False impression

Source: Wikimedia

Source: Wikimedia

So, now the Royall report (available here) about alleged antisemitism at the Oxford University Labour Club. has finally been published. Shami Chakrabarti may not be happy about that, as there may be fallout for her. Why?

As the Jewish Chronicle reports:

Speaking to the JC about the Royall report in July, Ms Chakrabarti said: “My impression is that the NEC redacted it because there were individuals involved who were then referred for disciplined.”

“So my understanding is that is what happened there.”

Ms Chakrabarti, the former director of human rights group Liberty, added: “I know it is going to upset people when you can’t publish in full, but I almost feel like it was a hybrid enquiry.

“Because it was a bit thematic like mine, but also quite specific and Baroness Royall referred individuals who were in that report, to be disciplined, so obviously pending the discipline [It could not be published].”

As the JC also reports:

The report contains no names and no redactions.

Ooops!

It appears that Shami Chakrabarti’s impression was false. Now, why might that be?

At the very least, she has some explaining to do. It would be the, er, honorable thing to do…

Share: