This post is a type of part two following on from Tuesday's "Since when was the word TRAITOR so abusive."
The above letter was received by the person in Tuesday's story; a Labour Party member who was recently suspended from the party for a handful of angry tweets.
Tweets which on the grand scale of abuse would probably be laughed out of court. No swearing, no nastiness and no threats.
For me it is ironic that in so many ways Labour's NEC and General Secretary Iain McNicol are acting on a par with the management of American owned supermarket chain Asda.
How so I hear you say? Well this is how.
When an Asda colleague faced disciplinary action for a silly angry comment on Facebook, with no names but obvious hints that Asda was the target, he was hauled over the coals. As an older man months away from retirement he opted to act with his feet and walked.
That person was and still is my husband.
But among those hauled over the coals for his indiscretion, calling ASDA "shite factory" and the "head man" useless following a crappy night shift, was an older female colleague who dared to LIKE his post.
She in fact was given "counselling" for her sins.
So how is the Labour party different? The answer is that at this time it is not.
People choose to join the Labour Party and pay for the privilege. They do so for many reasons.
They use social media in their own time and what they choose to share and re-share should be down to them.
If they break the law or are truly abusive that is a different matter.
But if party members share another person's social media comment what then?
Will the Labour Party like Asda offer counselling? Will they exclude a member for retweeting?
The following was retweeted by our source and forms part of the suspension process in this case:
ŷStrong stuff that makes your blood boil? Banter that will be a step too far for some? Hilarious? Silliness or what?
Opinion: aged 64 perhaps I am out of touch. Certainly some of those currently suspended from the Labour Party are my age or older.
They have seen life and some. They know first hand real trials and tribulations. They are real adults living in the real world.
Do the Labour Party want to be elected or not? Do they only want to be elected if they have removed Jeremy Corbyn? Do they think they can disrespect and or remove members and those same people will vote for them?
I am increasingly at a loss as to WTF is going on and why.
Do they think this constant "bad news week" will do the party's image any good? Will they say well you should not share it online?
Too that I would have to say "on yer bike."
Tough working-class people do not always swear but some do. Some are better educated than others. We the people are far from "champagne socialists." But as a point of fact many of those in Labour attacking Corbyn as some sort of "champagne socialist" are far from working class.
But it is a convenient tool like allegations of perceived abuse.
In much the same way unnamed sources within the Labour Party feed the right-wing mainstream media negative articles those accused and suspended are finding it increasingly difficult to get information from the NEC and are sharing their stories with people like me.
Letters and documents legally requesting information are arriving with redactions.
What have they to hide? Who is trying to hide?
Let's face it any person can screenshot an angry tweet or comment, send it off to the dreadfully named Compliance Unit of the Labour party and have any person suspended.
Jeremy Corbyn may not do personal but many ordinary people do. We lash out on social media often following provocation.
The above letter received by our source is not the first. As a point of fact that person tells me "they just asked me to appeal. I've already appealed 3 times what do they want? Blood" and perhaps they do; their "pound of flesh" to quote Shakespeare but that is not a politically correct saying these days.
Many things about all of this make me angry.
As yet I am not directly affected but we lefties traditionally care for and about each other.
Seeing the Labour Party act much like Asda chastising employees is more than worrying though. It is a bloody disgrace.
OK now do your worst Mr McNicol.
Free speech ASDA or lack of it - http://www.wherebuttheuk.com/uk-news/free-speech-and-asda-or-the-lack-of-it
In the run up to the Labour leadership election 2016 a series of party members where suspended from the Labour party.
Reasons were at times vague and many people smelled at least on big fat rat.
For most their problems stemmed from activity on social media.
For many it also appeared to be a McCarthy style witchunt with Jeremy Corbyn supporters targeted.
If that was the case were or are Corbyn supporters excessively abusive online? Just where is the line between banter and abusive interaction online?
If you are active online and drop by political forums, especially on Facebook, you may have already experienced abuse of some sort. It could be simple school yard type name calling or something more serious. It could also be by way of a "troll", possibly of the paid kind, and aimed at getting you to respond angrily.
It is then as simple as them copying your response and sending it off to the Labour Party validation team.
Initially this writer and Labour Party member was determined she would not stoop to that level but after too many online friends were removed from the party, perhaps temporarily, but all without due democratic process, it was a case of why not?
I posted a series of reports which featured some high flying abusers in the Labour Party followed up by open letters to the validation team.
Councillor John Ferret was one and he quit Labour recently. Did he jump before he was pushed? Who knows and in his case who cares. He has posted vile stuff on Twitter since Corbyn was first elected September 2015 egged on and supported by some MPs and he continues to do so.
But here is the thing.
A few things about the so-called #LabourPurge2 are worth noting:
One friend today has received details of five comments made on Twitter that used the word traitor.
One was actually during an interaction with Jo Cox who was murdered in June of this year.
But and there is a big BUT.
No expletives were used, no nastiness either, but pure and simple anger in response to a lack of support for party leader Jeremy Corbyn. A party member, an ordinary retired person who responded angrily as Labour Party MPs who opposed and still oppose Corbyn closed ranks.
Traitor was one word some had warned would be off limits.
However such ridiculous infringement of an adult's use of social media would act as a red rag to a bull in many cases.
In truth for some it would become a fight for freedom of expression.
Some of those suspended refused to toe a party line if that meant a curb of freedom of expression and can you blame them?
There was a time the Labour Party would have supported Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote the phrase: ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech."
Social media at times is anything but social. It sometimes is more like anti-social media but how you choose to spend your free time is up to you as long as you do not break the law.
Since when has the word TRAITOR broken any laws?
I can think of far worse name calling, have seen it and experienced it in fact.
There is always the block button or the police if abuse is actual real abuse not simply silly name calling.
Remember some words hurt as they are close to the truth.
For many Corbyn supporters those who plotted from day one to undermine and then remove him from office are traitors pure and simple. They feel they have been betrayed by those who vowed to support whoever was elected leader. So a natural choice of word is traitor.
As for the Jo Cox comment hindsight is a wonderful thing.
At the time my friend commented to Jo Cox "traitor" no person could have guessed what was to follow - the murder of Jo Cox.
I have my own theories on #LabourPurge2 and I am sure you do too.
Feel free to share your opinions in the comments section but remember the thought police may be watching. When I used that phrase in the Labour Party Forum on Facebook months ago I was ridiculed but hey I am a big girl and can take it. Sadly however it seems that was not such a silly notion after all.
Note: The "traitor" person becomes my third online buddy to quit the Labour Party rather than face a foolish unnecessary investigation. This time though the person's partner is quitting the party too. Four Corbyn supporters gone but at what price? Four decent law abiding individuals who are valuable members of society.
I presume the Labour Party will not want their votes come election time then?
About that word Blairite.
Op-ed: The blistering attacks against Jeremy Corbyn continue this time with Lord Alan Sugar leading the charge.
With such a short time left before local elections in May undermining the Labour leadership and spearheading a leadership coup seems the prime objective.
The attitude shown toward Jeremy Corbyn by some highlights that people like Sugar will never accept him as party leader.
Sugar quit Labour when Ed Miliband was party leader over alleged anti-business politics.
Like many on the rich side of life they do not want a Labour Party that even inches over to the left.
So it is no surprise that he attacks Labour with Mr Corbyn at the helm.
Sadly he and other dissenters have a loud voice in the mainstream media in effect manipulating the electorate.
This time Sugar is voicing his concerns over the upcoming election for mayor of London.
He has attacked Labour candidate Sadiq Khan presumably preferring fat cat Tory candidate Zac Goldsmith.
Sugar may claim to be a non-affiliated Peer these days but he is a Conservative in all but name or maybe his only affiliation is Alan Sugar?
Either way the big winner from mainstream media attacks on the Corbyn leadership is the Tory government. The big loser is 'we the people'.
The Jewish News reports "The billionaire businessman accused Mr Khan of being personally responsible for wrecking the Labour Party as Lord Sugar branded the City Hall favourite and Jeremy Corbyn the “Laurel and Hardy” of politics. Lord Sugar, who quit Labour to become a non-affiliated peer in protest at what he called its anti-business stance under Ed Miliband, warned Mr Khan would be a disaster for London if he wins the May 5 showdown with Tory Zac Goldsmith."
Sugar was writing in Murdoch's Sunday Times and the Jewish News was quick to follow on.
They posted a piece damning Khan, Ed Miliband and Corbyn claiming "labour now welcomes anti-Semites and terrorist sympathisers to its ranks, the TV star warned."
It is a hate filled piece but if you are a Labour Party member or supporter be careful how you respond.
Those with their own agenda are quick to shout anti-Semitism.
It seems it is fine to call those of the left of Labour the 'hard' left with the obvious connotations but not to call those from the Blairite camp attacking the Corbyn leadership ' bitterites'.
And of course the Tories love and welcome Sugar's distraction coming at a time when that party is split over Europe and not fit for government.
Sugar is quoted as saying “Under Corbyn, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum" which is divisive and biased.
Those on the left will simply explain they are turning the Labour party back to its roots and changing it from a second class Tory party to a real party of the people.
Sadiq Khan is from the Muslim faith and Alan Sugar the Jewish faith-that should not be relevant but these days it is.
Last week David Cameron used parliamentary privilege to launch an attack on Khan and as always he uses the mainstream media as a drip feed.
Guess he will be sending Sugar a thank you note then.
Cameron called racist but allowed free rein by Bercow
Op-ed: Friday we posted "Not murder when an Israeli kills a helpless Palestinian." It was an opinion piece written by a retired teacher in Canada-a person who could never be seriously accused of being anti-Semitic or racist. It openly shares an opinion and it does not have a hidden agenda nor is it aimed at misleading the reader.
That cannot be said for "Anti-Semitism at the heart of Corbyn's Labour Party: Devastating dossier exposes how extensive anti-Jewish bigotry is in Labour and poses profoundly troubling questions its leaders MUST answer" posted by the Mail Online Saturday.
That piece begins "To the duffel-coated members of Labour’s ‘loony Left’, one particular weekly newspaper was, for much of the Eighties, required reading" but is that relevant in 2016?
That lead into the story however must tell you all you need to know about its credibility?
If you want an idea of the standard of journalism at the Mail Online consider that Katie Hopkins, previously a columnist at the Sun, joined the team in September 2015 days after Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party. If you are British you must have heard of Hopkins who has made her name and paid the bills out of abuse and sensationalist headlines such as:
Petition against Katie Hopkins passes 250,000 mark
Katie Hopkins attacks Kelly Clarkson again
Katie Hopkins seeks personal attention out of the death of Cilla Black
So how credible is Saturday's piece in the Mail?
It uses information from the past, social media and Bitterities within the Labour party to craft an article which sensationalises a perceived anti-Semitic view allegedly running rampant in the Labour Party.
You will need to read it carefully and perhaps more than once to see that it is in many ways out of time and a false flag.
Are some so desperate to remove Jeremy Corbyn as party leader and John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor that they are prepared to rake up old history and to sacrifice local elections scheduled for May?
But in all political parties there are rogue elements.
Tory Grant Schapps resigns amid bullying scandal for example.
Sometimes it is the young who have a passion for politics, life and fair play.
The first, a passion for politics, appears to have been true of PM David Cameron who allegedly in 1985 was a top member of the "Federation of Conservative Students, which produced the "Hang Mandela" posters. In 1989, Cameron worked in the Tory Policy Unit at Central Office and went on an anti-sanctions fact-finding mission to South Africa with a pro-apartheid lobby firm sponsored by PW Botha."
The Independent wrote in 2009 "The trip by Mr Cameron in 1989, when he was a rising star of the Conservative Research Department, was a chance for him to "see for himself" and was funded by a firm that lobbied against the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime."
Two wrongs do not make a right and calling all who criticise Israel - when it invades a neighbouring country and kills many, grabs land, appears to want to squeeze another small nation into oblivion and encircles that small country with a huge wall turning it into the world's largest open air concentration camp - anti-Semitic is plain wrong.
This writer is not bigoted but nor is she naive enough not to realise that there may be elements in any political party with hidden agendas, and there may be "double agents" of sorts, trying to help the other side along.
And of course money rules.
The piece in the Mail Online uses social media posts to attack individuals. In one case it attacks a fair-minded individual who became embroiled in tit for tat debates on social media. During the last Israeli invasion of Gaza passions ran high. Can you really use a social media post in the heat of the moment to attack an individual's credibility?
Hypocrisy rules in 2016.
Raking up old news to cobble a story together can result in many things but is it really news?
Still we have taken a small leaf out of the Mail Online's book of journalism to see where it leads.
As for social media it can be many things including interesting, manipulated, funny, abusive, paid for, misinterpreted, taken out of context, polite, vile and at times far from social.
And there are many forums online.
Those that are closed are rarely invitation only; people tend to ask to join and are accepted or not.
Why they join is relevant.
Administrators of these groups face huge 24/7 challenges monitoring conversations, watching out for trolls, banning abusers and weeding out those with hidden agendas.
That means invariably some problems from time to time but many of the political forums enable people to get together and share ideas and knowledge.
Perhaps Labour needs to start fielding members to Tory forums, so they can copy text out of context and allow the mainstream media to manipulate politics ahead of elections?
Finding a left-wing mainstream media source however could prove tricky.
May 5, 2016, Vote Labour and ignore the right-wing hype.
Remember WE are Labour, not the Bitterites or high-profile personalities.
Op-ed: It is Easter Sunday and if you are an active Christian you will be celebrating the idea that Jesus has risen. If you are instead or also a Jeremy Corbyn supporter in the UK you may think that Judas Iscariot has been cloned and his clones are sitting pretty in the Labour party and feeding various right-wing Rupert Murdoch publications news of a future Labour Party coup by backbenchers.
Parliament is in recess with PM David Cameron sunning himself in Lanzarote; yes if you fell for his Easter message which appears to have been given at home think again.
So this latest batch of offensive Labour attacks appears to be political opportunism gone mad.
Are they megalomaniacs or on a Labour party suicide mission? And remember these vile and very public attacks are from Labour party MPs.
But do for example any of the three in the image above think that such disloyalty will improve Labour's chances at the polls? If they do they are delusional.
We are weeks away from local elections and the EU in/out referendum and Mr Corbyn, Labour party leader, has been doing well but not if you listen to in-party backstabbers who want Labour to be their idea of the party.
Yes their way or the highway.
They continue to set Corbyn up to fail while putting their hands out for nice little earners; along the way they waste too much time backstabbing.
Easter then we have the well-known Tory rag and some would say publication that is not fit to be toilet paper posting "Labour Backbenchers call to oust Jeremy Corbyn in leadership coup."
Murdoch's other end of the toilet paper spectrum, the Times, followed suit.
In the piece in the Sun Ms Smith is even quoted as attacking Corbyn for attending the British Kebab Awards; perhaps she would prefer him to attend arms fairs like others involved in the alleged future coup?
Will Ms Smith share her diary with us for perusal so we can decide what is suitable for her and what is not?
As we all know with friends like these who needs enemies?
If the Sun and the Times are simply using poetic licence to craft a story out of spin and propaganda we will happily share the truth.
Last week IPSO forced the Sun to publish a retraction after a damning front page which could have incited Muslim hatred; sadly the weak and ineffective British press regulator IPSO did not manage to get the apology on the Sun's front cover. The story was posted late November and three months later a half-ass apology is not fit for purpose.
But it is no good blaming the right-wing media when you have a website run by a section of the Labour party posting the following "UK could be destined for a permanent Tory government Labour MP warns."
That post on the Labour list is yet more tosh from a Blairite or as John Prescott would say a Bitterite.
Tory election campaigns have heavy financial support but they are now also being helped along by a series of backstabbing Labour politicians who claim to have our best interests at heart.
Now why do we not believe them?
Bitterite John Woodcock backstabber without a cause
Labour listgate but Tories look the buffoons
At the Independent - John Prescott says some 'bitter' Blairites are trying to sabotage Labour's election chances
Dear Chuka Umunna - When you read a post in the Guardian on budget day in the UK, Wednesday, titled "Labour backbenchers form high-profile group to respond to budget" you have to go to the heart of the story to try to find out what is going on.
Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party in September 2015 and has faced a barrage of attacks from within Labour, the Tories and the mainstream media so Mr Umunna what's with the latest piece posted as news at the Guardian?
Is it news, spin, real or fantasy?
According to the Guardian report an "Alliance of MPs including Chuka Umunna and Chris Leslie was formed to ‘give proper scrutiny to the government’" which could be fine if the team was formed with the approval of Mr Corbyn and his shadow cabinet; if it was not why are MPs behaving in such a derisory manner?
The Guardian report continues;
A team of high-profile Labour backbenchers have organised their own coordinated response to George Osborne’s budget, fearing Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet would struggle to do so.
If that is true it smacks on another Et tu, Brute moment from the very people who should be supporting the party leader and his shadow cabinet; they could and should be sharing their former front bench experience not using it to undermine Jeremy.
But the divisions were plain for all to see from day one of Corbyn's leadership when highly paid politicians acted like spoiled children who did not win the egg and spoon race; they ditched the leader, left him to sink or swim while sticking a few daggers in his back and high-tailed it for the backbenches.
Having managed to stuff the PLP with politicians to the right of the party the Bitterites are now intent on doing the same to the NEC so that they can undermine Mr Corbyn further and tear the Labour Party apart.
Their protestations that they are doing it for the right reasons have no credibility; the road to Hell is after all paved with good intentions.
But we are all Labour and there should not be a right and left of this party but rather a left-wing political party working to hold the Tories to account with the final goal removing the Conservatives from office.
Reports in the mainstream media that simply undermine Mr Corbyn will not unify, improve Labour's standing or attract votes; and when those reports are by way of self-serving MPs, some who did not want to stand for party leader last year but changed their minds when the first real Labour party leader in years comes along the writing is on the wall.
If the Guardian post has caused anger consider worse in the Sun, Telegraph and Huffington Post helped along by a series of Labour MPs who seem unable to air their dirty laundry away from prying eyes and greedy ears who want Mr Corbyn and Labour to fail.
Sadly some voters will conclude that you Mr Umunna, Dan Jarvis and others like Jess Phillips simply want a Labour party that is a poor man's version of the Conservative party; they may also conclude that is because you have it all to gain from some Tory policies and some to lose from real Labour Party politics that tries to rebalance the rich poor divide.
The Guardian report adds;
Allies of Corbyn played down the significance of the backbench alliance, saying the leader would continue to hold the chancellor to account for “six years of failure”.
And honest ordinary people like this writer agree with that assessment.
So Mr Umunna "Who are Ya" and why are you not doing your job instead of playing politics in divisive gangs?
In July 2015 following the General Election the Daily Mirror report "Chuka Umunna: Labour 'behaving like a petulant child' after Election defeat" was aptly titled but isn't that what you and your 'team' are doing now?
Other signatories include:
Like this writer's work please donate
British political scene
The next General Election in the UK may not be scheduled any time soon but the British political landscape is changing. With that in mind this blog will concentrate on the political scene but with a left wing perspective. Opinion pieces and news will bring you the stories that the MSM prefer to ignore.
Running a news based website is fun, time consuming and can be costly. If you would like to help the site keep afloat please use the donate button