Still Waiting for Forde
JVL Introduction
JVL has, rather too often, had to publish about the delay with the publication of the Forde Report to follow the Inquiry into the Leaked Report that indicated that there were Labour Party staffers who were, at best, not working flat out for a Labour victory and who may also have been behaving in racist and misogynist ways. An article and a video from the Independent – now 21 months old – outlines the original issues.
A previous reason given for delay was that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was investigating the data breach; the ICO said they had not been in communication with the Forde Inquiry.
The original terms of reference were too narrowly drawn for the hopes for justice for so many Labour Party members – and ex members – but now even these slim hopes of vindication seem as far away as ever.
The delays have become unconscionable; from an original (admittedly unrealistic) aim of publication by summer 2020 and despite several promised and missed dates, we are still waiting. The Forde Inquiry Website still says “At the conclusion of its investigation, the Forde Inquiry Panel will publish its final report and any findings on this website. It is aiming to do so early in 2021.”
How much longer will we have to wait for the Report and how much longer for justice?
This article was originally published by Skwawkbox on Mon 24 Jan 2022. Read the original here.
Forde report delayed AGAIN, 18 months late and not even complete – and will not cover right’s actions anyway
Inquiry should have reported in July 2020 but QC commissioned by Starmer says it’s only ‘largely completed’, despite repeated promises by party that it would be released
Loading article text…
The only real value of Forde from my point of view was the hope of nailing those responsible for sabotaging Labour and Corbyn, finding out HOW they did it (and with whose help), punishing them – if still possible – and then preventing any similar efforts at sabotage in the future. I’m gutted Forde may not provide us with this impartially reached, evidence-based and very useful information.
There’s never been credible evidence that Corbyn’s Labour was any more racist, sexist or antisemitic than the Labour ran by Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown or Tony Blair. There’s credible evidence to believe Labour is less racist, sexist and antisemitic than the UK’s other mainstream political parties. Simply clearing Corbyn of blame is useless to my mind. What we need to know is how to clean Labour’s Augean stables.
If Forde avoids or dilutes criticism of the behaviour of the cabal at Labour’s head office, led by the former general secretary, Ian McNicol, then we need a new adjective- ‘Huttonesque’ (after the flawed report by Lord Hutton into the death of David Kelly) to describe his report and his behaviour.
Starmer has set out for Martin Forde what his report should say “Nothing to see here, move on…” Not sure why it should take 18 months of delay after delay other than to have people forget about the leaked report and all of the vile and abusive stuff reported. It is not surprising that right wingers want that suppressed, if I were to be responsible for such obnoxious behaviour I wouldn’t want it in the public domain either, as for Starmer he is about 60 years beyond his usefulness and should go!
The thrust of Forde’s letter is difficult to believe, given that no reasons are offered. One reason could be a change of emphasis (denied) in the aim of the report. Starmer’s first reaction on the publication of the ‘leaked report’ was to find the leaker: the reaction of many a boss of a closed organization/dictatorship when confronted with accusations of malpractice in the upper echelons of that organization. And the leak only happened as a result of it not being made known to the members. The members being cultivated like mushrooms.
The similarities between the Forde and Sue Gray reports end when you see the difference it makes when the MSM takes an interest in a report’s non-publication. Though even now I can see Gray’s report being held up by the BoZo himself…..regardless of his pledge made some time ago and repeated today (26 Jan). Whereas the Forde report is looking more and more like a mirage, or something out of Hans Christian Anderson with Kafka overtones.
The Forde Report was dead in the water from the moment Starmer agreed to pay off the ‘whistleblowers’, despite the advice of the legal team that the party had a good chance of winning the case brought against it. Once the party conceded that the case against Labour under Corbyn was justified, Starmer was never going to allow the evidence contained in the leaked report to be given any credence. How precisely he intends to bury that evidence is anyone’s guess, but it will be done, and the media – complicit as always – will allow it to go unnoticed.
The Forde Report may have wider and deeper repercussions than most of us have been predicting.
After all, the major part of the task may well have been defined by Mr Forde as being to examine the allegations made against right wing apparatchiks and their associates in the leaked Report, whilst the leakers themselves have become minor prey (and likely heroes of the broader labour movement).
When you ask lawyers to investigate, they very often turn up the things the person who ordered the investigation would prefer the world not to know about. I suspect Mr Forde has been doing his damndest to do the honourable thing and has chosen to follow the brief he has been given to the letter, and to go into every single detail as requested by paragraghs 1, 2 & 3, and that will make it a very interesting report indeed, which are, just to remind ourselves:
“The truth or otherwise of the main allegations in the report (the panel shall determine which are the most significant allegations which require investigation but they shall include the extent of racist, sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces, the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party, and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party);
“The background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned, written and circulated within the Labour Party, with its advisers and any other individuals external to the Labour Party, including the question of the purpose for which the report was commissioned and prepared, and the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain; and
“The structure, culture and practices of the Labour Party organisation including the relationship between senior party staff and the elected leadership of the Labour Party, as the panel think appropriate having regard to their investigation as a whole.”
So let us hope that Mr Forde’s ethics are out of sync with the depraved and dishonest bleating of the current leader, his general secretary, and the members of the NEC who chose to vote against Mr Corbyn’s re-admission to the Labour Party because they do not like the fact the he is not prepared to resile from the truth he speaks and believes, as so many of us believe.
In ‘evidence’ denying political interference Forde claims not to have shared “even a draft of the report with anybody outside of the panel or Secretariat”.
Is that supposed to reassure members? Where else would effective “political interference” come from? And come to that, apart from The General Secretary, who else makes up the Secretariat? Precisely KS and lick-spittles with most to lose with untampered publication.