A DAMNING report into anti-Semitism within the Labour party has been published today.

The long-awaited Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report found that the party had a "culture which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." 

The EHRC has also found that issues of anti-Semitism in the party "could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so." 

The 130-page report is the result of a lengthy investigation into anti-Semitism within the party, which came to prominence under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. 

Hundreds of complaints were made, and a number of high-profile MPs quit Labour over mishandling of concerns and personal abuse they had received. 

The report adds that the same concerns being raised by the report authors are the same as those first raised four years ago, reflecting "a culture that is at odds with the Labour Party’s commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism." 

It continued: "The Party has shown an ability to act decisively when it wants to, through the introduction of a bespoke process to deal with sexual harassment complaints.

"Although some improvements have been made to the process for dealing with antisemitism complaints, it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so." 

The report also found that many complaints were not investigatoed whatsoever, adding "this is especially true for complaints about social media activity where the Labour Party previously adopted a policy of not investigating mere ‘likes’ or reposts."

It said when investigations took place, there was no clear guidance on what sanctions should be given.

Political interference also played a role within investigations, the EHRC found.

It stated: "We found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation. We have concluded that this practice of political interference was unlawful.

"The evidence shows that staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) were able to influence decisions on complaints, especially decisions on whether to suspend someone. Sometimes these decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any clear formal criteria."