First reading of the EHRC report: 1) It makes some helpful recommendations in relation to procedure 2) It points out some examples of bad process, some under McNichol, some in the interim, and some under Fornby.....

3) It finds Labour guilty of harassment and indirect discrimination but doesn’t define these in everyday terms 4) The harassment part is purely based on comments by Ken Livingstone (strangely excluding his most offensive ones about Hitler) and a councillor called Pam Bromley

5) Various things are described as indirect discrimination: a badly managed complaints procedure, lack of antisemitism training for complaints staff, lack of a clear policy to guide suspensions and expulsions...

Interference from the leader’s office is also seen as indirect discrimination, which is ironic given that in a number of cases the office was the one trying suspend and expel, overriding correct procedures to do so, and not showing due to process to people accused of antisemitism

The party is here being criticised for being TOO keen to suspend and expel people accused of antisemitism 6) Criticism for a lack of training and a lack of clear rules is fair, but of course there is no consensus on who should deliver such training and what the rules should be

Clear rules might mean people who Jewish communal organisations think should be expelled are not. The headlines that Labour broke the law come from these technical failings, not harassment and discrimination as they would normally be understood.

If these actions are illegal under the 2010 Equalities Act then I would imagine most public bodies in Britain are contravening the law on a regular basis, in much more serious ways than the Labour party.