The Manufactured Smears of the Establishment 224

Miko Peled, target of the latest Labour anti-Semitism allegations, is a Jewish Israeli, former member of Israeli special forces, son of a famous Israeli general and grandson of a signatory of Israel’s founding Declaration of Independence. You can object to his views, but he can hardly be anti-semitic in any sensible meaning of the term. Nor is he either British or a member of the Labour Party, nor was he speaking at an official Labour Party event.

Given all of the above, in what rational world can Miko Peled said spark newspapers from the Guardian to the Daily Mail to carry, as their lead stories, articles on anti-semitism in the Labour Party, centred entirely on Peled’s comments to a fringe meeting last night?

What Peled is alleged to have said is that discussion of the Holocaust ought to be allowed – with an apparent inference that means discussion of its existence or extent. Now we only have versions of what he said put out by his opponents, so I do not know the precise words he used or their context. I have always banned holocaust denial from this blog, because having had occasion to serve in Poland and both meet survivors and be involved in commemoration events, I have had much closer contact than most people with the overwhelming evidence for what happened. I also find it to be true that those who espouse holocaust denial are often using it as a vehicle for actual anti-Semitism and even for Nazi sympathy. So it is not allowed on this site. But neither do I think it should be actually illegal to hold that view. In context, Peled may have been saying no more than that.

If Peled was saying holocaust denial ought to be a valid subject for party political meetings, I disagree with him very strongly. It also contradicts what he is reported to have said immediately afterwards. He said that platforms are not given to neo-Nazis and were not given to supporters of apartheid South Africa, so they should be denied to Zionists too. I broadly agree with that – but would deny a platform to Holocaust deniers on the same score.

Peled’s remarks have been a great boon to the mainstream media who have had a great deal of difficulty in finding a way to denigrate Corbyn’s leadership sufficiently. They had fallen back on the old “Misogynist” charge related to Laura Kuenssberg, with the BBC’s extraordinary propaganda decision to give her a bodyguard in case she was yet again subjected to joking pantomime hisses.

Which brings me to one of the great unanswered emails of our time:

Jasper Jackson is the Guardian’s assistant media editor who had published a piece on online abuse of Kuenssberg. It seemed reasonable to ask whether he had actually seen any evidence, as I had been unable to find any. He did not reply – and I am willing to assert he did not reply because he had no evidence.

Jackson however is not in the same category as David Babbs of 38 degrees, who lied through his teeth about the existence of misogynistic comments on an anti-Kuenssberg petition. Babbs refused to speak to me but I did manage to interview their press spokesman on 11 May last year, and it is a piece of real journalism of which I am very proud:

Hello Craig

Hello Adam. I hope you are not quite so busy today? Has it calmed down for you?

It is a bit less busy. Well we are very busy on other important things. Did you see the article by David Babbs in the Guardian today?

I did, but it doesn’t really answer my question. I haven’t received the evidence of the abuse connected to the petition which you said you would consider sending me. Are you going to send it?

I don’t really have the time for this

But you must have this evidence. You took a well-supported petition down. You must have the evidence you based your decision on.
There were abusive tweets and comments

Can you send them to me?

You can search for them yourself online

I have done so. But you must have the evidence?

Look yourself online

This is a big story. In all the national press. You must have kept the evidence on the basis of which you made the decision?

You said yourself you had seen misogynistic comments

I said I could find a single one – very unpleasant but only one – out of hundreds of comments I read

So you did see misogynistic comments

Search yourself online. There were tweets.

So far I have been able to find one. That is one comment and one tweet. Have you seen more?

There were misogynistic comments and tweets

More than two? Out of thirty five thousand signatories? How many have you seen?

There was misogynistic abuse

How many have you seen. You personally Adam. You said yesterday you had seen the evidence. Have you, personally, seen more than two?

If you are going to start shouting at me

More than two? Simple question, yes or no?

I don’t expect you to be impolite and abusive towards me.

How much evidence did you see?

We had seen sufficient evidence.

Is that more than two? Is that more than two? That’s a very simple question.

We had seen sufficient evidence.

Have you seen more than two things? Have you seen more than two things? That’s a very simple question. I am recording you. Is that more than two things?

You can record if you like. We had sufficient evidence.

Is that evidence more than one tweet and one comment?

I could…I have got to go I have things to do here

Do you have more than one tweet and one comment?

Hangs up.

It is also worth stating that there was no evidence at all the two nasty comments – out of 35,0000 signatures – aimed at Kuenssberg had any connection to Corbyn supporters.

To threaten someone with violence is very serious, a crime. The police act on such complaints. Stuart Campbell of Wings over Scotland has been harassed by police over his non-threatening tweets. If there was serious abuse and threat made towards Kuenssberg, there would be police investigations and people would be appearing in court. Where is the evidence for all of this happening? There remains a complete dearth of evidence, yet that did not stop the Guardian alone from running five articles about the Corbynite threat to Kuenssberg this week – every single one of which was 100% evidence free.

That was before they diverted on to the story of the Jewish, ex Israeli Special Services veteran being an anti-Semite.

I do not doubt Kuenssberg receives some abuse. Everyone in public life does. I receive abuse including threats of violence. But if there is evidence that there is a genuine and unusual threat to Kuenssberg, that evidence has never ever been shown. God knows, I have very genuinely tried to access that evidence (I have also asked Kuenssberg if I can see it – she did not reply either). What does exist is a huge volume of complaint about her obvious right wing bias. The established media is desperate to portray this kind of challenge to their authority as illegitimate.

I am obliged to conclude that both the “anti-Semitic Corbynites” meme and the “misogynist Corbynites” meme are Fake News. They are Establishment media concoctions designed to protect the interests of the Establishment from political radicalism. I also conclude that the BBC gave Kuenssberg a bodyguard, not because there is any danger at all she will be assaulted by Corbynites, but in order to boost that propaganda.


I continue urgently to need contributions to my defence in the libel action against me by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of Daily Mail online. You can see the court documents outlining the case here. I am threatened with bankruptcy and the end of this blog (not to mention a terrible effect on my young family). Support is greatly appreciated. An astonishing 4,000 people have now contributed a total of over £75,000. But that is still only halfway towards the £140,000 target. I realise it is astonishing that so much money can be needed, but that is the pernicious effect of England’s draconian libel laws, as explained here.

On a practical point, a number of people have said they are not members of Paypal so could not donate. After clicking on “Donate”, just below and left of the “Log In” button is a small “continue” link which enables you to donate by card without logging in.

For those who prefer not to pay online, you can send a cheque made out to me to Craig Murray, 89/14 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8BA. As regular readers know, it is a matter of pride to me that I never hide my address.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

224 thoughts on “The Manufactured Smears of the Establishment

1 2 3
  • mog

    Freedlands latest piece :

    By his ‘logic’, if I were to point out his employment of propagandistic techniques, his conflation of zionism with Judaism, his bias, his smearing by association and so on, I would, in his eyes, be alleging a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ involving him and his paper.

    The argument goes that it is ‘conspiracy theorists’ who present unfalsifiable arguments…

    • Shatnersrug

      let’s just be straight here Freedland is creating distractions to protect Israeli ethnic cleansing, what does that make him?

      I’ll tell you what, a pound shop Goebbels,
      that’s what.

      Violent ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing that involves shooting children raping women and bulldozing homes. That’s what freedland protects.

      • mog

        I was in the front row of that fringe meeting held by the Jewish-led network Free Speech on Israel. l could hear every word that was said, and also notice two infiltrators filming and tweeting without permission. They must have had very sophisticated editing equipment indeed to make out that Miko Peled denied the Holocaust; I certainly thought he said that denying it was ‘beyond the limits of tolerance’.

        A few minutes later I saw the Israeli ambassador and former press officer Mark Regev walking down the Lanes of Brighton with his bodyguards. Why would he be there, when he has no connection even to the Israeli Labor Party but is an apppointee of Israel’s dangerously rightwing government? Could his well-known propaganda expertise have anything to do with the fake news reports which immediately circulated about anti-Semitism in the UK Labour party?

        I’m waiting for anyone to notice that the Labour members fighting to counter this flood of alternative facts are Jewish themselves. That night we launched Jewish Voice for Labour, to make a space where we can speak out against injustice whether it takes place in Britain, the Middle East or across the world. A huge ballroom was filled to bursting with members who had been waiting for years to find their place. Well-known names came forward with powerful support. This was the real news!

    • frankywiggles

      Freedland knows better than most that it was the “hard left” – people like Livingstone and Corbyn – that put anti-racism on Labour’s agenda back in the 1980s. That was a time when all the Tory MPs of today supported apartheid South Africa and represented Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Yet who does he continually single out to smear with the racist brush? The guy’s a disgrace to his profession.

        • frankywiggles

          It’s any sympathy for the Palestinians’ plight that enrages Jon. That’s what he, Jake Simons, Mark Lewis, etc, are determined to stamp out.

          • nevermind

            Well said. Maybe one day the UK press will stop looking into their navels and listen to the various FoI and their cohort sirens, bleating on in unison like sheep, trying to start another media hyst on Corbyn citing the same, yawn, meme.

            Have the got nothing else to write?

            Maybe they will go to any length to report on the real repressed nations, such as those expelled from their Island of Diego Garcia and the Rohyngia, being treated like utter dirt by a champion of Human rights and repression par excellence. What of all the British subjects in the Caribbean who are suffering from devastation and need all our help, and publicity for such help.

            I’m beginning to think that this fab fav dead tissue issue is now being used to smear people for no other reasons than to shut them up, make them look like scoundrels and whipping us all up into Pro/ anti Jewish factions, for no other reasons than to hide their own fascists aims and objectives/support.

            I detest the ECR, AFD, Jobbik, Tory’s, ANEL, simpletons like Geert Wilders and any other right wing revisionists who detest and hound other people, sometimes for decades, ain’t that right Bibi? who deny them their right to self determination, hallo Mr. Rajoy, and or fail to realise that human rights are for all, not just for their favourite causes.
            If some of you think I have been putting too many potatoes into the pot/fire, try separating them, make any argument to try taking them off the boil, by all means, I shall continue to value them on their records and I will rile at their fascist policies and detestable views of other human beings.
            It shows how much hacks and other media journalists are being led by their principal owners and/or the uncertainty that could overwhelm their future job prospects.

            Somewhere there must be a massive heap of spines stored, and I’m not saying that they are illegally harvested spines, NO, they are willingly offered spines, large small, class ridden spiky spines. Whoever finds them, please ignore their rotting vertebra’s.

  • Republicofscotland

    So Donald Trump (aided by Rajoy) has strongly urged Catalonian’s, to remain as part of Spain.

    Spain is in the process of buying F-35 aircraft from the USA.

    It’s all very reminiscent of 2014, and the run up to the Scottish vote on independence. When David Cameron then, British PM, urged US president Barack Obama to urge Scots to remain part of the UK.

    No F-35 fighter jet sales were at stake then, instead Scottish independence would’ve seen the removal of Trident from Scottish waters. Something Obama or Cameron didn’t want to see happen.

    I hope the people of Catalonia vote yes to independence, and that Scots eventually grow a pair, and vote yes as well.

    • Shatnersrug

      The do at the moment – it could be very bad if these Nazi’s no longer wish to be useful idiots, could lead to a repeat of the 1930s. Do you think the Z-Zealots secretly hope for that.

      Thing that strikes me is that A certain country appears to be aggressively empire building, has America already passed over and we have a new empire? if not now then perhaps very soon, media capture, government capture, I fear this will all lead somewhere very bad. For everyone.

    • nevermind

      I would not be surprised about that, J, the same old establishment is backing the floating scum, now as in the early seventies and during the third Reich and it is adopting the most up to date fascist model for their organisation.

      The same rogue states model also attracted figures like Nick Griffin, who was invited to talks there, frequented it and had a close relationship with Zionists there, more than once.

  • harrylaw

    All these Labour friends of Israel like Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson and Prime Minister T May who give unconditional support to Israel would never condemn any Israeli Government for breaches of International law which are in fact considered grave war crimes. All Israeli Governments [including Labour ones] have facilitated and encouraged the settlement enterprise and are still doing so, they are therefore present day war criminals and any politicians who support them are aiding and abetting that criminal enterprise including Watson and May.
    According to the opinion of all 15 Judges at the International Criminal Court [ICJ] in the ‘Wall case’ 2004. all the settlements in territory occupied by Israel since 1967 are illegal and constitute grave war crimes in flagrant breach of the fourth Geneva convention [Article 49.6) and the International criminal court act UK 2001 (article 8 2b[viii]):-
    “The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population in to the Territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied Territory within or outside this Territory”.
    Therefore all Israeli governments since 1967 who have approved and implemented the settlement enterprise [all of them] are war criminals, This is fundamental to the whole issue, so crucial in fact that these arguments were put to a Quebec court several years ago.. in the Quebec court case Bil’in village and Yassin v Green Park International Ltd the claimants put forward this reason for why the settlement enterprise was a war crime…
    “A war crime, to put it succinctly, is a very serious matter. Further, it is easy to see why the offence in question falls into this special category. Article 49(6) is essentially a law to prevent colonialism. One need look no further than the current condition of the indigenous peoples whose domain once spanned the entire expansive breadth of this continent to appreciate the gravity of the consequences territorial dispossession can inflict upon a population. Most war crimes deal with offences against individuals or groups of individuals, but the offence in Article 49(6) is one that threatens the integrity of an entire people. It clearly qualifies as an exceptional offence of higher order that is of grave concern to the global community as a whole”.

    • John Goss

      The trouble is there are laws for the rich and super rich, whether individuals or governments, and more punitive laws for the rest of us. Israel has been breaking international law in more ways than any single country with the exclusion perhaps of the USA. It broke international law when it secretly developed nuclear weapons. As a result a whistleblower to this fact, Mordechai Vanunu, went to prison for years and years, was then put under house arrest and even today cannot leave Israel. Similarly the US wages illegal wars all over the world.

      • harrylaw

        That is true, Unfortunately we live in a world where the 5 veto wielding members [and their friends,think Israel/Saudi Arabia] are above International law for all time. If, as the US/UK decided to do when invading Iraq in 2003 to ignore UNSC rules, there is nothing the other members can do about it. Any Resolution against their [US/UK] actions is immediately vetoed by them and consigned to the memory hole. The US attitude of might is right is impossibe to counter without an equally belligerent response. Since it is obvious the US neither respects International agreements [Iran deal] or International law it is a rogue state to which other states or coalitions of states need to arm themselves to the hilt.

        • John Goss

          A point I try to make as often as possible Harry is that the UN replaced the old League of Nations which was just as bad. The major lawbreakers before WWII were Japan (Muckden incident) Italy (no help for Haile Sellasie) and Germany (adventures into the Sudetenland). At the end of the next major war it will be the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UK who will be seen to be the criminals – if anyone survives.

    • nevermind

      ‘page has been moved’ it says, harrylaw.
      Just for curiosity, are there any international court that is respected and obliging to the past and present Israeli Governments?

      • harrylaw

        nevermind, the article is on the ‘Mondoweiss’ site titled “Palestinian appeal to ICC seen as last hope to ‘bring justice for the victims’ of Israeli violations” by Sheren Khalel 25th September 2017. Well worth a look.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    “Labour Party conference: Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit shift as he promises ‘guaranteed unimpeded access to Single Market’ ”

    Neither Jeremy Corbyn, nor Labour can guarantee anything, and now I am back to the Square One I was at nearly 10 years ago, when both my kids pleaded with me.

    “Dad, Please don’t vote for any of these horrible people”

    “None of them are worth your vote”

    George Carlin said the same thing.

    Old people and The Youth are very perceptive.

    Its the idiots in the middle the 30’s-50’s who ain’t got a clue.

    Brainwashed Zombies.

    Don’t blame us for your stupidity.


  • Tony_0pmoc

    Last night, my book at bedtime was Craig Murray’s “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo: and other Conflicts I Have Known” Yes, the typeface is a bit small, but I had no problems reading it without my glasses.

    I have so far only read the introduction and the first chapter, and so have not yet got into what I expect to be the really juicy bits,,,

    But Craig, I hope those are not the real names of your Polish Mistress, AND her Two Sisters.

    I can see you weren’t particularly impressed with your fellow Diplomats at the FCO in London, but were when you got your own Resplendent Office and requested a leather Sofa – and they asked why “Because I like to take a short nap in the afternoon”

    And your comments about Gravesend – and sending your son to a boarding school at the age of 6 (cos they wouldn’t take him any younger?)

    However, I suspect you are not making any of this up. You appear to be so honest, I am surprised you survived your Ex-wife and your Ex-Mistresses…(let alone The British Establishment, The CIA and all the rest)

    I look forward to reading the rest of your book.


  • harrylaw

    This article in Mondoweiss describes how the four stages of the ICC criminal process work, unfortunately this could take many years, Colombia for instance has been under preliminary investigation since 2004 the ICC are on the third stage.
    Four Palestinian human rights organizations on Wednesday, September 20th submitted their fourth “substantive communication” to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The 700-page evidence file submitted alleges that high-level Israeli civilian and military officials have committed “war crimes and crimes against humanity” in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

  • SimonB

    Apparently the story that Laura Kuensberg had a bodyguard is untrue. It started with The Sun, quoting an “insider” (IE another Sun hack) and was taken up by others without checking.

  • mog

    A comment from me made at 13.48 has been awaiting moderation for six and a half hours. It consisted solely of a direct quote from a Jewish Voice For Labour (JVL) web article.

    A blog entry from Greenstein sums up what a fundamental shift has taken place with regard to the influence of groups like the Jewish Labour Movement and JVL within Labour the past two days.

    Even Jon Snow has back tracked on his post Grenfell/ post General Election mea culpa and has returned to old form, repeating unfounded smears.

    I think that so few people still accept the lie of conflation, that it is finally dying. Perhaps Labour can finally have a genuine position on Israel, its extremist supporters and the fate of the Palestinians.

    • nevermind

      Why should it not have a far more necessary investigation, leading to a position on the genocide in Myanmar which, armed by a rogue state, which is currently bombing Syria, is suppressing and harassing Rohyngia people, burn their houses like some rogues states without borders, who use bulldozers to trash houses with people within, do at home. These poor and hounded people are more important than the media’s pet obsession with a ‘witches spell’ perpetuated by right wing media barons on behalf of, yes you guessed it, same rogue nation.

      The similarities are glaring, but nobody cares much about it, except maybe you, the readers of this, Craig’s excellent blog.
      For Pete’s/Craig’s sake, if you have enough in life and got more cash than you can wisely spend, invest some in this blogs future, please….libel laws are not about justice, they are applied to shut people up.

      Much obliged

  • Loony

    ,,,and so we have an outbreak of anti semitism, holocaust deniers and dodgy reporting from the BBC. All the time Palestinians are being ruthlessly persecuted by an out of control Jewish state, or maybe Palestinians are routinely terrorizing innocent Israeli’s. It is all so complicated and confusing what can the truth of the matter really be?

    Well the truth of the matter is that no-one cares too much about either Israeli’s or Palestinians – but boy can we pretend, and we need to pretend because it is absolutely imperative that energies are focused on things that we can do nothing about. Heaven forbid that attention is turned to problems that actually have a solution. Problems like those experienced by Nissar Hussain. Here is a brief recapitulation of his problems

    The police, politicians, the media, and the Church of England are just some of the pillars of the establishment that have turned their backs on this mans plight. Ask why this might be, and I would be surprised if you come up with an answer that does not involve abject cowardice. The abject cowardice of the establishment that desperately seeks to reflect the genuine cowardice of the general population that it represents so assiduously.

    Once your own cowardice is acknowledged ask why the Israeli’s, the Palestinians, the BBC, or your most loved or most despised politician would care anything as to what you think. Cowards can be safely ignored – and they will be, except when someone finds it convenient to pretend to listen to your concerns.

      • Loony

        What does it matter whether it is a state or a colony? it is just semantics and serves only as a diversion from the full spectrum cowardice that envelops western populations.

        Look how willing they are to accept that they may be brainwashed or “sheeple” or powerless, or manipulated by corporate media, or subjugated by financial criminal enterprises. Anything will do just so long as they are not required to confront their own cowardice.

        Nissar Hussain (and many others like him) pay the price for this cowardice. So I know let’s ignore him and pretend that we are all so clever, so classless and free. Some time ago Lennon told you what he thought of “the clever, the classless and the free”

    • Shatnersrug

      Did you get down there dan? I’m thinking at the next election I should register at your place rather than islington north

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I posted the following on The Saker’s website, and the same conditions apply to Craig Murray (though he is far more dangerous – he gets sued?? for getting highjacked and telling the truth???)

    I think both these people are Amazing, and I have the ultimate respect for both of them. I do not yet have the courage to do what these guys do. (write my own book)

    My son has been running (his own company an ISP) since he started it with a mate from school when they were 13 years old, 16 years ago in 2001. It started off from computer games (and my son has made a lot of American friends – but also friends from all over the world where he has also travelled)

    He met people from Ecuador (before he went to Ecuador), Argentina at a WOMAD festival in England…

    They asked him, if he could run a South American TV show over the internet (now whilst admittedly the kids asking him to do this – they had most probably all played computer games with him when he was 13 years old (and most of them were war games – kids 13 years old – shooting each other on a computer many thousands of miles away)..and there was a lag – after fixing it (installed his own LINUX Server in The London Docklands) so there was no noticeable lag (the kids from all over the world sent a few dollars by Western Union – and some English kids stuck £70 through our front door and just walked off..and said Thanks..without even knocking

    Some of them are still doing it…

    He went commercial when he was about 19, and got his about 16 year old girlfriend (she looked a lot older – he turns up in his jeans and t-shirt looking all of 16 and not even wearing glasses) to meet his prospective New Customer flying in to London City Airport from Amsterdam. They skipped school – and they got the contract…..

    Even I thought wtf?

    He has lost his girlfiend and his school partner (well the first one) and got 1 and a half kids with the second one. …but still retained his business (and he still lives at home too). I’m going to be a Grandad again….another boy….

    He no longer hosts in The USA. His Servers are just in England, Holland & Germany and he is almost certain to get a new contract, most of the costs paid up front (for the hardware, build,software and installation etc) These guys come from another part of the world (some Ex USA)

    He could host your stuff, probably without anyone noticing (and probably a lot more cheaply and more reliably than Iceland)

    But his business, is nothing to do with me, and I have no involvement with it…but you as an anonymous American – could simply ask for a quote – and he would almost certainly supply it and provide it. But I am not going to talk to him about this…, because I read and write on your website, and I don’t do nepotism. I believe in fair competition. I don’t care if you are an American or a Russian, and neither does my son.

    He runs an enormous number of such sites all over the world, where the people write all the languages under the sun. There is absolutely no way he can moderate them. He is like a plumber maintaining extremely large pipes so they keep working. He has absolutely no idea of what the content is except over 99.9% is people talking to each other in all the languages under the sun. He can’t control it…and has no interest in it. A lot of the work he gets is from some other company half across the world just asking for price, specs and guaranteed bandwidth. He quotes them and supplies it. He has no idea what the content will be, and cannot possibly police it.

    He just makes it work. Ask him for a quote. It’s nothing to do with me. Just pay your bills on time and you will get the 100% SLA (Service Level Agreement) as promised on his website and in the contract.


  • SA

    Corbyn’ s 70 minute long speech is worth hearing in full. To the loudest clapping of all he said that we must support Palestine and the injustice of occupation for 50 years to come to an end. I think the abti-Corbyn propaganda machine will now be mobilised full throttle.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Craig
    ‘…I do not doubt Kuenssberg receives some abuse….’
    Perhaps she would like to spend a few days as a Palestinian – then she would know what ‘abuse’ is.
    Vile apologists for murderous Colonialism need to brought down a peg or three…

  • fwl

    Fascinating report in FT today on black PR private espionage and modern great game:

    Spies, lies and the Oligarch: Inside London’s booming secrets industry.

    • fwl

      We have always had private armies and spies for eg in days of East India Co. but privatised services have proliferate in recent years. Is this a good thing a Mad Max free market, is it a reflection of human nature and the ability to find ways to evade scrutiny and public oversight and would it be preferable to double salaries for those in public service, ring fence final salary scheme pensions but strictly regulate what former public sector employees can do when they leave? That would also require some sort of fundamental belief in doing one’s duty as opposed to everyone else is at it so why not me. Is the public good a fiction or real? Nice to think its real even if not easily defined. Critics would say public good is often equated with maintenance of the status quo, but provided status quo allows for flexibility, social mobility, accountability and justice the status quo is the public good. The idea of ordering American football players to stand not kneel is cretinous and one can’t force public duty. Public service as an ideal has to come from head and guts. If head is head of state what are the guts?

  • Dave

    If you object to immigration and are called a racist, then you may conclude, if that’s what it means, then I’m a racist. But its a trap, and its the same trap laid by hostile journalists on behalf of the Israel lobby against critics of Israel war crimes and crimes against humanity. If a critic of Israel is denounced as anti-Semitic they may conclude, if that’s what it means, then they’re anti-Semitic! And as that tactic wanes, up the anti, by throwing in the holocaust.

    But it becomes a law of diminishing returns as people release the charge is intended as intimidation by the anti-Semitic Zionists, as illustrated by the very sensible rule change specifically saying that criticism of Israel should not be conflated with Who hatred. That said it wont stop the conflation, but will remove a taboo.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Here’s another of her customary filthy and divisive attacks on Corbyn from Jess Phillips. Enthusiastically retweeted by her great friend J K Rowling. Phillips had a good time at conference, apparently, making friends with all shades of delegates. As soon as she leaves, she’s attacking Corbyn and associating him with misogyny and anti-Semitism in the New Statesman. Anti-Semitism in the headline: hardly a word about it in the article. Notice that in her rant about gender, she does not mention that the two tweeters she quotes directly (courtesy of the Daily Express) are women. I’ve tried to track down the direct quotation about anti-Corbyn bias. No luck. The only place it appears to exist now is Phillips’s article.

    Phillips and Rowling make me sick. Any nonsense is good enough for publicity and knocking the left.

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      Thanks for the link.
      I actually thought the article was very very poor. I came away not feeling in any way ‘hostile’ towards her expressing her slightly off-beat message (in the context of the adulatory Corbyn mood of the conference, which i am also sceptical of), but the realisation that she is ‘profoundly lightweight’. (Yes i know it’s an oxymoron).
      It certainly deserves some de-construction but before doing so i would like to see some of the details of Laura Kuennesberg’s bodyguard story. It is actually quite serious, as certainly no-one, of any gender, deserves to be under threat or subject to abusive harassment (even if she is abusing her position to promote a particular view). These things are always susceptible to analysis and that is the way it should be done-methodical and detailed attention to the detail. It is a pain, and laborious, but over time, the truth will out and, if true, she will become marginalised by her own actions. There is no need for invective and hostility.
      The bodyguard story seems to me to deserves some detailed attention.
      Can we find out: Did she actually have a bodyguard? ( the Sun and Mail don’t seem like reliable sources).
      Did the BBC pay for him/her? (if s/he exists).
      Was there a body of evidence showing that there was a realistic threat?
      One of the curiosities to me is that, if the threat was remotely serious the BBC ( and the Labour party) would have a huge responsibility to ensure her safety.

      What I am not convinced of is that the providing a bodyguard is the best action to take in the event of a threat. It seems a very poor response to a threat.
      I am also dismayed (like Jess but different), by the Labour party that the LP organisers were (apparently) so relaxed about the threat. Did they not take any action to mitigate the problem? to offset the possible harm that might come from their ‘doing nothing’. i can’t believe they would ‘do nothing’-they must have an internal security officer/service of some sort).
      Did they enter into some kind of security process with the police or the security services? I must assume there was some serious security/vetting in place due to the fact that a (potential) government is wandering about and appearing at events and making speeches.

      What actual measures were taken, what discussions actually took place. Anyone any idea?

    • Resident Dissident

      Can you read – where is she attacking Corbyn and associating him with misogyny and anti-Semitism – if any thing she does quite the opposite in the last para.

      Of course in the mind of a true believer the Labour Party Conference is Corbyn so any criticism of Conference even it is mixed in with praise of Conference is criticism of the Great Leader and so has to be ritually denigrated

      • Deepgreenpuddock

        You are missing the point entirely. Not sure if this is wilful stupidity or just plain stupid.

        Here is her ending
        “Still, I wished he had mentioned directly the hideous reaction to Kuenssberg and asserted that victims are to be believed, and Labour is the place where they will be. But perhaps as he was on the inside of the conference, he didn’t know it was happening”.
        This is clearly a rebuke. She is saying that people within the LP are victim blaming, and he is indifferent to that.
        Else where she acknowledges that JC is not personally implicated but the back handed quality is unmistakeable.
        ” These attitudes are born out of loyalty to a man, who I am sure thinks they are abhorrent and will be publicly condemning them. These attitudes are dangerous.
        In other words she is having a go at ‘patriarchy’, although having a male leader is not in itself an example of patriarchy.(it might be a coincidence)
        She is conflating and misdirecting, and distorting since she is suggesting that JC and the LP are intrinsically patriarchal and that JC is at best indifferent to the state of affairs.That is almost certainly not the case.She also ‘suggests’ /hints in another part of the article that the LP is not worth voting for, (regardless of any economic policies that tend to remediate or correct that underlying position) She quotes a woman as saying that she won’t vote at all due to this again suggesting that the gender issue she has highlighted is critical to any progress. This is actually quite a big problem for the left, and indeed anyone interested in progressive, and re-distributive politics.
        What she seems to be saying is that the LP that she is an MP for is unworthy.
        Well it is certainly tricky but it feels abit like she chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
        She is being profligate with her ‘truths’ .
        we really should just establish some facts over the Kuennesberg bodyguard affair. i suspect Jes will be less comfortable with (actual) facts.

        • Resident Dissident

          Not sure if you are being wilfully arrogant or whether it comes naturally.

          No she is saying that perceptions inside the Conference are quite different from what is seen outside – a point which was made earlier in the body of what Phillips said. As for the rest of your conspiratorial garbage. And of course you do not address the reference made re anti-Semitism by JSD which is just pure fabrication.

          As for the facts on k’s bodyguard – several newspapers have reported the bodyguard’s existence – of course there could be a collective conspiracy.

          Of course any criticism of the ruling faction within the Labour Party is now verboten in true totalitarian fashion – good job the same standards did not apply when Corbyn was a constantly revolting backbencher.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            I obviously yanked your chain.
            Let me assure you my arrogance is as natural as it comes.
            But there is utterly no way that the final paragraph is anything but a rebuke to Jeremy Corbyn, suggesting that the buzz and energy she experienced at the conference was a red herring, and while she was taken in at first , she realised later that the issues re victim blaming etc poisoned her perceptions of the event. More importantly she is clearly suggesting that JC may be instrumental to that-even if he is not actively, himself, inclined to do such things and she is also suggesting that the gender issue is the pre-eminent one within the spectrum of political activity and that the undercurrent of misogyny (and anti-semitism) poisons all the rest of the party activities.
            That is clearly irrational for a someone who represents a mainstream mass party. That is not meant to condone anything but it is naive not to realise that all mass groups will attract a wide range of attitudes at the extreme end of which, there will be some who are both misogynistic, and some anti-semitic, and that political opponents will seize any opportunity that is offered to them to damage

            i guess what I am saying is that someone who is so discontented by the Labour party probably should examine their position, and choose some other more valid vehicle for that discontent .
            One has to question why she is so publicly focussed on gender issues, that she does not join for instance Sandi Toksvig who has founded a political party exclusively for women which is focussed on the gender inequalities that undoubtedly exist. The reason she does not do this, of course is that she would have a much reduced platform.
            the main point is also that it seems to me to be more constructive to have the conversation privately, not to resort to a a slightly snide and sneery article that insinuates but actually evades her real position. It is intellectually dishonest.
            BTW she does actually refer to anti-semitism –
            “…..asked if I was OK, and asked (sic) the hell was happening at conference with reports and subsequent denials of antisemitism as well as victim- blaming women. She concluded that if there were an election tomorrow she would not be able to cast a vote for anyone.

            Clearly Jess P is sympathetic to that perspective. That just seems unsupportable in an elected representative. (It as if she is saying ‘don’t vote if you are so upset by the nasty people in the party ) . Quite honestly that is feeble minded and pathetic.
            the other point
            And you can F- off with your suggestion that I was ‘conspiracy theorising’ . Stories such as the one doing the rounds -seen in such august organs as the Sun or Mail are quite often manufactured or have the context wilfully distorted. Facts are useful to establish the proper context.

          • Resident Dissident

            Clearly by reading between the lines you can make anyone suggest any thought crime that you wish e.g. the fact that Jess spoke to someone who said they couldn’t support the Party because of anti-Semitism and victim blaming means that Jess shares the same view and blames Jeremy Corbyn and of course because she only talks about this issue in a New Statesman diary she has no views on any other matters and therefore should join a single issue Party. And now having established Jess’s though crime against the Great Leader you are now able to indulge in a somewhat extended two minute hate period.

            And no you most definitely indulge in conspiracy theories.

            BTW the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Times and Financial Times, and even RT, have all reported that Kuenssberg had a bodyguard as well as the tabloids – so please lets widen the list of conspirators.

          • J

            Everyone from Machiavelli to Adam Smith noted the reality of conspiracy, only naive fools believe that like minded individuals never conspire together against the public interest.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            i am quite incredulous at your idea that i invented the interpretation of the article. I will now let you know that people, even with modest ability use language to convey all kinds of unstated but inferred, implied, suggested, hinted at meanings. It may be Jess that is, alone among al political people in this country who can’t do that or it may be you that misses the meanings.
            We call it reading between the lines or sometimes innuendo or double entendre, and sometimes subtle or even unconscious references are made to meanings but I suppose there are also individuals with limited capacity in this respect, to both imply or interpret some point that is not blatantly or obviously stated so stop your contrary crap. It is just pointless and immature attempt at point scoring.
            For instance Jes P refers to her crackly radio while the speech was being broadcast. Personally have not heard a ‘crackly radio’ since 1983. I suspect she was hinting that the speech was less than (politically) coherent. However I would grant that is a bit of a conjecture-she may be one f the 14 people in the country with a car radio that doesn’t work.
            The idea that i am ‘conspiracy theorising’ is preposterous. I merely said that the facts should be checked ad that this should include the context for the decision, and the response of people within the Labour party.
            I will stand by my assertion that one cannot rely on the red tops bit feel free to do so if that is what you likeand casn interpret readily.
            I am drawing this to a close because it really isn’t a fruitful process.

          • Resident Dissident

            “i am quite incredulous at your idea that i invented the interpretation of the article. I will now let you know that people, even with modest ability use language to convey all kinds of unstated but inferred, implied, suggested, hinted at meanings. It may be Jess that is, alone among al political people in this country who can’t do that or it may be you that misses the meanings.”

            Perhaps rather than interpreting what Jess says you might wish to look at her own comments on the matter in response to another idiot making a similar point to yourself:

            “How am I undermining him by defending a woman targeted with abuse?How do I threaten democracy?You sound very foolish no wonder you are bored”


            Of course you could accuse her of lying to cover up her true thoughts which of course as a Commisar of Thoughtcrime you are of course well equipped to read.or dream up other crackpot (or is it crackly?) conspiracy theories.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Deepgreenpuddock 15:47 28/09/17

            I did not say that Phillips made no reference to anti-Semitism in her article. I said there was anti-Semitism in her headline and hardly a word about it in the article, which was correct. You quoted the only reference in the article to anti-Semitism, which presented no evidence whatever. Some anonymous friend of Phillips asked her about it. That’s the lot.

            Let’s look at the headline again.

            “Conference was brilliant – until the antisemitism and victim-blaming started”

            Clear inference of the headline is that there was anti-Semitism at the conference. Evidence presented in the article is zero. It’s no wonder I call Phillips’s work filthy and divisive.

            There’s another matter, though. Up until yesterday I would have said there was no serious problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, indeed I have been knocking frequent heads with people who assert the contrary. That was before Labour Friends of Palestine saw fit to publish, on their Facebook page and on Twitter, a picture of barbed wire covering the Jerusalem Dome of the Rock and the words “our solution will be the final solution”. Shocked and infuriated does not adequately describe my reaction to this disgusting action. LFOP have subsequently apologised and called it a mistake. I have every sympathy with people who reject the excuse that it was a mistake. Even if it was indeed a mistake, which frankly I doubt, it was one so serious that I’m going to ask every MP associated with LFOP to resign. You don’t make mistakes of that kind and continue as an organisation in my opinion.

            My own view is, I deeply regret to say, that someone in LFOP felt safe in publishing such an image due to the (welcome) deeply-felt sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians at the Labour Conference. It is in my view impossible to continue to argue with conviction that there is no problem with anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

            Best, John

          • Resident Dissident


            I doubt Jess Phillips wrote the headline – but totally agree with you regarding the reported actions of the LFOP.

        • giyane

          Now there is philosophical question worthy of a few ether pages: are trolls intentionally annoying?
          But since the owner of the blog has chosen to debate this question re: Miko Peled it isn’t surprising that we have descended to the level of an ether pub brawl.
          It is after all his space to waste.

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          Resident Dissident .

          Jess Philips is far from some neutral observer of affairs.
          Her words are intended to convey meanings, some of which are suggested or implied without overt saying them. This provides enough ‘cover’ to permit her to withdraw them if necessary. She can say-that’s not my meaning
          The offensive nature of the article you highlighted was not that t was making an improper point-victim blaming is very reprehensible, but that it was very casual, poorly thought out.
          It was a kind of ‘impressions of my Continental Holiday’ – the essay assignment given to 13year olds at the return to school after the holidays.
          The real problem is that it was at about the same level. of intellectual; engagement.
          Even 13 year olds are capable of making unconscious references for effect(crackly radio) and distortions are used to emphasise meanings.
          The real problem is that she is not a thirteen year old writing casually and for the entertainment of her teacher.
          She is actually an elected representative with particular affiliations and duties and she has to balance these with her ideas and thoughts .
          This doesn’t mean that she has to write or say whatever pleases any or all her colleagues or supporters, but it does mean that she should take her duties seriously and give a considerable degree of reflection to what she writes, (its full meanings and consequences ) and makes public, rather than simply doing a quick description of her emotional responses at the conference,
          The problem is not her views-it is the impression that she is not taking the kind of considered approach required for someone in her position to whatever issues she is interested in. It isn’t a matter of her views being ‘wrong’ -it is the trite and causal way that she expresses them in the context of being a serious politician.

          The Labour Party is primarily a party of social justice. It is quite imperfect, of course, but it is also very important because it is the main vehicle for the expression of the opposition to the main source of the corrosive inequalities in this country, an economic system, and a reactionary social discourse, that is dominated by an idea that the benefits of economic activity are primarily private, but the costs of that activity are to be borne by all.

          The real problem i have with the Jess Phillips piece is that it avoids any properly considered investigation of the whole context. It is a puff piece, of trite sand instantaneous emotional reactions-(she was ‘excited’ by the buzz and energy of the event, then she conveys the disappointment (emotion) of hearing of the bodyguard for Laura K and the (unchecked) suspicion of anti-semitism at a meeting, and the impression that a session on rules about anti-semitism was less than satisfactory (although she does not actually analyse why it is unsatisfactory-which it may well be, or may be a temporary fudge, or a ‘holding’ position).

          The further point however is that, regardless of your inability to perceive the sub-textual meanings, there was an implied rebuke of Jeremy Corbyn for being instrumental in a state of affairs that she is (emotionally ) uncomfortable with.
          My point is that she may be right. It may be the case that Jeremy Corbyn, by his actions, is relaxed about Laura K’s abuse, or a holocaust denier having a platform, but quite frankly, I don’t believe it.

          I suspect, (without having any knowledge of how the matter was dealt with) , when the report of the bodyguard became known, it would have been considered and subjected to some kind of security vetting or and some process to protect her from any hostility by individuals in the Labour party.

          If J.Phillips wants to criticise and suggest that the LP has been endorsing victim blaming or holocaust denying , she has to come up with more than her simple emotionally based assertions.
          It is quite inadequate in her role to write such puff pieces, even for a political comics like the New Statesman. Any decent editor would have sent it back to her with a hole in the middle.
          The problem with Jess P is not that she is inclined to one faction or another it is that she is simply not up to the job.

  • Republicofscotland

    Of course in all the adulation of Corbyn at the Labour conference, a few home truths shall we say were conveniently left out.

    Such as Labour in Wales, point blankly refusing to lift the public sector pay cap. Corbyn appears to agree with that stance.

    Labour in Wales have also announced a increase in university fees, which occured in July. No mention of that at the government in waiting in Brighton. Or did I miss that bit?

    Again Labour in Wales have chosen not to mitigate the bedroom tax. Labour has also chosen to back the renewal of Trident, at a obscene cost to the taxpayer, no mention and no standing ovation at the Labour conference for that particular faux pas.

    Finally can anyone say with any real clarity what Labour’s stance is on Brexit and the EU? I think not.

          • Shatnersrug

            I think it’s more like “shit Labour are moving left and exposing the SNP for the neoliberal party and Tory protectors that they are”

          • Republicofscotland

            By that do you mean, that Corbyn has now realised that already implemented policies in Scotland by the SNP government are a good idea to shout about at the Labour conference?

            Unless of course it’s better for Labour to stay quiet on the policies I mentioned at 11.43am.

            There’s a huge difference between talking on moving left, and actually doing it. Labour have been the masters of deception for decades now.

  • Temporarily Sane

    The Anglo-North American-EU establishment has completely lost the plot. All these lies, distortions and half-truths the media feeds the citizenry. And for what? Protecting a tiny apartheid state from having to answer for its crimes…keeping global neoliberalism limping along and protecting the fortunes of a few thousand rapacious billionaires…letting an imploding USA continue to have its way with the world? For these goals the wholesale destruction of sovereign nations (ie. killing a few million people) and ending the West’s democratic experiment is a price worth paying?

    Or is it a strange psychological side-effect of refusing to take climate change and its implications for life on earth seriously that drives the madness?

    Perhaps a tone-deaf and stagnating Western liberal elite panicking as its power is challenged from within and without?

    All of the above?

    Or something else altogether?

    Can anyone imagine a plausible way out of the current clusterfuck that does not involve economic and social upheaval and civil unrest?

    Serious questions…

    • joel

      I think we’re just experiencing the natural playing out of untrammeled global liberalism. Seems pretty obvious now that the postwar social-democratic golden age in the west was the anomaly, conceded by elites only for a few decades because of their fear of a competing ideological bloc.
      I doubt this latest era of unrestrained liberalism is going to be ended by political revolution, peaceful or otherwise, given the ease with which capital can be transferred abroad. More likely it will be ended by catastrophic climate change or a nuclear holocaust. Pessimistic, I know. But is there anybody left who still believes in the Whig interpretation of history?

      • Shatnersrug

        You’re missing half the quote – Gramsci said
        Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will

        Otherwise you’re just doing the Liberal/Conservative work for them 😉

        • joel

          You’re right, of course. And Corbyn’s ascendance shows there can be incredibly unexpected turns of events. I was just thinking of the forces that will be ranged against him if he does make it into power. But it doesn’t seem to be daunting him.

  • Paul Moorhouse

    According to Tony Greenstein who was at the meeting, what Peled Actually said was ‘Israel, Zionism, even the holocaust – can these subjects not be discussed, yes or no?’ smoething entirely different from wht is being alleged by the press. Tony’s blog post on it is here:

    The last few paragraphs are, in my view the most important:

    “What Miko Peled said was: ‘Israel, Zionism, even the holocaust – can these subjects not be discussed, yes or no?’ He obviously was not disputing the holocaust

    Last year Warren Morgan alleged that there was spitting at the Labour Party AGM in Brighton. It was totally untrue but it achieved its purpose, the suspension of Brighton & Hove Labour Party and the annulment of the elections. Warren Morgan is someone who has no compunction in lying if it benefits Progress and his wing of the Labour Party. The man is completely unfit to be Labour leader in Brighton and Hove. He has no regard for the truth. He is prepared to lie for political advantage no matter who he hurts or damages. He has no moral scruples worthy of the name. Warren Morgan has to go as Brighton & Hove’s Council leader.
    Even if someone had mentioned Holocaust denial at the meeting in question, why does that make me guilty? This is an excellent example of the McCarthyist technique of guilt-by-association. Socialists and democrats fought hard against the techniques of Joe McCarthy, who was himself a Southern white supremacist and anti-Semite.

    I have been an active anti-racist and anti-fascist throughout my life. I have been arrested and beaten up for opposing the fascists. I co-founded Brighton & Hove Anti-fascist Committee and was Secretary of the Brighton and Hove Anti-Nazi League.
    As the article I reproduce here from the Argus of October 16 1983 demonstrates I have myself been at the receiving end of this vile literature.

    This is not about Holocaust denial but defending the Israeli State. How else do you defend barbaric practices such as gaoling, shackling and torturing Palestinian children as young as 12 or the demolition of Palestinian villages such as al Hiran, in Israel’s Negev, in order to build Jewish towns and settlements, other than by accusing Zionism’s opponents of anti-Semitism?

    Israel today is a racist and repressive state, which is attacking even Israeli human rights organisations such as Btselem and Breaking the Silence. It is defunding critical and left wing theatre. It is no accident that the reason why Netanyahu joined in with Hungary’s racist Prime Minister Viktor Orban in attacking George Soros was because Soros has funded liberal Israeli NGOs.

    Israel is a state where right-wing mobs indulge in pogroms chanting ‘Mavet LaAravim’ (Death to the Arabs). In Europe 80 years ago similar mobs chanted ‘Death to the Jews.’

    People like Warren Morgan and the so-called Jewish Labour Movement want to divert attention from the fact that Israel is the most racist state in the world by distorting what we say. It is a classic example of shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message.
    I have written to Morgan saying that if he doesn’t retract his insinuation that I am a sympathiser with or support Holocaust denial I will sue him for defamation.”

  • nevermind

    For anybody who wants to get an understanding what is currently going on in Germany, this is a good start, although its der Spiegel, it is better than die Bildzeitung.
    Germany is still in great shock after the election result and it is hard to understand what was decisive in the win of mainly east German AfD candidates. Frauke petry has decided, in the absence of any support for her to declare herself independent and go it alone, whilst Gauland is starting a hunt for Merkel.

    Merkel is the central focus for the AfD energy, and it is likely that Mrs. Merkel will be/have herself replaced soon.

    Expect the AfD to get invites to the rogue border less state soon. maybe offering some convenient courses in how to apply Apartheid in the 21st century and or jail children with confidence….

    • Loony

      Allow me to help you out.

      For anyone who wants to get an understanding of Germany a good place to start is Deutsche Bank and their ob going obsession with derivatives – all $46 trillion of them

      Granted, this all a bit technical and 46 trillion is a number so large as to defy comprehension. So things like this tend to hit the mark with the less technically minded

      You may agonize over the jailing of children – other people simply kill them

      • Loony

        Instead of insulting people why not explain what actually happens if “enhanced neo-liberalism” is successfully challenged.

        The top 25 US banks have $220 trillion in derivatives exposure – what happens to this under your positive outcome delusion?

        Why do you think they have so much derivatives exposure? Is it just because they are greedy/corrupt/evil or is there some other explanation.

        If you live in the UK then you cannot feed, clothe or warm yourself. The essentials of life need to be imported and you have absolutely nothing of value to offer in return. Without “enhanced neo-liberalism” you will starve in short order.

        I accept that even the threat of starvation is insufficient to assuage the righteous anger of those who have been, and are being, shafted. Therefore “enhanced neo liberalism” will be challenged and it will be challenged by those who are completely ignorant of the catastrophic consequences that such a challenge will unleash.

        It is not I that incite civil war, but all those so determined that they must act toward a “positive outcome” without having the first clue about what they are talking about.

        Soon, thanks to people like you, you will get a chance to see just how a multi cultural society works out in a society that lacks sufficient food to feed itself.

        So instead of insulting people why not let us all know how to unwind a multi trillion $ derivatives book in a manner that does not lead to mass starvation. Why not explain why a society too lazy to even feed itself deserves anything at all, much less the kind of super enhanced prosperity and equality that you seem to envisage.

        • Xavi

          “Why do you think they have so much derivatives exposure? Is it just because they are greedy/corrupt/evil or is there some other explanation?”

          I think it’s because Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon et al want to save us from starving to death.

        • Loony

          Xavi – you are in for a big shock – Jamie and Lloyd would rather throw their food in the bin than give it to you.

          They are however interested in self preservation and that requires them to encourage other people to give their food to you – after all starving people may even consider eating Jamie and Lloyd and they do not want to be on the menu.

          The question is what happens to you if Jamie and Lloyd fail in their efforts to persuade other people to feed you. One of the reasons they despise you is because you have allowed yourself to get into a position whereby you cannot even eat unless they help you.

          You may not like them but they understand that you need food – Jeremy Corbyn, does not exhibit the same understanding – and maybe you like him. Food for thought no?

  • nevermind

    Here is some very Conservative Reformist News from Norfolk.
    Ex founder and CEO of academies becomes education minister, talk about vested interests not getting a word in edgeways….

    “Sir Theodore Agnew, who previously chaired the Department for Education’s academies board and has been a board member in the Ministry of Justice, replaces Lord Nash in his new ministerial position”


  • SA

    Instead of hunting for non-existent Russian meddling with elections in The States, journalists should be focusing on the really active interference in European politics by certain individuals associated with a certain country, directly or indirectly.

  • CameronB Brodie

    Middle East Policy Council
    When individuals, activists or politicians in the United States and Canada criticize human-rights problems in Israel or question the tenets of the political ideology of Zionism, they are attacked, and accusations of bias and even anti-Semitism are made in an attempt to discredit them.

    The allegation that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is used as an effective political weapon. To quote one anti-Zionist Jewish writer:

    Criticizing Israel’s mistakes is acceptable. But questioning whether Israel is a Jewish state with a racist apartheid system that renders non‑Jews second rate citizens — that is not acceptable. It makes little difference whether the criticism is based on facts. Few people who cannot claim Jewish descent would dare to criticize publicly. They are afraid of being accused of “anti‑semitism.”2

    Joel Beinin in “Silencing Critics Not Way to Middle East Peace,” an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, discussed the campaign to silence critics of Israeli policy. Beinin, a professor of history at Stanford University, is active in Jewish Voice for Peace and an editor of Jewish Peace News.3 Here is what he had to say about the campaign to attack critics of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians:

    Why discredit, defame and silence those with opposing viewpoints? I believe it is because the Zionist lobby knows it cannot win based on facts. An honest discussion can only lead to one conclusion: The status quo in which Israel declares it alone has rights and intends to impose its will on the weaker Palestinians, stripping them permanently of their land, resources and rights, cannot lead to a lasting peace. We need an open debate and the freedom to discuss uncomfortable facts and explore the full range of policy options. Only then can we adopt a foreign policy that serves American interests and one that could actually bring a just peace to Palestinians and Israelis. 4

1 2 3

Comments are closed.