The Jewish Chronicle reports that Shami Chakrabarti’s enquiry had access to the results of the Royall inquiry into Oxford University Labour Club and is failing to document whether she’d seen it. They major on the fact that Royall discovered evidence of acts of anti-semitism at Oxford University Labour Club but Royall descoped individual acts from her report as she stated she believed that the Party or University’s disciplinary code should be invoked. She (Royall) also argues for more training and is confused as to how far back people should be investigated for evidence of anti-semitism.

My red line is that the Labour Party must not put its disciplinary process in between a perpetrator and the police and courts. I think the language the rules use around culprits of electoral fraud, which is non-compromising should be used and her argument that there should be no statute of limitations is also unacceptable to me.


0 thoughts on “Consequences

  • 2nd November 2016 at 9:11 am

    We find out later, noting that the NEC enquiry did not, that of the two main perpetrators of anti-semitism in Oxford Labour Students, one has left the Labour Party, and the second been expelled and referred to the police.

  • 2nd November 2016 at 9:16 am

    I had reason to look up the rules on opposing electoral fraud and sanctioning members found guilty of it, My interest was aroused after the Labour Party was fined for failing to accurately account for its national election expenses, and I discovered that the rule is in the candidates section of the rules. Mind you if freeze dates can bleed from Candidates to Officers, I don’t see why zero-tolerance for electoral fraud shouldn’t also be applied to Officers.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: