| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue 13:18 - Nov 30 with 2082 views | GlasgowBlue |
|  |
| |  |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 13:19 - Nov 30 with 2060 views | chicoazul |
////books seat in thread |  |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 13:37 - Nov 30 with 1989 views | BlueBadger |
*puts kettle on* |  |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 19:55 - Nov 30 with 1731 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 13:19 - Nov 30 by chicoazul |
////books seat in thread |
Well this was disappointing… |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 07:28 - Dec 1 with 1558 views | Darth_Koont |
If you think like the Tweeter that this is “vindication” for the Panorama documentary then you’re clearly grasping at straws.
It’s a judgement on whether French can legitimately say Ware KNEW that it was a one-sided, shonky piece of journalism. But of course, proving Ware was intentionally biased in a court of law is a completely different story.
This is the level we’re at for the litigation from Ware and others. This isn’t actually about addressing the real weaknesses and false narrative that the Panorama documentary promoted, however intentional or unintentional.
Those failings have been exposed by the actual evidence. And I don’t see Ware or anyone else resolving that core issue but going after people’s opinions about motivation that are understandable but impossible to prove legally. That’s how defamation law works in the UK.
The Panorama documentary was poor journalism. Even at the time it was obvious that this was a factional battle and antisimitism was being weaponised but that doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by the programme makers. Even poorer is the lack of follow up when the actual primary evidence of how antisemitism was handled (or not handled in the case of some of the people who appeared on it saying that it was Corbyn and the Leadership’s fault instead!).
As you ducked the evidence lifted by the Forde report, Labour Leaks and the Al Jazeera Labour Files, here is the clearest evidence that the Panorama documentary, intentionally or not, presented a false picture of how antisemitism was or wasn’t being handled and by whom. The numbers of antisemitism complaints being handled goes up dramatically once Corbyn gets Jenny Formby in as general secretary and there is finally some control over the actions of Labour HQ staff.
This goes completely against what even sensible people and pundits had been led to believe and were saying at the time I.e. that they didn’t believe the line of attack that Corbyn was an antisemite but that he wasn’t handling antisemitism. I’ve heard that repeatedly on here but the factual evidence (as opposed to the accusatory narrative) almost totally contradicts that belief. Even the EHRC acknowledges that there was a huge increase in the cases being processed and actioned when Formby came in but unfortunately the majority of the time period they investigated was on McNicol’s watch.
I’m clearly not expecting you to applaud Corbyn and Formby for finally getting Labour to deal with the problem properly. But maybe stop pushing the Panorama narrative that you should now know to be inaccurate or at the very least flawed and as Martin Forde QC says “wholly misleading”. |  |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 07:42 - Dec 1 with 1536 views | Darth_Koont |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 07:28 - Dec 1 by Darth_Koont |
If you think like the Tweeter that this is “vindication” for the Panorama documentary then you’re clearly grasping at straws.
It’s a judgement on whether French can legitimately say Ware KNEW that it was a one-sided, shonky piece of journalism. But of course, proving Ware was intentionally biased in a court of law is a completely different story.
This is the level we’re at for the litigation from Ware and others. This isn’t actually about addressing the real weaknesses and false narrative that the Panorama documentary promoted, however intentional or unintentional.
Those failings have been exposed by the actual evidence. And I don’t see Ware or anyone else resolving that core issue but going after people’s opinions about motivation that are understandable but impossible to prove legally. That’s how defamation law works in the UK.
The Panorama documentary was poor journalism. Even at the time it was obvious that this was a factional battle and antisimitism was being weaponised but that doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by the programme makers. Even poorer is the lack of follow up when the actual primary evidence of how antisemitism was handled (or not handled in the case of some of the people who appeared on it saying that it was Corbyn and the Leadership’s fault instead!).
As you ducked the evidence lifted by the Forde report, Labour Leaks and the Al Jazeera Labour Files, here is the clearest evidence that the Panorama documentary, intentionally or not, presented a false picture of how antisemitism was or wasn’t being handled and by whom. The numbers of antisemitism complaints being handled goes up dramatically once Corbyn gets Jenny Formby in as general secretary and there is finally some control over the actions of Labour HQ staff.
This goes completely against what even sensible people and pundits had been led to believe and were saying at the time I.e. that they didn’t believe the line of attack that Corbyn was an antisemite but that he wasn’t handling antisemitism. I’ve heard that repeatedly on here but the factual evidence (as opposed to the accusatory narrative) almost totally contradicts that belief. Even the EHRC acknowledges that there was a huge increase in the cases being processed and actioned when Formby came in but unfortunately the majority of the time period they investigated was on McNicol’s watch.
I’m clearly not expecting you to applaud Corbyn and Formby for finally getting Labour to deal with the problem properly. But maybe stop pushing the Panorama narrative that you should now know to be inaccurate or at the very least flawed and as Martin Forde QC says “wholly misleading”. |
On an entirely related note, it wasn’t easy to find that graph online or any other presentation of the numbers of cases actually processed before and after the Labour right faction’s control of HQ was broken in 2018.
Our media is so rubbish at actual journalism. It’s in that vacuum that false, dangerous and ultimately anti-democratic narratives emerge. Arguably it’s this shortage of journalistic oversight that has really been fueling the sh1tshow that is UK politics. | |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 08:58 - Dec 1 with 1451 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 07:28 - Dec 1 by Darth_Koont |
If you think like the Tweeter that this is “vindication” for the Panorama documentary then you’re clearly grasping at straws.
It’s a judgement on whether French can legitimately say Ware KNEW that it was a one-sided, shonky piece of journalism. But of course, proving Ware was intentionally biased in a court of law is a completely different story.
This is the level we’re at for the litigation from Ware and others. This isn’t actually about addressing the real weaknesses and false narrative that the Panorama documentary promoted, however intentional or unintentional.
Those failings have been exposed by the actual evidence. And I don’t see Ware or anyone else resolving that core issue but going after people’s opinions about motivation that are understandable but impossible to prove legally. That’s how defamation law works in the UK.
The Panorama documentary was poor journalism. Even at the time it was obvious that this was a factional battle and antisimitism was being weaponised but that doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by the programme makers. Even poorer is the lack of follow up when the actual primary evidence of how antisemitism was handled (or not handled in the case of some of the people who appeared on it saying that it was Corbyn and the Leadership’s fault instead!).
As you ducked the evidence lifted by the Forde report, Labour Leaks and the Al Jazeera Labour Files, here is the clearest evidence that the Panorama documentary, intentionally or not, presented a false picture of how antisemitism was or wasn’t being handled and by whom. The numbers of antisemitism complaints being handled goes up dramatically once Corbyn gets Jenny Formby in as general secretary and there is finally some control over the actions of Labour HQ staff.
This goes completely against what even sensible people and pundits had been led to believe and were saying at the time I.e. that they didn’t believe the line of attack that Corbyn was an antisemite but that he wasn’t handling antisemitism. I’ve heard that repeatedly on here but the factual evidence (as opposed to the accusatory narrative) almost totally contradicts that belief. Even the EHRC acknowledges that there was a huge increase in the cases being processed and actioned when Formby came in but unfortunately the majority of the time period they investigated was on McNicol’s watch.
I’m clearly not expecting you to applaud Corbyn and Formby for finally getting Labour to deal with the problem properly. But maybe stop pushing the Panorama narrative that you should now know to be inaccurate or at the very least flawed and as Martin Forde QC says “wholly misleading”. |
Took a while, but the official statement has been disseminated from Momentum HQ… | | | |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 09:03 - Dec 1 with 1437 views | Cotty |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 07:28 - Dec 1 by Darth_Koont |
If you think like the Tweeter that this is “vindication” for the Panorama documentary then you’re clearly grasping at straws.
It’s a judgement on whether French can legitimately say Ware KNEW that it was a one-sided, shonky piece of journalism. But of course, proving Ware was intentionally biased in a court of law is a completely different story.
This is the level we’re at for the litigation from Ware and others. This isn’t actually about addressing the real weaknesses and false narrative that the Panorama documentary promoted, however intentional or unintentional.
Those failings have been exposed by the actual evidence. And I don’t see Ware or anyone else resolving that core issue but going after people’s opinions about motivation that are understandable but impossible to prove legally. That’s how defamation law works in the UK.
The Panorama documentary was poor journalism. Even at the time it was obvious that this was a factional battle and antisimitism was being weaponised but that doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by the programme makers. Even poorer is the lack of follow up when the actual primary evidence of how antisemitism was handled (or not handled in the case of some of the people who appeared on it saying that it was Corbyn and the Leadership’s fault instead!).
As you ducked the evidence lifted by the Forde report, Labour Leaks and the Al Jazeera Labour Files, here is the clearest evidence that the Panorama documentary, intentionally or not, presented a false picture of how antisemitism was or wasn’t being handled and by whom. The numbers of antisemitism complaints being handled goes up dramatically once Corbyn gets Jenny Formby in as general secretary and there is finally some control over the actions of Labour HQ staff.
This goes completely against what even sensible people and pundits had been led to believe and were saying at the time I.e. that they didn’t believe the line of attack that Corbyn was an antisemite but that he wasn’t handling antisemitism. I’ve heard that repeatedly on here but the factual evidence (as opposed to the accusatory narrative) almost totally contradicts that belief. Even the EHRC acknowledges that there was a huge increase in the cases being processed and actioned when Formby came in but unfortunately the majority of the time period they investigated was on McNicol’s watch.
I’m clearly not expecting you to applaud Corbyn and Formby for finally getting Labour to deal with the problem properly. But maybe stop pushing the Panorama narrative that you should now know to be inaccurate or at the very least flawed and as Martin Forde QC says “wholly misleading”. |
I'm just quietly curling up in a corner laughing to myself that one might think that a graph showing antisemitism suspensions going up during Corbyn's tenure is evidence that there was less antisemitism under Corbyn |  | | |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 09:36 - Dec 1 with 1368 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 09:03 - Dec 1 by Cotty |
I'm just quietly curling up in a corner laughing to myself that one might think that a graph showing antisemitism suspensions going up during Corbyn's tenure is evidence that there was less antisemitism under Corbyn |
Also the IRONY that these people have spent the last few years shouting ‘smears’, have now lost a number of cases where they’ve …erm.. smeared people. | | | |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 09:54 - Dec 1 with 1310 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 07:28 - Dec 1 by Darth_Koont |
If you think like the Tweeter that this is “vindication” for the Panorama documentary then you’re clearly grasping at straws.
It’s a judgement on whether French can legitimately say Ware KNEW that it was a one-sided, shonky piece of journalism. But of course, proving Ware was intentionally biased in a court of law is a completely different story.
This is the level we’re at for the litigation from Ware and others. This isn’t actually about addressing the real weaknesses and false narrative that the Panorama documentary promoted, however intentional or unintentional.
Those failings have been exposed by the actual evidence. And I don’t see Ware or anyone else resolving that core issue but going after people’s opinions about motivation that are understandable but impossible to prove legally. That’s how defamation law works in the UK.
The Panorama documentary was poor journalism. Even at the time it was obvious that this was a factional battle and antisimitism was being weaponised but that doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by the programme makers. Even poorer is the lack of follow up when the actual primary evidence of how antisemitism was handled (or not handled in the case of some of the people who appeared on it saying that it was Corbyn and the Leadership’s fault instead!).
As you ducked the evidence lifted by the Forde report, Labour Leaks and the Al Jazeera Labour Files, here is the clearest evidence that the Panorama documentary, intentionally or not, presented a false picture of how antisemitism was or wasn’t being handled and by whom. The numbers of antisemitism complaints being handled goes up dramatically once Corbyn gets Jenny Formby in as general secretary and there is finally some control over the actions of Labour HQ staff.
This goes completely against what even sensible people and pundits had been led to believe and were saying at the time I.e. that they didn’t believe the line of attack that Corbyn was an antisemite but that he wasn’t handling antisemitism. I’ve heard that repeatedly on here but the factual evidence (as opposed to the accusatory narrative) almost totally contradicts that belief. Even the EHRC acknowledges that there was a huge increase in the cases being processed and actioned when Formby came in but unfortunately the majority of the time period they investigated was on McNicol’s watch.
I’m clearly not expecting you to applaud Corbyn and Formby for finally getting Labour to deal with the problem properly. But maybe stop pushing the Panorama narrative that you should now know to be inaccurate or at the very least flawed and as Martin Forde QC says “wholly misleading”. |
In the interests of board harmony I'm going to let this one lie. | |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 09:54 - Dec 1 with 1314 views | Darth_Koont |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 09:03 - Dec 1 by Cotty |
I'm just quietly curling up in a corner laughing to myself that one might think that a graph showing antisemitism suspensions going up during Corbyn's tenure is evidence that there was less antisemitism under Corbyn |
Is that what you really think I’m saying? That this is evidence of antisemitism going down under Corbyn?
No. It’s evidence that antisemitism wasn’t handled particularly well by anyone in Labour until control of Labour HQ was wrested away from the very faction and individuals like McNicol that were making the biggest accusations about antisemitism not being taken seriously.
Jeez, Cotty. I thought you were a LOT better than this. | |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 10:01 - Dec 1 with 1300 views | Darth_Koont |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 09:54 - Dec 1 by GlasgowBlue |
In the interests of board harmony I'm going to let this one lie. |
Gmpf. Who do you think is buying that?
It’s nothing to do with “board harmony” as you posted the OP in the first place. This is you just never dealing with the evidence. | |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 10:12 - Dec 1 with 1259 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 10:01 - Dec 1 by Darth_Koont |
Gmpf. Who do you think is buying that?
It’s nothing to do with “board harmony” as you posted the OP in the first place. This is you just never dealing with the evidence. |
You are entitled to that view. But I'm sure Phil doesn't want another Corbynfest on here and on reflection that's how this thread will go if we continue to bat it back and forwards to each other.
With regards to your two replies; the thread wasn't about how quickly the complaints were dealt with or which 'faction' in the party was at fault.
It was about John Ware successfully suing people who have defamed him as being dishonest and Islamophobic. | |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 11:17 - Dec 1 with 1168 views | SpruceMoose |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 10:01 - Dec 1 by Darth_Koont |
Gmpf. Who do you think is buying that?
It’s nothing to do with “board harmony” as you posted the OP in the first place. This is you just never dealing with the evidence. |
Phil is on the lookout for this kind of baiting now. I agree with him and Bloots. No need for it.
|  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 11:17 - Dec 1 with 1167 views | Darth_Koont |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 10:12 - Dec 1 by GlasgowBlue |
You are entitled to that view. But I'm sure Phil doesn't want another Corbynfest on here and on reflection that's how this thread will go if we continue to bat it back and forwards to each other.
With regards to your two replies; the thread wasn't about how quickly the complaints were dealt with or which 'faction' in the party was at fault.
It was about John Ware successfully suing people who have defamed him as being dishonest and Islamophobic. |
No, but of course you dodgily framed it as vindication of the Panorama documentary and that this is the epilogue that puts that to bed.
No it doesn’t. Not even close.
But I think you know all this. | |
| |
| And quite rightly too…. on 11:36 - Dec 1 with 1122 views | Bloots |
| Panorama? Or Tunnel Vision? - The Epilogue on 11:17 - Dec 1 by SpruceMoose |
Phil is on the lookout for this kind of baiting now. I agree with him and Bloots. No need for it.
|
….this place has gone downhill rapidly in the last couple of weeks.
Well said Sprucers!! |  |
| "He's been a really positive influence on my life, I think he's a great man" - TWTD User (May 2025) |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
