Corbyn's case should wait for the independent process not least because whatever the result will be extremely controversial but also because elected, political NEC members should be no where near this case

How are we deciding who recuses themselves?
Beckett must as he's literally been advising Corbyn as should anyone who has opposed the suspension
what about those representing unions who have opposed the suspension?

What about NEC members who were endorsed by Corbyn during this election (GV6, McNiell, Morrison)?
What about those who were MPs under Corbyn?
Or Akehurst who is vocally anti corbyn?

All NEC members are going to have strong feelings about Corbyn (as do all Labour members). Many are vocal in the love or disdain for him? How on earth are they going to make a judgement based on the facts not on their own views and biases

This is exactly why we need independent processes. We need people who will be as objective as possible. This very much goes against the spirit if not the letter of what the EHRC said

I've made a spreadsheet detailing what NEC members have conflicts of interest (its very hastily made so will be missing a lot but it still gives a good indication I think) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tu7yKynQMw8YgI2iZIRBsC3oIdPvJO2njJCfJTKx_oo/edit?usp=sharing

I've already said that no NEC member is impartial enough to hear this case but my criteria for conflict of interest is:
-endorsement by Corbyn for this NEC election
-Served as an MP under/ FM alongside Corbyn
- Any statement supporting or opposing Corbyn's suspension

-representing an org on the NEC that has publicly opposed the suspension
- Also Akehurst because LF

I don't think any of them are unreasonable