Thread by @AdamWagner1

1/ Reading this and trying to be fair - I see a lot of words, but also a lot of obfuscation which hardly fills me with confidence.

Remember, the criticisms of Labour processes have been that they are slow, opaque and politically biased. So that's the context.

(short thread)

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1092468882235891712

General points:
- No figures
- No timescales
That means most of this is essentially meaningless. Though it sounds encouraging when you first read it, it kind of dissolves into platitudes on a second reading.

Reminds me of bad government dept statements in judicial review cases

- "We have nearly completed the process of recruitment" - how many? By when?
- "advised by an independent specialist barrister"

Who? How appointed?
Independent like Gordon Nardell QC or someone with no links to the party and no previous prejudicial statements on antisemitism?

- "have enabled us to clear all of the previously outstanding antisemitism cases from the investigation and disputes panel stages of the process"

What does this mean? Is there more of the process?

- "Where appropriate, cases have been referred to the NCC". Why?

How many? What does this mean?

- "The NCC is now establishing a greater number of hearing panels".

What does "now establishing" mean? How many? When?

- "The NEC established a Procedures Working Group to lead reforms to the way disciplinary cases are handled."

Who is on this? What are they doing?

- "I wrote to the admins and moderators of a range of Facebook groups..."

Has this led to responses? Has it been followed up? Why has the Party not participated in @PeoplesMomentum's various call outs of antisemitic pro-Corbyn FB groups?

- "there is strict scrutiny at all levels to ensure decisions are taken based on the full facts and merits of each case."

What does this mean?
By whom?
At which levels?
Who supervises?
Is a record kept?
How to prevent this leading to political interference?

- "party already has robust safeguarding and member welfare policies which govern how the party responds – including by disclosing information to the authorities – where material comes to light revealing a threat to a person’s safety"

Where are these policies? Why did they fail?

(here is the full para in its obfuscatory glory)

- "We have cleared outstanding cases from the other stages of our processes, and the NCC must do the same"

This needs figures. If the NCC is the final stage then the backlog hasn't been cleared. No victims are interested in a complaint which has gone through part of the process

- "I am committed to implementing a world-class education programme on antisemitism"

How? Who? When?

This was recommended over 2 years ago by Chakrabarti and Royall, what's going on?

Remember these are the questions which have been put - and none has been satisfactorily answered.

Simply, there are no specifics here at all.