Shami Chakrobati now Shadow Attorney General in Corbyn reshuffle

Nobody thinks that Corbyn is anti-Semitic, but it's thought that his very weak leadership has allowed it to grow.Of course you will find it in all parties, but the mark of a good leader is not to go down the ' denial' route.That goes for Farron as well.

Trisher, you think claiming an ALL party select committee is made up of EITHER all solidy Tory or filled with labour people who would go on to vote no confidence in .jeremy , and that is not a stupid comment? Perhaps you will explain which of the two make up the select committee ?

True rosesarered, he is a weak leader , dependant on momentum not strengthening own leadership abilities

Have you looked at the composition of the Committee? It has 6 Conservative members, 3 Labour and 1 SNP, no Greens, no Liberals, no UKIP. So it is not in effect an All Party committee.

Select committees are made up of MPs from different parties, with their membership reflecting the strength of parties in the House.

Select committee members are not from all of the parties, so shouldn't be called ‘all-party committees’ but ‘cross-party committees’.

One Labour MP didn't sign because she was also a witness, the other 2 have openly criticised Corbyn and are members of Progress. It would have been nice to have at least one impartial voice on there.

So cross party not all party, so was he correct trisher ?

You tell me. If the 2 MPs had been members of Momentum and Corbyn had been completely exonerated would you have agreed with it?

Two out if ten, no,problem with that trisher, you seem to . I think the committee were right, Corbyn is not a racist but I believe him to weak to sort out the racists.

And he is most certainly in denial that there is any problem at all!

At times I wonder if he is either not confrontational or very crafty , he just doesn't come across as the honest man I once thought him to be. Why doesn't he break with momentum, he has the leadership , why not stand on his own feet

It is interesting that the committee did not make any criticism of the Conservative party for failing to send a leader of the party and for the fact that Eric Pickles was unaware of the anti-semetic incident at UCL, but posted this link in the evidence
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27-times-tory-party-racism-7904018
By the way we must be careful now not to confuse racism and anti-semitism or so I am told.

The attacks on Jewish MP's are most certainly racist

Did the Tory party have a leader at that time ?

Cameron was asked but was in the process of retiring, May was asked several times and did not respond. On the morning she was timetabled to appear Pickles turned up instead (without any notification)

So May wasn't leader? Why ask the home secretary ?

May was asked after she became leader- are you deliberately mis-reading or do I need to post every tiny detail? She didn't respond to the invitations-not even "I'd love to come but I am so busy"

To be exact
We later invited the new Prime Minister on several occasions to give evidence to us in October, but received no formal response until the morning of the scheduled evidence session, when Sir Eric Pickles MP, the UK Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues and former Party Chairman, was nominated to attend as a representative of the Conservative Party.

Well, that seems fair enough.

I don't deliberately mis- read , just as I don't avoid questions . She should have attended , she could have taken a legal adviser with her as Corbyn did

I Posted before reading your last post trisher, Pickles was the correct person to speak for his party, special envoy for post holocaust issues , who better

I agree and I think the report would have much more value and would be much more easily accepted if they had actually said this. I have no objection to them criticising Corbyn,but I do think there should be some reference to May and the Conservative party and Pickle's ignorance about the UCL incident. It is about balance.

But he wasn't invited May was. If Corbyn had sent someone else would that have been OK?

'The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with antisemitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic.'

From the report.
Obviously talking about before Corbyn was leader. So why is Miliband not criticised, or Brown or even, dare I say it, Blair?

It was proper that Corbyn attended, as it was his party the allegations were primarily about.