Why did Starmer settle out of court Give a grovelling apology and pay out six figure sum?

I believe that there were attempts by some to destroy evidence of email etc needed by the inquiries.

Hopefully they were recovered.

Trisher - thanks for your explanation.

Where I disagree with you is where you have said "The people named in this report actually worked against the party they were employed by and so undermined the democratic process in this country which relies on an effective opposition party and this makes it in the public interest to know who did this."

The leaked report makes allegations against certain people named in that report. None of us (including you) can know yet whether these allegations are accurate. Without knowing that, it is too early to say that they actually undermined the democratic process.

As I see it, the leaking of the report could do more to undermine the democratic process if the allegations are found to be inaccurate as they could end up depleting Labour Party funds through legal costs. Then the Labour Party will be unable to properly fund their campaigns in the next set of local government elections. That is not good for democracy.

As the EHRC and the Forde Inquiry will have access to all the relevant emails and decision making processes etc anything alleged on here about who did or didn't do what and when can only be speculation at this point in time.

Thanks to those who have provided further clarification. The posts were not visible to me whilst I was composing my last one.

Grandad - you have referred only to primary legislation. Regulations are made under a statutory instrument (SI). Which SI is involved here - the year and the number, please? Then I need the specific clause(s) that Keir Starmer has allegedly flouted.

I don't know the remit of the Labour Party NEC. Someone I know who is a Labour Party member says he is not able to see the minutes of any NEC meetings or records of their decisions so where did you find this information?

You are trying to paint a picture of Keir Starmer as a law-flouting and cowardly person whilst providing no evidence to back it up. It's fine to have an opinion, but don't present it as an objective fact.

Why should we believe you?

Ramblingrose22, in regard to your post @22:12 today, I have not alleged that Kier Starmer flouted the law in regards to employees cited for misconduct in the leaked report.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 lays out the procedure that an employer must adopt if an organisation wishes to take up disciplinary action against an employee. In the case of the Central Office staff, Starmer decided that no action was necessary at the time they were cited in the leaked report.

No action, no breach of legislation. Simple as that.

Devorgilla

Ramblingrose22, when Keir became leader those 'employees' were no longer employed by the Labour Party. Nor were they any longer in the Party. You cannot suspend either from your employment or your Party people no longer in it.

There are two groups involved in the anti-semitism allegations within the Labour party Central Office. The first were those involved in the BBC Panorama investigation and it was those that Starmer apologised to and made a financial settlement with in the last week.

The second grouping are those cited for misconduct in the leaked report and that situation is still ongoing. A number of those were certainly still in employment with the Labour Party when the report was first leaked and it was that grouping that Starmer refused to suspend from their employment.

The NEC voted overwhelmingly that they should be suspended but Starmer refused to comply with that ballot sighting that it was a direct employment issue and therefore beyond the realms of the National Executive Committee.

Just to clarify, my information about former employees comes from the Panorama programme where it was made clear they no longer worked there. There may of course be others still employed but I have no way of knowing that, nor should I.

Grandad - you have suggested that Keir Starmer flouted current employment regulations but have failed to reply to my question - which ones? So how do we know that he flouted any? You should be careful about accusing people of flouting the law when you cannot even say which law!

You cannot tell me how many of the named staff in the leaked report whom you accused of misconduct are still Labour Party employees. This is important because they may have left and you can't suspend staff who have left.

There is normally a process for reporting allegations of misconduct to the employer so that immediate action can be taken. Did those who knew the names of the staff who were allegedly guilty of misconduct even follow this process?

The Forde Inquiry will hopefully answer this question, but on the face of it, they put the names in the report that was leaked in the hope that the EHRC would see their report and believe it. When it was decided that the report would not be sent to the EHRC someone decided to leak it instead without a thought about the consequences.

You allege that Keir Starmer never protested about the handling of anti-semitism complaints whilst in the Shadow Cabinet. How do you know this? He might have had private conversations with Jeremy Corbyn and others in the Shadow Cabinet where he raised these concerns? You have absolutely no proof that he had no concerns about this.

The only thing I do agree with you about is that there are factions in the Labour Party who disagree with each other. The leaking of the leaked report and its contents show this.

Please do us all a favour and desist from making false and derogatory claims against Keir Starmer or anyone else in the Labour Party that you happen to disagree with which you cannot substantiate.

I don't understand the suggestion that disclosing the full names of people alleged to have undermined the antisemitism complaints process in the leaked report, which has led to the Labour Party having to make large payouts, can be in the public interest
Ramblingrose22 you are confusing two events. The payout (which was a choice by Starmer not something the LP had to do) was to do with a Panorama programme when employees and ex employees described a lack of thoroughness in the investigations into anti-semitism by the LP.
The leaked report was compiled to be presented to the Equality Commissions enquiry. When it became widely believed that it would not be presented it was leaked. The people named in this report actually worked against the party they were employed by and so undermined the democratic process in this country which relies on an effective opposition party and this makes it in the public interest to know who did this. The fact that some of the incidents in the report happened as long ago as 2015 indicates a real lack of committment to reveal its contents officially.

Ramblingrose22, when Keir became leader those 'employees' were no longer employed by the Labour Party. Nor were they any longer in the Party. You cannot suspend either from your employment or your Party people no longer in it.

Ramblingrose22

Grandad - what is "the above situation"?

Surely challenges will continue to be made by both sides about the allegations in the leaked report regardless of whether Keir Starmer took action to suspend those allegedly undermining Jeremy Corbyn.

Which of the current employment regulations was flouted when Keir Starmer did not suspend the employees cited in the leaked report?

How many of these remain employees of the Labour Party now and of those, how many are in the same roles as before?

Ramblingrose22 the legislation in regards to the handling of workplace grievance and disciplinary procedures was first laid out in the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, much of that statute was encompassed and strengthened under the Equality Act 2010.

I do not believe that there is any reliable information in regards to how many employees cited in the leaked report are still in employment with the Labour party. The release of such information could well be in itself a breach of the Data Protection Act.

It should be remembered that Kier Starmer was at the very front of Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet team. However, I do not recall Starmer at any time protesting while being a member of that body that the anti-semitic allegations were not being handled correctly.

Some may interpret the above as cowardly if he did believe that the allegations were not being handled correctly, or two-faced if he did feel they were being handled correctly at the time he was in the shadow cabinet team but has changed his tune now in support of the right wing faction in the Party.

Again fationalisation being predominant in the Labour Party making it unfit for purpose in its position as the leading party of opposition in the country.

Time for wholesale change to be brought about by way of the whole wider Labour movement of Great Britain.

Grandad - what is "the above situation"?

Surely challenges will continue to be made by both sides about the allegations in the leaked report regardless of whether Keir Starmer took action to suspend those allegedly undermining Jeremy Corbyn.

Which of the current employment regulations was flouted when Keir Starmer did not suspend the employees cited in the leaked report?

How many of these remain employees of the Labour Party now and of those, how many are in the same roles as before?

Ramblingrose22

WWMark2 - sorry to appear thick but I am confused.

Please clarify why Keir Starmer would decide to withdraw the Labour Whip from Jeremy Corbyn?

Or did you mean something else?

These are the sort of rumours that are circulating. I’m not any clearer but I guess there is a possibility that things are coming to a head.

Reporter
Adam Cailler
@acailler
According to a few Labour sources this morning, it's "very possible" and "highly likely" that Jeremy Corbyn will have the whip removed very soon, as a result of some of the recommendations in the EHRC report.

Ramblingrose22, in regard to your post @19:56 today, the problem with the release of the leaked report will be that its findings will be challenged by both left and right factions in the Labour Party whenever that release may come about.

The above situation has been brought about due to the fact that Kier Starmer did not have the employees cited for misconduct in the documents suspended from their employment as would be the case for all other employees in Britain under current employment regulations.

However, Starmer choose not to take such action, therefore, leaving himself open to charges that the named employees remaining in their posts could tamper or destroy evidence and have access to others involved in the investigation.

The above I feel gives further proof that the Parliamentary Labour Party under its current structures, organisation and factionalization is simply not fit for purpose, and that situation will require radical action by the whole Labour movement in Britain to bring about the wholesale change that is undoubtedly required.

WWMark2 - sorry to appear thick but I am confused.

Please clarify why Keir Starmer would decide to withdraw the Labour Whip from Jeremy Corbyn?

Or did you mean something else?

I was happy to contribute to the Go Fund Me for Corbyn. We will have to wait and see the outcome but whatever happens I think he is a decent man who has from the outset been the subject of a determined campaign of innuendo and vilification.

rambling it isn’t about Corbyn rhetoric, it is relating to the reports and Corbyn culpability.

I think Jeremy Corbyn would have to say a lot more than he has so far about the decision to leak the internal report before he would lose the Labour Whip.

If there are such rumours it sounds to me as though they'd be coming from his supporters who seem to be paranoid that everyone is out to get him.

If it turns out that the quotations given in the leaked report are highly selective and have been made out of context in order to mislead others about a plot to undermine Jeremy Corbyn his supporters will look very foolish (I am being polite here!) indeed.

I don't understand the suggestion that disclosing the full names of people alleged to have undermined the antisemitism complaints process in the leaked report, which has led to the Labour Party having to make large payouts, can be in the public interest.

If the Labour Party becomes bankrupt as a result of the legal fees that will be incurred, can no longer pay its staff or running costs and has to be wound up how is that in the public interest?

Let’s wait and see if the rumours are true. But honestly Starmer would have a very good reason to take the whip away if it proves correct.

Starmer is no Johnson.

So much for uniting the party!!!

Rumour swirling that Starmer considering taking the whip away from Corbyn

In regard to the prosecutions and claims that will be the undoubted fallout of the Race & Equalities commission report and the internal leaked report, even the Labour Parties own solicitor team is stating that defending such will be impossible.

In normal circumstances, the trade unions by way of the Broader Labour movement would have willingly come forward with the finances required to fund the deficit created.

However, in these unprecedented times, the surge in unemployment will mean large losses of membership for all the trade unions who affiliate to the Labour Party. In that the funding of the PLP may well be difficult to find by those trade unions and the knowledge that the financial crisis in the Labour party is very much self-inflicted will make any increase in the political levy subscription a difficult sell to their membership activists.

The best way forward many believe in the broader Labour movement would be to once more to bring the Parliamentary Labour Party back within the wider movement as a fully integrated sector of the movement.

The above would mean the closure of the Labour Parties Central Office and the merger of the General Secretaries office to within the TUC Headquarters.

The above would restore the Parliamentary Labour Party to its true roots and make huge savings in cost and bureaucracy.

It has to be faced that the Labour Party has not in reality been fit for purpose for more that fifteen years now and that has to be brought to an end.

MaizieD yes if it is considered that those individuals were working against the interests of the organisation that employed them. If the report had been published asap it could have been argued that there was no reason to leak the names but the amount of time it has taken it can be argued that it was in the Public interest because it made sure that the activities ceased. The failure of the LP to agree originally to submit it to the Anti-semitism inquiry and then not to suspend the people involved further strengthen the case. In trying to keep things quiet and friendly Starmer has actually reinforced the case for leaking things.

there is a good argument to be made concerning it being in the Public Interest and therefore exempt

What? Publishing people's names?

As I said, I've no particular problem with the report being leaked, but names?

As far as a breach of the Data Protection Act and the leaked report is concerned I would imagine that there is a good argument to be made concerning it being in the Public Interest and therefore exempt.The length of time it has taken to publish the report may add to that and increase the belief that it was vital for the public to know what was happening asap.
If Starmer imagines that by paying up he has somehow drawn a line under the anti-semitism row he is sadly deluded. Those who never believed the accusations in the first place and saw it as an attack upon Corbyn's support for Palestine will now be infuriated that party funds have been used to pay off (and therefore in the public's eyes acknowledge ) people they regard as biased.