MY RESPONSE TO CATHY NEWMAN’S C4 NEWS BLOG ABOUT ALLEGED LABOUR PARTY INTIMIDATION
MY RESPONSE TO CATHY NEWMAN’S C4 NEWS BLOG ABOUT ALLEGED LABOUR PARTY INTIMIDATION
Cathy’s blogpost, to which I am responding, in link. (response in text below) http://blogs.channel4.com/cathy-newman-blog/labour-leadership-stand-intimidation-abuse
1) You need to produce these e-mails, Cathy, so we can verify them.
2) Presumably the e-mails you quote (out of 2,000) are the most extreme ones.
(a) The first says “we know where you live”, which is indeed threatening and unacceptable but we don’t know who sent it. Does it say anything else apart from that?
(b) The second gives some forceful opinions about the Labour MPs involved in the coup, borderline rude but not threatening. Here is a comparable tweet, for example, from coup supporter Alistair Campbell [“Problem with Trot-types always been they pretend to be for working class while 1 despising them and 2 not having own life hurt by Tories”] Trenchant and forceful but not threatening. Moreover, your account says that the e-mail in question mentions Labour MPs, not NEC members. The fact that you have to quote that one as your second example out of 2,000 e-mails shows there must not be many threatening e-mails.
(c) The third e-mail about “targeting” is clearly about sending representations to a committee which represents members, similar to saying “write to your MP”. Baxter’s contact details are available on her website, and again giving out contact details is similar to saying eg “E-mail the chief whip @……” If you are claiming the e-mail is implementing a co-ordinated campaign of intimidation (which judging by your lack of examples did not have many takers) then you will need to show us the whole e-mail and which organisation it came from so we can see the context.
(d) The fourth e-mail suggests pickets, heckling and so on. Not ideal but not a death threat/rape threat and not very damning if that is the 2nd most threatening e-mail you can produce. Again we would need to see the whole e-mail to get the context.
3) Re, the brick through Eagle’s window, the objection is not that she did it herself, but that it is being linked on Corbyn/his supporters on the basis of no evidence. I should also add that Eagle has in fact recently claimed that she had to cancel an event in Luton because of safety fears. It then transpired that the owner of the Hotel had cancelled it because he is a Tory and did not want to host a Labour event.
4) It is rather unfortunate that your blogpost appears to imply a link between Corbyn and the death of Jo Cox.
5) The 2 MPs you quote as evidence of a supposed atmosphere of fear pervading Labour are virulent opponents of Corbyn so not disinterested observers. Austin in particular is in no position to pass judgement on Corbyn, having shouted at him in the Chamber “to sit down and shut up, you’re a disgrace”. Thuggish behaviour at the best of times but particularly during a debate on the Iraq War. While giving full credence to these witnesses, you dismiss any witnesses who defend Corbyn as “Twitter Trolls”
6) There are a number of previous occassions where supposed instances of intimidating behaviour have been shown to be fabricated. I have already tweeted a couple to you but here they are again. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/homophobic-slurs-against-angela-eagle-wallasey-ive-only-experienced
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/another-media-setup/
7) Unlike his opponents, Corbyn has not made a huge fuss about the death threats he has received, or tried to make capital out of them, which I think in itself is revealing.
8) Your TV interview with the “normally calm and collected” Baxter (who appeared highly agitated) took place at least 24 hours after the NEC Meeting. You have quoted one e-mail that could be interpreted as a threat of harm (without producing that e-mail)
NB, please note I extensively edited this post on 15/07/2016 12:59 for clarity and to make some additional points
