Thread by @SCynic1

A number of key admissions stand out from the leaked report:
1 On any view, the party was mired in antisemitism. When @JVoiceLabour denied that fact, it was lying. How they could be defended by any member of the NEC is extraordinary.
2 The approach to dealing with antisemitism

was, as Panorama said, political. In its rather transparent effort to divert blame, the report makes clear the decision to bypass @JewishLabour was a political one, taken by politicians at the top. It was justified by a “need” to consult the “widest range” of organisations within

the community. That, of course, equates the tiny fraction of acquiescent Jews with the vast majority of the community. That was deliberate.
3 There is an extraordinary reliance on the religion of people making decisions. It appears the authors of the report believe a decision

made by a Jew is, in some undefined way, defensible. That is utterly at odds with the report’s recognition that Jews are capable of antisemitism (for which they were suspended or expelled), & also that education was required to understand antisemitism. I can see why the lawyers

felt the submission of the report would not assist @UKLabour’s case with the EHRC. The intellectual errors & inconsistencies are glaring.
4 One explanation for this reliance on Jewish decision-makers is that much care was obviously taken to select Jews to key roles. It is bizarre

that a political party, ostensibly dedicated to anti racism, should even know the religion of applicants for particular posts. Another explanation is that the plan to use the Pears Institute at @BirkbeckUoL fell through. That left a seemingly unpalatable choice between JVL - too

political a move even for the leadership – & JLM - which was equally plainly unacceptable to that leadership.
5 What is clear is that the political leadership was utterly disinterested in working with the mainstream Jewish community. The report neither acknowledges nor addresses

this. Presumably, that is it because there is no satisfactory explanation, save that those in political control were not prepared to countenance the Jewish community being involved in fighting the racism against it.
6 there is the most enormous amount of tittle tattle of the

“Teacher, look at what Jacqui said about Mary” type. It adds very little, but it is noteworthy that what is supposed to be damning or supportive is quoted in full, whereas whatever does not suit the authors is summarised. That Is a trick with which any competent lawyer is both

instantly familiar, & of which they are instantly distrustful.
7 It is however clear that staff who distrusted politicians were capable of being extremely nasty about them. The extent to which that distrust is justified is not examined in the report, which assumes all politicians

supportive of the political leadership are good & those non-supportive are bad – & makes the same assumptions about staff members. Of course, that does not excuse unpleasant or insulting language.
8 The report is clearly intended to be sent to the EHRC. Any suggestion to the

contrary is plainly untrue.
9 Whilst purporting to conclude the previous administration was entirely at fault, the report plainly skimps on any details of the current administration’s behaviour. Nor can it absolve the political leadership, given the length of its stay at the top.

10 The overwhelming impression left by these, rather amateur, efforts is that the authors of the report don’t really care about antisemitism. Jews are a commodity, traded for political virtue & the avoidance of blame. The cringeworthy ending – “never again” – is vomitworthy.
End