He was in a number of legal battles against Corbyn to prevent him from coming leader.
Was appointed to the board that governs Labour where he oversaw misconduct ie sexism antisemitism etc. Based on both the leak and the report the GLU (McNicol) just 'didn't read' the emails and let antisemitism complaints fester. The EHRC report acknowledges this.
So yes there were a number of valid complaints of anti-semitism (although 100s - almost half over his tenure were false complaints as well made by 1 MP - hmmm), however the board (McNicol's) failed to suspend anyone or do anything in a timely fashion, they did nothing basically. And Corbyn or any leader has to let it play out or enter into huge legal battles. The GLU had him by the balls from here and they were none the wiser.
There were a bunch of hit pieces from far right Israeli media outlets like Jewish chronicle etc that disliked his views on Palistine and constantly smeared him. He has also supported Palestinian groups etc.
there is a lot more dirty politics here, that idk enough about
Basically if he ever spoke to anyone he was accused of all their deeds by association. One day he was an anti semite, a Russian asset, an IRA member, a rabbit killer, a rapist, whatever. The only thing that could realistically be leveraged was anti-semitism which insiders in the party could leverage.
Corbyn was criticised in the report as interfering with the suspension process (he's not legally allowed to) and has to be left to basically McNicols and the board, by accelerating the suspension of Kinnock over anti semitic remarks. (yes lol, this is the example they gave in the report). And since JC appointed Emily Thornberry things improved a lot. This is also in the report.
It does mention a lack of leadership... Ie not having 'obvious' rules of conduct ie on par with sexism, however JC is evidenced to have provided this. So it's a ambiguous statement to make given that there isn't a threshold/recomendation provided by the EHCR.
........
Starmer was going to fire JC no matter what was in the report. However his legal grounds for doing so are particularly shaky atm and the report deliberately left parts open to interpretation (surprises there lol), but there's going to be a court battle .
Starmer is purging the left, went for the smaller moves, pushing front bench MPs to the back bench; for going against ridiculous votes (ie votes that enabled torture etc), to pushing them from posting guardian articles, and because everyone is conditioned to Starmers 'unity' he can go for a bigger prize - JC.
Honestly just wiki Tim McNicol.
He was in a number of legal battles against Corbyn to prevent him from coming leader.
Was appointed to the board that governs Labour where he oversaw misconduct ie sexism antisemitism etc. Based on both the leak and the report the GLU (McNicol) just 'didn't read' the emails and let antisemitism complaints fester. The EHRC report acknowledges this.
So yes there were a number of valid complaints of anti-semitism (although 100s - almost half over his tenure were false complaints as well made by 1 MP - hmmm), however the board (McNicol's) failed to suspend anyone or do anything in a timely fashion, they did nothing basically. And Corbyn or any leader has to let it play out or enter into huge legal battles. The GLU had him by the balls from here and they were none the wiser.
There were a bunch of hit pieces from far right Israeli media outlets like Jewish chronicle etc that disliked his views on Palistine and constantly smeared him. He has also supported Palestinian groups etc.
there is a lot more dirty politics here, that idk enough about
Basically if he ever spoke to anyone he was accused of all their deeds by association. One day he was an anti semite, a Russian asset, an IRA member, a rabbit killer, a rapist, whatever. The only thing that could realistically be leveraged was anti-semitism which insiders in the party could leverage.
Corbyn was criticised in the report as interfering with the suspension process (he's not legally allowed to) and has to be left to basically McNicols and the board, by accelerating the suspension of Kinnock over anti semitic remarks. (yes lol, this is the example they gave in the report). And since JC appointed Emily Thornberry things improved a lot. This is also in the report.
It does mention a lack of leadership... Ie not having 'obvious' rules of conduct ie on par with sexism, however JC is evidenced to have provided this. So it's a ambiguous statement to make given that there isn't a threshold/recomendation provided by the EHCR.
........
Starmer was going to fire JC no matter what was in the report. However his legal grounds for doing so are particularly shaky atm and the report deliberately left parts open to interpretation (surprises there lol), but there's going to be a court battle .
Starmer is purging the left, went for the smaller moves, pushing front bench MPs to the back bench; for going against ridiculous votes (ie votes that enabled torture etc), to pushing them from posting guardian articles, and because everyone is conditioned to Starmers 'unity' he can go for a bigger prize - JC.