Martin Forde

From Wikispooks
Revision as of 13:04, 2 May 2020 by Patrick Haseldine (talk | contribs) (Inaugurating)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Person.png Martin FordeRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
(barrister)
Martin Forde.jpg
Alma materOxford University

Martin Forde QC is a British lawyer who became a barrister in 1984, was appointed QC in 2006 and has a practice which covers all aspects of Health Law.[1] Acting for both claimants and defendants, Martin Forde has undertaken clinical negligence claims of the greatest severity, and has appeared in disciplinary and regulatory tribunals on behalf of medical professionals such as dentists, doctors and chiropractors.[2]

Windrush scandal

In May 2018, Home Secretary Sajid Javid appointed Martin Forde to advise on how to compensate the 5,000 or more victims of the Windrush scandal who lost their jobs or homes, or were detained or deported after being wrongly classified as illegal immigrants. Forde said he wants to get a fuller picture of the suffering caused by the Home Office’s unfair treatment of a generation of people living in the UK for most of their adult lives without formally applying for citizenship, and who began to experience severe difficulties with the government’s implementation of “hostile” immigration policies around 2013:

“We’ve had people email saying the stress led to the breakdown of relationships – people who have lost their job, can’t pay their rent, are then rendered homeless, their living arrangements change, separate, their relationship breaks down. We need to try to get the fullest picture we can of interrelated claims.”

Forde's determination to create an effective scheme was partly fuelled by the experience of his parents who came to the UK from Barbados and St Lucia:

“My father did national service here. As children they were told that they were going to rebuild this country post-war; they were told that this was the mother country.”[3]

Labour antisemitism report

Leaked Labour antisemitism report

On 1 May 2020, Sir Keir Starmer appointed Martin Forde to head an inquiry into the leaked report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.[4] Forde will lead a panel of experts consisting of former Labour General Secretary Larry Whitty, Welsh Labour councillor Debbie Wilcox and Professor of Social Policy at Loughborough University Ruth Lister, who are all Labour peers in the House of Lords.

How likely is it that Martin Forde's inquiry will reach the same conclusion as Craig Murray?:

"That Leaked Labour Party Report proves conclusively that Sam Matthews’ allegations of unwarranted interference from Jeremy Corbyn’s office to block anti-semitism action are malicious lies."[5]

The investigation is expected to conclude in July when Forde presents his findings to Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC).[6]

Whitewash underway?

SKWAWKBOX reported:

Three weeks ago, Keir Starmer and his deputy Angela Rayner promised:

"We will therefore commission an urgent independent investigation into this matter."

But their announcement also made clear that the investigation’s focus was to be more on why the report was commissioned and who leaked it than on the content of the report – which contains a mass of WhatsApp conversations among senior staff that have led to complaints including electoral and disciplinary sabotage, racism and misuse of party funds.

Roller in Hand with Huge Tub of Whitewash?

And today’s appointments to the panel include at least two who are anything but independent – a move that has convinced many on the left that the report will be nothing more than the whitewash that many have feared from the moment the report and its scandalous contents were leaked.

Astonishingly, a panel meant to investigate allegations that include obstruction of the processing of racism complaints including antisemitism – and comments by staff members described as antisemitic – includes no Jewish person.

A move to include the highly-regarded Labour peer Alf Dubs was blocked by the Labour right on the NEC because he made comments supportive of Jeremy Corbyn during the UK/2019 General Election. The vote to include him was defeated by 18 votes to 16.

So apparently it’s OK to have Corbyn opponents and Starmer supporters on the panel, but not to have a supporter of the Labour leader whose electoral campaigns were undermined by right-wing staff.

This is not even an attempt at a show of credible independence. This is roller in hand with a huge tub of whitewash at the ready.[7]

 

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
Document:EHRC discredits itself again even as it settles with Livingstone and Bromleyblog post15 September 2023EditorPam Bromley and Ken Livingstone said: “Rather than fighting this case for potentially another year or more, we believe we need to refocus our resources on tackling the Israel lobby’s current efforts to stifle pro-Palestine speech in schools, universities and other sectors.”
Document:Labour costs pass £500,000 in hearing over leaked antisemitism reportArticle31 August 2023Aletha Adu"Much of the Labour Party machinery from 2015-18 was openly opposed to Jeremy Corbyn, and worked to directly undermine the elected leadership of the party...from winning elections to building a functioning complaints and disciplinary process" – Summary of leaked internal report (page 29).
Document:That Leaked Labour Party Reportblog post20 April 2020Craig MurrayThat Leaked Labour Party Report proves conclusively that Sam Matthews’ allegations of unwarranted interference from Corbyn’s office to block anti-semitism action are malicious lies.
Document:The Forde Report and the Labour Rightblog post24 July 2022Craig MurrayAbout a third of the mass membership that Corbyn brought into the Labour Party has now left. Starmer, having lied his way through his leadership election, has now positioned the party very squarely back as Blairite and Tory Lite. There is therefore a very real argument that the Forde Report simply does not matter.
Document:The Forde Report is what it isn’tArticle24 July 2022Michael RosenSo…why the silence? Why isn’t the Forde Report all over the comment shows? Why aren’t all the relevant people being quizzed? Why aren’t there on-air discussions and rows going on between the opposing parties (and/or supporters)?
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.


References