• WILLIAM Mach (The EHRC findings were clear on the Labour Party, November 4) has misunderstood the nature of my disagreement with Mike Katz, (Jewish members no longer feel unwanted in the Labour Party, October 14).

At issue is not whether the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on the Labour Party is “stark or substantive” but whether Mr Katz was right in attributing to the EHRC the “conclusions” that Labour “was not a safe place for Jewish members” or those who “spoke out against anti-Semitism”.

The national controversy surrounding “Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis” centred on allegations that Labour posed an “existential threat to Jewish life in this country”.

The Jewish Labour Movement and Campaign Against Antisemitism submitted to the EHRC thousands of pages of documentation purporting to prove that Labour was so “consumed” by “anti-Semitic conduct: pervasive at all levels of the party” as to have become “an environment that is profoundly hostile to” and “no longer… safe” for its Jewish members.

The EHRC spent more than a year investigating these allegations. Its key findings, at the culmination of this exhaustive and exhausting process, may be summarised in a sentence.

In a mass party of above half-a-million members, one national executive committee member and one local councillor made between them a handful of harassing comments, officials at times intervened in politically sensitive disciplinary complaints, and complaints staff were inadequately trained.

Even these findings, limited as they are, cannot withstand factual or legal scrutiny. “Political interference” in complaints appears overwhelmingly to have benefited, not penalised, anti-Semitism complainants.

The EHRC it seems improperly characterised legitimate, protected, free speech as “harassment”; its findings on this point are subject to an ongoing judicial review.

If still inadequate, Labour nevertheless provided staff with significantly more training on anti-Semitism than comparable equality areas.

Even if the these limited findings are accepted, the factual picture still needs completing: complaints unrelated to anti-Semitism were also mishandled and often neglected, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership inherited an inadequate complaints infrastructure, the worst practices identified by the EHRC took place when Corbyn’s bitter factional opponents controlled this infrastructure, and Corbyn’s associate Jennie Formby improved these processes when she was appointed party general secretary.

These points are fully substantiated in Jewish Voice for Labour’s How the EHRC Got It So Wrong, free to download at the Verso website.

Could I suggest Mr Mach might benefit from reading it? And then explain why so many Jewish members of the Labour Party are now being investigated for “anti-Semitism”.

Is this some cruel and callous joke?

RICHARD KUPER, N6