10 MPs faced threats — but none were told of them

The Jewish Chronicle - - NEWS - BY LEE HARPIN PO­LIT­I­CAL EDI­TOR

LABOUR HAS been ac­cused of an “in­ex­pli­ca­ble” fail­ure to in­form up to 10 MPs — in­clud­ing Lu­ciana Berger and Dame Mar­garet Hodge — about a se­ries of “cred­i­ble” threats made against them by Party mem­bers.

The threats, openly an­tisemitic mes­sages and im­ages were all pre­sented to Labour’s dis­putes panel, which is over­seen by head of le­gal af­fairs, Gor­don Nardell QC, at a meet­ing in July.

In one Face­book post, a Labour mem­ber, who is an on­line friend of Derby North MP Chris Wil­liamson, was shown to have writ­ten: “Zion­ist Ex­trem­ist MP Lu­ciana Berger, who hates civilised peo­ple, about (to) get a good kick­ing!” It is un­known if Wil­liamson read the post.

The same in­di­vid­ual was also re­vealed to have shared nu­mer­ous other an­tisemitic posts with their 7,000 fol­low­ers and friends on­line, in­clud­ing an im­age sug- gest­ing Amer­i­can tax- pay­ers’ money is be­ing chan­nelled into the slaugh­ter of Pales­tini­ans by Jewish con­trollers.

But de­spite the al­leged weight of ev­i­dence against them, it has emerged that the in­di­vid­ual , who ad­mit­ted tar­get­ing Ms Berger, was only sus­pended by Labour last week af­ter ra­dio sta­tion LBC was handed a dossier of 45 an­tisemitism cases pre­sented to the Party’s dis­putes panel.

Ms Berger was at no stage no­ti­fied of the lat­est threats to be made against her, de­spite the ap­par­ent se­ri­ous na­ture of the ev­i­dence, which is now be­ing in­ves­ti­gated by the po­lice.

David Wolf­son QC, a bar­ris­ter at One Es­sex Court said: “This is se­ri­ous. Nei­ther to in­form the Po­lice, nor the in­tended vic­tims, of cred­i­ble threats of se­ri­ous vi­o­lence ap­pears in­ex­pli­ca­ble.”

Labour MP John Mann said it was a “scan­dal be­yond com­pre­hen­sion” that Labour had failed to no­tify its own MPs of “di­rect named threats.”

Dame Mar­garet Hodge — who was her­self the sub­ject of threats made known to Labour’s dis­putes panel — said: “They (Labour) are not in­form­ing MPs and I think their fail­ure to do so means they are not re­ally ful­fill­ing their duty of care to their mem­bers.

“And they are also not prop­erly, I would have thought, fol­low­ing their own guide­lines on safe­guard­ing in­di­vid­ual party mem­bers.”

Last week it emerged that Cres­sida Dick, head of the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Po­lice, had con­firmed that her of­fi­cers were in­ves­ti­gat­ing the con­tents of the leaked dossier from the July dis­putes panel meet­ing.

Mak Chishty, for­mer hate crime in­ves­ti­ga­tor for the Met, said nearly half of the dossier would be deemed ev­i­dence of race-hate ma­te­rial.

Adam Wag­ner, hu­man rights lawyer at Doughty Street Cham­bers said: “What do you think would hap­pen if the threats were then car­ried out and they hadn’t told them?”

A Labour spokesper­son said: “When the Party is made aware of a se­ri­ous and pos­si­ble crim­i­nal threat against an MP or Party mem­ber that in­di­vid­ual is in­formed and the mat­ter is re­ferred to our Safe­guard­ing Unit to re­port it to the po­lice.” Lu­ciana Berger: faced a ‘cred­i­ble’ threat

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.