The 57 questions that the Labour Party asked in the letter that suspended me — for the third time — at 8.41pm on Monday, July 20 2020
Q1 Please see the evidence attached overleaf. The Party has reason to believe that these are your social media and email accounts. Can you confirm this is the case?
My answer: Yes.
Q2 The Party further has reason to believe that you posted or shared these statements yourself. Can you confirm this is the case? If not, each individual piece of evidence is numbered so please specify which of the pieces of evidence you are disputing posting or sharing?
My answer: This is the case.
Q3 Please explain the reason for writing “The state of Israel is a racist endeavour. And always has been.”
My answer: I believe it to be true.
Q4 Paragraph 12 of the Antisemitism Code of Conduct states “the Party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.” Do you believe the tweet in Item 1 is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: The statement is incontrovertibly compatible with Paragraph 12 of the code. Anyone thinking it is not must be very confused in their thinking. The statement relates to the state of Israel and has no bearing on the code’s statement about “the Jewish people” or any right of “the Jewish people” to self-determination.
Q5 The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism lists “denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” as a contemporary example of antisemitism in public life. What is your response to the allegation that the tweet in Item 1 is an example of contemporary antisemitism?
My answer: My initial response — after pausing to wonder how “contemporary antisemitism” differs from antisemitism (ie hatred of Jewish people for being Jewish) — is to point out that the tweet does not at all address the issue of the “existence” of “a” state of Israel; it tweets the opinion/fact that the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and always has been.
More importantly, I would point out that the deeply-flawed IHRA “working definition” lists examples whose meaning depends on context. The context —and the wording — of the statement relates to “the” state of Israel, its nature, and its history. Not its existence as a state.
These precise issues were addressed — and adjudicated on — when I was the target of a remarkably-similar fabricated allegation in 2018. I am sure the Labour Party has its own records, but I append below the relevant findings of the National Constitutional Committee (NCC) panel that definitively rejected the allegation that I was an anti-Semite in its findings and immediately unsuspended me after a two-day hearing in February 2019.
Specifically, the three-person panel noted “there was no evidence of antisemitism in any of your conduct considered by them”.
Q1 Please explain the reason for writing “Surely you agree that the state of Israel is a racist endeavour. And always has been.”
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q2 Paragraph 12 of the Antisemitism Code of Conduct states “the Party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.” Do you believe the tweet in Item 2 is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q3 The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism lists “denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” as a contemporary example of antisemitism in public life. What is your response to the allegation that the tweet in Item 2 is an example of contemporary antisemitism?
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q4 Please explain the reason for writing “P.S. The state of Israel is a racist endeavour. And always has been.”
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q5 Paragraph 12 of the Antisemitism Code of Conduct states “the Party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.” Do you believe the tweet in Item 3 is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q6 The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism lists “denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” as a contemporary example of antisemitism in public life. What is your response to the allegation that the tweet in Item 3 is an example of contemporary antisemitism?
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q7 Please explain the reason for writing “The well is poisoned by Euan Philipps and Edward Crask”?
My answer: I regularly use this metaphor in the context of how political discourse within the Labour Party has been (deliberately) polluted by false arguments, fake allegations, and fabricated charges against party members who have never been found guilty by way of the party’s (self-avowedly confidential) disciplinary processes.
I use the metaphor in a spirit of optimism, in the belief that the voices of the vast majority of party members have the strength to dilute — and even drown out — the shocking, libellous and undemocratic behaviour of people such as Mr Philipps and Mr Crask.
Q8 Paragraph 9.b of the Antisemitism Code of Conduct lists “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews” as an example of conduct likely to be regarded as antisemitism. Do you believe that your use of the phrase “the well is poisoned” is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: I cannot at all see the relevance of the question (leaving aside whether or not Mr Philipps and Mr Crask are Jewish: Mr Philips, a leading figure in the self-styled hate network called Labour Against Anti-Semitism (LAAS), says he is not Jewish and is not a member of the Labour Party; I have no knowledge of Mr Crask beyond his public comments and actions).
In my political life, I prefer to focus on anti-Semitism rather than semantics.
But since you ask, let me explain that my use of this metaphor is rooted in my passion for Ancient Greece, since studying Literae Humaniores as a scholar at Oxford in the 1970s.
In particular, I remember fondly the work of Thucydides and his History of the Peloponnesian War. You will recall how Thucydides reported that the Peloponnesians, during the war against the Athenians, poisoned the wells of their enemies (resulting, it is thought, in the devastating plague in 429–426 BCE); he also reported that, in areas where there were no wells, they poisoned reservoirs.
One of my tutors at Oxford was the unforgettable Peter Levi, a former Jesuit priest. I cannot be sure, but I think it may have been Professor Levi who taught me about the original use of “poisoning the well” — in the sense of a special case of an ad hominem argument — by John Henry Newman (later Cardinal Newman, recently canonised as a saint, and a keen reader of Thucydides) in his 1864 work Apologia Sua Vita.
As we all know, “poisoning the well” now commonly refers to a type of informal fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
Q9 Do you think this is an appropriate metaphor to use in a tweet relating to the suspension of a member due to allegations of antisemitism?
My answer: I think it is a near-perfect metaphor in the way I used it, in the context of ill-intentioned and unproven allegations made against an individual — in this case, a black woman — being used to discredit someone who had been selected to stand to represent the Labour Party in a city council election.
Q10 Please explain the reason for writing “Peter Kyle and his supporters have poisoned the well of democratic debate in Brighton and Hove”?
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
All I would add is that Mr Kyle — who, insofar as you seem to think it is relevant, is not Jewish — had publicly accused Chris Williamson, then the Labour MP for Derby North, of “jew-baiting”, thus ensuring that the Brighthelm Centre, a public venue, cancelled a meeting at which Mr Williamson was scheduled to discuss Modern Monetary Theory. Mr Kyle told The Argus newspaper: “I made my views known — our city should not be a welcoming place for people who bait the Jewish community or sow seeds of division.”
Q11 Paragraph 9.b of the Antisemitism Code of Conduct lists “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews” as an example of conduct likely to be regarded as antisemitism. Do you believe that your use of the phrase “poisoned the well” is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q12 Do you think that this is an appropriate metaphor to use in response to a tweet related to antisemitism?
My answer: I think it is a near-perfect metaphor in the way I used it, in the context of ill-intentioned and unproven allegations made against an individual — in this case, a member of Parliament — being used to discredit someone who had represented the Labour Party and his Derby North constituents in the House of Commons. To “no-platform” an MP who has never been found guilty of any wrongdoing — neither by Parliament, nor by the Labour Party — is deeply disturbing. In brief, it recalls the era of McCarthyism.
Q13 Please explain the reason for promoting a demonstration against the adoption of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism by Brighton and Hove Council?
My answer: Item 5 does not relate to any demonstration against the adoption of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism by Brighton and Hove City Council. I assume your question refers to Items 6 and 7.
Item 6 is self-explanatory. My question — about what would happen to a council employee who stated a belief that Israel was a racist endeavour — never elicited an answer. Would they be sacked or disciplined? Perhaps the Labour Party and its officers can provide a response?
Item 7 is more straightforward. It means what it says about the demonstration by fellow members of Momentum against the adoption of a deeply-flawed “working definition” — without debate, without consultation, and with no regard to justice.
Finally, I note Items 6 and 7 are dated October 18 2018 — four months before I was unsuspended following a hearing about these and related matters by an NCC panel (see above). I am uncertain why they are again being raised now.
Q14 Paragraph 4 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Antisemitism and other forms of racism says that “any behaviour or language that… undermines Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of racism, is unacceptable conduct within the Labour Party.” Do you believe the tweets in Items 5 and 6 (sic) are compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: I assume you again refer to Items 6 and 7. I believe not to oppose the “working definition” would severely undermine Labour’s ability to campaign against racism.
Regardless, it is inconceivable to think that two tweets by a lay-member of the Labour Party undermines the party’s ability to campaign on, about, or against anything.
Q15 Please explain the reason that you were campaigning in a local election for a suspended candidate?
My answer: Items 8, 9, 10 and 11 are evidence I campaigned for the two Labour Party members selected to stand as Labour Party candidates in Wish Ward in the May 2019 elections to Brighton and Hove City Council. They were both described on the Notice of Poll, on ballot papers, and at the count in the Declaration of Result as Labour Party candidates (see below).
My main reason, however, was that both party members — Adam Imanpour and Alex Braithwaite — are BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) comrades whose loyalty to the democratic socialist values of the Labour Party are beyond question.
I was never formally told either was suspended. Indeed, how could I have been — since, as your letter emphasises: “The Labour Party’s investigation process operates confidentially.”?
I was delighted that Alex Braithwaite — a black woman — came within 146 votes of winning in Wish Ward. A black woman, in Hove CLP! A black woman as a Labour councillor on Brighton and Hove City Council!
With more support for Alex, her victory would have been a historic step forward for our party.
Furthermore, I was delighted my support for Adam Imanpour helped to encourage him to stand subsequently as the parliamentary candidate in my own Brighton Pavilion CLP in the December 2019 general election.
Q16 Paragraph 4 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Antisemitism and other forms of racism says that “any behaviour or language that… undermines Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of racism, is unacceptable conduct within the Labour Party.” Do you believe that campaigning for a candidate that is suspended is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: I cannot see how supporting a black woman who is a Labour Party member selected by the Labour Party to stand as a Labour Party candidate can be construed as racism.
Separately, however, can you tell me what the candidate you refer to was suspended for some 16 months ago — and what was the outcome of the disciplinary hearing that considered the allegation?
Q17 Please explain the reason for organising this event.
My answer: In response to many requests by Labour Party members in Brighton and Hove, I knew a Labour Party member who was a Member of Parliament — and who was also a socialist — would have something interesting to contribute to the discussion among party colleagues about a socialist economy.
Q18 The email Item 12 states that “members and supporters of the Labour Party… are delighted to welcome Chis again to our city.” Was this event organised on behalf of the Labour Party?
My answer: No. I organised it.
Q19 Please explain the reason that you invited a member that was administratively suspended to speak at this event.
My answer: I thought a Labour Party member who was a Member of Parliament — and who was also a socialist — might have something interesting to contribute to the discussion among party colleagues about a socialist economy.
Am I not allowed to invite people who are administratively suspended — unlawfully, as it turned out! — to speak at public events? Why not? Surely that would recall the era of McCarthyism.
Q20 Please explain the reason that an auction was due to be held for a cartoon that the Guardian refused to publish?
My answer: I have no direct knowledge of — or concern about — the editorial decisions of The Guardian newspaper. Steve Bell, one of our greatest cartoonists, is a family friend. The auction — when it eventually went ahead — raised hundreds of pounds to spread the socialist message of the Labour Party, its then leader, and its members.
Q21 Paragraph 4 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Antisemitism and other forms of racism says that “any behaviour or language that… undermines Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of racism, is unacceptable conduct within the Labour Party.” Do you believe your conduct, such as auctioning the Steve Bell cartoon, is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: I can see no connection whatsoever between your question and Steve Bell’s work as a cartoonist. If I am missing something, can you educate me? Do you think his work is anti-Semitic? Why? How?
Q22 Paragraph 12 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “we should not give voice to those who persistently engage in abuse and should avoid sharing their content.” Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: Yes. Neither Chris Williamson nor Steve Bell have persistently engaged in abuse. If you think otherwise, I suggest you get in touch with them (or perhaps their lawyers).
Q23 A number of people have stated that they received an invitation to this event without giving you permission to use or process their data. Please explain where you obtained the data for promoting this event?
My answer: It is difficult to be specific, without you telling me the names of the complainants. I know how seriously the Labour Party takes data protection; hence my multiple complaints to you about the multiple breaches relating to my suspension (none of which has yet been addressed).
I note that Item 12 relates to an invitation to “Darryl”. I have looked through the data relating to people who have signed up to Eventbrite events organised by me for more than five years and I can see at least one “Darryl” who volunteered his data to me in February 2018, some 18 months before the event related in Item 12.
I am happy to conduct further investigations if you provide the necessary information.
Q24 Please explain the reason for organising this event.
My answer: I think the event details contained in Item 14 are self-explanatory. The event was organised against the backdrop of nascent McCarthyism in the Labour Party and beyond: the stifling of free speech about the state of Israel; the suspension and/or expulsion of party members, without due process, on the basis of personal opinions; and demands that party members who are “administratively suspended” should be discredited, shunned, and hounded on the basis of libellous or slanderous — and unproven — allegations by unnamed complainants.
I am sure you will agree that is a good enough reason to organise a meeting about freedom of speech.
Q25 Please explain why two members that were administratively suspended and two members who had been expelled from the Labour Party were invited to speak?
My answer: Why do you ask? Why should I answer?
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers relating to McCarthyism already given.
Q26 Please explain the reason that an auction was due to be held for a cartoon that the Guardian refused to publish?
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q27 Paragraph 4 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Antisemitism and other forms of racism says that “any behaviour or language that… undermines Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of racism, is unacceptable conduct within the Labour Party.” Do you believe your conduct, such as auctioning the Steve Bell cartoon, is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q28 Paragraph 12 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “we should not give voice to those who persistently engage in abuse and should avoid sharing their content.” Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answers already given.
Q29 A number of people have stated that they received an invitation to this event without giving you permission to use or process their data. Please explain where you obtained the data for promoting this event?
For reasons of time and clarity, I refer you to the answer already given.
I note that Item 14 relates to an invitation to “Janet”. I have looked through the data relating to people who have signed up to Eventbrite events organised by me for more than five years and I can see at least one “Janet” who volunteered her data to me in February 2018, some 18 months before the event related in Item 12.
Q30 Please explain the reason for sending this email.
My answer: The email was sent to Bob Glaberson, someone I have seen occasionally and intermittently at meetings of Patcham Branch Labour Party; he is the current secretary of what is now known as Hollingbury and Patcham Labour Party.
Your evidence omits the subject line of my email: Kyle intervention at Brighthelm Centre followed by the threats and abuse at Holiday Inn and Friends’ Meeting House
At a branch meeting the previous evening, Mr Glaberson appeared ignorant of the awful threats and abuse suffered by staff at venues in Brighton and Hove as a result of Mr Kyle’s reference to Chris Williamson MP and “jew-baiting”.
None of us in the branch meeting wanted to take up time with a discussion of all the details (which were well-known to many of us), so I sent him the email, with links to my two articles: here and here.
Q31 Please explain what you meant by “your allies” and “the people you align yourself with.”
My answer: I tried to make this clear in the email, when I referred to “Sussex Friends of Israel, Jewish Representative Council, Labour Against Anti-Semitism etc.”
Below is a photograph of Mr Glaberson (aligned third from the left) aligning himself with some of his allies, trying to prevent an MP and Labour Party member from addressing a public meeting:
Q32 A number of people were blind copied into this email. Please explain how many people you blind copied and why.
My answer: For data-protection reasons, I used “blind-copying” to conceal their personal email addresses. There were six other Labour Party members — all but one of them Patcham branch officers, I think — who were interested in the free-speech issues raised.
The use of blind-copying was important, because I recall Mr Glaberson — from 2007 to 2011 — was in the habit of sending out unsolicited emails (his idiosyncratic so-called “updates” about Iran and, occasionally, about Egypt) to me and other party members. I can provide many examples.
Q33 The Bullying and Harassment Policy lists “repeated statements to an individual or third parties, which demean his/her status e.g. copying emails that are critical about someone to others who do not need to know” as an example of unacceptable behaviour. Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: Leaving aside how you know I blind-copied some people, I am baffled by the question. No statements were repeated; nothing in the email was demeaning or critical. I think I have given an adequate explanation.
Q34 Please explain the reason for posting these tweets and Facebook status?
My answer: The three items relate to tweets posted on August 27 2019. They followed the threats and abuse — triggered by Mr Kyle’s successful intervention to “no-platform” a fellow MP and Labour Party colleague at the Brighthelm Centre (see above)— received by staff at other replacement venues (Holiday Inn Brighton and Friends’ Meeting House).
As a result of Holiday Inn staff being called “cunts” by Mr Kyle’s supporters and Friends’ Meeting House staff being warned Sussex Police could not guarantee their safety, a public meeting was ultimately held outdoors — at some personal risk to Chris Williamson — in Regency Square, Brighton, on August 8 2019 (see above).
It took a long face-to-face discussion with Chief Inspector Nicholas Dias, of Sussex Police, for me to understand how opponents of the public meeting could have established it was going to be moved to the Friends’ Meeting House, when only a handful of trusted people knew this to be the case, and then to be moved again to Regency Square, when only one person other than me knew this to be the case.
I am as certain as I can be that some “bad actors” had been tracking my mobile phone. I outlined the evidence in the article I mentioned previously.
As a result, those wishing to “no-platform” Mr Williamson — including one with a criminal conviction for aggressive, bullying behaviour — knew I had visited Friends’ Meeting House in the days after the Holiday Inn Brighton was forced to cancel my booking (following the verbal abuse by telephone and email — “cunts” etc — and following a visit to reception of two men who asked if they knew Mr Williamson was “an anti-Semite”).
Most significantly, these people knew within minutes of a site visit by me — just three hours before the meeting was due to start on Thursday, August 8— that I had finalised Regency Square as the ultimate venue.
Only one person other than me — a trusted friend and comrade — knew this to be the case.
I then discovered that an anonymous “troll” account on Twitter — subsequently restricted by Twitter for “suspicious activity” and then suspended permanently — had tweeted my mobile phone number in a public tweet that “mentioned” former Labour councillor Julie Cattell, who is known to be an informant in the appalling #GnasherJew online network.
I do not wish to say any more about this until the Forde Inquiry established by Sir Keir Starmer publishes its report. In addition, lawyers claiming to represent Ms Cattell — and others in the #GnasherJew network — have taken action to keep her role secret.
Q35 The Bullying and Harassment Policy lists “written harassment through gossip and slander” as an example of unacceptable behaviour. Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: The three tweets in the space of a couple of hours do not contain “gossip” or “slander” (or a libel) about any named individual. They highlighted for the record that someone — clearly nefarious — had tweeted my mobile phone number and had drawn Ms Cattell’s attention to it. For what reason, I do not know.
Q36 Please explain the reason for calling Peter Kyle MP a “liar” and a “disgrace”?
My answer: In this instance, Mr Kyle’s lies related to him trying to distance himself (and his successful — and disgraceful — “no-platform” pressure on the Brighthelm Centre) from the terrible abuse and threats that followed. Including by Labour Party members known to be close to Mr Kyle, personally and politically.
The biggest lie, however, was when Mr Kyle — after visiting Holiday Inn Brighton and speaking to its operations manager— publicly and repeatedly claimed there had been no intimidation (see below for an email Mr Kyle sent to a constituent). I subsequently showed Mr Kyle’s email to the operations manager, who was adamant it was impossible anything he had said to Mr Kyle could be interpreted in such a way. Quite the opposite. Mr Kyle had deliberately told an untruth, while having reason to know it to be untrue. He lied.
Q37 Paragraph 8 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that it is “perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour.” Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: I am an ordinary citizen who sought to organise a public meeting — featuring an MP — in the constituency in which I live. Mr Kyle, is a high-profile politician in a neighbouring constituency who used his power and influence to try to “no-platform” a fellow MP and Labour Party member. If anyone is a bully, it is Mr Kyle.
Q38 Please explain the reason for sending these tweets.
My answer: All four tweets posted in March and April 2018 were dealt with at my NCC hearing in February 2019 (see above). I cannot add anything beyond what was discussed at the two-day hearing.
Q39 The Bullying and Harassment Policy lists “written harassment through derogatory remarks, jokes, insults, offensive language, gossip, spreading malicious rumours and slander” as an example of unacceptable behaviour. Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: Please see the answer above.
Q40 Please explain the reason for sending this tweet.
My answer: I believe it is self-explanatory. I had attended several public meetings — including a husting for Sir Keir Starmer and a Sussex Friends of Israel meeting — which some or all the people named attended.
At both of these (and at other meetings in the past), one or other of those named had immediately asked some question about the Labour Party’s “anti-Semitism” crisis. I was curious to see which one would raise it and when. In fact, it was the chair, Emma Daniel.
At the meeting, during which I did not speak, I was directly lambasted by Mr Crask (“You’re an absolute disgrace”), and by Ms Daniel (“He has never been a friend of the Labour Party”). The biggest criticism, however, came from Ms Teddern, who voiced her concerns with obvious emotion; she seemed particularly upset that my tweet included quotation marks.
Q41 Please explain what you meant when you wrote “I’m wondering how quickly the antisemitism crisis will be raised”?
My answer: Please see the answer to Q40 above.
Q42 Please explain the reason for naming these individuals?
My answer: Please see the answer to Q40 above.
Q43 Please explain the reason for sending these tweets?
My answer: Please see my next substantive answer to Q48 below.
Q44 The Bullying and Harassment Policy lists “written harassment through derogatory remarks, jokes, insults, offensive language, gossip, spreading malicious rumours and slander” as an example of unacceptable behaviour. Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: Please see my next substantive answer to Q48 below.
Q45 Please explain the reason for writing “So far, only 40,000 people have seen this. Why not become #40,001”?
My answer: Please see my next substantive answer to Q48 below.
Q46 Please explain the reason for writing “Euan Philipps = Ugh!”
My answer: Please see my next substantive answer to Q48 below.
Q47 Please explain the reason for writing “Mr Philipps is particularly cowardly”?
My answer: Please see my next substantive answer to Q48 below.
Q48 Paragraph 8 of the NEC Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that it is “perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour.” Do you believe your conduct is compatible with this code of conduct? If so, please explain why.
My answer: Please regard this a substantive answer to the previous six questions (Q43 to Q48).
This is the most important answer I have to offer in this particular 57-question inquisition.
It contains a much-truncated summary of everything I have found out about the concerted efforts by a small group of individuals to subvert deliberately the Labour Party — from within and without — after the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader in September 2015.
Inevitably, I have to save many of the details until — and/or after — any NCC hearing or NEC decision.
Euan Philipps is — and has been — an unlikely pivotal character in what is tantamount to the concerted subversion of one of the world’s greatest political parties. I say unlikely because by all accounts he is an inadequate, stumbling, bumbling mediocrity. It is difficult to believe he has achieved what he has achieved without the help of other individuals and organisations that lurk in the shadows, both at home and abroad.
You have, I hope, read my article — referred to in Item 28 and 29 — headlined: REVEALED: The Labour Party activists behind the “anti-semitism” smears.
Let me, however, begin at the beginning.
On October 27 2017, I had been suspended by the Labour Party for almost exactly a year. I had been invited in January 2017 to a preliminary interview by the now-infamous Sam Matthews, then the Labour Party’s head of disputes, during which all the questions and evidence focused on my exposure of the “spitting” lies of Cllr Warren Morgan — at the time leader of the minority Labour administration on Brighton and Hove City Council. You can read more here.
I was, therefore, shocked to see that I was named by the self-styled Labour Against Anti-Semitism (LAAS) — a front, as I discovered later, for Euan Philipps.
In this tweet (see above), I was categorised along with Jackie Walker, Tony Greenstein, and Ken Livingstone — all of whom were reportedly being accused of “anti-Semitism”.
Mr Philipps never responded to my reply: “Are you implying — or suggesting you think/know — I have been accused of anti-semitism? Can we chat about it.”
By October 2017, of course, I already knew that it was nonsense to claim, as the the Labour Party still does: “The Labour Party’s investigation process operates confidentially.”
As the NCC panel at my hearing in February 2019 learned, I had already been the target of five defamatory and profoundly-inaccurate articles in Private Eye, some of which were clearly based on data breaches by the party, its officers, and its members.
Significantly, none of the articles — authored by Nick “Ratbiter” Cohen, of The Observer — suggested in any way at all that an allegation of “anti-Semitism” was the cause of my suspension.
I believe Mr Philipps, in his desire to discover “anti-Semitism” at almost every turn, made a mistake. He accidentally lumped my name in with others who had been traduced — without proof — as “anti-Semites”.
It was, however, too late. As my article discloses, my life became hell.
I was subjected to a tsunami of abusive tweets — 344 in 48 hours (including re-tweets and “likes”) — from a total of 56 people. None of whom I knew or had even followed on Twitter; between them, their Twitter followers numbered nearly 90,000.
It was not long before I discovered that Mr Philipps was a Labour Party member. Indeed, I was appalled to find out he was chair of Tonbridge and Malling CLP and that his online activities — which included a myriad alternative personae — were unknown to his fellow CLP officers and members.
I complained to Amy Fode, then Labour’s southeast regional director, to no avail; bizarrely, she said I could not make a complaint against someone not in CLP. I communicated my concerns to Tonbridge and Malling CLP, which eventually resulted in Mr Philipps resigning as chair and ultimately resigning from the Labour Party.
I find it puzzling — and upsetting — that I now have to revisit such unpleasant experiences caused by someone who has worked tirelessly against a party of which he is no longer a member.
Over the years, I have identified other individuals in what is known as the #GnasherJew network, an online network of hateful individuals about whom the the most senior Labour Party officials have been aware.
Not only have these officials turned a blind eye to — and even indulged — Mr Philipps, the LAAS, and #GnasherJew, they have also pursued disciplinary action against many excellent party colleagues targeted by Mr Philipps et al. Consequently, in Brighton and Hove alone, 21 of us have appeared on the hateful “Labour Anti-Semitism Mapping Project”, which appears to identify our home addresses.
This has usually occurred after data breaches by the Labour Party, its officers, and members — or after prejudicial and inaccurate media reports consequent upon such breaches. In my case, this has happened on at least three occasions.
In short, I have been accused repeatedly — including by diehard anti-socialist Labour Party members in my own city — of being an anti-Semite. All as a result of Mr Philipps’s “accidental” error in October 2017.
Strangely, I was eventually charged with “anti-Semitism” (as mentioned above), following two tweets in August 2018 — some 20 months after I had been suspended.
I append again below the relevant findings of the National Constitutional Committee panel that definitively rejected the allegation that I was an anti-Semite in its findings and immediately unsuspended me after a two-day hearing in February 2019.
Specifically, the three-person panel noted “there was no evidence of antisemitism in any of your conduct considered by them”.
Against this background, let me address your questions specifically:
In Item 25, in November 2017, I responded to a bizarre request from @GnasherJew, to provide “answers to our questions”. It came as I continued to try to discuss with Mr Philipps why he had erroneously categorised me as someone accused of “anti-Semitism”.
Nothing in Items 25, 26, or 27 could remotely be seen as derogatory, offensive, malicious, or defamatory. Of course, I believe my conduct to be compatible with the code of conduct. Do you just cut-and-paste allegations and questions from complainants without even reading them? Or does the Labour Party have unintelligent software that simply auto-completes its documents?
In April 2019, I was delighted when the total audience reached 40,000 readers for my article headlined: REVEALED: The Labour Party activists behind the “anti-semitism” smears. I tweeted Item 28 in the hope — successful, as it turned out — that more people would learn of the disgusting behaviour of Mr Philipps and his ilk.
I apologise for tweeting: “Euan Philpps= Ugh!”. I misspelled his name in Item 28. I should have tweeted: “Euan Philipps= Ugh!”.
Is “Ugh” a word banned by one of the Labour Party’s many codes of conduct?
As for you asking why, in Item 29, I described Mr Philipps in my article as being “particularly cowardly”, I think the article made that clear:
Further questions
Q49 Chapter 2 Clause I.8 of the Labour Party Rulebook states: “No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC and NCC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party. The disclosure of confidential information relating to the Party or to any other member, unless the disclosure is duly authorised or made pursuant to a legal obligation, shall also be considered conduct prejudicial to the Party.”
What is your response to the allegation that your conduct may be or have been in breach of this rule?
My answer: I am certain I would never do anything that I know to be in breach of Labour Party rules. But I am happy — indeed insist — that any such allegations are considered at a hearing by a panel of the NCC.
Q50 The Party’s Code of Conduct states that members should “treat all people with dignity and respect. This applies offline and online” do you think the posts in this pack are consistent with this policy?
My answer: I am certain I would never do anything that I know to be in breach of Labour Party rules and the democratic socialist values they underpin.
Specifically, I would never breach anyone’s privacy, nor would I make vexatious allegations for political advantage. I certainly would never accuse anyone of being an anti-Semite, without proof. Even then, I would probably refer such an allegation to the police for prosecution as a hate-crime.
Q51 Looking back at the evidence supplied with this letter, do you regret sending, posting or sharing any of this content?
My answer: I regret having posted tweets that I repeatedly have to explain and/or account for, simply because of vexatious allegations for factional or political advantage — including from people who are not even in the Labour Party and do not have the party’s best interests at heart.
Q52 Do you intend to send, post or share content of this nature again in the future?
My answer: I do not intend to post anything that I know to be in breach of Labour Party rules and the democratic socialist values they underpin.
