People will be familiar with the
lines from Sir Walter Scott’s Marmion:

Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!

It is a poem that describes Jon Lansman’s behaviour down to a
tee as he tries to expel me from Momentum. Lies and deception, saying one thing
to one person and another thing to another person, seem to have become a
seamless part of Lansman’s political tapestry. It almost seems as if Momentum’s
führer, because he is an unelected dictator, has
forgotten what the word socialism means.

Tony Benn must be turning in his grave as his former student
has turned into a latter day Napoleon Bonaparte. Lansman’s trade is treachery. Tony
Benn, unlike his former devotee, was an anti-colonialist and a strong supporter
of the Palestinians. Since Lansman claims his political inheritance from Tony
Benn we should remind ourselves of Benn’s 5
questions:

If one meets a powerful person–Rupert Murdoch,
perhaps, or Joe Stalin or Hitler–one can ask five questions: what power do you
have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are
you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the
last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”

This is why Momentum is not democratic.  There is no obvious way to get rid of
Lansman. If it wasn’t clear already it should be clear now. Lansman’s desire to
succeed McNicol was motivated by his desire to continue with the ancie regime, the
witchhunt included and using much the same methods. 

The Spider at the Centre of the Web

Below I detail how Lansman, when given the choice between being
honest and open, lying and dishonest chooses the latter without fail. Lansman
seems to have become so used to wheeling and dealing that he is incapable of
behaving in any other way.  Power seems
to have gone to his head at the same time as any modicum of socialist
principles have left it. In short Lansman has become a classic machine
politican devoid of any real ideological commitment.

As people will be aware, I was expelled by the National
Kangaroo Court a month ago for crimes such as ‘abusing’ Louise Ellman MP who,
in the name of security, supports Israel’s shackling, beating and incarceration
of (Palestinian) children.  (see Parliamentary debate on Palestinian child prisoners and
detainees,
6.1.16.).

Even the worst New Labour traitors like Blairite John McTernan, who wants the rail unions ‘crushed’ by the Tories is welcomed into Momentum whereas Lansman is quite happy to carry on with McNicol’s witchhunt

John McTernan has not been expelled – on the contrary this New Labour supporter who appeals to the Tories to crush the rail unions is welcomed whereas Lansman seeks the expulsion of socialists

Despite all the heated rhetoric of Labour’s Zionists, the NKC
refrained from accusing me of anti-Semitism. 
I have covered the details in the following posts so I won’t rehearse
the arguments again. Tony
Greenstein – Expelled for Opposing Zionism and the Israeli State – The Fight
Goes On, How
to Cure the Labour Party of anti-Semitism – Expel a few Jews!

Collaborating
with the false anti-Semitism smear campaign

If it wasn’t clear up till now it should be
blindingly obvious that the false anti-Semitism campaign which led to my
expulsion is directed primarily at Jeremy Corbyn himself.  Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth, myself and
others are mere collateral damage. This week there have been two attacks on
Jeremy Corbyn suggesting that he tolerates anti-Semitism.  One was about an absurd mural whose
‘anti-Semitism’ is highly debatable and the other is the dodgy dossier of David Collier, much of which is forged, about
the Palestine Live Facebook page.  The
Zionist ‘charity’ Campaign Against
Anti-Semitism has made a second complaint
of anti-Semitism against Corbyn.

Right-wing MP Wes Streeting defends Lansman

It should also be obvious, even to Lansman, that the
false anti-Semitism smear campaign has nothing to do with anti-Semitism and
everything to do with removing Corbyn. 
Why else would the Express, Mail, Sun give such enthusiastic support to
the idea that Labour is anti-Semitic?  
Yet Lansman is determined to finish off what McNicol began and expel me
from Momentum.  Presumably he will do the
same to Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth if they are expelled.  Momentum has signally failed to oppose the anti-Semitism
witchhunt thus far.  It is now proposing
to collaborate with it.

Constitution

Momentum
has a Constitution, which was imposed by Lansman over a year ago.  It has never been approved, still less
debated by Momentum’s membership.  People
were given a simple choice when Lansman destroyed the democracy of Momentum –
take it or leave it.

The relevant part of the Constitution dealing with
members who have been expelled are the following:

5.8     Any
member who does not join the Labour Party by 1 July 2017, or ceases to be a
member of the Labour Party, or acts inconsistently with Labour Party
membership, may be deemed to have
resigned.

5.10   Where a
member may be deemed to have resigned in accordance with Rules 5.7, 5.8 or 5.9
there will be a right to be heard by
the NCG or a delegated panel before a final decision is made.

On 18th March I e-mailed Momentum nationally
asking why they had ceased taking my subscription and assuming that they had
done so because I had been expelled.

On 22nd March a Santiago Bell-Bradford emailed informing
me that I was wrong and the fault lay with Pay Pal. I was happy to accept this
and I said I would contact Pay Pal directly.

17 minutes later another email arrived, from Momentum
Info, informing me that it had come to their attention (in fact I pointed it
out) that I had been expelled and I had 6 days to make written representations
and a panel of the National Co-ordinating Group, the mainly unelected group
that runs Momentum, or a panel thereof would meet to determine my fate.

Laura Parker – Momentum Co-ordinator – entered into the lying and deception with ease

I wrote back almost immediately complaining that an
email such as this should have a name attached to it and attacking their
impersonal corporate culture.  In my
naivety I didn’t expect that this process was one of dirty tricks but merely the
consequence of my expulsion. I pointed out that there seemed to be an omission
in their letter, viz. that I had a right to be heard in person.

I also stated that child care responsibilities
prevented me from attending on Thursday and I suggested alternative dates. I
also stated that ‘Your email gives the distinct impression that this
is merely a matter of going through the motions.’ and pointed out that the
constitution merely stated that I‘may be deemed to have resigned.’  At this stage I was still assuming that
the email was sent in good faith.

What changed this was a phone
call I received about 15 minutes later from a member of staff Laura
Parker.  She phoned me to ‘explain’ why
names are never used on emails because of the abuse staff get from Momentum
members! This was wholly untrue since I had just received an email in the name
of Santiago Bell Bradford. Laura too had recently appended her name to an
International Womens Day email. I therefore found it difficult to take her
claims seriously and when I tried to discuss the main content of the email she
put the phone down.  It was almost as if
she was phoning me up to put me off the scent.

I responded to this email
rejecting her explanation and making the point that ‘If what you are saying is that large numbers of Momentum members
are abusive then you might ask yourself whether it has anything to do with the
way you treat people.’

I also received an anonymous email
with copies of internal Momentum emails which put everything into context.  The first email was at 00.34 on the morning
of Monday 19th March.  Lansman
wrote, in his capacity of Chair of the NCG that:

‘We do have to get rid of
Greenstein but I am a bit concerned by the process which he will make a big
deal out of possibly including lawyers – sorry if I didn’t say this earlier.The
bits of the constitution which are relevant here are….

What Lansman was saying was that we may deem me to
have resigned but there has to be a process involving the NCG or one they have
agreed in which I have the right to be heard (not necessarily in person) before
a final decision is made.’

It couldn’t have been
clearer.  There was nothing about due
process and the right to a fair hearing. 
The aim was to be rid of me but they would have to go through the
charade of a hearing.  I had the right to
be heard but ‘not necessary (sic) in person.’ Quite how Lansman can square
having a right to be heard with not being present in person is something I
haven’t yet got my head around.  If the
constitution didn’t mean in person then it would have used a different formula
such as ‘the right to make written submissions.’ It didn’t.

I followed this up with a further email to Lansman
stating that if he wishes to engage in these tricks and deceptions then I shall
be forced to treat him as I did the Labour Party and apply for an
injunction. 

One thing that has puzzled me is the reference in
Laura Parker’s email to Lansman:  ‘Santi (in cc) & I already discussed need
for Guillame due process’ what is a Guillame due process?  It appears to be some form of internal Momentum
office jargon. It has been suggested by a friend that it refers to a Pierre
Guillame (Peter Guillam) a character in John
le Carré‘s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy who was described by Smiley as ‘cosh and
carry.’ In other words it is merely emphasising the fake and fraudulent
nature of any hearing I may have.  It’s a
case of Iain McNicol eat your heart out!

Far from Lansman stopping the witchhunt and democratising Labour’s
disciplinary processes it would appear that if he had been selected as General
Secretary he might have made Iain McNicol’s reign seem like the Prague Spring.

What I find most surprising is that I am a relative
minnow politically.  If this is how
Lansman behaves to me, with a complete lack of any integrity and honesty, how
does he treat those he deals with on a day to day basis?

What conception of socialism does Lansman adhere to
that causes him to play these deceitful games?

Is the expectation that staff members will lie an
implied part of their contracts or is Laura Parker lying of her own accord?

I haven’t received any response yet and on Monday I
shall be seriously considering going to the High Court again to obtain an
injunction against Lansman and Momentum.

Tony Greenstein