Just after the October revolution a small band of Jewish radicals tried to help push communism onto the Jewish masses. They attacked Jewish identity, both from a religious perspective (Judaism) and a national one (Zionism). I have written about them before and they were called the Yevsektsiya. Reading about them is like watching history unfold. At their second conference, they demanded that the Zionist organisations be dissolved – LFI (Labour Friends of Israel) and JLM (Jewish Labour Movement) – you have already been warned. By their third conference, they demanded the ‘total liquidation’ of Zionism.

Every aspect of Jewish cultural life came ‘under assault’.  They sought to cut off funds for Jewish theatre, and community life in the synagogue was seen as subversive. One of their central targets was the chief Rabbi and his allies. The Jews of Russia did not know it in 1920, but a bitter antisemitic winter that was to last seventy years had begun. The Jewish radicals enabled and protected the anti-Jewish racism that was to spread like a virus. They did it in the name of ‘solidarity’. They were part of Communist Russia’s Information and Propaganda Department and were set up not just to take action, but to deflect accusations of antisemitism.

Report sequel

I am currently finishing a ‘sequel’ to the Palestine Live report, which will hopefully be published in early April. It focuses exclusively on this small band of Jewish people (and a few media allies) who have provided cover for accusations of antisemitism inside the Labour Party. I believe the new report will make disturbing reading for anyone who fights against racism. Currently JVL (Jewish Voice for Labour) are seeking affiliation with local Labour groups that have been hurt by suspensions because of antisemitism. Just two days ago Liverpool Riverside joined the list. I am fairly positive, Liverpool Riverside will no longer have a problem with antisemitism.

An attack on the Jewish religion

What has any of this got to do with the religion? Isn’t JVL simply an ‘anti-Zionist’ movement? Firstly, it is important to remember a simple lesson. Never believe a word that JVL says. They claim they are not even anti-Zionist at all, except everyone there wants to see Zionism, and Israel, taken apart. To gain any acceptance by left leaning Jews at all, they spin lines about ‘having trouble with Israeli policy’. With the media they feign moderation. It is little more than a masking exercise, and this week they were unmasked again. This time not over Israel, but Judaism.

In six days Jewish people across the world will be sitting down to celebrate Passover. It is an important, ‘biblically derived‘ festival. It is one of the most important dates in the Hebrew calendar. Jews all over the world are currently engaging in a ‘spring clean’ in preparation, and on Friday night will read the story of the Exodus from Egypt in a text called the Haggadah.

A few days ago, Jewish Voice for Labour uploaded a replacement text onto their website. The entire version is available for download on the internet.

Haggadah 1

In total it is fourteen pages long and last night I went through it. It is an attack on Jewish tradition, Jewish prayer, Jewish culture and the Jewish religion. It makes a mockery of one of the most important dates in the Jewish calendar. This is reproduced for the masses by a group inside the Labour Party that claims it represents Jews. What has Zionism got to do with a Jewish festival? Why can’t Jews sit down as they have always done, and celebrate a religious festival like everyone else? Why is our basic identity under attack? These are the tags, that JVL chose to use to place it on their website:

jewish values

The four glasses of wine

Can you imagine what would happen if central beliefs of either Christians or Muslims were ridiculed from inside the Labour Party? This book doesn’t just change a few words – it politicises the entire event. It mocks us. According to JVL, when Jews all over the world sit down to talk about the Exodus – they need to focus on the Palestinians.

There are still four glasses of wine. However:

  • The first cup is to education
  • The second cup is to solidarity
  • The third cup is to the BDS movement
  • The fourth cup is to community

The entire text reads like an apology from Jews to the world. It opens not by talking about the oppression of Jews, but racial hate against Muslims:

In the wake of the violence, turmoil, colonialist control, and ongoing Occupation, we want to acknowledge the distinction between “mitzrayim” – the narrow place – where the story we tell at Passover takes place and Egypt, the modern-day nation state. We are not conflating contemporary Egyptians with the pharaoh and taskmasters that appear in the Passover story. In the U.S., and worldwide, anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia saturate our media and our culture, and we must be vigilant to oppose it and interrupt it at every turn.

It’s all about immigration stupid!

It goes on to remove the significance of the use of the word ‘Israel’ from the text. There is no Exodus story told at all. Instead there are just pages such as this:
As we begin the Exodus story, we read that the oppression of the Israelites resulted from Pharaoh’s fear that their growth would somehow overwhelm the Egyptian nation. These verses certainly have an ominous resonance for the Jewish people. Indeed any member of a minority faith or ethnic group knows all too well the tragedy that inevitably ensues when a nation views their demographic growth as a “threat.” Today it is all too common to hear Israel’s leaders and supporters suggest that the “Jewish character” of Israel is threatened by the demographic growth of the Palestinian people. How should we react to the suggestion that the mere fact of this group’s growth necessarily poses a national threat to Israel? As Jews living in the Diaspora, how would we respond if our leaders raised questions about the “demographic threat” of a particular minority group to the “national character” of our country? In a multi-ethnic society, can a state’s identity ever be predicated upon the primacy of one ethnic group without the oppression of another?
This is a sickening attack on Jewish customs. Remember, this is only fourteen pages long (in the real text, at page fourteen, Jewish men and women are busy flicking through counting how many pages are left before the eating begins).

The symbolic olive

During the traditional Seder meal, small pieces of  symbolic foods, such as bitter Herbs and Matzah are handed around and tasted, delivered with a traditional and cultural message attached to the story of Exodus. In the text JVL uploaded, an olive is passed around:
‘At the same time, we eat this olive in sorrow, mindful that olive trees, the source of livelihood for Palestinian farmers, are regularly chopped down, burned and uprooted by Israeli settlers and the Israeli authorities. As we look on, Israel pursues systematic policies that increasingly deny Palestinians access to olive orchards that have belonged to them for generations. As we eat now, we ask one another: How will we, as Jews, bear witness to the unjust actions committed in our name? Will these olives inspire us to be bearers of peace and hope for Palestinians – and for all who are oppressed?’

The entire heart of the Passover meal is stripped away. Whoever wrote this, missed it all. Instead of Jewish families coming together and prompting children to talk and to ask (a way of passing the traditions from generation to generation), this is an activists get-together.

Jewish festivalsWhat is in it for the kids?

 I see this as antisemitic hate coming from within a major political party. To show this should not be read as an antisemitic attack, JVL should be asked to point to similar attacks against other major religions that are tolerated within the Labour Party.

 The four questions

At Passover we get to ask four questions. These are mine:
  • The Jewish people have a right, like everyone else, to experience and enjoy their own customs. To introduce their children to cultural heritage, and to experience special nights, just like other religions enjoy. Why have the group that claims to be the representative of the Jewish people inside the Labour Party, uploaded a blatant and direct attack on Jewish religious and cultural heritage?
  • What percentage of Jewish people would use a text like this?
  • Would JVL upload a similar text from other faiths, that mock and ridicule all of the central messages contained within a religious cultural experience? If they are unable to do so, they should be asked to explain why they cannot.
  • Why do the Labour Party continue to provide cover for a group that so clearly follows the path of antisemitic forces from early Communist rule?
I do not think this should be taken lightly. This isn’t some fringe peace group – a group called Jewish Voice for Peace originally wrote the version – JVL claims to be the representative of Jewish people in the Labour Party and is engaged in protecting anti-Jewish racism. It clearly has a direct line to Jeremy Corbyn. I would ask for other religious groups, to stand up and defend the Jewish people against what is a blatant attack from within a major political party.  Or is everyone still just going to sit there and shrug? Oops. One question too many.

 ———————————————–

Please help support the research

This blog is unique, and the type of investigative journalism this work requires is intense, and at times expensive. I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. My work is fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible. This research can and does make a difference.

If you can, please consider making a donation. Either a single amount or a small monthly contribution.  We need to be there to expose the hatred and the lies. We have to shine a light into the shadows and show people what is happening. Look at what we can find. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

142 thoughts on “Now the Labour party attack Jewish festivals, as Passover celebration is mutilated

    1. Stephen

      Tut tut
      I have had the unfortunate experience of being at a Passover dinner where the content was changed (and added to) to include politically motivated comment.
      I was to shocked and embarrased to say anything.
      It was highly unpleasant and extremely unnerving

  1. It has been interesting to follow the threads here David and observe the desperate tactics of your opponents to provide cover for prejudice against Jews in the UK.

    It must seem remarkable to the readership that there is no sensible response to the substance of your reports but rather a stream of attacks on your character, questions about your motives and the sincerity of your reporting. The sense that they project is that Jews have no right to report on prejudice that targets them in the UK even if it is real. I have asked our old friend Chris three times now whether he believes that there are ever circumstances in which he would concede that Jews would be entitled to report on prejudice against them and when he would consider their reports sincere rather than ‘faux’. I am still awaiting a response.

    1. I have to agree with you to a degree Ian that there is no sensible response to this ” report”. It is totally unhinged. I am afraid that David has allowed his seemingly pathological hatred of the wrong kind of Jews to get the better of him.

      1. This isn’t a report, it is a blog. The report – nearly 200 pages of it – is being finalised.

      2. When a person experiences the type of actions described by what David has written, one has a totally different perspective on the matter.

        I do not claim to know what it is like for a black person to suffer racism; I just acknowledge that it is awful.
        I therefore find it rather offensive to be told by a non-Jew that my lived experience of this distortion of my heritage and religion by certain ‘jews’ is not of any importance

        1. I wish black people would denounce Sinister Louie Farraklan and his racist, fascist Nation of Islam. It must be dangerous to do so.

          See what happened when Malcolm X challenged Fascist Farraklans rule.

    2. As the evidence has mounted, all that is left are snide attacks and deflections. I finally blocked Mike when he suggested there was no antisemitism in the Palestine Live reports. Stephen is free to comment here, but since he displayed his total lack of standards by creating the ‘Facebook Group’ slur against me, I have no interest in engaging him at all. If I do comment on something he has said, it is to help clarify my own position. Chris is highly duplicitous and you should check out his posts in the Free Speech on Israel page. To be frank, I won’t respond to comments here unless there is a serious challenge to the premise of the blog. They have nothing but empty smears, cheap shots and deflections. This is a group that pretends to speak for Labour’s Jews explicitly attacking a pillar of Jewish heritage. It is a shameful thing for them to have done.

        1. At the demonstration yesterday I heard the JVL rabble shouting at people that they were ‘the real Jews’ as opposed to their opponents who they claimed weren’t ‘real Jews’ but a tories and coup plotters.

          So yes. JVL DOES claim to speak for Labour’s Jews.

          Ironically JVL had such difficultly scraping together enough Jews that actually support Corbyn that they had to resort to getting non-Jews to hold their Jews for Jez signs and banners.

      1. It is curious how they have stuck to the playbook of personal attack rather than anything more sophisticated or imaginative. As your endeavours have gained traction through wide exposure of prejudice and demonstrable outcomes their strategy of deflection and abuse has failed completely and must baffle the readership.with its flimsy and inconsequential approach. I suppose that when you have nothing other than a personal grudge against the author an argument runs out of steam eventually and so it appears here.

        I know a couple of the volunteers currently touring with Reservists on Duty. Their delegation of Israeli Jews, Christians, Druze and Muslims is really pissing the ‘Apartheid Israel’ brigade off at their meeting venues and like Bellers and co. here they end up with such an empty hand that all that is left is abusive insults. It feels like you’re winning David.

        1. You think there are winners and losers on a blog post thread Ian ? You need to get out more.

          Anyway I guess knowing a couple of people that know some reservists counts as a shift of sorts. At least it is as close to a shift as I suspect we are going to get.

          1. Crickey Bellers, only a little earlier you were telling us all how being a keyboard crusader was as good as it got for you after your gap year (less three months) with the Bedouin brickies. Are you feeling the strain? So many fronts opening up and you’re only one man!

            1. Yeah I feel like Frederick the Great must have felt. Austrians to the front of me, Ruskies to the left of me, Frenchies to the right of me. Still it turned out ok for him so I remain optimistic.

              His success wasn’t all positive of course. It was the first step on the rocky road to the holocaust.

              1. Stephen

                You seem to be applying for the role of court jester
                One inane comment after the other
                You are disappointing me

                When will you answer my questions about why you claim that Israel is
                1) a basketcase
                2) the most dependant country in the world

        2. I met a few of them Ian. a Bedouin, an Arab Christian, and a Druse (female). Great people. Incredible stories. They were in my locker for the Apartheid debate.

          1. They are terrific ambassadors for our country and have been really well received by a very wide audience wherever they have attended.

            Of similar quality is a guy called Matan Katzman who is a founder of My Truth; an organisation formed by IDF officers to speak against Breaking the Silence. Unlike the latter the MT members are real soldiers who do not hide behind veils of anonymity and present testimony to Israeli and non-Israeli audiences that has been verified by wholly independent – and often less sympathetic sources. Matan has spoken at the UN and in EU committee and with his colleagues actively seeks opportunities to present to audiences around the world. He may well be known to you.

            Both organisations are playing a very active role in pulling the rug of deceit from under the feet of our opponents and leaving them with nothing more than rather hollow insults and the odd personal attack.

            Old Bellers got a bit umpty earlier when I suggested that it felt like you were winning. Easy to see why. The presence of these groups on campuses and public meetings and the success of their presentations reinforces this view and demonstrates that the front goes way beyond the occasional keyboard crusader.

  2. The mantle of respectability these ‘jews’ offer those that would prefer there were no Jews, is visibly apparent.
    The narative of these ‘jews’ is a one sided polemic that blames one side (Israel/Zionists/Jews) for all the calamaties and misfortunes that befall the immediate area around Israel, and then spread that blame to encompass the calamaties and misfortunes that befall the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
    .
    The majority of these ‘jews’ that I am acquainted with, practise a progressive Judaism that is far removed from the classical (traditional) Judaism.
    Many of these ‘jews seem to have transformed their Judaism into an expression of political activism, where the religion acts as a legitimiser of their views and a semi-political movement.

    I have often heard them use the term ‘tikkun olam’ to explain the Jews mission to better the world. Yet their world view seems to revolve around Israel and how evil it and the Jews are (oops, sorry a typo; I meant Zionists).
    I have never yet heard about the good works the Palestinians have done to improve the world, because there are none. Their contribution to the world is mainly aircraft hijacking, suicide bombing, car ramming as a weapon etc (and maybe olives and fallafel, although these were a staple for the Mediterraenean area centuries).
    Thinking of ‘tikkun olam’, I have never heard these ‘jews’ recognise Israels actual contribution to bettering the world, such as disaster relief, water technology for water defiecient areas, medical and technical research and innovation, and so much more.

    Without Israel I fear these ‘jews’ would lack a cause and justification for their existance.

  3. Obviously written by those two foremost tzadikim and eshet Chayll ,Naomi Wimborne Idrissi and Jackie Walker. With Tony Greenstein in the kitchen ( equal opportunities ) busy preparing the egg dipped in salt water. Bellamy by special invitation gets to be the simple son. Greenstein already got the wicked son gig

    Seriously , these people are so consumed by hatred of their own skins, they would do anything to remove every last vestige of their accident of birth ethnicity . One can understand how Lady Macbeth felt when furiously washing away at her imagined bloody hands . These wretched ‘as a Jews ‘ are obviously undergoing similar torments .

    1. Yes, Harvey – there are few people for whom I feel more contempt than as-a-Jews.

      1. Newsreel – 0:30 seconds
        National SOCIALIST hitler and IslamoFascist Grand Mufti meet

      2. Little tony greenstein IS the queen of renegade JINO’s.

        Counter Chant this…

        From the River to the Sea,
        Pal-e-STINE Will Never Be!

  4. This piece of toilet paper was composed by the American Jewish antisemitic group, Jewish Voice for Peace (the “P” should stand for “Palestinian Propaganda”. Sorry you guys across the pond have been infected with this garbage.

    1. No problem Sandra, I saw it was a JVP publication. Quite a vile piece, but I think you know that already.

        1. Stephen – you just didn’t read the piece. I specifically mention that JVL ‘reproduced it’ and added:

          ‘I do not think this should be taken lightly. This isn’t some fringe peace group – a group called Jewish Voice for Peace originally wrote the version – JVL claims to be the representative of Jewish people in the Labour Party and is engaged in protecting anti-Jewish racism.’

            1. OK since I am in the naughty corner I will answer my own rhetorical question. Nowhere. Never. Noway.

              If this is a major premiss in David’s 200 page report it is a dead duck from the outset.

    2. Jewish Voice for Peace? Great.

      Where is the MUSLIM Voice for Peace????

      That was a trick question because there is no such animal.

      1. Don’t be taken in by the JVP tag either. The “Jewish “ is just a cover to legitimise the overt antisemitsm that takes place throughout the group both on line and in real time events . These people are so obsessed with hatred of Israel , that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the very real incidences of antisemitsm that blights their organisation.

  5. David, I know you are scrupulously fair to your detractors and fools but unless Bellamy is married to your sister, I think you should block him from your blog. He’s a simple troll. Don’t give him the satisfaction of infecting your work.

    1. As far as I know Simon, Stephen is not married to my sister. I fully understand and appreciate your comment. The day may come. I have lost all patience with him, and given the respect I have given him here, his actions off this site were truly despicable. There have been posters far more troubling here than him, and I think I have only stopped two from posting here. You are right there is little value in his input at present, but if I do ban him, it will be because of what he did off the site, rather than his pointless presence on it.

        1. Stephen

          Was it the truth, or was it ‘opinion’ based truth which is open to interpretation.
          For it to be truth it must be factually based, with the relevant evidence to support it.

          That is why I keep asking you to explain your accusations and claims that Israel is
          1) a basketcase
          2) the most dependant nation in the world.

          Your lack of reply to date leads one to the conclusion that your comments were untruthfull and meant only to offend

            1. Stephen

              what is that link supposed to mean
              as part of Davids research he is on many sites

              As far as a reply to why you accuse Israel of
              1) being a basketcase
              2) being the most dependant nation on earth
              I am still waiting
              If you cannot answer in proper intelligble English, then maybe its time you desist from peddling your stupidity and move onto your type of blogs such as Tony Greenstein, Mondoweiss, JVP, and their like.
              If you happen to leave, I doubt the lack of your presence will be noticed as you do very little to contribute to the furtherance of better understanding of the world around us

    2. Indeed, Simon. I have been urging David for some time to block the dregs.

      1. Oh Leah27z,

        Then we would not get to see your true colours, which shine through most bright. Although, as far as wit goes, I think you left that bit behind somewhere?

          1. Chris doesn’t like Inconvenient Questions that undermine his dogma.

            My Karma ran over Chris’ dogma.

    3. I’ve tried before to persuade him . David is scrupulously tolerant on the Free speech issue .

      1. It’s nothing to do with ‘free speech’. That’s an absurd irrelevance.

  6. Jewish Voice for Peace in the US has published similarly anti-Zionist and anti-Israel attacks in their version of the haggadah for Pesach.

  7. Simon, I think that opposition here is helpful, clearly not for what they say as it is mostly primitive trollery as we know, but for when and how they say it. It often provides a useful barometer to impact and penetration of David’s reports and the levels of concern that they promote amongst the targets. A good example of this was the thread that followed the publication here of David’s report on Palestine Live. It smoked out some very interesting characters who were not frequent flyers here but clearly so stirred up by the report that they were provoked into a level of response that comprised bile and personal abuse of the author that went way beyond the sort of feeble dross that typically passes for counter point here.

    This is really my point; an active opposition, however ineffective goes some way to indicating where we are in the debate and the scale of the wounds that are being inflicted. Without it the site may as well reduce to thumbs up or thumbs down approval icons with all of the value that they would bring. Worse still would be an uber-moderated comment section comprising half a dozen vile sycophants like me telling David how great he is on Cap-lock and lots of effing emojis. As it stands, readers get to see for themselves the substance and nature of the prevailing opposition. In time they may even remark on how in 2018 it was still okay to demean Jewish people when they attempted to report on prejudice against them.

    I imagine that this will enable them to form their own views on who is on the right side on the argument and who, most definitely is not.

  8. Well this weeks post makes a change, its got religious undertones. And then we are asked how people would react if some of the central themes of Christianity were to be undermined, or even attacked? Indeed, what would happen, but I think Monty Python can discuss this one, particularly when Church was offended by the Life of Brian.. Here’s the relevant Tim Rice interviews on the subject matter, the one where Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark, Mervyn Stockwood made right arses of themselves: https://youtu.be/1ni559bHXDg

  9. It’s fascinating that these Jewish groups always insist you can’t conflate “Jews” and “Zionists”, yet here they are conflating up the wazoo!! But then again, when they scream “not in my name [As Jews]” they are already conflating matters (you don’t get points for being logical in this game).

    To me, if Zionism is about Jews (who else is it about?); then anti-Zionism is about, well, Jews. Perhaps they could scream “not in my name As Human Beings” when it comes to hanging gays and marrying 13-year old girls?

    1. Please forgive me my naivety. I am not an activist and do not understand all the clever tactics used to try to score hollow points here.

      This is a report about prejudice against Jews in the UK and most reasonable people would be sympathetic to anyone that sought to highlight it. Yet, astonishingly there are still opponents to this; people that try to demean Jews for highlighting prejudice against them saying it is ‘faux’, insincere or self serving, probably isn’t a thing and even if it was it is because of Israel, almost as if there was no Jew hatred before 1948.

      With this said allow me to ask a question that I have asked others here without reply; Are there any circumstances in which a Jew or Jews would report on prejudice against them in the UK and you would not dismiss it as ‘faux’, self motivated or insincere. Moreover do you think you will ever be able to accept antisemitism in the UK simply as discrimination against Jews without writing it off as something else like witch hunts against a politician or saying “..because of Israel”?

      1. If this is a response to my post, then I’m confused.

        – I am utterly horrified by the maligning of Jewish religion presented here.
        – I believe those who claim a distinction between “anti-Zionist” and “anti-Semitic” are by and large disingenuous. Zionism is part of Judaism (scripture’s “next year in Jerusalem”, for example). Yes, there is internal disagreement about Zionism, as about other matters; but the majority of Jews favor Zionism – just as the majority disregard dietary laws.

        So my intent was to point out the inappropriateness and hypocrisy of these “As A Jews.”

        They claim people conflate anti-Semitism with mere anti-Zionism. In fact, when they weigh in on Israel “As Jews”, they themselves are demonstrating that Jews and Israeli politics are inherently inter-connected (which is why we don’t care how “As A Chinese” feel about Israel).

        Here, their conflating exercise has exceeded all bounds.

  10. Hi Chris

    I thought we were having a conversation….

    You recall I had asked whether you could see any circumstance when a Jew or Jews would report on prejudice against them in the UK and you would not dismiss it as ‘faux’, self motivated or insincere. Moreover do you think you will ever be able to accept antisemitism in the UK simply as discrimination against Jews without writing it off as something else like witch hunts against a politician or saying “..because of Israel”. I ask because it seems really strange that you spend so much time extolling inclusion and berating prejudice but then find ways to mitigate it when the targets are Jews.

    I appreciate the risk to you that sincere response in places like this presents but I am asking in good faith and using your own words you said didn’t want to come here ‘just to be a dickhead’.

    1. Ian I don’t know why you think your question is challenging or in any way clever. On the contrary it is easy peasy.

      Circumstances in which there was an instance of hatred of Jews silly.

      Of course there now is the complication of the boy who cried wolf situation. There have been so many fake allegations of antisemitism that starting from a position of suspicion is a natural human reaction.

      This is why the witch hunts and people like David are very dangerous for Jews.

      1. Chris, you said that without moving your lips !

        The question is the opposite of clever Bellers. It is naive and child-like but that’s what comes of “not having the first fucking clue of whats going on.”

        It is naive because I foolishly imagine that even amongst the most hardened and unpleasant activists, bashing away for their causes, whatever they may be, there would still be a very frayed shred of desire to acknowledge basic discrimination and inhumanity when it appears without having to twist it into something else in order to score a point against an opponent, reinforce an agenda or perpetuate some petty personal grudge. Silly old me eh?

        As you have often said “c’est la guerre”. Battle on son.

        1. Silly old you ? That is one description I guess. And that indeed is what comes of not having the remotest fucking clue of what’s going on. At least you have acquired the seeds of a degree of self awareness out of all of this.

        2. Ian,

          So, Mr Collier did not posit the enquiry what would be the response in other Religions if certain given underpinnings were questioned, I gave a response, one that occurred in UK civil society in the late 1970’s. Of course, I could have made reference to Martin Luther, who’s observations against the Catholic Church resulted in more than 100 years of religious strife across Europe, or indeed the struggle that ensued when many want to transcribe the Bible from Latin into host nations/cultures actual languages. Again, more strife. So, prey tell, where have I gone off topic, or issued a crass response when the Monty Python questioning of certain beliefs upset quite a number of the establishment here in the UK – we take such freedoms for granted now, but not so even in the 70s.

          1. That you cannot see the difference between lampooning a religion or religious figure and attacking individuals based on their identity speaks volumes. You are highly active on social media, and your consistent inability to distinguish between those fighting racism and those shielding it is worrying. It wouldn’t be relevant if you were at home, keeping those misinterpretations to yourself, but you mouth off about it everywhere you go. Earlier I saw you attacking left leaning Jews, accusing me or Jonathan of being behind them, and suggesting you’d let JVL know about the libel. You’re an idiot. Those people fully SUPPORT Corbyn and the Palestinians, but are just not blind to racism. That is where you have taken up residence – out with those who not only support Corbyn, but are totally blind to the racism that is using him as a shield. You cannot differentiate between the two groups. JVL are absurd, dangerous loonies and you defend them against real anti-racist socialists. Your actions are shameful.

              1. Stephen

                go take a bath#
                a long bath

                And think about replying to my request for an answer to explain why you claim that Israel is
                1) a basketcase
                2) the most dependant nation on earth.

                Your inability to intelligently answer speaks volumes about you

          2. Chris

            More like nearly 500 years of religous strife between Christians

            Its only since WW2 that inter-Christian strife seems to be in abeyance

            1. So maybe in 700 years from today, Islam, AKA The Religion of Peaec, can reach the same place that Christianity has.

            2. Richard Sir,

              The strife within the Christian Community goes back a lot further than 500 years, just remember you have the schism between Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox & Protestantism, never mind intra-Catholic rivalries – which, and as with many forms of nationalism, religion is a very dangerous thing. I think being agnostic is probably the safest bet.

          3. Chris Rogers, you dumb, ignorant piece of ESL sh*t,

            it’s “PRAY tell”, NOT “prey tell”.

            1. Edward,

              I do love your insults. May I take a screen shot and share with my family and friends?

              1. Dolt,

                Don’t forget to share the parts where you display your lack of understanding of English Grammar and History.

  11. Chris I knew you’d have trouble with the question. The last thing that you would want is to appear supportive of anything associated with the reporting of prejudice against Jews and especially anything originating here. I accept that this your line in the sand and for this reason you have written about everything but… as you often do. It has become a familiar tactic.

    For the benefit of the readers, the actual question that you were asked was ” Could you see any circumstance when a Jew or Jews would report on prejudice against them in the UK and you would not dismiss it as ‘faux’, self motivated or insincere. Moreover do you think you will ever be able to accept antisemitism in the UK simply as discrimination against Jews without writing it off as something else like witch hunts against a politician or saying ‘..because of Israel’.

    I think that readers will conclude that the way that you have chosen to avoid this question shows that the problem is very real and that you are probably a part of it.

    1. Yet again Ian demonstrates that he doen’t have the remotest fucking clue what is going on.

      Ian honey, the readers arrive here being of a particular mind. And when they leave they are of the same mind.

      Jezuz I really should charge for this. Or maybe apply for a cut of David’s donations. o:)

      1. May I get a cut of David’s donations too, I mean I do try my best and then get insulted.

      2. Not true Bellers. When I first arrived here I thought that you were a genuine contributor without personal grudges. I changed my mind.

        1. Opinions of me are not the point Ian. I am referring to positions/ stances on the issues.

          And the view that I am motivated by personal grudges once more highlights…..oh neva mind.

          1. Entirely the point Bellers. Outside your tiny silo of self interested activists there are normal civilian readers who still do independent research to inform their opinions. They base these on factors like plausibility, reliability, trustworthiness and presentation. For the most part David presents as a diligent and thorough researcher, a tolerant and honest host and a credible and reliable source of information, more experienced than most and certainly you or I in his subject area. A detailed browse through the archive of your posts promotes a rather different view of you.

            On reflection perhaps I should have characterised your personal grudges as ‘tactical’.

            1. Nothing turns on this, and I merely mention it in passing but…….

              I am vastly more experienced in the matters in question than David. So far as the ultra Zio orgs in this country are concerned I probably know them better than they know themselves. But like I said, nothing turns on this.

            2. Further, lets concede for the moment that there are a significant numbers of ingenues that come to these places in search of enlightenment. They won’t be reading 200 page reports. Now none of this is intended as a put down of David, it is generally true. Also it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an impact. But the impact is affirmative not persuasive.

              And David destroys any impact his stuff may have on lets call them undecideds, by hyperbole and naked persuance of personal grudges ( eg against JVL people.) , that goes beyond tactical, into what increasingly looks like obsessive hatred.

              An example of counterproductive melodrama……. People using nazi analogies in anti Israel rhetoric. It doesn’t make them antisemitic but it does make them silly and counter productive. What is the point of saying stuff that the least informed Joe on the street instinctively know is not true.

              You can put ” Now the Labour Party attack Jewish Festivals “. I know the purpose is to catch attention, but the costs way outweigh the benefits. Glad to be of assistance.

              1. Experienced indeed Bellers. If I trust anyone to know a personal grudge when he sees one it’s you sweetie.

                    1. Yeah I really didn’t want to be the one to be the bearer of the news. Ian isn’t there some issues in your own country that you would be better employed addressing ?

          2. Stephen

            I think David should charge you for the right to be on this site, as your inane, vacuous commentary takes space, a commodity that is not your right but a privelage.

            Do go take a long, long bath

      3. Stephen

        Why don’t you try answer Ians question

        But judging from your comments on this blog, I doubt whether you are capable of differntiating between your right arm and your left leg as they try to decompress your brain and rescue you from the bends as you shove your head up your rear end

        totally apt for your wiggle woggle

    2. Ian,

      As far as I’m aware, prejudice against Jews within the UK is extremely rare and the UK has stringent race relations laws, as well as employment laws to protect against most forms of racism or prejudice against any minority group. So, please show me these verified examples of Jewish folk facing prejudice in the UK for being Jewish, that is please show me employment tribunal records, prosecution records from the CPS or successful prosecution results in both civil and criminal law cases?

      Again, whilst Mr Collier desires to stir up unfounded fears, actual prejudice against Jews would be dealt with forcibly by the Authorities and all recorded cases open for review – that is why we have a legal system and Rule of Law.

  12. Chris, whether you or I are aware of prejudice is irrelevant. It is the opinion of the victims that counts rather than the commentators on the sidelines

    Similarly we need not trouble ourselves in discussions on whether there are adequate legal mechanisms in place to deal with prejudice when it is proven. To enable us to move on we can agree that the law does make provision for dealing with offences of this type This is all post facto and we are more concerned in our discussion with who is doing the reporting.

    You have indicated a mistrust of the reports here, evidently for your own reasons so back to my original question which remains unanswered; ” Could you see any circumstance when a Jew or Jews would report on prejudice against them in the UK and you would not dismiss it as ‘faux’, self motivated or insincere. Moreover do you think you will ever be able to accept antisemitism in the UK simply as discrimination against Jews without writing it off as something else like witch hunts against a politician or saying ‘..because of Israel’.

  13. Ian,

    Again Sir, prejudice is a serious issue, as such, I’m afraid subjectivity, which you are expressing, accounts for nothing. I am interested in objective, verifiable facts, not opinion. Please present me with the said facts, in this instance, facts from judicial proceedings here in the United Kingdom. I can claim many forms of prejudice myself, none of which under the UK’s criminal or civil code would stand scrutiny in a Court of Law. You may not respect the law, but I certainly do, particularly when referencing the UK, or, where I reside, Hong Kong, who’s legal system is based on that of the UK.

    1. Chris

      The problem with trying to prove any form of discrimination in a court of law is diabolicly difficult
      because prejudice is subjective; very often related to time, place and circumstance.

      A court of law works on the basis of ‘black and white’ and ignores nuance, because once again, nuance takes us into the realm of subjectivity and personal opinion.

      The McPherson Inquiry decided that it is the subject of the predjudice who must decide if they have been discriminated against. or not.

      As a result there will always be a lack of cases of discrimination in law that have been conclusively decided, because the discrimination is normally consists of a slow and continuous flow of low intensity commentary and action, each on its own being harmless; it is the cumulative effect of this over aperiod of time that is the problem, and it is notoriously hard to prove.

      I have a personal example
      Years ago I used to do sub-contract work on multiple sites.
      Things would be going well; and then I would mention after a while that I was Jewish.
      Normally within 24-48 hours I would find that my services were no longer neccesary.
      How to prove that I was being discriminated against.
      All the evidence was purely anecdotal and circumstantial; how would evidence be gathered and who would pay.
      So I had to conceal my ethnicity to avoid a problem; which I did and there were no problems.

      So you tell me;
      what was going on in those circumstances, and how I could have proven my suspicions?

    1. Ian,

      What am I doing, I am not making the accusation, you are Sir. Now, its not for the defence in English law to prove any case, that is the job of the Prosecution or the accuser if its a Civil Law matter. Again, you make grave accusations that Jewish folk in the UK suffer prejudice, be this religious, cultural, employment or numerous other forms that prejudice take. This is not so today, and has not been so for a very long time indeed. I’ll go further, the UK Jewish community has been most successful in overcoming prejudice, to the extent that since the end of WWII Jewish folk are fully integrated into UK society – which, is what Jewish elders and the Board of deputies struggled for for many years.

      Again, please provide the verifiable legal evidence to support your claim, namely that Jewish folk face prejudice in the UK, a prejudice that does actually exist if you happen to have skin that’s not white/pinkish or happen to be from other religious groups not associated with Judaism or Christianity.

      1. Chris, the Jewish community disagree with you. The Jewish community just came out and demonstrated that they disagree with you. The victims are screaming ‘racism’ – and you deny it. You wouldn’t behave that way with any other minority group, or any other allegation of abuse. You’re wrong, your production of the CST statistics highlight you do not know what you are talking about. CST agree with me – not you, and this constant blind spot you have for a group of people crying ‘racism’ – is highly disturbing.

  14. Think I might keep this going for a bit longer just to test an assumption Chris.

    You say that David’s reports on prejudice against Jews in the UK are ‘faux’ and motivated by self interest. So when do you think it is appropriate to make allegations of prejudice against Jews and who would is entitled to make them?

    1. Ian,

      I have requested evidence, you have supplied me with none whatsoever. However, in the interests of demonstrating how Democracies with a strong emphasis of the Rule of Law operate, namely the UK, we actually do have an on going Civil case that is looking at prejudice after death shall I say: Here are some details, but the conclusions of the Judge will then form part of our legal code moving forward: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/north-london-coroner-mary-hassell-jewish-burials-dispute-judge-grants-judicial-review-1.457992

  15. Nearly bedtime Chris. Just time for one last try today.

    Do you concede that it is ever appropriate for a Jew to make allegations of prejudice against Jews in the UK? As you reject David’s allegations, who is entitled to make them?

  16. Ian,

    You do seem to have an inability to comprehend where I stand, so, for clarity its quite simple, any accusation any person makes that can stand scrutiny in a Court of Law is legitimate – this is how the Legal Code evolves and how society evolves – Parliament legislates, but the import of of legal system in the UK must never be underestimated.

    Now, given so many crass accusations flying around, here’s some actual, legitimate Research for you to dwell upon. Please enjoy your bedtime reading: https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf

  17. Great night’s sleep. Thanks Chris.

    So, for clarity you believe that “any accusation any person makes that can stand scrutiny in a court of law is legitimate”. I’m not trying to trick you or put words in your mouth for any tactical reason or to cut and paste some edited misrepresentation to prove some point or other like Bellers does. That’s not my thing and anyway he will confirm that I am nowhere near clever enough for that. I’m just trying to grasp the truth of your real reaction to allegations of prejudice here.

    A large number of Jews in the UK recently joined David in publically amplifying the allegation of prejudice against them. Using your measure, if these allegations do stand scrutiny in a court of law you will concede that his and their allegations were legitimate?

  18. Bellers on 28/3/18; “Yeah I really didn’t want to be the one to be the bearer of the news. Ian isn’t there some issues in your own country that you would be better employed addressing ?” (sic)

    Nah, we’re all good here lad. Although there are a couple of claims being made by residents in Judea and Samaria for some historical defects in their brickwork. Hope they don’t land you in it.

  19. Ian,

    I’m not sure about your final sentence, however, and here I’m discussing Civil Law, if the evidence is robust and withstands scrutiny by impartial observers, then we are left with little option but to concede the point, which I myself am happy to do.

    By way of example, David’s Dossier on Palestine Live demonstrated without doubt that posts were made on the FB Group that were correctly identified as having an anti-semitic intent, for which the Groups administrators were rightly condemned. Indeed, I witnessed the condemnation firsthand and commented myself on failures that undermined efforts to express solidarity with Palestinians.

    However Ian, there is a huge difference between anti-semitism, i.e., the holding of beliefs or opinions that are hateful to the Jewish community, or any other community for that matter, and actual prejudice, where by a certain Group or community feels oppressed and wronged against. Which is why I detailed the ongoing legal case chronicled in the Jewish Chronicle and other media outlets.

    Of course I also left you a piece of research publish in September 2017 that found anti-semitic sentiment across all mainstream political parties within the UK, which conceded it was less within the Labour Party than the Conservative Party. Moral of the tale, if you desire to combat anti-semitism you don’t weaponise it for political gain, or make exaggerated claims, that will not stand in a Court of Law, or any other serious scrutiny for that matter.

    By way of example, on 18 January on this Blog Mr Collier made serious allegations against Dr. Vertommen of Department of Global Health and Social Medicine – King’s College London. This issue was investigated and the following conclusions made by the University in question:

    “The Department of Global Health & Social Medicine is strongly committed to equality, diversity and inclusion with a recognition and respect for other cultures. As Head of Department, I was deeply concerned to learn of the level of harassment and intimidation Dr. Vertommen was subjected to. We investigated the allegations brought against Dr. Vertommen and found no evidence of anti-Semitism and we continue to be very supportive of her work. As a Department, we speak out against this sort of defamation and bullying, as it is a threat to the freedom of academic research and cannot be tolerated. I do hope that Dr. Vertommen’s strength and courage in standing up to her accusers will provide a valuable lesson to other early career researchers working on sensitive or controversial topics.”

  20. I was just using your own test Chris, exactly as you stated it. I’m not putting words in your mouth. They’re your own words.

    We’ve been discussing allegations of prejudice; who you feel is entitled to make them and when you feel it is legitimate so to do, nothing more. Everything else is everything else. I asked the original question to get my head round whether you reject David’s right to allege prejudice against Jews or whether you reject all Jews rights to allege prejudice against them.

    As a civilian who posts here in good faith it just seemed astonishing that in 2018 anyone could reject the reporting of prejudice unless they hated the reporter, hated the target group or was frightened of the impact of the allegation in some other area of interest. With you it may be one or all of those but I’ve still not decided it what measure. Is this a fair assessment?

  21. Ian,

    I’m presently having a very similar dialogue with a Barrister peer of mine, but in this instance its dealing with compliance issues within the Labour Party, which are very poor, which is why so much confusion exists.

    Now, like David, I’m at liberty to establish a Blog and look for prejudice or racism from the English directed at me and my fellow nationals, namely the Welsh. Oh and such prejudice actually existed, specifically against the Welsh Language. However, if claims of prejudice I make are mostly subjective and backed-up by little in the way of actual evidence that could be presently in a Court of Law, then such claims would fail. Of course, one could push for a Royal Commission to report an any issues of prejudice that may exist, which the current legislation or legal process does not account for – the conclusions of which, governments are expected to redress and legislate for if necessary.

    Now, I’ve posted you in the direction of Mr Collier’s Blog post focusing on Dr Vertommen on January 18, namely something about Eugenics and being prevented from attending a lecture by the Doctor. The issue was reported and an investigation ensued, one that found nothing substantive in Mr Collier’s claims. The final statement I attached to my last post to you.

    Perhaps David should attach this to the Blog post of 18 January as balance.

    Luckily, the UK legal system is not subjective, it is Rules-based and objective in its nature, which is why, many claims David makes, and has a right to make – its called Free Speech, would not pass muster in Court, this being the actual litmus test.

    1. How did you find the time to tweet the picture of yourself and the EDL guys with flag?

      1. I did a lot of photoshop and cropped my own image on to one of the EDL fellows, maybe Jonathan Hoffman, although my Adobe skills are crap. Still, Mr Collier does associate with Mr Hoffman and Mr Hoffman associates with extreme Rightwing groups in the UK. Luckily, I’ve never associated with the Right. Actually, this Blog is about the most Rightwing Blog I’ll comment on. Hope that answers your enquiry?

    2. nonsense – you linked to a blog by Vertommen which included a statement by her sympathetic head of department who states ‘they’ conducted an investigation. They clearly didn’t because they are not even at the university the incident occurred in. Vertommen, who whitewashes the exclusion of myself and two others at the campus (which didn’t happen the way she says it did) is clearly a propagandist, because she has twisted the events to suit her narrative. Interesting how you use a post from a department at Kings to discount events at Warwick.

      1. David, it is ironic that you have accused Dr Vertommen of being a “propagandist”, when you are equally guilty of that which you impute to her, namely misrepresenting the import of Professor Karen Glaser’s statement.

        The investigation in question related to the substance of the charges in your article, “Jews denied entry to eugenics libel event at the University of Warwick”, not the circumstances of your exclusion from the meeting. As Professor Glaser states, the faculty at KCL “investigated the allegations brought against Dr. Vertommen and found no evidence of anti-Semitism.” The imputation of bias on the part of Karen Glaser, a distinguished Gerontologist who is much respected in her field of expertise, is wholly unwarranted and reflects very badly upon you.

        As a consequence of your grossly imflammatory allegations, Dr Vertommen was subjected to a malicious, politically-motivated campaign of harassment and intimidation, which was gravely injurious to her professional reputation as a scholar of good standing at KCL.

        If you had any sense of deceny David, you ought to retract your unfounded charges and apologise unreservedly to Dr Vertommen.

        1. What a lot of nonsense. I was excluded from the event on wholly unacceptable and discriminatory grounds. I was lied to when I tried to enter. I was then smeared in the press with accusations that my behaviour had be aggressive (which it wasn’t). And you have problems with the way I reported on an event they refused me entry to because she has support from within her academic department? Absolutely pathetic. Do you guys actually buy into this poppycock that you try to sell here?

          1. David, your specious response brings to mind Disraeli’s withering denuciation of Gladstone:

            “. . . a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.”

            1. Josh, there is little point arguing over this. Your entire position is too absurd. And that is even without addressing the underlying sickness within academia.

    3. Chris

      The problem with trying to prove any form of discrimination in a court of law is diabolicly difficult
      because prejudice is subjective; very often related to time, place and circumstance.

      A court of law works on the basis of ‘black and white’ and ignores nuance, because once again, nuance takes us into the realm of subjectivity and personal opinion.

      The McPherson Inquiry decided that it is the subject of the predjudice who must decide if they have been discriminated against. or not.

      As a result there will always be a lack of cases of discrimination in law that have been conclusively decided, because the discrimination is normally consists of a slow and continuous flow of low intensity commentary and action, each on its own being harmless; it is the cumulative effect of this over aperiod of time that is the problem, and it is notoriously hard to prove.

      I have a personal example
      Years ago I used to do sub-contract work on multiple sites.
      Things would be going well; and then I would mention after a while that I was Jewish.
      Normally within 24-48 hours I would find that my services were no longer neccesary.
      How to prove that I was being discriminated against.
      All the evidence was purely anecdotal and circumstantial; how would evidence be gathered and who would pay.
      So I had to conceal my ethnicity to avoid a problem; which I did and there were no problems.

      So you tell me;
      what was going on in those circumstances, and how I could have proven my suspicions?

    1. Well Ian,

      Maybe its about time you extended your reading of Jewish Blogs here in the UK, one such Blog, Jewdas, is very comical, its put down of Jonathan Hoffman was precise: Given what David want’s to explore, maybe a change of venue may help: Here’s a link, but doubt you’ll read it: http://jewdas.org/enough-is-enough/

  22. Ian,

    As I don’t post under a sock puppet, all Groups I’m a member of, which is few, are open. I also post on quite a few economics and financial regulation Blogs. However, undermine Corbyn and I’ll do what’s necessary to defend him or undermine his critics in the Labour Party, namely about 40 malcontent MPs, utilising the very techniques that Collier likes to use. If that annoys, fine, but I take politics seriously and take getting Corbyn in to Number 10 seriously, as do 100s of 1000s of other decent folk who want a decent country. What you do in Israel within its borders is your concern, however, breaches of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories concerns me, as does the UK and USA engaging in rendition and torture. Human Rights apply to all, and combating racism applies to all, not just a chosen token few. As JC says: For the Many, Not the Few!

  23. Don’t need the extra reading matter Chris but thanks. I get why you need to keep pushing this Hoffman blokes name around. As activists I know this is what you lot are supposed to do if you see mileage in it but it’s all a bit feeble isn’t it? Most non-combatants see the extreme of both sides for what they are. You cancel each other out and leave a wide middle ground from which reasonable opinions get formed. This is proving to be Davids strength. He is seen to be occupying this ground and gains credit for it. People like you and Bellers on one side and some of the less considered posters on the other side are so isolated in your narrow silos that is unsurprising that you think that those like me don’t have the first fucking clue what’s going on. This is a great compliment if truth be told and when your nutty politicians 15 minutes expire as they surely will you’ll have to make up other excuses to demean this site and justify your antisemitism.

    1. Ian,

      Actually, I do find this site a valuable resource, and not one to bash the Jewish community with, rather, certain sections within the Labour Movement, of which I a proud member via my class and Trade Union, are intent on destroying Corbyn, which I fundamentally oppose, so, and like David, any stick I can find to beat them with is utilised. And, if supporting and expressing solidarity with Palestinians who struggle for an actual homeland and human rights we enjoy in the West makes me an alleged anti-semite, so be it. Alas, I know which side justice is on, and as you’ll note, I’m very big on justice.

      1. nonsense, you are not big on justice at all, you are ’cause’ above all. You are even willing to dismiss real racism (or belittle it), actually accusing the victims of attempting to subvert democracy. As for the ‘Palestinian cause’, there is a huge difference between sympathising with Palestinian and wanting them to have a state, and pushing for a maximalist position they will never achieve. You effectively, because of your own issues, choose to support a cause that perpetuates suffering and conflict. There is no justice in that.

      2. Chris

        Maybe you can answer a question that has puzzled me for a long time.

        After WW2 there were tens of millions of refugees in Europe moving from East to West and from West to East, borders were being redrawn, empires were being built (eg Soviet Union), states were breaking up and/or splitting (eg India/Pakisian); and yet the only group of refugees that got their refugee status altered to ‘iinherited status’ and their very own UN agency.
        Where are all these other refugees and their offspring; in Europe and Asia and Africa where are they now.

        This group of refugees were no different from other refugees; so why did only the Pal;estinians get their own UN agency and become the only group of refugees that pass their refugee status to their offspring indefinately (inherited refugee status).

        There were more Jews expelled or forced to leave the Arab/Muslim lands in the 1950s’ and 1960s’ by coercive state legislation and actions.
        Most lost everything they possessed when they left (confiscation and/or abandonment) and arrived in Israel penniless and endured years in ma’abarot (a form of refugee absorbtion centre)
        Where Is the specific UN agency for these Jews, and why does the UN not lavish untold millions on them and allow them ‘inherited ‘ refugee status.

        Possibly some form of extreme discrimination here. Against the Jews.

        Your thoughts on this would be gratefully appreciated as this issue does play on my mind.

  24. Chris, I think that when you out yourself by indicating that it is cause above everything and that “any stick I can find to beat them with is utilised.” the picture of you is complete.

    But honestly, it’s not cause above everything else is it. It’s cause within the defined parameters of your current lifestyle. Guys like you and Bellers are budget activists that are very happy to do your thing for the cause as long as it can be done from the relative comfort of a decent coffee shop with free WiFi, a reliable signal and a Groupon redemption scheme. If you went to Mrs Chris and said “Hey love I’m just spending the new car money on that activism” you’d be out on your ear before you could say Free the Tamimi One !

    People that really put causes above everything do more. They get elected to something to have a real voice somewhere or put themselves in harms way at great personal risk or in extreme cases maim or kill people or themselves to show their real support for their cause.

    You say ” “any stick I can find to beat them with is utilised.” but this is rubbish; “any stick..” as long as its a stick with a full Photoshop editing suite and full social media access. At least Bellers did some dodgy Negev navvying in his gap year (less 3 months). Generally, extremists cannot be trusted as they will say and do anything for their cause. You cannot even be trusted to be an extremist.

    1. Ian,

      As I actually don’t utilise Photoshop myself, I do actually use InDesign, you are stating a Photo that is freely available on the Internet – just Google Johnathan Hoffman and then hit photo’s, has been tampered by me. The photo has not been tampered with in any way to the best of my knowledge, as any forensic examination would attest too. It is a photo of a man, who has an uncanny resemblance to Collier, at a protest with an EDL banner that Hoffman was at – its fully documented. I made an enquiry and got an answer, namely, not Collier, but again many expressed the view it did look like him. I’d start using Google, DuckDuckGo and stop with the conspiracy and slander, these photo’s are in the public domain – its not my fault that persons openly consort with the EDL, which, if it showed its ugly face in South Wales would be burned out.

  25. Second gear activism though isn’t It? If you really were prepared to use “any stick I can find to beat them with” you wouldnt be wittering on here. You’d be trying to stab Jewish grannies in our capital or ramming your car into Israeli school kids to make your point or if you were really on a budget youd walk up to the local Con club where all your fascist opponents are necking their G &Ts and crap on their doorstep. ” any stick I can find ” What bollox.

    1. Well the good news is Ian, if I’m ever in requirement of someone to do some Photoshop work for me I can now contact Lord Sugar (Alan Sugar) in the House of Lords, apparently he’s a dab hand at doctoring material.

  26. Or you may decide that when you say you’d use “any stick I can find to beat them with” you mean it.

    Daft references to reality TV stars is hardly likely to change the world is it?

    If you’re going to post hollow hyperbola, how can we trust you as a proper activist?

    Seriously Chris, show us the sticks.

    1. Ian,

      Whilst I understand you don’t really understand the UK political and legal process, Lord Sugar is not a TV personality and never has been, he’s a businessman and sitting cross-bench Lord in the House of Lords, which means he’s an unelected politician.

  27. So in terms of it being “any stick I can find..” this is more of a soggy toothpick than a meaty cudgel. Do you actually care about your cause or is this just about self promotion?

  28. David this reminds me of the way some calling themselves ‘Christian’ pervert the Christmas story into an anti-Israel narrative. It’s disgusting and antisemitic. You show up JVL for the horrible organisation it is.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.