Luke Stanger
Mar 6 · 27 min read

Luke Stanger – L1179952 – Case No: CN-0823

Questions for respondent –

  1. Please see the evidence attached overleaf. The Party has reason to believe that this is your Facebook account. Can you confirm this is the case?
  2. Please see the evidence attached overleaf.The Party has reason to believe that this is your Twitter account. Can you confirm this is the case?
  3. The Party further has reason to believe that you posted or shared these statements yourself. Can you confirm this is the case? If not, each individual pieces of evidence is numbered so please specify which of the pieces of evidence you are disputing posting or sharing?

Item 1

4. Please explain the reason for sharing this post.

5. What did you mean by “The traveller community are frequently a nasty blight on communities who wreak civil unrest onto areas”?

6. Can you see how someone may find your tweet offensive?

7. Do you think this Facebook post amounts to anti-Traveller racism?

Item 2

8. What did you mean by “some in the traveller community cause civil disorder and wreak havoc onto local communities”?

9. Can you see how someone may find your tweet offensive?

10.Do you think this Facebook post amounts to anti-Traveller racism?

Further Questions

11.Rule 2.I.8 in the Party’s rulebook states:

“No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party. Any dispute as to whether a member is in breach of the provisions of this sub-clause shall be determined by the NCC in accordance with Chapter 1 Clause IX above and the disciplinary rules and guidelines in Chapter 6 below. Where appropriate the NCC shall have regard to involvement in financial support for the organisation and/or the activities of any organisation declared ineligible for affiliation to the Party under Chapter 1.II.5 or 3.C above; or to the candidature of the members in opposition to an officially endorsed Labour Party candidate or the support for such candidature. The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in any instance inconsistent with the Party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.”

What is your response to the allegation that your conduct may be or have been in breach of this rule?

12.The Party’s Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “treat all people with dignity and respect. This applies…..offline and online” – Do you think the posts/tweets in this pack are consistent with this policy?

13.Looking back at the evidence supplied with this letter, do you regret posting or sharing any of this content?

14.Would you be willing to undergo training to better understand and comply with the Party’s Code of Conduct if it were recommended or offered to you by the party?

Luke Stanger – L1179952 – Case No: CN-0824

Questions for respondent

5th June 2016 – Brighton

  1. Did you visit the Central Pub in Brighton around the 5th of June 2016?
  2. Can you describe, in your own words, what happened at the pub?
  3. Do you recall an incident in which two men allegedly shouted “so which one of you is it then? Which one of you pieces of scum is it? Who works for that scumbag John McDonnell?” at members of the Labour Party.
  4. Were you involved in this incident?
  5. Did you encourage or otherwise incite this incident?

Harrow East PPC Dossier

6. Please see Item 1 and Item 2 overleaf. The Party has reason to believe this is your Facebook account. Can you confirm this is the case?

7. What did you mean by ‘I have been asked by a moderate councillor in Harrow to help build up a social media dossier on her which can be leaked out and hopefully will result in the suspension of her candidacy?’

8. Can you explain who asked you to build this dossier?

9. Can you explain what the purpose of this dossier is?

10.Do you intend to publish a dossier on the Harrow East PPC?

Social Media

11.Please see Item 3 and Item 4 overleaf. The party has reason to believe this is your Twitter account. Can you confirm this is the case?

12.Please explain the reason for sharing Item 3.

13.Please explain the reason for sharing Item 4.

14.The Party’s Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “It is perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour.” – Do you think the tweets in this pack are consistent with this policy?

1st September 2018 – Social Event with Harrow Councillors

15.Did you attend a social event on 1st September 2018 with a number of Harrow councillors?

16.Can you describe, in your own words, what happened at this event?

17.Did you describe the Labour Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for Harrow East as a “scum bag” at this event?

18.Did you tell members at this event that Harrow East CLP were “scraping the bottom of the barrel” when they selected their PPC?

19.Do you believe your behaviour could be described as “aggressive” at this event?

1st September 2018 – Junction Pub in Harrow

20. Did you visit the Junction Pub in Harrow around 10pm on the 1st September 2018?

21. Can you describe, in your own words, what happened at the pub?

22. Do you believe your behaviour towards other Labour Party members could be described as “aggressive” at this pub?

Further Questions

23.Rule 2.I.8 in the Party’s rulebook states:

“No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party. Any dispute as to whether a member is in breach of the provisions of this sub-clause shall be determined by the NCC in accordance with Chapter 1 Clause IX above and the disciplinary rules and guidelines in Chapter 6 below. Where appropriate the NCC shall have regard to involvement in financial support for the organisation and/or the activities of any organisation declared ineligible for affiliation to the Party under Chapter 1.II.5 or 3.C above; or to the candidature of the members in opposition to an officially endorsed Labour Party candidate or the support for such candidature. The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in any instance inconsistent with the Party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.”

What is your response to the allegation that your conduct may be or have been in breach of this rule?

24.The Party’s Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “treat all people with dignity and respect. This applies…..offline and online” – Do you think the posts/tweets in this pack are consistent with this policy?

25.Do you believe your behaviour amounts to harassment of other Labour Party members?

26.Do you believe you have acted in an intimidating, threatening or abusive manner towards other Labour Party members?

Luke Stanger – L1179952 – Case No: CN-1145

Questions for respondent

  1. Please see the evidence attached overleaf. The Party has reason to believe this is your twitter account. Can you confirm this is the case?
  2. The Party further has reason to believe you posted or shared these statements yourself. Can you confirm this is the case? If not, each individual pieces of evidence is numbered so please specify which of the pieces of evidence you are disputing posting or sharing?

Item 1 – 7

3. Please explain the reasons for writing these tweets.

4. The Party’s Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states:

“It is perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour. Forcefully made points and criticisms of the political views of others are totally legitimate, personal attacks are not. Debates amongst party members should be comradely, acknowledging that whatever our diverse views, we are one party with shared goals. Derogatory descriptions of the positions of others should be avoided. We should not give voice to those who persistently engage in abuse and should avoid sharing their content, even when the item in question is unproblematic. Those who consistently abuse other or spread hate should be shunned and not engaged with in a way that ignores this behaviour. We all have a responsibility to challenge abuse and to stand in solidarity with victims of it. We should attempt to educate and discourage abusers rather than responding in kind. We encourage the reporting of abusive behaviour to the Labour Party, administrators of the relevant website or social media platform, and where appropriate, to the police.”

Do you think your tweets are consistent with this policy?

Item 8

5. Please explain the reason for writing this tweet.

6. The confidentiality clause in the notice of administrative suspension that was sent to you states:

“The Labour Party’s investigation process operates confidentially. That is vital to ensure fairness to you and the complainant, and to protect the rights of all concerned under the Data Protection Act 2018. I must therefore ask you to ensure that you keep all information and correspondence relating to this investigation private, and that do not share it with third parties or the media (including social media). That includes any information you receive from the Party identifying… the names of Party staff dealing with the matter. If you fail to do so, the Party reserves the right to take action to protect confidentiality, and you may be liable to disciplinary action for breach of the Party’s rules.”

Do you think this tweet is consistent with this clause?

7. You were asked to remove information from social media identifying the names of Party staff as per the confidentiality clause in the notice of administrative suspension. Can you explain why you have not done this?

Further Questions

8. Rule 2.1.8 in the Party’s rulebook states:

“No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party. Any dispute as to whether a member is in breach of the provisions of this sub-clause shall be determined by the NCC in accordance with Chapter 1 Clause IX above and the disciplinary rules and guidelines in Chapter 6 below. Where appropriate the NCC shall have regard to involvement in financial support for the organisation and/or the activities of any organisation declared ineligible for affiliation to the Party under Chapter 1.II.5 or 3.C above; or to the candidature of the members in opposition to an officially endorsed Labour Party candidate or the support for such candidature. The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in any instance inconsistent with the Party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.”

What is your response to the allegation that your conduct may be or have been in breach of this rule?

9. The Party’s Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “treat all people with dignity and respect. This applies…..offline and online” – Do you think the posts/tweets in this pack are consistent with this policy?

10.Looking back at the evidence supplied with this letter, do you regret posting or sharing any of this content?

Response to your questions – Luke Stanger – L1179952

Thank you for your correspondence.

Mitigation

I wish to state at the outset that in my eight years of obsessive activism and seven years of party membership, I have never intended to cause the party any harm or offense. I recognise that in recent years I have on occasions been forthright and blunt about my concerns about much of the party’s current direction of travel under its new establishment. Some may think this has caused the party harm or offence. However, I reiterate that at no point have I ever wished to cause the party any harm or offense. I reject the accusation that I have broken any of the party’s rules or codes of conduct.

I wish to set out my history of commitment and service to the Labour Party, working with members from across the whole party in a comradely way which contradicts the impression of the nature of my involvement in the party given by the necessarily selective complaints you have acted upon.

I also wish to set out my mental health problems as I believe you should take these into account.

I became active in the Labour Party in June 2010, when a council by-election took place in my hometown of Brighton. I was ineligible to join for another year as a result of only being 14. Throughout that summer, and over most of the next year, I devoted most of my spare time to Brighton and Hove Labour Party’s local election efforts. My focus was primarily on Goldsmid, St Peters and North Laine and Queens Park Wards. 2011 involved my first 18 hour Labour Party Polling Day operation. It was exciting.

Over the course of the 2011 school summer holidays, I volunteered for several weeks in Islington Labour Party’s office, supporting Councillor Alice Perry’s by-election efforts. I developed a strong affinity to Islington Labour Party and spent much of the following year visiting the Borough at weekends to support Ken Livingstone with his 2012 mayoral election bid. I came into frequent contact with our current Leader, Jeremy Corbyn. My mum allowed me to take polling day off school in 2012 where I spent the day in Islington. Throughout the summer of 2012, I spent various weeks volunteering on the Hampstead Town Council by-election in Camden Borough for Maddy Rahman.

Shortly after beginning Sixth Form in Autumn 2012, I had a mental health crisis where my subsequent, and sometimes crippling, battles with depression and anxiety began. In the new year, after various months of social isolation, I was taken on in a full-time voluntarily capacity for Brighton and Hove District Labour Party. I owe this party gratitude for offering me a glimmer of light in my darkest hours. My work as a full time volunteer was primarily focused on the County Council operations in May 2013 and a summer Council By Election in Hanover and Elm Grove, which we won on a significant swing from the Greens. I also supported Kat Fletcher and Martin Tiedemann on their By Election efforts in the first half of 2013.

Following the 2013 summer period, after Nancy Platts, Purna Sen and Peter Kyle’s parliamentary selections in Brighton and Hove, it was all hands on deck as we looked towards the 2015 General Election. I returned to Sixth Form in the autumn of 2013, but it was often of secondary importance over the following years, as General Election campaigning efforts were my priority.

In this time period, I also forged close relations with Harrow Labour Party. I noticed whilst being in London in Autumn 2013 half term period a by-election taking place in the Harrow on the Hill Ward. I subsequently spent much of the remaining few weeks of the campaign in Harrow and took the day off from college on Polling Day. It was here that I met Uma Kumaran.

I subsequently visited Harrow East after Uma’s selection as parliamentary candidate several times in the run up to the 2013 Christmas Period. In the New Year, I made frequent visits to Harrow in the run up to the 2014 London local elections. On Polling Day 2014, in the same day as sitting an AS Exam in Brighton, I travelled to Harrow for the remaining GOTV operation. I also made frequent visits throughout the first half of 2014 to wards in Haringey, as well as to Chatham to support my friend, the then-PPC Tristram Osborne. Weekday evenings and any remaining weekends were taken up by campaign activity in Brighton and Hove.

Throughout the summer of 2014, most of my spare time was spent supporting the General Election efforts of Peter Kyle and Nancy Platts. I also made various visits to target seats in other parts of Sussex, Kent and London.

Over the latter part of 2014 through to 2015, most of my time awake was devoted to Peter Kyle’s General Election campaign. This included participating in every Shocktober canvassing session. Over this time period, I also participated in a week’s long nationwide tour of marginal seats in the February half term and continued to make frequent visits to marginal seats across London. I believe in the 8 month period as a Year 13 student I visited in excess of 60 marginal seats.

In the summer of 2015, I worked as a full-time intern on Caroline Flint’s Deputy Leadership Campaign. I later worked for Joan Ryan as a Parliamentary intern in the autumn session of Parliament. In the New Year, after spending several weeks volunteering in Sadiq Khan’s campaign offices on a full-time basis, I was fortunate to secure my dream job as a Labour Party member of staff, working as a mobilisation assistant in the Ealing and Hillingdon GLA seat. These 4 months included some of my happiest memories. In what was London’s most marginal GLA seat, I was proud of the 8.1% swing we saw to Labour.

Shortly after the mayoral election’s completion, I spent much of the following 6 weeks in Tooting on a voluntarily basis supporting Dr Rosena Allin-Khan on her parliamentary by-election efforts. After this by-election, the next week was spent supporting Labour In’s operation in Brighton and Hove.

I began studying at the University of Birmingham in autumn 2016. I intermitted for a year at Christmas 2016, due to another mental health crisis I experienced, following which I was diagnosed with ADHD.

At the start of 2017, I made two successive visits across the country to support Gareth Snell in the Stoke Central by-election and also travelled the whole length of the country to Copeland. All this was done at my own personal expense.

When the 2017 General Election was called, I was fortunate to secure a full time campaign role in Tooting. I was proud of the 10.6% swing we delivered to Labour.

Over the summer of 2017, I supported South East Regional staff on a voluntarily basis at various Jeremy Corbyn rallies across the region. These included Hastings, Crawley and Milton Keynes.

Over the past year, I have been active as a Birmingham Labour Student supporting the local elections operation in this city. I also made frequent visits to London boroughs including Enfield, Ealing and Wandsworth to support their 2018 local election campaigns. After the completion of my first University exam on the eve of poll, I spent Polling Day in Wandsworth, where sadly we were unable to make history. Over this summer, I supported Bermondsey and Old Southwark Labour for some weeks on a full-time, voluntary basis with a by-election operation. I live, breathe and sleep the Labour Party.

As noted above, I suffer from depression, anxiety and ADHD. I don’t wish to invoke my mental health as an emotive matter. Nor do I wish to use it as a prism with which to contextualise any mistakes I have made.

However, the process my suspension has so far entailed has sent me down into a deep depression and seen my motivation affected. Being so abruptly formally suspended from the organisation that makes up such a significant part of my heart and soul was crushing.

Having respected the requested confidentiality of the matter, in spite of its huge significance to me, I was shocked and deeply hurt to find that details of my case were leaked to Skwawkbox, a website that specialises in sectarian and personalised attacks on Labour Party members. The hurtful and spurious article they published, led to me receiving social media abuse. This all occurred before I was even informed of the allegations over which I was suspended, and has had a detrimental effect on my well-being. Skwawkbox appeared to know more about the reasons for my suspension than I did, shaking my faith in the integrity of the party’s disciplinary process.

I will now endeavour to take the specified allegations in turn. I will endeavour to answer all of them with candour and the upmost sincerity.

Luke Stanger – L1179952 – Case No: CN-0823

  1. Yes that is my Facebook account
  2. 2. Yes that is my Twitter account
  3. 3. Yes I did post or share these statements myself.
  4. 4. I shared Item 1 because there is a legitimate public policy debate about the impact of illegal travellers’ sites on local communities, including crime and disorder as well as loss of amenity of public spaces that are illegally occupied, and eyesore and environmental impact. This is an issue in Sussex where I live and is a public policy issue that Labour MPs, councillors and councils often have to respond to. My post linked to an article in a mainstream national newspaper about crime and disorder relating to the traveller community in various villages in Surrey, the next county to me. I commented frankly about the impact some in the traveller community cause in areas where they occupy land illegally. I believe the sentiments of my post has been expressed by various Labour MPs. These include John Mann MP whose booklet on anti-social behaviour devoted an entire chapter to ‘Travellers’. Moreover, in a debate last year on ‘Gypsies and Travellers and Local Communities, John Mann questioned whether the ‘…public view of the community will continue to be shaped by the appalling behaviour of the minority, who bring absolute chaos to their own communities?’ I am unaware of any disciplinary action instigated against these Labour MPs as a consequence of these remarks, or against Labour councillors around the country who have condemned the impact of illegal travellers’ sites on the communities they represent. The Labour Party has historically taken a strong stance against anti-social behaviour, whichever community causes it.
  5. 5. When I wrote “The traveller community are frequently a nasty blight on
  6. communities who wreak civil unrest onto areas” I was making a factual reference to the impact of illegal travellers’ sites on local communities, including crime and disorder as well as loss of amenity of public spaces that are illegally occupied, and eyesore and environmental impact.
  7. 6. This is a contentious issue of public policy where some people believe in zero tolerance of illegal travellers’ sites and others feel that travellers do not have enough provision of legal sites and are therefore driven to camp illegally. This issue raises strong emotions so I am unsurprised that people who disagree with me may be offended, that’s the case with all political debates but it is not grounds for disciplinary action. For instance, supporters of CND are presumably offended that other Labour Party members support Trident, and vice versa.
  8. 7. No, I do not accept that it is anti-traveller racism to express concerns about the impact of illegal travellers sites and associated ASB. Many travellers abide by the law and only use legal council-provided sites and do not cause any ASB. My post was clearly only relating to those who do the former.

However, following reflection and several conversations had, I removed my Facebook post within 24 hours and issued a retraction statement, recognising and apologising for any upset and offence it may have caused and any unintentionally inflammatory nature. I also recognised the importance of respecting the sensitivities of the debate given the status the traveller community possess as an ethnic minority. I accept that the vast majority of the traveller community aren’t responsible for the ASB a minority in the community engage in and I hold no prejudicial views against the traveller community.

8. By tweeting “some in the traveller community cause civil disorder and

wreak havoc onto local communities” I was making a factual reference to the impact of illegal travellers’ sites on local communities, including crime and disorder as well as loss of amenity of public spaces that are illegally occupied, and eyesore and environmental impact. This tweet was part of a Twitter thread, in which I reiterated my point about the. ASB and disruption that is caused to communities by some in the traveller community. I also recognised the upset and offence my original remarks may have entailed. I am therefore perplexed as to why you appear to have dismissed the other tweets un the Twitter thread and. singled out that individual one out of context.

9. See answer 6 above.

10. See answer 7 above.

Luke Stanger – L1179952 – Case No: CN-0824

  1. Yes, I visited The Central Pub in Brighton after the AGM of the Brighton and Hove Labour Party. Your documentation incorrectly states that this was on the 5th of June 2016, in fact it was on Saturday 9th July 2016.
  2. 2. I was in conversation with two individuals at the bar, who were then both Labour Party members. During a discussion about the contentious events at the AGM I pointed out to them that also in the bar was a man called Michael Calderbank who had previously worked for John McDonnell. I suggested he might have been in Brighton to organise for Momentum’s attempt to win the local party AGM. It was simply an innocent and harmless point of reference/interest. I neither encouraged nor incited any contact between the two individuals I was talking to and Mr Calderbank. At no point did I foresee what occurred next, which was that the two individuals were abusive and threatening towards Mr Calderbank and his partner, Seema Chandwani. The subsequent offensive conduct by the two individuals was entirely unpredictable as they were a former party staffer and a former council candidate.
  3. 3. Yes, as I have explained above I saw this incident but it was entirely unpredictable, was not incited or encouraged by me, and I deplore their behaviour.
  4. 4. I was not involved in the altercation with Michael Calderbank and Seema Chandwani other than, as stated above, it was me who identified to the two protagonists who Mr Calderbank was, not expecting them to interact with him in any way.
  5. 5. No I did not encourage or otherwise incite this incident.
  6. 6. Item 1 and Item 2 are private Facebook messenger exchanges between me and another individual. They were not posted publicly on Facebook and as such I am concerned that it is a breach of GDPR that they have been passed to you.
  7. 7. By. “I have been asked by a moderate councillor in Harrow to help build up a social media dossier on her which can then be leaked out and will hopefully result in the suspension of her candidacy” I meant that I had serious concerns, based on my history of campaigning in Harrow East and my knowledge of the views of the local Jewish Community and the possible impact on their willingness to vote Labour in a key marginal seat of content on Labour candidate Pamela Fitzpatrick’s twitter feed which appeared to downplay and trivialise the allegations of antisemitism inside our party. It was my view that her views, publicly expressed on social media, made her an inappropriate person to be Labour’s candidate in Harrow East, and that these views should be collated and put in the public domain with a view to getting her status as candidate reviewed by the NEC. I believe it is legitimate to try to challenge someone’s status as a candidate if their views will lose votes for the party, and important to do so while there is still time to change the candidate.
  8. 8. A local councillor in Harrow who shared my view that Pamela Fitzpatrick was an inappropriate candidate because of her social media statements about antisemitism asked me to compile the information.
  9. 9. The purpose of the dossier was to ensure that the Labour Party dealt with the issues around Pamela Fitzpatrick’s fitness to be the candidate before they were exposed during a General Election campaign by the Conservative Party.
  10. 10. I intended to pass on this dossier about Pamela Fitzpatrick’s social media comments to the NEC.
  11. 11. Item 3 and item 4 are from my Twitter account.
  12. 12. Your screen grab of Item 3 does not show the whole tweet I was retweeting. It looks like this:

JVL Watch is a Twitter account exposing the role of Jewish Voice for Labour. Their tweet questions why Pamela Fitzpatrick was silent about Harrow East CLP affiliating to JVL at the height of the media storm about antisemitism this summer, when JVL is viewed by the mainstream of the UK Jewish Community as whitewashing antisemitism. It is legitimate political debate to question why a PPC hasn’t condemned her CLP affiliating to such a contentious organisation and I am bewildered by this re-tweet being of relevance to a Labour Party disciplinary process. Have you raised this with the other Labour Party members who retweeted the same tweet?

13. Item 4 was me retweeting another JVL Watch tweet that questioned Pamela Fitzpatrick’s own social media posts when she retweeted accusations that Ruth Smeeth MP was inventing claims of antisemitism to maliciously ‘smear’ Jeremy Corbyn supporters and sent a questionable tweet at the time of the #enoughisenough rally. Again it is legitimate political debate to question whether a PPC’s social media comments on antisemitism make her an appropriate candidate and I am unclear why this retweet by me is of relevance to a Labour Party disciplinary process.

14. Both items 3 and 4 are consistent with the Labour Party social media policy. Neither of them contain any hint of “personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour”.

15. On 1st September 2018 in the evening I was in the Junction Pub in Harrow.

16. I attended the pub with a friend to see a mutual friend of ours. We didn’t expect that there would be other Harrow Labour activists at the pub. It was a nice surprise to see them. I enjoyed lots of warm, friendly and cordial discussions with all those present. At no point throughout this evening, did I make any of the remarks that are attributed to me in your questions. At no point throughout this evening was my conduct aggressive.

17. No I did not describe the Labour Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for Harrow East as a “scum bag” at this event?

18. No I did not say that Harrow East CLP were “scraping the bottom of the barrel” when they selected their PPC.

19. No I do not believe that believe my behaviour could be described as “aggressive” that evening.

20. I arrived at the Junction Pub at a much earlier time than 10pm.

21. See question 16 above.

22. My only recollection of any confrontation in the evening involved Ben Fitzpatrick. I was unaware of his presence at the pub until he confronted me. He proceeded from a distance to call my name out, and threateningly inform me that he had seen my criticism of his mum (Pamela Fitzpatrick) online. He used various swear words when he address me. He also expressed his disappointment at those I was with at the company they were choosing to keep. I remained calm and collected throughout this incident, seated, and at no point retaliated verbally nor with any physical movement towards Ben. If anyone was aggressive that evening it was Ben Fitzpatrick.

23. My answers to the previous questions demonstrate that nothing in my conduct has breached Rule 2.I.8 in the Party’s rulebook.

24. All of the tweets in this pack are legitimate political commentary and none of them fail to treat people with dignity and respect.

25. No, I have never harassed other Labour Party members. The allegation is absurd.

26. No, I have never acted in an intimidating, threatening or abusive manner towards other Labour Party members.

27.

Luke Stanger – L1179952 – Case No: CN-1145

  1. Yes this is my Twitter account.
  2. 2. Yes I posted or shared all these tweets.
  3. 3. I wrote these tweets because I am extremely concerned about incidents involving antisemitism in my local party, which have been common knowledge in recent years. There has been a regrettable breakdown in relations between the local party in Brighton and Hove and the Jewish community. I believe that as an antiracist it is essential to publicly call out and confront antisemitism, particularly when it is in one’s own local Labour Party.

Items 1 and 2 are about Alex Braithwaite appearing to endorse an article that dismisses the issue antisemitism in the Labour Party, and her sectarian attitude to some Labour MPs. They are taken out of context of a thread of tweets exposing her views. The full thread is here: https://twitter.com/lukey_stanger/status/103968412366376140

Item 3 relates to directly calling ‘@mitchcjam’, Anne Mitchell, CLP EC member, an antisemite. Anne Mitchell is on record as stating antisemitism is being ‘privileged’ against other forms of racism. I am unable to determine how any racism can be privileged against any other and therefore concluded that she in some way is trivialising antisemitism compared to other forms of racism. Anne Mitchell has also asked JLM to justify reports of IDF violence. I therefore concluded that she is invoking a traditional antisemitic trope in suggesting British Jews have split national loyalties that involve Israel or are collectively responsible for the actions of a state they are not usually citizens of. Anne Mitchell also tweeted an article relating to Governments being swayed by ‘Jewish money’, a reference to the ‘Israel lobby’ manufacturing the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis and an inquiry into ‘Israel influencing British political democracy’. On all accounts these tweets invoke antisemitic. Item 3 involves me expressing concern about an individual holding office within my local CLP who appears to hold antisemitic views.

Item 4 relates to the reportage that Hove and Portslade Constituency Labour Party, since Momentum took control of the CLP, has become a platform that has given succour to antisemitism. I have cited above the compelling evidence to substantiate the claims that Anne Mitchell is an antisemite. ‘@Beckycheabbas’ refers to Becky Massey.

Becky Massey has a history on social media of suggesting Israel ‘controls’ both Labour and the Tories. She also suggests that Chuka Umunna ‘swallowed the conflation of Zionist with Jewish (or pretends to)’. Indeed, these tweets were reported here in an article produced by the Campaign against Antisemitism: 8https://antisemitism.uk/just-another-day-for-racist-labour-as-antisemitic-tweets-of-partys-chair-in-hove-brunswick-and-adelaide-revealed . Subsequently, a Jewish-owned community centre in Hove pulled the plug on a CLP Meeting as a result of Becky Massey’s involvement in the local party. This matter was reported here: /https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theargus.co.uk/news/15074382.amp .

Item 4 also relates to a tweet’s content which refers to ‘the content of @paulinemable’s twitter’. ‘@paulinemable’ refers to Anne Pissaridou, my CLP Chair. Anne Pissaridou’s twitter entails retweets that suggest the ‘Israel lobby’ wishes the British public to forget polling that she believes suggests antisemitism inside the Labour Party has reduced under Corbyn’s leadership.

Items 5 and 6 are again about Anne Mitchell.

Item 7 is about Anne Pissaridou dismissing antisemitism in the Labour Party as false allegations.

4. Yes, I believe that my tweets are consistent with the Social Media Policy. They are legitimate political debate as in every case I am responding to contentious remarks that the individuals themselves made on social media which were either diminishing antisemitism or were prima facie antisemitic. Party members have a moral responsibility to whistle-blow and publicly call out antisemitic discourse and diminution of antisemitism and I am disgusted that complaints have been made against me to try and silence me as a whistleblower when it is the people who I was calling out who should be being investigated.

5. Item 8 is a statement I issued expressing my concern that someone leaked details of this disciplinary process to the Skwawkbox website.

6. Yes I believe that Item 8 is consistent with the confidentiality clause as it merely refers to the breaking of that clause by Skwawkbox and the person who leaked details of the case to them, and does not reveal any detail that Skwawkbox had not already put into the public domain.

7. I have removed information from social media identifying the names of Party staff as per the confidentiality clause – Item 8 is my statement with the name removed as requested.

8. Rule 2.I.8 is not intended to silence whistleblowers who are exposing other members who have, prima facie, themselves breached Rule 2.I.8. Nothing in the social media posts you have presented breaches Rule 2.I.8.

9. Yes, I believe my tweets are consistent with the Social Media Policy. They are legitimate political debate as in every case I am responding to contentious remarks that the individuals themselves made on social media which were either diminishing antisemitism or were prima facie antisemitic. Party members have a moral responsibility to whistle-blow and publicly call out antisemitic discourse and diminution of antisemitism and I am disgusted that complaints have been made against me to try and silence me as a whistleblower when it is the people who I was calling out who should be being investigated.

10. No, I do not regret posting or sharing any of this content, I have a moral responsibility to whistle-blow and publicly call out antisemitic discourse and diminution of antisemitism.

    Luke Stanger

    Written by