Both shami chakrabarti and (more importantly) laz have categorically informed us that this is not a problem.

Therefore please move along. Nothing to see here.

Jesus, are they still banging on about this!?

Yes, if by 'they' you mean the following Labour members of the House of Lords (including Joan Bakewell, you'll be pleased to note) :

Irene Adams, Waheed Alli, Kay Andrews, Hilary Armstrong, Joan Bakewell, Tony Berkeley, Clive Brooke, Tom Chandos, Tony Christopher, David Clark, Tony Clarke, Janet Cohen, Christine Crawley, Jack Cunningham, Meghnad Desai, Bernard Donoughue, David Evans, Geoff Filkin, George Foulkes, Llin Golding, Peter Goldsmith, Mary Goudie, Peter Hain, Stephen Hanworth, Simon Haskel, Alan Haworth,Clive Hollick, Bev Hughes, Bob Hughes, Phil Hunt, Bill Jordan, Roy Kennedy, Jonathan Kestenbaum, Denise Kingsmill, JimKnight, Chris Lennie, Michael Levy, Helen Liddell, Roger Liddle, Spencer Livermore, Hector MacKenzie, Ann Mallalieu, PeterMandelson, Doreen Massey, John Maxton, Margaret McDonagh, Iain McNicol, Jon Mendelsohn, Sally Morgan, Sue Nye, Martin O’Neill, Tom Pendry, Jill Pitkeathley, Margaret Prosser, Giles Radice, Meta Ramsay, Gail Rebuck, John Reid, George Robertson, Peter Snape, Clive Soley, Glenys Thornton, John Tomlinson, Dave Watts, Alan West, Robert Winston and Tony Young.

I mean Labour tedes generally.

Jesus, are they still banging on about this!?

The anti-Semitism is a huge issue, Dux. I have friends and relatives who are hugely concerned about the rise in anti-Semitism. They feel physically at risk from it.

number of days since hanners celebr7d anti-semitism happening: 0

Basically all those who want to suck from the taxpayers teat

PrideMonth is Hanners?

that would figure. 

I think one of the biggest problems here is people like "Pride" have been banging on for years that "calling people racist for being racist isn't fair and that's why you elites got brexit!" 

which is basically a green light to their followers to be racist of which anti semitism is a virulent strain. 

Having been a member of both main parties (tory and Labour) one can safely say that the activists at constituency are mostly wierdos and troglodytes.

The Tories are mostly xenophobic, bigoted, narrow-minded, provincial and there is a huge number of evangelical god-botherers. quite a few dress in clothes that they original bought via the Sunday Telegraph in the early 1980s.  They are obsessed with Maggie. The former Young Conservatives and now Conservative Future is the Hitlerjugend wing of the party. Many of the activists have never had sex with a human being, a living human that is compos mentis, either ever, or not in the past 30 years. There are arguably quite a few unprosecuted historic sex-offenders and closet homosexuals among their number. Eventually they appear in the local news having been caught cottaging , or allegations of past sexual assault surface in the press and they have to make the walk of shame as they are filmed approaching Southwark Crown Court.

The Labour Party is replete with embittered failures, prudes, prigs and some do not know what a washing machine or dry-cleaners are for; some think that soap is rationed. A great deal of them are apologists for one or more of the following: the USSR, Castro, Chavez, hamas, the IRA, Arthur Scargill and while not necessarily anti-semetic, want the total physical destruction of the state of Israel (rather than, say, a twin state solution).

Syntax correction:

'constituency' should read 'constituency level'.

I thought the YC was basically a farmers' dating club, whilst the militant Thatcherites were the Federation of Conservative Students?

Apart from that, SJ's description matches my own limited experience of party members, albeit I have never been a member of any political party and cannot envision any circumstance in which I might become one.  

"irrespective of race, creed, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation..."

so not women then. Unsurprising 

Nor men neither! They 'avnt thought this through at all. Nigel's gonna clear up in the next elections what with Labour having nobody in it. 

Gender identity?

Yeah! It means they does not want women or men as members. 

I ain't a man because I identifies as it. I am just a man. What do you mean "Prove it"? You has to take my word!! Oi! Get your 'ands off my privates. No I ain't giving you no blood test. I'm a man I tell you! Gerroff!!!

Try harder Garry, its not funny. 

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic under the EA. Sex is 

I’m not surprised the Labour Party doesn’t know, the SRA isn’t aware either 

GI may not be but....

Section 7 Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

Thanks for the attempt to correct me when I'm not wrong but gender reassignment is not the same thing as gender identity. So like I said gender identity is not a protected characteristic.

Half the problem with all this is the English are so bloody coy and childish about using the word sex and think gender is a polite way of saying it. It isn't 

oh christ I forgot who I was talking to... 

Are you like this in real life? An utter tedious pain in the arse at each and every possible chance? 

Dude you tried to pointlessly correct me. You’re the tede here. 

"GI may not be " - this is a person agreeing with you. 

"but" - this is a person making a different but relevant point. 

hth

@ lindaradlett I think you are missing the point. Not everyone thinks (or even wants to think) like a lawyer at any given time? The purpose of the statement, I imagine is publicity and not a legally binding agreement between the Labour Party and everyone else. The gender identity thing is increasingly becoming an issue with young people and they prefer the use of "gender identity" over "gender or sex". 

There isn't much point referring to the protected characteristics under the EA and how important it is a quasi public body recognises them in a public letter, if you're going to get them wrong.

They did not get it wrong. They got it right, just the way they wanted it. 

Well they're making (unconsciously perhaps) clear which of those protected characteristics matter to them then.