So far, so good:
"Speakers Trust have reinstated the video of Leanne Mohamad's speech and given MPACUK [Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK] a statement about the actual events that have taken place. This follows a campaign by MPACUK and other activists who demanded answers about what has happened and why Ms Mohamad had been treated in such a disrespectful manner. It seems that the Jewish Chronicle has misrepresented the whole saga..." (mpacuk.org, 1/6/16)
What a surprise!
"Speakers Trust CEO, Julie Holness, sent the following statement to MPACUK:
"All concerns communicated to us are taken very seriously but the private [email] message sent by the CEO [to Edgar Davidson], and made public without her consent..."
As indicated in my initial post in this series, Holness' email to Davidson couldn't have been more accommodating. 'Chummy', to use a very English word, comes to mind. Which raises the question whether a person who is seemingly unaware of Zionism's near 100-year war on free speech, or at least its current manifestations in the UK, is heading an organisation, the raison d'etre of which is to promote freedom of speech.
"... was inaccurately represented. Edgar Davidson wrote under a different identity as an accomplished 'Professor...."
This suggests that not only is Holness in undue awe of titles - bet she gets off on CEO!- but that she couldn't be bothered to check Davidson out before responding to him. Such laziness is inexcusable.
"... and the intentions in writing back were twofold: to defend the accusation that the... Jack Petchey Foundation promotes propaganda... and to let [Davidson] know that Leanne had not been selected for the Grand Final so that any comments to her would immediately stop... The comment of propaganda was not directed at Leanne's speech or at the topic..."
Let's take a look at that part of Holness' email to Davidson:
"There are... two fundamental rules that are made explicit during the - the speech must have a positive and uplifting message... - a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience... and this, by definition, means propaganda is ruled out... It is, however, the school that votes through its most talented speaker.... Unfortunately... a speech that does not observe these ground rules may very rarely get through on passion and delivery."
The clear implication here is that Leanne's speech was one of these. If this is not the case, then Holness' ability to communicate effectively is called into question, which, in turn, calls into question her competence as CEO of Speakers Trust.