Thread by @alexnunns

They decided that whether that staffer was or wasn't put there by the leadership for political reasons, "some people" perceived him to have been, and that undermined confidence in the independence of the complaints process.

That's very interesting because in June, when a new Executive Director of Legal Affairs was hired to oversee GLU, the press was told he was Starmer's "trusted ally," his "enforcer," and GLU staff should fear for their jobs.

Didn't that undermine the independence of GLU?

Bringing this back to Corbyn, on an all-staff call on Friday—perhaps stung by NEC members having disputed that the General Secretary even has the power to suspend—staff were told he'd consulted Starmer's reported "enforcer." Just can't escape the charge of political interference.

Meantime, Friday morning, Starmer made a further breach. Instead of not commenting on Jeremy's specific case, he mischaracterised what Jeremy said and branded it "denial." That could itself constitute political interference. It could prejudice an investigation.

Jeremy Corbyn didn't deny there's a problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, didn't say it was "just" exaggerated, and didn't say it was "just" factional. He said "Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong." Starmer knows that, of course.

All this leads to two conclusions:

1) Labour flouted the EHRC report on the day it was published. There was political interference. That appears to be unlawful indirect discrimination.

2) If I was in charge of Labour, I really wouldn't want to have to defend all this in court.

Annoyingly, two tweets in the above thread are showning as unavailable to most people (although I can see them - weird). Here's what they said.