Corbyn will never be Prime Minister

[ColinL]

Seahermit, you cite or complain about my 'long defence' of Mr Corbyn as being a rant, but later describe the must longer assertion of opinion by Richard describing it as a 'nicely informed summary'. You claim various things have been well documented. Merely because people claim things does not make them true and accurate.

I have responded to some 'facts'
Hodge's 200 Labour antisemites. False
Of those, only 20 were party members - that was before even considering if the allegations were proven

Corbyn a Czech spy. False.
He sued for libel and won against a Tory MP and gave the damages to charity

Corbyn disrepected the War dead and old soldiers by dancing at the Cenotaph. False
The Express or Sun had doctored the photograph which was in fact of him extending a hand of welcome to a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust. They retracted the manipulated photo from the website

UCU 'institutional antisemitism'. False
Judges complained that the claim was a misuse of the court time and an abuse of process

Corbyn sponsored more parliamentary motions of support of Jewish people than any other MPs
Corbyn fought to protect a Jewsish cemetery from building development

Readers will notice that you never attempt to rebut facts and evidence but accuse me of rant.
To paraphrase something else, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

[Richard]

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in May launched an investigation into whether the Labour Party has unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised Jews. It is expected to report its findings by the end of the year or early 2020.
Let's wait and see...

[seahermit]

Richard listed a number of factual events, statements by Jeremy Corbyn and other leading political figures, criticisms etc., all of which I remember and it was widely reported in the press and other media.

In what way are you trying to say that those events are, in your words, merely "opinion" and "not evidence" of some problem within the Labour party? Are you saying that none of it actually took place and we are just imagining it?! Hmm. Some double-talk going on here I feel and just the sort of bland denials of which some Labour leaders are being accused.

I am afraid I am not getting drawn into your rather complex argument about more obscure events, legal proceedings etc. Some of those people I have never even heard of, not helped by your usage of surnames only and no forenames, and it is impossible to assess the accuracy of your statements. But your outright denial that Labour is anything other than sweet and merely being maligned by propaganda induces in me a great feeling of mistrust regarding your "factual" statements.

[ColinL]

You do seem to be struggling now with fact to create an arguable position except by way of opinion. I have given you a legal case concerning alleged institutional antisemitism, of a type raised by Richard. You are content to accept allegations as proven, merely because it has been alleged.

The grounds, and the parties involved are exactly the same in both cases. Yet you don't want to get involved in 'obscure' and legal proceedings, but continue to propagate alleged problems.
Both of you have cited various things and you have also said that they are documented, but fail to identify what they are apart from a very juvenile claim of others that he cited Hamas as friends, or that he liked a picture (it looked like a group of bankers resting on the workers, was my first thought. The more serious things such as being a Czech spy or him showing disrepect at the Centoaph I have rebutted. I can give more verifable sources but you are not interested in legal cases and 'obscure' sources. The various other detailed things I cited in previous postings certainly outweigh things, yes opinions, cited of others

Berger left the Labour Party. She claimed she was bullied out. An opinion. She has not provided one single incident in which a party member has been accused of doing or saying anything to her that would constitute bullying. I have cited a right wing John Nimmo from Tyneside.Convicted. Is that too 'obscure' given that it was not a left wing person? No Labour person arrested simmilarly. Therefore opinion. Ms Berger had a police escort to the conference venue so in the public domain. She did not have a police escort in the conference centre, where presumably she would have been at risk of abuse from left wing people. That she needed an escort as opposed to wanted one (as against left wing people) is an opinion. I repeat to my knowledge there are no police or similar level complaints in her CLP or against, Ryan, or Ellman. MP, Siobhian McDonagh a close ally of Margaret Hodge wrote to me and said that in her 20 years in the party she has never witnessed an issue of antisemitsm in any party event. Yet she is convinced there is a problem. It is therefore an opinion. Not fact

Austin. Again he submitted his opinion but has not once given any evidence against Party members that would remotely pass any test of discrimination against Jewish people.

For your information the UCU case, which is not obscure is Fraser v UCU and the reference number was given above. It has been cited by several bodies as evidence in the submission the the EHRC, given that the grounds are the same in both cases. Read the case it might open your eyes. It is a long read but para 148 onwards are striking. Oh you are not interested in decisions on antisemitism.

The reference to Hodge is Margaret Hodge, previously referred to who claimed she had identified 200 antisemites. That was wholly false and therefore rebuts your contention of a serious problem.

I am waiting for the outcome of my own complaint to the Labour Party against Ian Austin for the abuse to me by email, besmircching my character.

I think that you want to believe that there is a serious problem, but that is only your opinion. It seems quite clear that you do not want to consider evidence and legal decisions and prefer to stick to allegations that are not challenged

[cbe]

ColinL - since you come across as the worst kind of barrack-room lawyer I have no intention of joining in with this thread apart to say, yet again, that anyone with the gall to defend Corbyn
is away with the fairies.

[seahermit]

Well said!

To ColinL:
The reasons that I am not getting involved in your complicated harangue about various obscure events and lesser-known people, some of whom I have never heard of, are:

(a) it simply does not matter. Life is too short to get side-tracked by a mass of minor details and it seems to be your way of evading a well-reasoned defence of the central and really important issue which was raised – namely Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party as a whole.

(b) You are looking very much like someone who has entrenched and rather intolerant (polite word) views and then rejects all known facts and well-reported events which contradict the picture you are trying to present.

I have nothing against you personally but I am afraid that I am bowing out of this, having no interest in your apparent love of argument just for argument’s sake, whether it makes sense or not.

[ColinL]

Cbe. You are entitled to your opinion.
I am a retired lawyer. and have experience in discrimination cases.
In case I have not posted this relevant court finding on 'opinion' & 'evidence', which will be relevant to the EHRC investigation and therefore this discussion, this is from the Fraser case

"148 An unsurprising consequence of bringing forward on behalf of the Claimant
a very large number of well-informed and independent-minded witnesses
(including some individuals of great distinction in their fields) largely for the
purpose of offering their opinions rather than giving evidence of facts, was that
disagreements emerged." Opinion and belief is not evidence.

Seahermit
No harangue or rant; your previous description, just applying facts of decisions about what constitues antisemitism and institutional antisemistism and what does not.

You suggest intolerance on my part, yet put out unsupported allegations of wrong doing on issues and refuse to debate relevant facts, describing them as obscure, when they do not suit your purpose.

Don't put up unsupported claims if you do not want them to be challenged

[Richard]

Labour’s attempts to tackle its anti-semitism crisis have recently been dealt a fresh blow after the lawyer in charge of dealing with the issue quit his job.
Gordon Nardell QC was only appointed the Labour party’s executive director of legal affairs a year ago and has since resigned.
A spokesperson for the Jewish Labour Movement said: “Gordon Nardell’s tenure as General Consel will be remarkable only for the absolute chaos and political manipulation within the Governance and Legal Unit that took place on his watch.
“The party leadership’s total failure to address anti-Jewish racism has led to the EHRC launching a statutory investigation into institutional racism. It is unsurprising that he has now resigned.
“The leadership must be held accountable for the culture of harassment, intimidation and causal racism that has gripped the party and follow Nardell’s example.

Legal challenges are a rather slippery slope at the best of times.
A letter from 'Carter-Ruck' (a fancy firm of solicitors) can be chilling if it is used by Labour to silence claims of antisemitism by one of its members.
In other words if a small entity accuses a bigger one of wrong-doing then the bigger entity can assemble a massive firepower of expensive lawyers to take the smaller entity to court.
This usually doesn't happen, the smaller one usually backs down first, worried about enormous costs involved.
Thankfully the EHRC cannot be intimidated thus.

[seahermit]

ColinL - the term lawyer can mean a number of things of course but I cannot resist saying that, if you were ever in an actual court, there must have been innumerable interjections both from judge and opposing counsel about long-winded obfuscation, irrelevant details, repetitiveness and side-issues as a way of evading the criticisms made of your argument.

Clear, simple, logical and totally accurate factual statements are what win debates. And court cases. I have been there a few times - not in handcuffs, I might add.

[Richard]

In Criminal (common) Law, a jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence, based on the jury's verdict.
Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates.
it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports.

The outcome of civil cases, where one party is found liable, is usually the awarding of compensation, while for criminal cases it’s conviction and punishment in the form of a custodial sentence, fine or community service for someone found guilty.