I'm doing nothing of the kind, but you are being deliberately obtuse. LB received no protection inside the conference. Because it wasn't needed. The threat from Labour supporters wasn't there.
-
So it is!? You mean you're taking issue with the slightest inaccuracy in a media report about the racial abuse received by a Jewish MP & twisting it to be about the miniscule inaccuracy rather than about the credible racially motivated threats made against her & her family????
It makes all the difference! The Mail and others were reporting that LB was unsafe in conf and was being afforded extra security. Labour got a kicking, LB could have made a statement to quash the whole uproar. She didn't. I really don't know how I can make this clearer.
-
-
Right, so if Luciana had made a statement saying she needed security detail "at" conference events outside the secure zone rather than "in" the secure zone - where there is already a heavy police presence - and she omitted from the statement (so Labour woudn't get a kicking) --->
-
that there have been 2 convictions so far from people who identify on the left for racially aggregated threats made against her & a FURTHER threat which the party had sat on for 6 months AND not told her about - then she wouldn't have been hounded for months by people like you?
-
First. Can you stop 'the people like you' crap. I'm happy to have a civilised discussion, but if you carry on with that approach, then I'll reciprocate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It can be true that she's received a lot of abuse (antisemitic and otherwise) by Labour supporters, and also the reason for her requiring additional protection (including up to this day) is primarily the threat of the far right, which seem more violent based on the arrests.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.