The EHRC report says no such thing so why don't you point out to me where it does? I've read the EHRC report many times and it is the most comprehensive report available to me. It also refers to the Chakrabati report. It talks about political interference from the LOTO's office in the handling of antisemitism complaints. Corbyn was suspended because he refused to acknowledge the scale of antisemitism on his watch.
The Labour Party was effectively put in special measures because of the scale and handling of antisemitism complaints in the party. The only person who bleats on here is you. Christ how do you get through your day? And I'm not making a veiled accusation but I will make it quite clear that I consider anyone who denies the scale of antisemitism within the Labour Party under Corbyn is no better than the antisemites themselves.
So, yet again, you're unable to point to anything to back up your claims. If it was such a slam-dunk you'd post it for the world to see. Show us where the EHRC report states that there was an antisemitism crisis.
The problem, as you well know, is that all of the findings in the EHRC report that DO show problems in the Labour party relate directly to the period when Iain McNicol (anti-Corbyn for anyone not following this closely) was running the complaints process. The improvements - as accepted by the EHRC - came about once Corbyn appointed Jenny Formby.
The political interference from the LOTO was also explained, in the report, to be largely attempts to speed up and improve the process, prior to the appointment of Formby. Hardly the actions of a deeply committed antisemite trying to hide the evidence. Forde found that there was no “clear and convincing documentary evidence that there was a systematic attempt by the elected leadership or LOTO to interfere unbidden in the disciplinary process in order to undermine the party’s response to allegations of antisemitism”.
The EHRC report is flawed but as long as it's read knowing the context of the Labour Party infighting at the time - which you clearly do - there is nothing to suggest that antisemitism was allowed to "flourish" as per your earlier claim. The Forde report and the official JVL statement both explicitly reference this. The onus is on you to provide the evidence elsewise - failure to do so has to be taken as a tacit acceptance of this narrative as laid out by Forde et al.
Corbyn wasn't suspended because he "refused to acknowledge the scale of antisemitism on his watch". He was suspended because he wouldn't retract his statement that the scale of of antisemitism was exaggerated for political gain. There's a very distinct difference between that and what you're implying. Also, without stating what you think the scale of antisemitism was, it's impossible to determine whether I agree with your assessment. As Corbyn made clear, one antisemite is one-too-many, but the public perception of 34% of members being antisemitic was far larger than the actual 0.3% of party members who had a case against them - some of whom were subsequently exonerated.