Let's have a look at few little bits:
The case against UCU was complexNo it wasn't.
The case assembled by Fraser and Julius was impressive. It challenged, among other things, the way supporters of Israel were treated at union conferences, the way anti-Israel and anti-Semitic remarks on the UCU members’ private Internet forum were moderated, the union’s rejection of the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia’s working definition of anti-Semitism (which includes disproportionate criticism of Israel), and an invitation extended to a known anti-Jewish trade unionist from South Africa to speak at a union conference.Substantially true but that hardly amounts to "impressive".
the well-built and detailed case was shattered by the tribunal’s ruling. The panel, headed by Judge A.M. Snelson, accepted UCU’s version of all the events in question, and found that most of the claims were no longer valid in any case, due to a change in the laws.Utter tosh. The change in law moved the case in favour of Fraser not against. I'll dig up the relevant passage later.
UCU, meanwhile, received only very mild admonishments from the tribunal for inviting a known anti-Semite to a conferenceStretches it a bit. The "admonishment" was solely over the UCU referring a complain to someone involved with the invitation, ie conflict of interest. All zionists bar that guy I posted about earlier are making the most of that crumb.
A more damning indictment of Fraser and his supporters’ motives could not have been written
Correct! Give the man a prize!