The BBC is releasing a documentary on whether Labour is anti-semitic. There is some question over the use of non-disclosure agreements being used to prevent people from talking about Labour anti-Semitism. Oftentimes ndas are used to protect patent processes or trade secrets, but are typically not allowed to shield whistleblowing activity. Whether it is whistleblowing activity will depend on what is contained in the documentary.
I've seen large numbers of Labour members, in advance of the documentary, try to find different grounds for accusing the documentary makers of bias (one accusation was disqualification by Jewishness, which was probably even embarrassing for some of the worst rabble rousers). I'm always a bit suspicious when someone wants to discredit something whose findings they don't know yet. But maybe Labour supporters have been disingenuous when asking to see the evidence and really they know what it is. In my experience they should sometimes be told "you're the evidence". I've seen the same accusations about the pending statutory investigation by EHRC. With such an attitude they seem to hold out no hope for exoneration.
Related to this, the Guardian published a letter signed by a relatively small number of signatories from the Jewish community claiming the accusations of anti-Semitism are a smear campaign. This is not the first time they've published such a letter, often with the same signatories, but this is the first time they've pulled the letter, after it was reported one signatory was a Holocaust denier and one had publicly admitted to pretending to be Jewish because of its usefulness. I think one was a 9/11 truther but that doesn't necessarily make them less Jewish.
A few resignations today as well. I'm curious to see the documentary and the findings of the EHRC investigation. If I were compiling evidence, I would have enough to make the argument so I have to imagine a team of people will dutifully report it.
