The accusation made here is that the election of Jeremy Corbyn created a toxic environment that has radicalised members of the party and this led to a growth of antisemitism in the UK. There is no need to overthink this. We know that Corbyn comes from a faction that has existed for decades on the fringes of the party. There is ample evidence that *some* of the new membership that joined to support him was antisemitic and extremist. These people were not ‘outsiders’ who ‘infiltrated’, but elements of the leaders own faction who joined to support the new leader.
The new leadership sought to protect its own support base. New media was set up to shield the Corbyn project. Facebook groups proudly shouted out his name. An online environment was created that evicted the dissenters. ‘Zionism’ is Corbyn’s enemy – so ‘Zionists’ were swiftly expelled. Jewish people complained and key Corbyn allies all screamed ‘smear’.
How is a loyal Labour voter to react – especially those who joined Labour because they truly believed in Corbyn as a force for change? As the Labour Party came under attack, ‘Corbynism’ retreated into an ever-shrinking virtual bubble. With a near total rejection of ‘Zionist’ mainstream media, they were reduced to feeding from the scraps of the Canary, RT Today, Press TV or some racist conspiracy junk site from the United States.
Does anyone really believe the average supporter had the working knowledge of Judaism, Zionism and Israeli history necessary to withstand the ideological onslaught?
The Telegraph just ran an piece on this report. The Labour Party responded with a meaningless regurgitated mess that didn’t address the report at all. A wise man would ask how an anti-racist party could dismiss a report on racism that it hadn’t even read properly? But that is not the territory in which this argument is taking place. This message of ’empty smear’ is the one they are deliberately sending to the membership and to the support base beyond. Like a drumbeat – their supporters have been repetitively listening to the ‘Jews are smearing us’ excuse now for over four years.
Most of Corbyn’s key allies put out these messages to suggest that the antisemitism issue is a baseless smear. It is only one of the messages that Corbyn’s allies have used. The protective propaganda campaign is full of these empty phrases – ‘anti-Zionism is not antisemitism’, ‘most Zionists are not Jews’ and ‘some of my best friends are Jewish anti-Zionists’. Anti-Zionism was sold as simply meaning ‘having sympathy’ for the Palestinians, ‘Zionism’ is projected as ‘murdering babies’ and then the Labour support base was asked to pick sides between the two.
Jewish identity was taken apart. The meaning of Zionism was completely rewritten. A tiny fringe that barely registers on the spectrum of the Jewish community was so artificially amplified, that in Labour circles they became the Jewish mainstream. These ‘good Jews’, many of whom have stood alongside and protected rabid antisemites themselves, led a campaign to push back on any attempt to get the party to actually address the issue.
The argument that this had ‘no effect’ is beyond all logical reasoning. For four years, the Labour Party has embarked on a strategy that denies, belittles and ridicules the accusations of antisemitism. Worse still it turns the victims of anti-Jewish abuse into subversive ‘traitors’. Those complaining are ‘paid for’ by the Israeli embassy. Inside ‘ethnically cleansed’ Facebook groups Labour members and supporters alike exist within a revisionist, conspiratorial echo chamber.
Given the way Labour handled the antisemitism cases, this is a logical process that saw the creation of a radicalised environment. This is nothing but the obvious consequence of Labour’s deliberate self-preservation strategy under Corbyn.
The premise of the radicalised Labour member:
Most of the arguments that have taken place about antisemitism in Labour, circle around two central themes. The first is how many of the new members in 2015 and 2016 were antisemitic extremists. The second is the weakness and lack of transparency of Labour’s disciplinary mechanisms. Both these arguments are games that the Labour party comfortably plays and deflects from. What does not seem to be understood is that this is not 2015 or 2016 anymore. It is 2019. Which means Labour’s entire support base has been living inside the arguments over antisemitism for four years. What has happened to them during this time?
The argument presented in the report suggests that this is what has happened to them:
Or this:
There is no real room for ambiguity here. These are not extremists who entered the party. This is not a ‘pro-Israel’ to ‘pro-Palestine’ conversion. This is support for co-existence and peace turning to ‘antisemitic’ conspiracy. We can see support for Israel turning into sharing rabidly racist and antisemitic websites from the United States. From healthy to unhealthy. This is evidence of a deterioration that occurred, not before they aligned with Corbyn, but after they did. People became immersed in Labour’s toxic enviroment and entered the dark realm of antisemitic and conspiratorial anti-Zionist ideology. Much of it produced by racist, white-supremacist websites in the United States.
During the research I tried to contact many of those inside the report, few responded. Joyce Duncan did. Duncan never publicly posted on Israel or Zionism before she became a loyal Corbyn supporter. This is what she shares now:
When asked how she became involved in Israel, her answer was plain – Corbyn:
Joyce is only partially correct. The process is explained inside the report, but there are wider issues here. Labour have relied on the strawman that suggests the problem within Labour was inherited or imported. The evidence in the report suggests much of it was self-made. When Labour brush away accusations of Antisemitism by suggesting just a fraction of their membership have been caught – they are being disingenuous. It is their key personnel telling everyone it is a smear. It is their consituency groups hosting witchhunt events. ‘Jewish Voice for Labour’ are a toxic group they empowered. Corbyn’s key allies are the ones who have been playing games over antisemitism from the very beginning. Their members are the admin of the Facebook groups. Opposition to mainstream British Jews isn’t coming from a ‘rebel crowd’ – it is Jeremy Corbyn’s support network.
What message does this send to the wider support base? If a loyal Labour voter is flirting within the same toxic environment that radicalises a member, Labour bear responsibility for their actions too. Simply saying ‘they are not members’ does not work when you realise that the problem has been created by the party itself.
The report looks at the toxic environment that Labour’s own decision making created. There are examples of both extremists who joined the party and those created inside. The attitude of Corbyn’s allies in calling the antisemitism accusations a ‘smear campaign’ is recorded. The empowerment of JVL and the attack on Jewish identity is logged. We can see how the support forums went through a process of ‘dejudaisation’ -ethnic cleasning – and the mainstream Jewish voice was scrubbed from the room. Mainstream media was almost completely rejected as unacceptable and ‘Zionist’. Social media became an ‘engine room‘ for the spread of further propaganda. The obsession kicked in until it seemed like supporters were talking about nothing else but the demon in the room – ‘Zionism’. When placed together it becomes possible to follow the trail from rational left wing peace seeker to an antisemitic conspiracy theorist.
It must also be understood these supporters are not just flag-wavers at conference – they are real people. They work in schools and universities, they are members of unions, sit on panels and make decisions over what is and what is not acceptable. They take the toxic environment outside of Labour and into the wider world. The Labour Party are turning the UK into a place hostile towards Jewish people. Just recently at a mainstream school in Derby, schoolchildren were fed antisemitic propaganda under the umbrella of humanitarian concern. Who signed it off? It is impossible to tell – they never responded to my email. In this environment even asking them to stop spreading antisemitism to schoolchildren is probably viewed as ‘Zionist interference’ paid for by the Israeli government. Courtesty of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.
You can download the report here: Because of its size it was broken down into smaller compartments. There may therefore be some continuity errors that will be cleared up as they surface:
Case study – Littleover Community School
Additional case studies – Appendix B
———————————————–
Help to support this research
This blog is unique and I engage in deep undercover research into antisemitism and the lies people tell about Israel. Individual research projects such as the one above can take weeks or months – and is built on years of underlying research. Your help makes all this possible. The work is fully independent, and I have uncovered many key stories on antisemitism on this site. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. If you can, please consider making a donation towards the ongoing research.
You can make PayPal donations using the donate button above or at my paypalme page. I have also opened a Patreon page that gives the opportunity of small monthly donations. Every contribution is truly appreciated.
Excellent piece of work David. It explains quite succinctly why the current Labour Party leadership have facilitated the current wave of antisemitism in the U.K. I admire you for your unceasing efforts on behalf of the Jewish community and on behalf of all decent people in this country who, like me, are positively ashamed of the way in which this vile hatred is rearing it’s ugly head once more.
Lights up a Hamlet and casually blows smoke rings into the great blue beyond zzzzzzzzzzz
“The Telegraph just ran an piece on this report. ”
David, could you explain the sudden appearance of the above in your blog? I found no reference to a report prior to that sentence.
“The Telegraph just ran an piece on this report. ”
“David, could you explain the sudden appearance of the above in your blog? I found no reference to a report prior to that sentence.”
So how do you explain this exchange from yesterday, between you and Ian.
“Ian Kay on August 4, 2019
Fair warning Bellers and Michael. You’re going to need much bigger road blocks for the next one.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/03/jeremy-corbyns-leadership-has-radicalised-labour-members-attacking/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Might just be worth just sitting back and watching you wriggle around on the hook this time.
Reply
Mike Farmer on August 4, 2019
Well, Ian, this is ‘crying wolf’ on an hilarious scale. Sold to an anti-Labour paper.
“hard-core anti-Semites” betrays its source. “
David?
So you can’t explain it Farmer.
What a surprise, NOT.
Sharmuta?
Mike – what on earth is the question?
Read the original question!
On earth?
Have fun infesting other sites, git.
Very impressive work and research and a perceptive and illuminating analysis.
Sadly reading the results makes one queasy. Where is the British sense of fair play ? Shrouded by ignorance and vituperation ?
Reading the hate and venom that David feels for Corbyn based on nothing also makes one queasy, Michael.
The British sense of fair play allows all that follow the various religions to be a part of Britain and hold statehood, that’s where it is….. not so in Israel.
“Reading the hate and venom that David feels for Corbyn based on nothing also makes one queasy”
Farmer when your idol, or should that be idle, posted the comment below about Jeremy Corbyn you didn’t make any comment.
Why is that?
“Stephen Bellamy on July 22, 2019
The Israelists don’t want to replace him. They own him why should they. He can burn in hell for all I fucking care”
It’s his honest personal opinion, Gerald
David’s serial hate blogs against Corbyn are dishonest smears as we all know.
He knows that Corbyn is twice the man that he could ever be.
It’s ALL for Israel.
So to write that someone should ‘burn in hell’, is an honest personal opinion.
To clam that Corbyn is owned by ‘the Israelists’ is not a dishonest smear.
What a complete load of hypocritical bollocks!
Margaret Hodge is an Israelist.
Margaret Hodge launched a foul-mouthed vilification against the leader of her party.
A charge of bringing the party into disrepute against this Israelist was dropped following a clamour from the Zionist bodies that purport to be the Jewish Community.
She should have been expelled from the party immediately. The Jewish Community would have dishonestly painted that as picking on a Jew, David’s method.
Pretty well sums it up
I think the time has come to apply quantitative factors to the qualitative one we are all fully aware of: namely, the extent to which Muck Framer and Stephenie Bells are flat-out useless on a prodigious scale. So I counted up Bells’ posts on the various posts by David so far and came up with two figures. 1. Bells has posted 75 times on this site and 2. He hasn’t made a single factually correct argument and has been a bollocks-brained troll EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. In honor of this, I hereby dub Bells’ “0/75”, and will increase the number on the right every time he shows his idiocy (the number on the LEFT rising isn’t going to happen). We love to loathe you, 0/75!
Ah, Ben has a lust for numbers. Suggest Ben trawls through David’s blogs where David has introduced examples of “antisemitism” and determines what percentage of them are such compared to how many are actually antiZionism and antiIsraelism.
Off you go, Ben.
Well that wasn’t very nice was it
And the water rises, 0/76.
Not started counting David’s false accusations of antisemitism yet, Ben?
Feared?
Farmer so it is wrong if David Collier and Margaret Hodge criticise Jeremy Corbyn, but, it is Ok if your idle idol Stephen Bellamy criticises and hopes Jeremy Corbyn burns in hell.
What a strange coincidence that you condemn two Jewish people for criticising Jeremy Corbyn, but do not condemn the non-Jewish person who criticises Corbyn.
Ah, the neurosis shows itself.
Both criticisms are feigned, based on nothing.
Note how Hodge was appeased for her outburst yet a Mark Wadsworth, a life-long campaigner for the party was ejected for arguing with Zionist MP Ruth Smeeth.
“Both criticisms are feigned, based on nothing.”
Farmer so Stephen’s desire for Corbyn to burn in hell is based on what exactly?
The evidence for Stephen’s claim that Corbyn is owned by ‘the Israelists’ is based on what verifiable evidence?
Just gave you an example. Wake up, Gerald.
Farmer I asked you two questions.
You have not made any attempt to answer either.
The questions are;
Farmer so Stephen’s desire for Corbyn to burn in hell is based on what exactly?
The evidence for Stephen’s claim that Corbyn is owned by ‘the Israelists’ is based on what verifiable evidence?
Your inability to answer the questions is further evidence of your double standards and rank hypocrisy.
NOTE HOW HODGE WAS APPEASED FOR HER OUTBURST YET …
BETTER, GERALD?
Farmer so,
“NOTE HOW HODGE WAS APPEASED FOR HER OUTBURST YET …”
Answers which of the two questions I put to you?
They are;
“Farmer so Stephen’s desire for Corbyn to burn in hell is based on what exactly?
The evidence for Stephen’s claim that Corbyn is owned by ‘the Israelists’ is based on what verifiable evidence?”
This time Farmer try to answer the questions I put to you and not post some irrelevant waffle about Margaret Hodge.
Stephen’s desire for Corbyn to burn in hell
Except I didn’t say that did I Gerald. You have the intellectual honesty of a poor man’s Stephen Pollard. The difference is that he is clever and you are as thick and ignorant as pig shit
So you deny posting this Stephen;
“Stephen Bellamy on July 22, 2019
The Israelists don’t want to replace him. They own him why should they. He can burn in hell for all I fucking care”
“Israelists”? Farmer is a complete joke.
No I don’t deny that. #fuckwit
Back to the infantile outbursts.
Just as well you’re widely read and highly intelligent, what would your vocabulary be like if you were not.
You’re all class, 0/75.
No chance against Nigel and Boris.
It has taken me a while, but, I have now read David’s report and the attachments.
There is more than enough evidence contained in the Report to persuade me that, unless the Labour Party takes action to rip out the anti-Semitic infection that has taken hold in the Party. I will not be voting for the Labour Party at the next election.
It gives me no pleasure to write that, I was a member of the Labour Party for 30 years and held office at Branch, Constituency and Welsh Executive level.
It is no longer the Party that I used to be a member of and campaigned for.
Care to highlight this “evidence”, Gerald?
No need to it is all contained in the Report.
Have you read the Report, Farmer?
You ask questions yet never answer those put to you.
Ever the same.
Farmer even your attempts at deflection are puerile.
Have you read the Report, Farmer?
A clue, the answer is yes or no.
“You ask questions yet never answer those put to you.”
That is a LIE Farmer.
All anybody has to do is to read through the various threads and they will see for themselves your claim that I ‘ never answer those put to you’ is another of your lies.
Precis the “evidence”, Gerald!
Farmer have you read the Report?
The thrust of this mònth’s propaganda is that since Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader, more folk have become aware of Israel’s Zionist actions.
David gives ample examples of this. Strangely David pushes this as en evil deed and all down to that monster Corbyn. That is NOT antisemitism.
Just a further example of David’s disturbing rabid hatred for the leader of a Party that would cease to appease Israel in its racist endeavours.
Given David’s love of the ‘straw man’ jibe, his interchanging of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism shows the gall of the man.
Is that a, yes, or a no?
LOL
Oh cry me a river. It is hilarious all these ” I was a Labour member for a billion years but sadly….” What is so funny is that they think there is somebody out there that gives a flying fuck.
Stephen so you can’t dispute the Report, or the case studies contained within it?
Have you read the Report Stephen or are you trying to cover up your laziness, and ignorance, with another of your foul mouthed infantile outbursts?
No I haven’t read the report. Nor have I referred to it
So you are just here to ‘troll’.
Call it whAt you like. What’s in a name
Names are not part of language. Read your Saul Kripke tired old man
That may well be his opinion, but so what?
I am more interested in the Report that David has produced.
You seem to be more interested in me than in the Report. Can’t blame you for that I guess
I love sending Gerald scurrying to google o))
You’re all class, 0/75. It’s lower or second-class, but again, all class.
Happy with austerity ànd food banks, Gerald?
“Happy with austerity ànd food banks, Gerald?”
No.
What has that to do with David’s Report?
Ok, Simpleton.
David’s blogs, light on proof but heavy with accusations and smears are designed to paint tha Labour Partg as a racist entity that is unelectable.
Corbyn as PM would put an end to, not only the current appeasement of Israel, but the hunger and poverty within a certain section of the UK.
Are you blind to David’s deceptive scripts? His love is Israel, not the Jews of the UK. Corbyn has probably done more to protest against real antisemitism that David has ever done since his return from his beloved state.
Such fools you are.
Farmer you type;
“tha Labour Partg”
and,
“against real antisemitism that (sic) David has ever done”
Yet you call me ‘Simpleton’
Have you read David’s Report?
You are very reluctant to answer. Could it be that you have not read the Report, but still feel you have to condemn it and the writer without having read it?
Which pledges of Labour’s Manifesto prevents you voting for the party, Gerald?
What does my opinion of ‘Labour’s Manifesto’ have to do with David’s Report?
Still trying to change the subject Farmer.
“The Israelis’ message, then and now, is crystal clear: We do not recognize Palestinians as a “side” with legitimate national rights and claims, and we will no longer negotiate with them. The entire Land of Israel is ours, and we are taking possession of it. You Arabs have three options: Submit and accept the fact that you are living as either second-class citizens or noncitizens in a Jewish state; leave; or, if you choose to resist, die. Those are your stark options. Zero tolerance.
The message from Israel goes further: If you think the international community will come to your aid, just watch the reactions to our in-your-face demolitions. The US government supports us totally. A UN Security Council resolution condemning the Wadi al-Hummus demolitions was struck down by an American veto. The reaction of the EU (“The continuation of this policy undermines the viability of the two-state solution and the prospect for a lasting peace”) sounds almost computer-generated. China, Russia, India, Brazil, the Arab world, all traditional supporters of Palestinian rights? Far too indebted to Israeli arms and security technologies to ever impose sanctions.”
JH,JVP
What does this cartload of horseshit have to do with David’s Report?
What do the examples of anti-Israel/anti-Zionism sentiment have to do with antisemitism, Gerald?
Planet Earth to Farmer, what are you waffling on about and what is its relevance to David’s Report?
“anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” is a Truism.
Only if, like you Farmer, they would not recognise the truth if it bit them on the bum as they walked by.
Just as ‘thinking about killing someone isn’t murder’ is also a truism. Yours is a childish position Mike. It is empty and has no merit.
“Just as ‘thinking about killing someone isn’t murder’ is also a truism.”
… as is ‘questioning the 6 million isn’t denying the Holocaust.’?
Mike are you really this thick?
Thinking about denying a person or people a thing they are entitled to cannot infringe their human rights.
Thinking about murder isn’t murder.
Publicly questioning someones story after 100000s of sources have verified it does carry the implication you don’t believe them.
Or do you really just like baiting Jews over the Holocaust?
Opportune time for you to explain what you mean by ‘baiting’, David. I have asked before
I don’t need to explain anything to you Mike, your questions are hardly sincere. I don’t see everything you post here but I do intervene when I see an opportunity to expose the clear underlying issues that you have. This was one of those occassions.
So, your phrase ‘Jew baiting’ has no meaning, just a chance to spin something being done to ‘Jews’ by racists. Got it.
The issue I have with your blogs is time after time you badmouth Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party by claiming it to be ridden with antisemitism though the vast majority of the ‘examples’ you cite are in fact examples of criticisms of Israel and Zionism.
You even attack Jews that don’t follow your ‘mainstream’ organisations such as the Jewish press, BOD, CST and IHRA, dismissing them as “fringe”.
Given that a Labour Government would cease to appease the Israeli state your efforts with blogs are clearly to prevent its election.
I see your blogs as dishonest propaganda that must be answered.
“the vast majority of the ‘examples’ you cite are in fact examples of criticisms of Israel and Zionism.”
Yawn
You emblazen ‘TRUTH’ on your heading, yet dismiss it offhand.
You’re a deceiver.
Farmer, in an attempt to throw mud at David’s Report you write,
“The issue I have with your blogs is time after time you badmouth Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party by claiming it to be ridden with antisemitism though the vast majority of the ‘examples’ you cite are in fact examples of criticisms of Israel and Zionism.”
How can you logically refute the cases in David’s Report, if you haven’t read it yourself?
Even your idle idol, Stephen admits,
“Stephen Bellamy on August 9, 2019
If we haven’t read it we obviously can’t refute its findings can we”
“Farmer, in an attempt to throw mud at David’s Report you write …. ”
Isn’t every blog David posts throwing manufactured mud at Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party for political reasons?
No
You’ve missed your period, Gerald.
You’ve missed the point of this thread.
Farmer, try reading then discussing David’s Report.
Otherwise vanish. You are a boring waste of time.
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.[1][2][3] A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.
But Gerald refuses to discuss the report …. as always with the blogs.
Farmer where in my post above do I refuse to discuss David’s Report?
Unlike you and Stephen I do not attempt to bring in irrelevant material, or change the subject.
If you have now read David’s Report, which part or case do you wish to discuss?
Don’t waste my time with generalities or your usual Bullshit.
EXACTLY which part of the Report or which of the case studies, do you wish to start the discussion off with?
which particular part did you feel he avoided or didn’t want to discuss?
“There is more than enough evidence contained in the Report to persuade me that, unless the Labour Party takes action to rip out the anti-Semitic infection that has taken hold in the Party. I will not be voting for the Labour Party at the next election.” – Gerald.
“Precis the “evidence”, Gerald!” – Mike
“Farmer have you read the Report?” – Gerald.
As I wrote above Farmer, but will repeat.
Don’t waste my time with generalities or your usual Bullshit.
EXACTLY which part of the Report or which of the case studies, do you wish to start the discussion off with?
Let me know Farmer when you have decided which part of the Report or which of the case studies you wish to refute.
“Precis the “evidence”, Gerald!” – Mike
Read the evidence for yourself. It is all contained within the Report and case studies.
If you want to refute the evidence or the case studies, then do so. Then we can discuss the Report.
Again the David and Gerald ‘it’s all there, doesn’t need proof’ repĺy.
*try specsavers*
Try honesty.
“Try honesty.”
You would not recognise honesty if you fell over it Farmer.
You never have, and never will.
You’ve verified over 100,000 sources for the figure?
Anyone else murdered by the Nazis, or just Jews?
If so, aren’t they being wiped from the History of the period?
David’s Report has got Stephen and Farmer really scared.
They have not read it.
They cannot refute its findings.
So in sheer desperation they have to resort to personal attacks on David, and trying to hijack this thread by posting irrelevant rubbish that has no connection to the Report.
Congratulations David you have the two of them running around in a panic like a couple of headless chickens.
“The thrust of this mònth’s propaganda is that since Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader, more folk have become aware of Israel’s Zionist actions.”
Miss the above in my earlier post, Gerald? Stay awake.
No I never miss any of your posts Farmer.
That is your critique of David’s Report?
It is the same as you Farmer, a bag full of rancid hot air that serves no useful purpose.
If we haven’t read it we obviously can’t refute its findings can we ? #fuckwit
Stick with the infantile outbursts Stephen.
They are clearly easier for you due to your low IQ, and inability to express yourself properly.
I wonder why you, and Farmer, are here if you have not read David’s Report.
“Jewish Voice for Labour’ are a toxic group they empowered”
These are Jews that won’t follow your vilification and your Zionist aims. For that Q are toxic?
“For that Q are toxic?”
Where in the Report does it claim ‘that Q are toxic?’
“Jewish Voice for Labour’ are a toxic group they empowered”
These are Jews that won’t follow your vilification and your Zionist aims. For that they are toxic?
Farmer you have not answered, who is or are Q?
Where in the Report does it claim that Q are toxic?
In this case
‘they’ = Q, hence Q= ‘they’.
🙂
I see us Quakers have come to the rescue again to protect all our civil liberties against assaults by the book burners o))
“Quakers have come to the rescue again to protect all our civil liberties ”
Ahh yes. By indulging in, and profiteering from, the Slave Trade.
But enough about your ignorance of history and moral hypocrisy, back to David’s Report.
So Stephen when are you going to read David’s Report?
He doesn’t need to read the ‘report’.
All David’s blogs are examples of antiZionism and AntiIsraelism spun as “rabid”, “hard-core” “antisemitism” existing in the Labour Party and every UK Jew is in mortal danger, of what is difficult to eke out.
Read one, you’ve read ’em all.
If YOU’VE read the report you will of course have reached the same conclusion.
So Farmer, when are you and Stephen going back to the ‘troll’ farm you came from?
Which reminds me Why did you abandon Adams bat shit blog and migrate to here ?
Still trying to change the subject Stephen.
Have you ever thought of starting your own blog, then you can choose which subjects are discussed.
In the meantime, let us discuss David’s Report.
After you have read it of course.
I already can choose which subjects I discuss
Probably when I have finished reading The Beano
“Probably when I have finished reading The Beano”
Yes Stephen I understand that someone like yourself, with a low I.Q. and poor literacy skills, will take some time to read The Beano.
If you ask him very nicely, perhaps David will produce a copy of his Report as an ‘audiobook’ as you are clearly too stupid and lazy to read it.
…. as an alternative to counting sheep, Gerald?
Everybody was involved in the slave trade. Including Jews I hear from a reliable source
k
Off topic I know, but I just found this.
Please share.
Margaret Hodge: When I was fighting fascism… Jeremy Corbyn helped me more, I think, than any other MP.
https://dorseteye.com/margaret-hodge-when-i-was-fighting-fascism-jeremy-corbyn-helped-me-more-i-think-than-any-other-mp/
I come to this website on a semi-regular basis, and have been for years. The articles are great, well-researched and thought provoking. Unfortunately, there is and can be no decent conversation about it as long as Stephen Bellamy and Mike Farmer are constantly sabotaging any attempt to discuss these articles.
I don’t know the history between you all, but I do know that by not banning these people, or at least removing the useless comments, you are allowing them to detract from this great website.
1. They stifle any and all reasonable discussion by distracting people who feel compelled to answer them. Classic trolling.
2. Neutrals who come here with an open mind would benefit greatly from reading comments which actually debate the content of the article. Currently they will be put off by the childish arguments going on below the line.
Is there a reason you continue to allow this? Enlighten me
This is not new to me. I am not convinced they detract from the value of the research. It could be argued they add to it. They bring further proof, if any was needed, that what I am saying it truth. I highly doubt someone who reads the research, has his mind changed by the trolls or begins to believe that they have a point. I tend to think they look at people like Mike and think ‘ah, so that’s what he meant’.
The main reason has always been my dislike of censorship. But even my patience has worn thin. I doubt my feelings towards some of them are any different from yours.