campaign that Corbyn’s Labour Party was a hotbed of anti-Semitism.

Chinn in 2016 also donated to Dan Jarvis, a Labour lawmaker who was at the time seen as a potential successor to Jeremy Corbyn.

Later that year Labour lawmakers staged a coup against Corbyn, hoping to remove him as leader. Chinn funded Corbyn’s rival in the resultant leadership election, Owen Smith.

Smith took donations for his campaign from Chinn totaling $33,000, the register shows.

During the 2015 leadership election, which ultimately resulted in Corbyn’s first victory, Chinn funded Liz Kendall, the Blairite candidate who came last with a mere 4.5 percent of the vote.

Top donor

In 2014, Chinn halted his annual donations to the Tricycle Theatre over its decision to decline funding from the Israeli embassy for a film festival it was planning to host.

“We can’t accept boycotts and whenever one comes along we have to fight it,” Chinn told The Jewish News at the time.

“The Tricycle is going to lose a lot of audience members and a lot of financial support.”

The North London theater ultimately reversed its decision after being threatened by Sajid Javid, then Britain’s culture minister.

Javid later boasted about this threat to the theater, which had been secret at the time. The Israeli ambassador also intervened in the affair, documents released under freedom of information law showed.

Chinn’s $62,000 donation to Starmer’s campaign was the fourth highest amount from an individual donor – not including trade unions and companies.

Public sector union UNISON and service workers union USDAW donated $39,000 and almost $31,000 respectively. Another major trade union, Unite, supported Starmer’s leadership campaign rival Rebecca Long-Bailey.

At more than $123,000 each, the joint-top donors were Robert Latham and Waheed Alli.

Latham is a lawyer who once worked in the same firm as Starmer, and Alli is a fashion mogul and Labour member of the House of Lords, Britain’s unelected upper chamber.

Several of these donors from the business world funded Labour before the Corbyn era, and are now doubtless happy to have the party back under their influence after Corbyn’s departure.

Keir Starmer Labour Trevor Chinn Labour witch hunt BICOM Jewish Leadership Council Tony Blair Tom Watson Ruth Smeeth Joan Ryan Labour Friends of Israel Conservative Friends of Israel Dan Jarvis Owen Smith Liz Kendall Tricycle Theatre Sajid Javid Robert Latham Waheed Alli Unison USDAW Unite (UK union) Rebecca Long-Bailey
Asa Winstanley's blog

[outsider]

'Five questions for new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer about his UK and US national security establishment links':
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/05/five-questions-for-new-labour-leade r-sir-keir-starmer-about-his-uk-and-us-national-security-establishment -links/
'1. Why did you meet the head of MI5, the domestic security service, for informal social drinks in April 2013, the year after you decided not to prosecute MI5 for its role in torture?

2. When and why did you join the Trilateral Commission and what does your membership of this intelligence-linked network entail?

3. What did you discuss with then US Attorney General Eric Holder when you met him on 9 November 2011 in Washington DC, at a time you were handling the Julian Assange case as the public prosecutor?

4. What role did you play in the Crown Prosecution Service’s irregular handling of the Julian Assange case during your period as DPP?

5. Why did you develop such a close relationship with the Times newspaper while you were the DPP and does this relationship still exist?.........'

[outsider]

'Keir Starmer's ‘antisemitism’ sacking is a signal that Israel is safe in his hands':
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-partys-antisemitism-sa cking-meant-protect-israel-not-jews-starmer
Time for a split in the 'New Likud Party'.

By the way, a new(ish) Left newspaper has been around for a bit, I only recently came across it: 'The Word': http://www.thewordmedia.co.uk/archive/4594572222
I found it on Chris Williamson's FB page.
We certainly need a decent Left-Wing newspaper, so I hope it gets some support from you Truther lot. It's no use lambasting the MSM if you are unwilling to support alternatives, like The Word, UK Column etc.
And also Blogs and news outlets like Information Clearing House, Global Research, Voltaire Network etc.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

My promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power – so that we can advance the interests of the people our party was created to serve.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.
1. Economic justice

Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
2. Social justice

Abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime. Set a national goal for wellbeing to make health as important as GDP; Invest in services that help shift to a preventative approach. Stand up for universal services and defend our NHS. Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
3. Climate justice

Put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do. There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency. A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally. Demand international action on climate rights.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
4. Promote peace and human rights

No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
5. Common ownership

Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
6. Defend migrants’ rights

Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions

Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity

Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
9. Equality

Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade.
Share this on twitter Download the graphic
10. Effective opposition to the Tories

Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament – linked up to our mass membership and a professional election operation. Never lose sight of the votes ‘lent’ to the Tories in 2019. Unite our party, promote pluralism and improve our culture. Robust action to eradicate the scourge of antisemitism. Maintain our collective links with the unions.





Keir Starmer's 10 broken pledges since taking Labour leadership
SIR KEIR STARMER has arguably broken all 10 of the pledges he made when he became Labour leader.
By Chris Byfield
09:08, Thu, Sep 30, 2021 | UPDATED: 10:22, Thu, Sep 30, 2021
5 Comment section
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Copy link
Keir Starmer heckled during Labour conference speech
Sign up for FREE now and never miss the top politics stories again

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Mr Starmer yesterday delivered his closing speech at the Labour Party conference, where he hit out at Prime Minister Boris Johnson for the current fuel crisis. The Labour leader described Mr Johnson as a “trivial man” and “a trickster who’s played his one trick” and called the Prime Minister’s Conservative government “lost in the woods”. He added: “Once he said the words, ‘get Brexit done’, his plan ran out ‒ there is no plan.”
Related articles

‘I won’t take lectures!’ Lammy confronted with trans rights comments
Fishing row LIVE: France declares Brexit WAR on Britain

Mr Starmer battled away heckles from those on the left of his party while delivering his conference speech in Brighton, where he sought to draw a line under Jeremy Corbyn’s era of influence.

A day earlier the opposition leader appeared to admit he was willing to break the 10 pledges he made during the Labour leadership election if it were to make the party electable.

He told BBC News: “I stand by the principles and the values behind the pledges I made to our members, but the most important pledge I made was that I would turn it into a party that would be fit for government, capable of winning a General Election, I’m not going to be deflected from that.”

Mr Starmer won large swathes of support from Labour’s left in the contest to replace Corbyn after he issued a list of 10 pledges which aimed to continue key elements of his predecessor's policies.

Read More: Premier League dominance explained: UK football 'catapulted' by treble

Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer delivered the closing speech at the Labour party conference (Image: Getty)

Starmer
The Labour leader was heckled as he delivered his speech (Image: Getty)

However, as noted by political website Guido Fawkes, Mr Starmer has arguably broken all of his pledges since taking charge of Labour.

Starmer’s first pledge of ‘economic justice’, which many interpreted to mean raising taxes, was undermined last year by his now-Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Last year Ms Reeves repeatedly refused to back her party leader’s promise to raise taxes on those earning over £80,000, while on Monday she reiterated to Channel 4 News: “I have no plans whatsoever to increase income tax.”

Mr Starmer’s second pledge of ‘social justice’ was also compromised by shadow employment minister Andy McDonald's resignation over the Labour leader’s refusal to back a £15 minimum wage.

Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer called Boris Johnson “a trickster who’s played his one trick” (Image: Getty)
Trending

EU facing huge Brexit rule change to enter Britain – to be enforced in HOURS
EU facing huge Brexit rule change to enter Britain – to be enforced in HOURS
Pack it in, Macron! UK hits back at France after Channel Tunnel threat over fishing rights
Pack it in, Macron! UK hits back at France after Channel Tunnel threat over fishing rights
Brexit: City of London boss issues emergency plea as he urges immediate U-turn
Brexit: City of London boss issues emergency plea as he urges immediate U-turn

In his resignation letter, Mr McDonald told Mr Starmer that “after 18 months of your leadership, our movement is more divided than ever and the pledges that you made to the membership are not being honoured”.

On the weekend’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Starmer also refused to support public ownership of energy companies, despite his third pledge being ‘climate justice’ during the Labour Leadership campaign.

However Labour announced today they would tackle climate change by retrofitting 19 million homes over a decade, which would save families more than £400 a year.

Mr Starmer’s fourth pledge was to ‘promote peace and human rights’, yet in May Labour Palestinian members accused the party of “ignoring them” over a growing feeling the party was “drifting from anti-colonial principles”.

Don't Miss:
Brexit fishing: French fishermen warned 'we need Jersey's waters'[INSIGHT]
Prince Philip's last conversation with Prince Charles revealed[ANALYSIS]
Daniel Craig's blunt advice for next James Bond: 'Dont be s***'[OPINION]

Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer refused to say he'd nationalise energy on Andrew Marr (Image: Getty)

On Tuesday, Labour delegates also demanded sanctions against Israel for its “apartheid” policy towards Palestinians yet Labour shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy distanced herself from the motion, as did Mr Starmer in June 2020.

Mr Starmer broke his fifth pledge of ‘common ownership’ by coming out against the public ownership of energy as previously mentioned.

Last Year Ms Nandy also told Politics Live that public ownership was just “one way” and “another way” was to give “people more control.”

This is in contrast to former labour leader Ed Miliband, who said on Newsnight this week: “If we’re going to make this green transition, then public ownership is the right way to go.”

Jeremy Corbyn
Keir Starmer won large swathes of support from Labour’s left after issuing a list of 10 pledges (Image: Getty)

Mr Starmer's sixth pledge to ‘defend migrant rights’ was also compromised after Ms Reeves confirmed this week Labour would not bring back freedom of movement.

The Shadow Chancellor said: “People have voted to leave the EU and we need to move on ‒ at the moment it’s just an ad-hoc process.”

Mr Starmer’s seventh pledge to ‘strengthen workers rights and trade unions’ was also undermined by the Unite hierarchy turning on the Labour leader after he controversially proposed to scrap the party’s one member one vote election system.

Unite national officer Rob MacGregor also blasted Keir Starmer’s conference speech and claimed Labour needed a leader “as angry as we are about the harm being done to our workers.”

The eight pledge, promising ‘radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity’ was also wildly contradicted last year when he told the Scotsman “we can’t have four nations pulling in different directions.”

Mr Starmer’s ninth of 10 pledges is ‘equality’, which Mr Starmer arguably broke by declining to call Rosie Duffield’s comments transphobic after she claimed “only women have a cervix.”
Related articles

EU panic as gas prices rise: 'If it's cold we are in trouble'
Queen would be 'overjoyed if Kate and William had new baby

Mr Starmer did however insist on the Andrew Marr Show: “It is something that shouldn’t be said ‒ it is not right.”

Last year he also infamously dubbed the Black Lives Matter movement as “a moment” and angered the very left of the Labour party by saying the group’s demand to defund the police was “nonsense”.

[TonyGosling]

ANDREW PIERCE: Boris Johnson is right. Keir Starmer's CPS did fail to prosecute Jimmy Savile. So why all the faux outrage?

By Andrew Pierce for the Daily Mail - Published: 22:25, 1 February 2022 | Updated: 08:23, 2 February 2022
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10465933/ANDREW-PIERCE-Keir -Starmers-CPS-did-fail-prosecute-Jimmy-Savile-faux-outrage.html

The interview took place under conditions of the strictest secrecy. In his winter years, a national treasure was facing searching questions from police about historic claims of child sex abuse.

It was October 2009 and it seemed Sir Jimmy Savile might finally have to pay for his crimes. Four women had come forward to allege he had attacked them, two saying they were just 14 at the time.

It was one of the most explosive police interviews of the year — and you might reasonably expect that the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would have been closely involved in checking that the case was being handled properly.

So who was the prosecutorial chief at this time? Step forward, Sir Keir Starmer.

Although there is no evidence he was personally involved, as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) between 2008 and 2013, Keir Starmer was ultimately responsible for the controversial and, in retrospect, entirely wrong-headed decision not to bring charges against the serial paedophile Jimmy Savile (pictured) in 2009

Although there is no evidence he was personally involved, as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) between 2008 and 2013, Keir Starmer was ultimately responsible for the controversial and, in retrospect, entirely wrong-headed decision not to bring charges against the serial paedophile Jimmy Savile (pictured) in 2009

Contrite

Although there is no evidence he was personally involved, as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) between 2008 and 2013, the man who today runs the Labour Party was ultimately responsible for the controversial and, in retrospect, entirely wrong-headed decision not to bring charges against the serial paedophile Savile in 2009.

This was the murky background to Monday's angry session in the House of Commons, when Boris Johnson yelled over the dispatch box that Starmer spent most of his time as DPP 'prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile'.

The first claim passed without objection: it is a matter of record that Starmer presided over the arrests of dozens of journalists as part of Operation Elveden, which investigated payments made by a tiny number of reporters to police and public officials.

But the suggestion that Starmer, by virtue of being head of the CPS, somehow missed an opportunity to prosecute Savile for his monstrous crimes horrified the House, earned the Prime Minister a rebuke from Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle (who said he was 'far from satisfied that the comments . . . were appropriate') and stunned Boris's own backbenchers.

Former Tory chief whip Julian Smith declared that the 'false and baseless personal slur . . . cannot be defended', while others accused the Prime Minister of peddling a lurid far-Right conspiracy theory.

Were they right to do so?

The 'conspiracy theory' falsely holds that, as head of the CPS, Starmer personally blocked Savile from being charged for child sex offences. But that is not what Boris claimed.

Instead, he alleged that Starmer 'failed to prosecute' Savile. And since Starmer ultimately ran the public body that made the decision not to charge Savile, the Prime Minister's claim, however incendiary, seems hard to dispute, even if Starmer himself was not the CPS's 'reviewing lawyer' or directly involved in Savile's case.

In 2011, two years after those police interviews, Savile died, aged 84. In 2013, the true scale of his depravity came to light: he had raped at least 34 women and girls and sexually assaulted up to 450, including children as young as eight.

A shaken Starmer, then still DPP, set up an inquiry chaired by Alison Levitt QC. This concluded that at least three prosecutions against Savile would have been possible in 2009 if 'police and the prosecutors' had taken a different approach. (Levitt also blasted the CPS for deleting all records of the Savile case from its systems in 2010.) The report did not indicate that the DPP himself had been involved but Starmer, deeply contrite, said: 'I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.'
Boris Johnson yelled over the dispatch box that Starmer spent most of his time as DPP ‘prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile’

Boris Johnson yelled over the dispatch box that Starmer spent most of his time as DPP 'prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile'

Starmer is often praised by the liberal commentariat for his 'forensic' legal mind. But his five-year reign at the CPS was characterised by a litany of failures, missed opportunities and other scandals. Remarkably, Jimmy Savile is not the only dangerous sex criminal in whose case the CPS under Starmer's watch seems to have blundered

Starmer is often praised by the liberal commentariat for his 'forensic' legal mind. But his five-year reign at the CPS was characterised by a litany of failures, missed opportunities and other scandals. Remarkably, Jimmy Savile is not the only dangerous sex criminal in whose case the CPS under Starmer's watch seems to have blundered

So is he finally to blame for the failure to bring Savile to justice?

That depends on whether you believe the person at the top of an organisation ultimately bears responsibility for mistakes that happen on his or her watch. And on that score, Starmer's own position could not be clearer.

Leadership, he has opined, 'is about taking responsibility'. Only yesterday, he said: 'The culture of an organisation is set from the top.'

Yet this high-minded stance, so useful when savaging the Prime Minister for presiding over the chaos of so-called Partygate, doesn't appear to cut both ways as far as he is concerned.

Last night, Tory MP Mark Jenkinson told me: 'If Starmer demands the buck stops 'at the top' when it comes to the PM and running Downing St, he can't feign outrage at the same standards being applied to him when he ran the CPS. He is quick to claim credit for prosecutions there, then distances himself from the catalogue of failures he also oversaw.'

Quite. And 'catalogue' is hardly an exaggeration.

Starmer is often praised by the liberal commentariat for his 'forensic' legal mind. But his five-year reign at the CPS was characterised by a litany of failures, missed opportunities and other scandals.

Remarkably, Jimmy Savile is not the only dangerous sex criminal in whose case the CPS under Starmer's watch seems to have blundered.

Take the 'black cab rapist' John Worboys, who was convicted in 2009 of 19 offences against 12 women.

After Worboys's trial concluded, 75 more women came forward to allege he had attacked them. Yet prosecutors were apparently unmoved by their claims and took no further action.

Almost a decade later, in 2018, the High Court overturned the Parole Board's decision to set the serial rapist free, after some of those 75 alleged victims challenged Worboys's release.

Bizarre

Worboys was subsequently sentenced to two additional life sentences for attacks on four other women. If Starmer had prosecuted when the new allegations came to light after Worboys's first trial, other victims might have been spared reliving their ordeals.

In July 2009, Starmer caused yet more controversy when he declared that up to 70,000 criminals should receive cautions or on-the-spot fines rather than facing prosecution, to save court time and money. Cold comfort to the victims!

To this, we might add the one-time DPP's failure to prosecute the police officer who pushed newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson, who died in 2009 during the G20 protests in London. Starmer admitted that Mr Tomlinson had been assaulted but said there was 'no realistic prospect' of securing a conviction, due to conflicting medical evidence as to the cause of death. Mr Tomlinson's family reacted with fury and despair.

Then there was Starmer's bizarre decision in 2013, on advice from his senior legal adviser, not to pursue a male primary school teacher in Wales who had sent explicit sexual material to a 'confused' 16-year-old boy who later committed suicide.

Any DPP would struggle to keep up with every detail of the vast number of matters handled by the CPS. But if Starmer is so quick to blame Boris for everything that happens on his watch, it is surely only right he should apply the same merciless standards to himself. Pictured: Then Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer at the CPS headquarters in 2013

Any DPP would struggle to keep up with every detail of the vast number of matters handled by the CPS. But if Starmer is so quick to blame Boris for everything that happens on his watch, it is surely only right he should apply the same merciless standards to himself. Pictured: Then Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer at the CPS headquarters in 2013

The local Welsh prosecutor said the area CPS 'was satisfied [that] both the evidential and public interest criteria had been met'. But, she added, 'the principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken a different view'. The late boy's mother said she was 'disgusted' by the decision.

Or consider the now-infamous 'Twitter joke trial', in which the defendant, Paul Chambers, wrote on the social network that he intended to blow a local airport 'sky high' after learning his flight had been cancelled owing to bad weather.

A string of public figures and legal experts came to his support, but to no avail. The CPS spent £18,000 of taxpayers' money ensuring a conviction.
After Worboys's trial concluded, 75 more women came forward to allege he had attacked them. Yet prosecutors were apparently unmoved by their claims and took no further action

After Worboys's trial concluded, 75 more women came forward to allege he had attacked them. Yet prosecutors were apparently unmoved by their claims and took no further action

When Mr Chambers appealed, the CPS wrote to him saying they no longer saw a public interest in pursuing him.

'Mr Starmer was prepared to put me through the worry of yet another hearing, waste yet more taxpayers' money and waste the time of the Lord Chief Justice,' said Mr Chambers, whose conviction was eventually overturned in the High Court. (A CPS spokesperson denied Starmer had been a decision-maker in the case.)

Of course, any DPP would struggle to keep up with every detail of the vast number of matters handled by the CPS. But if Starmer is so quick to blame Boris for everything that happens on his watch, it is surely only right he should apply the same merciless standards to himself.

Then again, this is the man who adopts a painfully holier-than-thou tone when discussing rule-breaking in Downing Street, but has refused repeatedly to apologise for swigging beer with Left-wing party chums during lockdown last year. So perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by his brazen double standards.

What IS the truth about Boris Johnson's claims that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile?

Sir Keir Starmer was director of public prosecutions when the decision was made in 2009 not to prosecute Sir Jimmy Savile on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence' - but a report found he was not personally to blame.

A 2013 QC-led inquiry found that the decision was made by police and prosecutors locally, not Sir Keir, who was unaware of it.

The CPS would also say there was 'no reference to any involvement from the DPP in the decision-making within a report examining the case.'

Lawyer turned Labour leader Sir Keir had taken on the role of DPP in 2008 and left in 2013 to pursue a career in politics.

Savile, who abused 500 women and children, died in 2011 without facing justice.

In 2012, after it became clear the Top of the Pops host had attacked and abused hundreds of children and women in hospitals, schools and while filming his BBC shows, an inquiry was carried out Alison Levitt QC, on Mr Starmer's own orders.

She found that police treated the victims and the accounts they gave 'with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required'.

Savile also made veiled threats against officers if sexual abuse allegations against him did not 'disappear'.

Detectives looking at allegations advised the CPS not to prosecute Savile, believing his explanation that it was all made up and the price of being famous.

Alison Levitt was also critical of the approach taken by the CPS' reviewing lawyer, but did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made.

The lawyer was also criticised for failing to properly build a case with the police or spot inconsistencies in their reports after interviewing Savile under caution and four of his victims.

But there was some criticism that as DPP, Sir Keir should have been more aware of what was happening in one of the highest profile cases in the UK at that time.

As head of the CPS, Sir Keir later apologised, admitting the failure to prosecute Savile was a 'watershed moment' for the organisation. But avoided any admonishment in Ms Levitt's report.

He said: 'I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.

'These were errors of judgement by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles. That makes the findings of Ms Levitt's report more profound and calls for a more robust response.'

[TonyGosling]

Savile Report summaries
Marcus Erooga, NOTA News 70, July/ August 2013


Summary of ‘ IN THE MATTER OF THE LATE JIMMY SAVILE’ Report
to the
Director of Public Prosecutions by Alison Levitt QC, published 11th January
2013
Note: This is a 129 page report much of which considers whether criminal
justice procedures were followed. Readers interested in the detail of these
considerations are encouraged to refer to the original report, of which this is
only a brief summary. The Surrey Police review of the Operation Ornament by
Detective Superintendent Savell was also published on January 11th 2013.
The Savell report is also summarised in this series.
Three allegations of sexual offending in the past by Jimmy Savile were made
to Surrey Police in 2007 and 2008 (Operation Ornament) and one to Sussex
Police in 2008. In October 2009, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
reviewing lawyer with responsibility for the cases advised that since none of
the complainants was "prepared to support any police action" no prosecutions
could be brought.
In light of the allegations emerging in October 2012 of sexual offending by
Jimmy Savile, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP) Alison Levitt QC, was commissioned by the DPP to examine the
decisions taken by the CPS in relation to the three allegations and advise him
whether they were correct or not.
In contrast to the Savell report, following the preparation of the draft report Ms
Levitt met three of the four alleged victims, one of the witnesses, and the CPS
reviewing lawyer and has included some of their comments in her report.
Abbreviated versions of some this information is included here as it may give
some insight into the mechanics of the alleged offences & the process by
which subsequent disclosure was discouraged.
Three of the allegations under consideration were the same as those
addressed in the Savell Report into Operation Ornament & so are not
repeated here. The fourth Is an allegation of indecent assault by Savile in
1970 when the complainant was in her early twenties. She was a member of
Jimmy Savile’s fan club and had written him a letter in 1968 and subsequently
received an acknowledgement.
Some 2 years later a chauffeur driving a large Rolls Royce arrived
unannounced at her house to take her to see Jimmy Savile. She was driven to
the local Town Hall where she saw Savile with his arms around two people
she thought were probably Chelsea Pensioners. Her next memory of his
having his arm around her shoulders and them being in a caravan that was
outside the Town Hall.
He started saying things to her such as “you are lovely; I’d like to lock you up
in a cupboard and you’d be with me all the time”, and that he could get her a
job on Top of the Pops.
Savile Report summaries
Marcus Erooga, NOTANews 70, July/ August 2013
2
She was then pushed down onto the bed, ending up on her back; he was
lying next to her and started to touch her breasts over her clothes. He asked if
she was on the pill and she replied “no, I don’t do that sort of thing”. He took
hold of one of her hands and placed it on his groin until she pulled her hand
away.
He then sat up, asked her whether she had her bus fare home and told her
that she could choose something from the caravan as a memento.
Levitt goes on to detail the process whereby the complainant approached the
Police in 2008 and her decision, following an interview with police officers, not
to make a formal complaint. She concludes in relation to that decision
“Looking at the documents created in 2008 I found it difficult not to conclude
that the officers had, even if unintentionally, dissuaded her from pursuing her
allegation.”
In relation to the other alleged offences Levitt includes a level of detail about
the alleged behaviour not found in the Savell report & again interested
readers are referred to the Levitt report itself they wish to review that
information
Some possible insight into how Savile discouraged complaints about him by
threatening legal action, may also be found in this transcript from his interview
with the police officers who, after the series of delays described in the Savell
Report interviewed Savile in 2009. (The full interview was later published
following a Freedom of Information request. A commentary on that interview is
also part of this NOTA summary series, called ‘Duncroft interview’.)
“If this [these allegations] does not disappear then my policy will swing into
action. I have an LLD, that’s a Doctor of Laws, not an honorary one but a real
one1.
That gives me friends. If I was going to sue anyone, we would not go to a
local court, we would go to the Old Bailey ‘cos my people can put time in the
Old Bailey. So my legal people are ready and waiting. All we need is a name
and an address and then the due process would start.
I’ve never done anybody any harm in my entire life. I have no need to chase
girls, there are thousands of them on Top of the Pops. I have no need to take
liberties…the newspapers consider me to be very boring, I have no kinky
carryings on.
But because I take everything seriously I’ve alerted my legal team that they
may be doing business and if we do, you ladies [the two female police
officers] will finish up at the Old Bailey as well because we will be wanting you
there as witnesses. But nobody ever seems to want to go that far.”
1 Added note – in fact Savile was awarded an honorary Doctorate Of Law
(LLD) by Leeds University in 1986.
Savile Report summaries
Marcus Erooga, NOTANews 70, July/ August 2013
3
Levitt’s Conclusions
Levitt’s conclusions were that:
• Decisions not to prosecute were not consciously influenced by any
improper motive on the part of either police or prosecutors.
However,
• The allegations were both serious and credible and the prosecutor
should have sought to “build” a prosecution, by seeing for example
whether the victim could be reassured to the extent that she might be
prepared to give evidence, or by giving consideration to whether there
was any way in which the evidence could be added to, or improved, so
that the victim’s attendance would be unnecessary.
• That aspects of what the prosecutor was told by the police about the
reasons that the victims did not want to give evidence that should have
caused him to ask further questions rather than treating the obstacles
as fatal to the prospects of a prosecution taking place.
• That the police treated the alleged victims and the accounts they gave
with a degree of caution that was neither justified nor required.
• Each of the alleged victims who were spoken to by Ms. Levitt said that
had she been given more information by the police at the time of the
investigation, and in particular had she been told that she was not the
only woman to have complained, she would probably have been
prepared to give evidence.
• Levitt therefore concluded that had the police & prosecutors taken a
different approach a prosecution might have been possible
This is inevitably a highly selective summary & interested readers are referred
to the original document for the detail.
On 13th January 2013 Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions who
had commissioned the report responded publicly & announced that he had
jointly agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on violence
and public protection, that:
• The approach of the police and prosecutors to credibility in sexual
assault cases has to change. To effect that new guidance is to be
issued by the police and by the CPS. This is to the effect that of equal
importance in determining whether a prosecution can properly be
brought as testing the complainant's account is testing the suspect's
account and building stronger cases by linking evidence and
allegations where it is appropriate to do so
Savile Report summaries
Marcus Erooga, NOTANews 70, July/ August 2013
4
• That more support needs to be given to complainants who do report
allegations of sexual assault, including further consideration to
implementation of legislation that provides for pre-recorded crossexamination
of child witnesses. In addition, reconsideration of the
extent to which vulnerable complainants can be subjected to repeated
cross-examination on the same issue on behalf of multiple defendants.
• Joint Police/CPS panels will be established to consider any complaints
by those who have made allegations of sexual assault in the past that
they consider were not dealt with appropriately and allow them to have
their cases looked at again. The panel will consider whether an
effective prosecution could now be brought.
Marcus Erooga
January 2013
Marcus Erooga is an independent safeguarding consultant, trainer and a
Visiting Research Fellow, Centre for Childhood Studies, University of
Huddersfield. Amongst his publications is research about abuse in
organisational settings and participant research with organisational offenders,
both of which can be found online. In 2012 he edited and contributed to
Creating Safer Organisations: Practical steps to prevent the abuse of children
by those working with them, reviewed in NOTA News 69.

[TonyGosling]

Levitt made clear that the fault did not simply lie with the police. She said, “I have reservations about the way in which the prosecutor reached his decision… On the face of it, the allegations made were both serious and credible; the prosecutor should have recognised this and sought to “build” a prosecution. In particular, there were aspects of what he was told by the police as to the reasons that the victims did not want to give evidence which should have caused him to ask further questions. Instead, he appears to have treated the obstacles as fatal to the prospects of a prosecution taking place. ”
https://workerspartybritain.org/2022/02/07/starmer-and-savile/

Levitt further concludes that “I have been driven to conclude that had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach a prosecution might have been possible.”

In other words, mistakes were made by police AND the Prosecution Service and the 2009 decision not to prosecute is itself regarded as flawed. The report is clearly not laying all of the blame on decisions made by police before Starmer became DPP.

At least the police kept records. The CPS file was “destroyed” on October 26, 2010, and Levitt was therefore dependent upon records kept by police. The details from the CPS side were not available to her and so she was not able to comment upon them. This is the context for her conclusion that “I have seen nothing to suggest that the decisions not to prosecute were consciously influenced by any improper motive on the part of either police or prosecutors.” Levitt makes clear that “I have been dependent on the material provided by the police to show what documents were seen by the reviewing lawyer and the advice which was given.”

Levitt confirms she was told that the record was deleted “because the decision had been reached that no further action should be taken, for data protection reasons and in accordance with our normal policy, the CMS record was automatically deleted.” However, this may be at odds with the CPS’s Retention and Disposal Schedule (the guidelines for retaining and disposing of CPS files) of the time, which states, “that Advice / discontinued cases where the full file has been provided and no proceedings have taken place or where the case was discontinued before trial” should be retained for “5 years following the date of advice/discontinuance,” not a year and a half, a period which doesn’t fit any of the timelines within the retention schedule in place in 2008. We know from the Levitt report that a “complete” file on Savile was submitted to the CPS on 19th November, so why wasn’t it kept for the 5 years specified by the retention schedule? It’s also noteworthy that Levitt only claimed that she had been “told” that the disposal had been in line with policy, not that she had independently confirmed that it was.

To conclude, this analysis suggests that it has not been proven that Starmer had no personal involvement in the decision not to prosecute Savile. We do know that there were issues with the decision and that the relevant information held by the CPS was destroyed, possibly in violation of the Prosecution Service’s own retention and disposal policy.

This indicates that a new inquiry, fully independent of the CPS, may be in order, if we are ever to get to the bottom of this mystery. This inquiry should specifically investigate whether Starmer as DPP knew of or was consulted on the decision not to prosecute Savile and if the CPS records relating to the case were in fact properly handled in accordance with CPS retention and disposal policy.

Some links: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703165341/http:/  /www.cps.gov.uk/news/assets/uploads/files/savile_report.pdf and https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/rmmv ersion2.pdf