Tony Greenstein | 29 July 2016 | Post Views:

Labour Response to Subject Access Request – Blacked Out Emails 

Like the Gestapo & Stasi 

Labour’s Witch-hunters Hide Identity of Informers

Labour’s idea of a disclosure of information! 

Times article based on leaked information

The efforts of Labour’s Compliance Unit to
control and roll back internal democracy, dissent and debate is the
opposite of Karl Popper’s Open Society. 
In its stilted discourse and reaction to criticism, and its attempts to hide its
workings from external and internal scrutiny, its deviousness and dishonesty in
how it operates, Labour’s unelected civil service, headed by General Secretary Iain
McNicol, exhibit the classic symptoms of those who run a closed society.  It is a society where
different rules of logic prevail. 
Whereas in an Open Society the right of the accused to defend themselves
is taken for granted and seen as a sign of a healthy and democratic society, in
the world of McNicol’s minions, defending oneself against accusations of
misconduct is seen as proof of one’s guilt. 
There is a perceived resentment that someone should have the audacity to
question the judgement of Labour’s unelected bureaucracy. 

A helpful warning to the Compliance Unit to beware of the new Brighton LP Secretary who is also a journalist!
A closed society encourages anonymous informants and
goes to extraordinary lengths, including breaking the law, in order to protect
them.  The idea that people who make
allegations against others might be called to account and expected to defend their allegations, is
foreign to these people. 
I have been suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’ from
the Labour Party since March 18th. 
My original letter of suspension refused to elaborate on the reasons why
I had been suspended, other than that they were for remarks I was alleged to
have made. The first time I knew of some of the details of
my suspension was when the Telegraph and The Times printed details of why I had
been suspended on April 2nd. 
See Labour’s
Disciplinary Procedures would put the Star Chamber to Shame
and The
Paper of Record Joins in the ‘anti-semitism’ Witch-hunt
On May 9th I put in a Subject Access
Request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.  It was received on May 13th.  I didn’t get a reply until July 19th,
a mere 67 days later.  The prescribed
period for responding to such a request is 40 days.
The DPA s.7(4) prescribes that:
(4)Where a data controller cannot
comply with the request without disclosing information relating to another
individual who can be identified from that information, he is not obliged to
comply with the request unless—
(a)the other individual has
consented to the disclosure of the information to the person making the
request, or
(b)it is reasonable in all the
circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other
(5)In subsection (4) the
reference to information relating to another individual includes a reference to
information identifying that individual as the source of the information sought
by the request; and that subsection is not to be construed as excusing a data
controller from communicating so much of the information sought by the request
as can be communicated without disclosing the identity of the other individual
concerned, whether by the omission of names or other identifying particulars or
(6)In determining for the
purposes of subsection (4)(b) whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances
to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual
concerned, regard shall be had, in particular, to—
(a)any duty of confidentiality
owed to the other individual,
(b)any steps taken by the data
controller with a view to seeking the consent of the other individual,
(c)whether the other individual
is capable of giving consent, and
(d)any express refusal of consent
by the other individual.
(7)An individual making a request
under this section may, in such cases as may be prescribed, specify that his
request is limited to personal data of any prescribed description.
(8)Subject to subsection (4), a
data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in
any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant
(9)If a court is satisfied on the
application of any person who has made a request under the foregoing provisions
of this section that the data controller in question has failed to comply with
the request in contravention of those provisions, the court may order him to
comply with the request.
As will be seen from the documents which I have
been sent, the Labour Party has signally failed in its duty to disclose the
information I requested.  In many cases
it has blanked out whole documents.  In
all cases, except where the identity of the persons is clearly known, it has
blanked out the names of the informants.
Those who
make allegations against others should be prepared to
have their identities disclosed.  Indeed
it should be a condition of receipt of such information that, just like in a
court of law, their identities are revealed. 
Anonymous informants are invited to supply information without fear of their identity being blown
The model McNicol and his protégé John Stolliday
[JS], head of the Compliance Unit, have adopted is the method of the Gestapo
and the Stasi.  Anonymous informants
providing information which, by definition, can never be tested. Such methods should
be repugnant to any party which considers itself democratic let alone
I have therefore appealed to the Information
Commissioner to impress on McNicol and his minions their statutory responsibility.  If necessary I will seek to enforce
disclosure of information under DPA s.7(9).
Solicitor’s warning to McNicol that he has a duty to act in good faith
to my suspension
Apparently I have been suspended for
anti-Semitism – which kind of makes sense. 
If you want to show that you are dealing firmly with allegations of
anti-Semitism, then what better way to show this than to suspend a Jewish
anti-racist!  Especially if you are
dealing with the kind of ‘anti-Semitism’ that involves criticism of the
‘Jewish’ State of Israel.
I am reminded of a joke of Hajo Meyer, a Jewish
survivor of Auschwitz: 
‘formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews but nowadays
an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews.’

Hajo Meyer was someone who refused
to accept the lesson that Zionism drew from the Holocaust, viz. that it
entitled Jews to be racists.  Hajo believed
that the message of the Holocaust must be that genocide and racism must never
again occur to anyone – Jewish or non-Jewish. 
Amongst my many sins was having compared
Israel’s marriage laws to those of the Nazis Nuremberg Laws.  Comparisons between Israel and the Nazis is,
by definition anti-Semitic according to the Zionists – except when the Zionists
do it!  For example when Netanyahu
explained how Hitler was talked into the Holocaust by the Palestinian Haj al
amin-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem. [see Rewriting
the Holocaust
There are
very many examples of comparisons between Zionism and Nazism in the period
before the Holocaust.  There are
differences too but Zionism’s belief in the need to create an ethnically pure
Jewish state and its obsession with a Jewish demographic majority in Israel, belong
to the Nazi era.
The reason why comparisons between
Zionism and Nazism are valid was best put by Professor Funkenstein, formerly Head of the Faculty of History at
Tel Aviv University.  He compared soldiers
in the German army who refused to serve in concentration or extermination camps
to Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in the Occupied Territories.  To those who asked how it was possible to
compare the actions of Nazi soldiers with Israelis, Funkenstein replied
a historian I know that every comparison is limited. On the other hand, without
comparisons, no historiography is possible. Understanding a historical event is
a kind of translation into the language of our time. If we would leave every
phenomenon in its peculiarity, we could not make this translation.  Every translation is an interpretation and
every interpretation is also a comparison. “


Solicitor’s letter warning McNicol that his leaking of information to Press is a serious disciplinary offence
Shami Chakrabarti wrote in her report
on racism and anti-Semitism in the Labour Party that the 
there is a lack of clarity and
confidence in current disciplinary procedures from all sides of the Party’
She went
on to say that ‘It is completely unfair,
unacceptable and a breach of Data Protection law that anyone should have found
out about being the subject to an investigation or their suspension by way of
the media and indeed that leaks, briefing or other publicity should so often
have accompanied a suspension pending investigation…. Labour Party should seek
to uphold the strongest principles of natural justice, however difficult the
circumstances, and to resist subjecting members to a trial by media.’   
is the system that is presided over by Iain McNicol.
Labour General Secretary Iain McNicol professing concern over the leaks to the Press that he and the Compliance Unit authorised
As Jackie Walker observed, the Jewish Chronicle knew the details of her suspension
before she knew.  It has been the
standard response of Labour’s Compliance Unit and Iain McNicol to deny
suspended members details of why they are suspended at the same time as they
leak the details to the media. So when McNicol wrote to me stating that 
I am disappointed that you have taken the
opportunity to make an unwarranted attack on a hardworking and diligent member
of the Compliance Unit…’
and went on to say that 

you I regret that information was given to the media.
However, I entirely refute the allegation that the
Compliance Unit leaked any details of your suspension to the Daily Telegraph or
to anyone else.’ 
he was doing what comes natural to him.  Lying. 
There is no other explanation for the details of my suspension appearing
in the national press other than that the Compliance Unit leaked them.  If the Compliance
Unit did not do the leaking, then who was responsible?  
McNicol prefered not to respond when I put this question.
Solicitor’s letter to McNicol who did his best to keep Corbyn off the ballot paper
Lies to McNicol are like water off a duck’s back.  He even tried to deceive the Leader of the
Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell as to the timing of the National
Executive Committee meeting.  Below are
the documents which the Labour Party have either redacted or blanked out
altogether.  I have posted them on Google
and you can click on the link to read the document in its redacted entirety!
Documents Disclosed by the Labour Party

This is from a facetious
Zionist   It follows from my revelation
that in 1984 Jeremy Corbyn was Chairperson of a Labour Movement Conference on
Palestine, which called for the disaffiliation of the racist Poalei Zion (now the
Jewish Labour Movement) from the Labour Party. 
PZ, the British wing of the Israeli Labour Party, which ethnically
cleansed Palestine of nearly 90% of its Palestinians in 1947-8.  It is a party that in elections attacks the
opposition Likud for being too soft on Arabs. 
See When Jeremy Corbyn Supported a Democratic, Secular
State & Breaking Links with Poale Zion (JLM)
and The Times & Jewish Chronicle Report our Story on
Corbyn Backtracking on Palestine

The email begins ‘There are some
very serious accusations in The Times today which are making you out to be some
form of antiSemite.  How dare they.’
 His mock indignation is belied by his two
emails, noteworthy only for their deceptive literary style, which is as
transparent as it is dishonest.

is a
supportive letter to Shami Chakrabarti which asks why I have been expelled from
the Labour Party (in fact suspended). 
The name is blanked out.

  is one of a number of documents which have
been completely and unlawfully blacked out. 
All I am entitled to know is the fact of its existence!

  is another completely blacked out document.

  is from the Jewish Labour Movement and their
liar-in-chief, Jeremy Newmark.  The first
email appears to be completely blacked out but the second is nonetheless
illuminating.  After apologising for having
to write once again, Newmark protests that I published a full transcript of my
investigation hearing with SE Regional Organiser, Harry Gregson [HG].  The idea of open and transparent justice is
alien to Zionists.  Newmark, having been
branded a liar in the Fraser
Employment Tribunal case,
should know that it is a practice of the courts, even in Israel, to provide transcripts
of hearings.  What Newmark was really
objecting to was that I had made my interrogator HG and therefore the JLM
witch-hunters look stupid.
Tweet objecting to racist JLM being in charge of anti-racist education
Newmark objects to the racist JLM being compared to Nick Griffin of BNP 
Newmark clearly didn’t like my post Labour’s
Inquisition – from the banal to the mundane
which contains a link
to the 16 page transcript.  Newmark says
that the transcript consists of ‘further
slurs against the JLM and our leadership’

Jeremy Newmark takes himself very seriously being an important figure.  He doesn’t take kindly to being
slighted.  He is unaware that in court
proceedings what the accused says, however defamatory, is protected
According to Newmark, the transcript
apparently consists of ‘a whole host of
unsavoury comments’
and even worse has been published on at least 1 other website
as well as being circulated on social media. 
Newmark informs McNicol or JS (this is blacked out!) that ‘he [me!] is determined to use the process itself to further disseminate
offensive, uncomradely and potentially actionable comments.
’  The JLM doesn’t take kindly to criticism.  Suffice to say I don’t expect to be sued
anytime soon as telling the truth is an absolute defence!  As for being uncomradely, well I don’t
consider the JLM comrades and if my comments were offensive so much the better!
Apparently I am ‘fermenting hatred
and opposition’
to the JLM.  Well I
certainly hope that people hate racism and therefore the JLM, whose sole
purpose is to defend Zionist racism.  If
they hate a racist affiliate of the Party I won’t complain. 
Newmark asks ‘is it acceptable to
publish a full transcript of a post-suspension interview… given that Mr G is
already suspended.
’  You can see the
Israeli police state mentality at work. 
Someone is using the trial process as part of a campaign against the
trial.  You can just imagine Jeremy Newmark
at the time of the Guildford 4 complaining that people were campaigning against
the frame up! 
Although much of the letters are blacked out one can gain a good
understanding of the mentality of Jeremy Newmark and the JLM.

  is a Zionist complaining to Chakrabarti.  Despite his name being blacked out the
company logo Searchlight Electric is left! 
He complains that his son can’t walk in Manchester City Centre with a
skull cap without people conflating Israel and Jews.  I agree that is wrong.  The obvious answer is for the Jewish Board of
Deputies to stop claiming that British Jews support Israel and for Israeli
leaders to stop claiming that it is a Jewish state that acts on behalf of and represents
Jewish people like Mr X’s son.  Illogically
the conclusion he draws is that opposition to a Jewish state is anti-Semitic. 
Israel is a settler colonial state where Jews have privileges over
non-Jews and the indigenous population. 
It is no different to similar states that Europeans established in the colonial
past.  It is a state but one based on Jewish
racial supremacy.  In so far as it claims
to be a Jewish state, Mr X’s criticism should be directed at Zionists not
anti-Zionists.  Mr X also complains that
Jackie Walker and myself were readmitted to the Labour Party ‘without even so
much as apologising’ without saying what we’re supposed to be apologising
for.  Jackie Walker is criticised for ‘peddling a lie that Jews were the main
financiers of the slave trade.’ 
however never said any such thing.  The
only lie being peddled is the one Mr X is peddling!

is another document from the JLM.  For an organisation that claims not to have
been involved in my suspension they were remarkably well informed about when my
hearing was due to take place. 
They seem to have taken exception to my perfectly reasonable comparison
between asking the JLM to conduct anti-racist education courses and asking Nick
Griffin of the BNP to do the same. 
Griffin loves Israel because it is racist and anti-Islamic.  It was Griffin who, on BBC Question Time some
years ago said that the BNP was the only political party which in
the clashes between Israel and Gaza stood full-square behind Israel’s right to
deal with Hamas terrorists.”
  The Guardian of April 10th
2008 reported:  Ruth Smeed, spokesperson for the Board of
Deputies of British Jews as saying that:

‘The BNP website is now one of
the most Zionist on the web – it goes further than any of the mainstream
parties in its support of Israel’.
Apparently my criticism of the JLM was ‘beyond any boundaries of normative political discourse’.  Translating this, I think, means that you
mustn’t stray outside the strict parameters of what passes for political debate
in the bourgeois press and TV. 
Revolutionary rhetoric is definitely beyond the boundaries.  Further it is ‘an attempt to bring us [the JLM?] into disrepute’.  Presumably
if we were to disaffiliate the JLM from the Labour Party we would avoid all
these problems?

– this is
from the same person as Doc 1 – the Zionist who is ‘concerned’ that Jeremy
Corbyn is being called an anti-Semite!

The reaction of the Labour Party
press office to the story on my blog about how Jeremy Corbyn sponsored and
chaired, in 1984, a Labour movement conference on Palestine which called for
the disaffiliation of Poalei Zion. 
Instead of facing the issue and saying yes, Jeremy supports the
disaffiliation of the racist JLM, they preferred to say nothing.

            From an unnamed person to HG – it
refers to a tweet about the bombing by Israel of homes, clinics etc. (in other
words nothing out of the normal when it comes to the Israeli military) which I
sent to idiot Brighton Labour Councillor Emma Daniels, when she announced she
was joining the Zionist Labour Movement.  
It refers to ‘the latest
delightful communications with the delightful Mr Greenstein’
 – Now why do I suspect that the person
concerned was being sarcastic? 
Especially when they sign off !
Naturally I’m not allowed to know
the name of my admirer.

These are interesting documents despite heavy redaction.  They involve internal dialogue of Labour
Party bureaucrats. The first email is completely blacked out.  The second email on p.41 draws attention to a
blog post – which simply remarks that I had finally been told something of the
reasons for my suspension.  I also
pointed out that peoples’ membership fees had also been wasted paying £30,000
on a new Compliance Administrator A
small victory – I have been told the basis of my suspension! – Labour Party is prepared to spend
nearly £30K a year on a new Compliance Administrator
anonymous Labour Party hack doesn’t seem to understand that when you accuse
someone of something that they might have the right to know what they are
accused of.  They remark in a heavily
redacted email, that ‘no staff member
should have to put up with this.  It’s
completely unacceptable
.’  It is
fortunate that this person isn’t in charge of the Justice system.  On p.42 a Caroline remarks, in a heading
entitled ‘Greenstein  Suspension’ to HG
‘Depressing to think a year ago we were apparently on course to win an
election.  Now we’ve been reduced to
this.’  It’s difficult to see the
connection with myself.
who has been delegated to investigate me and from who one might expect a
modicum of impartiality responds that ‘Obviously
his behaviour is unacceptable’
and that ‘this
is top of my list of priorities’

One might have thought that the Regional Organiser for the Labour Party South-East
region might have other priorities than my investigation.  HG reassures Caroline that ‘this matter will not be anywhere as
protracted as previous disciplinary action against certain Brighton members.’
  I assume that this refers to the newly
elected Brighton Secretary, Greg Hadfield. 
Greg was suspended without just cause for 11 months and told next to
nothing about why he was suspended. 
the same day another anonymous person informs HG that I launched a ‘very unpleasant attack on Cllr Emma Daniel …
He also called Ivor Caplin a war criminal
Emma Daniel announced on Twitter that she had joined the Zionist Jewish
Labour Movement.  I simply pointed out
some salient facts about the organisation she had joined and the Israeli human
rights abuse that she was now endorsing. 
Presumably pointing out that if you join a Zionist Apartheid
organisation you should be taken to endorse their politics is an ‘unpleasant
attack’.  Perhaps I should have refrained
from pointing out that Israel gaols and tortures (Palestinian) children as
young as 12.  As for the former MP for
Hove, Ivor Caplin.  He was junior defence
Minister at the time of the Iraq War and fully merits the title of junior war
Zionist objects to my calling him a Jewish Nazi
Israeli Zionist generalises about all Palestinians being cowards – but Chair of Brighton LP Russell Lloyd-Moyle objects to the term Jewish Nazi
Racist Zionist says Palestine ‘never was (nor will be)
email from HG is entirely blacked out as is part of a further email.  I don’t know who has penned it though I have
my suspicion that it could be the former Chair of the B&H Labour Party Russell
Lloyd-Moyle, who forwards a piece of ‘evidence’ whilst asking when the
Compliance Unit will finally hear the case. 
The evidence he encloses is a twitter link to an image from @FalafelBig.  Falafel who complains that I call ‘Jewish critics’,
in fact Zionists, Nazis rather than Zio scum. 
Mr Falafel names himself after an Arab cuisine that Israel has stolen
and called its own.  As other tweets
show, this person is an entrenched racist and fully merits the description of a
Jewish Nazi.  For example his reaction to
Google’s decision to erase ‘Palestine’ from its maps and to replace it by
Israel was ‘how can you delete something
that never was’
  In fact the area now
occupied by Israel was known as Palestine for 2,000 years. 
                        A small interchange between HG and JS in which the latter
suggests young Harry ‘might want to take
this pleasant Facebook post by Mr Greenstein into account as well.’
  I assume that the stolid Stolliday was being
                        A minor
exchange with an Emillie Oldknow in which HG asks whether he’s got to agree to
a change in the date of the investigation hearing so that I can bring a silent
witness.  Emillie advises that he does
have to agree.
                        This is a
long email from JVoiceUK, a group which claims
to be ‘The Voice of Socialism and
Progressive Jewish Values’.
 It is
also a Zionist organisation and therein lies the problem.  The email is sent to the Chakrabarti Inquiry
and attempts to defend Zionist collaboration with the Nazis.  In truth it doesn’t understand it since it
suggests that this collaboration was solely based on Ha’avara, the Zionist
trade/transfer agreement with the Nazis. 
Zionist collaboration went much further than Ha’avara. See here
and here.
JVoiceUK claims that Jewish
emigration from the Arab countries from 1948 onwards was a result of forced
emigration, whereas it was a product of a number of different circumstances
including, as in Iraq and elsewhere the activities of Zionist activists who
planted explosives and bombs in areas that Jews frequented to simulate
anti-Semitism. [See The
Zionist Destruction of the Iraqi Jewish Community
]  The incoherent email compares Hitler’s
support for Zionism with the Tories support for the Minimum Wage!  In the section on myself and Charley Allan, a
Jewish reporter on the Morning Star, it equates giving offence to someone who is
Jewish to anti-Semitism.  Giving offence
is the essence of free speech.  Without
the right to offend the powerful and privileged, including Zionist racists,
then the right to free speech is meaningless. 
It comes out with the absurd phrase that ‘when someone is offended that is the start of potential anti-Semitism’.
JVoiceUK introduce a new phrase
‘Ziophobia’ – presumably a fear of Zionism. 
Ziophobia ‘ignores all forms of
left wing Zionism and Zionism that is pro-Palestine’.
 Perhaps we should have had ‘Apartheidphobia’
and perhaps ‘Naziphobia’ too!
                        Concerns an informant.  The first email is completely blacked out,
the second email omits the name of the recipient.  The third e-mail is completely blacked out
too and the fourth email (pp. 113/4) is heavily redacted but concerns my
‘abuse’ of two councillors, Caroline Penn and Emma Daniels, who joined the JLM
and the right-wing Chair of Young Labour. 
My ‘abuse’ consisted of pointing out that the JLM was the British wing
of the Israeli Labour Party.  The
informant – who I suspect is the previous Chair of Brighton Labour Party, Lloyd
Russell-Moyle, complains that I was abusive to members who support or had
joined the JLM.  I guess telling the
truth is also considered abusive!  Moyle goes
on to state that ‘This is part of a general rudeness and offensive
nature of Tony, please note that this is nothing to do with his views on
  I shall leave it to others
to judge this.
Moyle appeals for the investigation to be conducted urgently as ‘the local party is being disrupted (despite
him being a suspended member) by his presence at public events… and the shadow
of  his reappointment hanging over us.’
  And just in case the message hadn’t got
through about how dangerous I was, Moyle pleaded ‘Can I remind you that Tony can be a manipulative person, it is
important that the case against him is watertight.’’ 
Lloyd seems to fear that if the
witch-hunters don’t follow a fair process then I might have grounds for
overturning any expulsion.  Clearly he
fails to understand that unfairness lies at the heart of the process.
                        On page 116
there is another completely blacked out email.
            On p. 143 there is a letter from a supporter of myself
and Jackie Walker protesting our suspensions. 
Again the name of the person is redacted.
supportive letter.  This time the name of
the Rev. Beverley Molineaux is left at the end of the document but her name is
redacted at the top!  
It is a powerful letter and speaks of ‘This almost McCarthy like witch hunt that has unfolded’ and speaks
of how I have been ‘a campaigner against
holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.  So
how has someone with these credentials been suspended?’ 
Beverley also speaks about the suspension
of Jackie Walker and she quotes Jackie’s statement that ‘I have been suspended from the Labour Party for alleged anti-Semitic
comments.  I have been an active
anti-racist trainer and campaigner for years, often in all white communities
and in the most vulnerable situations.
                        This is
another supportive letter.  Again the
name of the person and who she copied it to is blacked out but Val Cane’s name
is left at the bottom of the letter!  Val
is an active trade unionist in Brighton with the National Union of Teachers.
supportive letter.  This time from
someone who is Jewish and a former Labour parliamentary candidate who joined
the Labour Party 45 years ago.  The
identity of the person is blacked out. 
As s/he says, there is anti-Semitism in the Party ‘but I have never actually experienced it within the party… It is
S/he notes that both Jackie
Walker and myself are Jewish and correctly notes that what the suspensions are
about ‘is an unwillingness to keep quiet
about what Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians.’
                        This is a
curious email presumably a press release stating that I have been
suspended.  Needless to say all salient
points are blacked out.
contains a response to a Jews 4 Jeremy press release about my suspension.  All names are blacked out.
                        This is
another supportive letter from a Jewish member of the Labour Party
                        All names
are blacked out from an email from an informer. 
It reads much like the many communications that used to be sent to the
Stasi and Gestapo.  One email is entirely
blacked out and the person hopes that Greg Hadfield, the newly elected
Secretary of Brighton Labour Party (before he was deposed!) won’t get anything
into the press whilst highlighting an article Greg wrote on the difference
between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. 
It contains various allegations against me, including a false allegation
of fraud and the fact that I stood 4 times (actually 3) against the Labour
Party.  The informer seems to have problems
with facts.
letter from a Jewish member of the Labour Party adding his name to that of the
52 Jewish members who signed a letter supporting me.
                        This consists
of 3 mails – 2 of which are entirely blacked out.  It would appear that HG went fishing for
information and the informant tells him that he has no information on the
issues relevant to my suspension but gives some background on me.  I suspect that the informant is either Dave
Leppar, the previous MP or his wife, Jean Leppar, however I cannot be certain
about this.
                        This is
another email from an anonymous informant. 
Most of the email is blanked out but point 6 complains that he hasn’t
replied to me because I put everything online. 
He asks when my accusations that JS leaked details of my case to the
press has become actionable.  The answer
of course is never, since they are true! 
Is it, he asks ok to call people ‘scum’, as opposed to ‘Zio scum’!  Again it depends on who I’m calling
‘scum’.  The one witty point is when he
asks ‘does he give the Andrew Fisher
Fisher is an advisor to
Jeremy Corbyn whom the Right tried to prevent being employed on the grounds
that he had, as a joke, recommended support for Class War in an election. 
                        2 emails
from anonymous Zionists who attack me and others.  One of them says that the witch-hunts ‘save the party and restore our values!’  Presumably these include the values of Israel
which today bulldozed the home of a Palestinian who was inside his home, thus
murdering him.
                        HG on a query from the Jewish Chronicle which was interested
in my suspension.  I can’t imagine why!
intriguing letter from someone who is supportive of my case who observes that I
am ‘not a man to mince his words mind you
and perhaps this has upset you.’
the language I suspect this person occupies some position in the Labour Party echelons.
                        A sarcastic
remark from some Labour Party hack asking how many of Brighton Labour Party’s
members attended a meeting which voted to oppose my suspension.
            An internal memo to HG relating to the bureaucratic
mechanisms of the suspensions.  It would
appear that on 17th May there were 5 suspensions in the SE Region.
                        An anonymous ill-wisher who cannot imagine why I was
allowed to join the Party.  Apparently
neither the Greens or the SWP will have anything to do with me!  Strange that. 
It’s not been my experience but who am I to quibble?

                        A lying
email from crooked Iain McNicol, Labour Party General Secretary in reply to me.  
Letter in response to Mike Creighton who is responsible for responding to  Data Protection Act requests

Posted in

Tony Greenstein

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.