Jewish names de-registered

Jewish people de-registered – discrimination at the heart of Westminster

My research, and the book I hope to eventually complete, deals with two issues – one is the conflict between Israel and its neighbours, the other is what I view as a connected topic – the rise of left wing antisemitism. As part of the search for truth and in the hope the conflict will someday end, I go to events to gain a better understanding of the landscape, and to describe this terrain to others.

I am not hostile to the Arabs of Ramallah and Gaza – far from it. I spent many years working with them, building bridges, and both welcoming them to my home, and being welcomed into theirs. There is however an international industry that has been built around them. An industry designed to artificially perpetuate the conflict, and I see this as the fundamental issue that must be addressed if peace is to be achieved. Left-wing antisemitism is rising in part as a product of that industry.

So I go to events to research, and to learn. It was with interest then, that I saw an event taking place in Westminster that had been organised by an NGO called the ‘EuroPal Forum’.

The event and the invitation

Event invite

The event title is a fascinating one: ‘How to end 70 years of injustice?’ For me, this question touches on the issues that underpin my entire research. In an ideal world, an event such as this would bring the two sides together, away from the actual conflict zone, to try  to begin to build bridges of understanding. The ‘industry’ though, wants no part of that. It speaks for and on behalf of the Arabs in Ramallah. Just as it has been doing for almost 100 years.

EuroPal, the event organisers, are one of countless NGO’s that operate to sustain a conflict. Just as UNRWA were developed to ensure no refugee would ever settle, these NGO’s, that are funded via Western governments, the EU or from inside the Arab world, spend their existence, not helping Arabs improve their lives, but rather, setting up impossible conditions, and then using the resulting impasse as a window of opportunity through which to create anti-Israel hostility.

Speaking at the event, are the type of people I recognise as central to the problem, those who live in a Western Democracy, holding the Arabs of Ramallah hostage, until their own personal scores can be settled. Just what does Tommy Sheppard, Hugh Lanning or Jenny Tonge stand to lose, if the economy of the Arabs in the West Bank crashes as a result of boycott activity? The answer is absolutely nothing. In fact, such suffering would probably help their cause. Just as Arab leaders goaded the Arab residents of British Palestine, into losing everything in hopeless gambles, still today people engage with their own personal fetish from the luxury of their Western homes, and people somewhere else have to pay the price. They call it ‘seeking justice’ to hold entire cities hostage to their demands.

So I registered for the seminar via Eventbrite and received a confirmation. Below is a copy of the ticket I received in the confirmation email:

Westminster discrimination

Did they cancel those with Jewish names?

Six days after I had registered and received confirmation, and only two days prior to the event, I suddenly received an email, that informed me, my registration had been cancelled:


There is some truth in the email. Shortly after receiving it, I became aware the venue had changed from ‘Committee Room 9’ to ‘Committee Room 6’. I contacted the events team at the House of Commons and asked them for details about the rooms. Room nine can hold ninety people, Room six, only sixty-five. There was a possible overbooking scenario of twenty-five people.

Yet, this ‘fact’ holds the assumption the event had been fully booked. It also assumes the room change had been forced on them. I went looking for others who had registered. What became apparent very quickly, was that several of the people I knew had also had their tickets cancelled. In fact, what was alarming was that all of the online discussion of cancellations I saw, came from the Zionist side. Some people who had complained, had never been to an event like this before, so they can hardly have been on any ‘hit-list’. This implies a process of going through the list picking out Jewish sounding names.

Within the anti-Israel camp, I did not see a single comment to suggest anybody had been de-registered. It seems to have been a very careful de-selection process. One that is clearly discriminatory.

Because Eventbrite kept sending reminder emails, even to those who had been de-registered, the event organisers sent an email out telling everyone to ignore them. The event organisers also changed the web-page of the event, informing people that only those receiving an email of confirmation, actually still had a ticket.

The secondary approach

As bad as a discriminatory de-selection process is, all of the above is built on the assumption that the room is fully booked, the room change was forced, and the cancellations were still an unfortunate necessity. So what would happen if the organisers were approached for another ticket? This time by someone without a Jewish name. So I sent an email to the organisers, asking for a ticket. I did this at 10:26 am on the 27th November. This was just one hour after I had received the cancellation email.

second approach

Given, that so many people (as many as twenty-five) had been turned away because of an over-booking, there is no way such a ticket could have been available. But sure enough, on 28th November, a day later, I received the confirmation. My secondary approach, with the non-Jewish name, had got himself a ticket:

Ticket confirmation

So although they had spent some time sifting through the register, apparently cancelling the registration of anyone they could identify as Jewish (who isn’t on their list of ‘good Jews’) , they were still handing out places to other people. I did try to contact the organisers again using my real name and email to see if space was available – on that occasion, my email was simply ignored. My artificial ‘non Jewish’ creation had been through no such trouble.

The Palace of Westminster

This event isn’t a private function at some scout hall in Brentwood. It was a public event, in Committee Room 6 in the Palace of Westminster. This is the heart of the British Democratic Estate. Taxpayer financed. The room can only be booked by an MP. On what grounds was I excluded? My race? My religion? My political opinion? Whichever one you pick, it is unacceptable. But surely, some of those people who were excluded cannot have been excluded for any reason other than their Jewish sounding name. Which particular MP has put his name to such discrimination? Who funds the NGO behind it?

As an excuse for their discrimination, they may suggest I am a trouble-maker. Except I never cause any trouble. I engage in research, I am a freelance Journalist, and a member of the NUJ. When it comes to attending events that assist in my research, I have never caused any trouble anywhere. There is not a video, a complaint, or a single witness who has ever complained about my behaviour. Although I prefer to capture audio and /or video to assist in reporting and research, if I am told it is not permitted, I resort to writing notes. My ‘bad behaviour’ is writing things they don’t like.

In any case – some of those rejected from this event, are unidentifiable beyond the wrong sounding or Jewish name.

Totally unacceptable

Jewish people are being picked on, and just as is taking place in France, the authorities here are choosing to have a ‘quieter life’, by caving in to antisemitism as an acceptable form of discrimination. Perhaps when it occurs in the NUT headquarters at an AGM of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, or at the QEII building at the Palestine Expo, you can shrug your shoulders. But when such unacceptable discrimination reaches the Palace of Westminster, then it is surely time to ask what is coming next?



Help support my research

I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. This research does make a difference. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. I am fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible.

Please if you can, consider making a donation. Either a single amount or if you can a small monthly contribution.  We need to be there to expose the lies and we need to research the facts to tell the truth. Even producing just one of these pieces does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Your assistance can and does make a difference. 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.




113 thoughts on “Jewish people de-registered – discrimination at the heart of Westminster

  1. “Just what does Tommy Sheppard, Hugh Lanning or Jenny Tonge stand to lose, if the economy of the Arabs in the West Bank crashes as a result of boycott activity? ”

    This will hurt the blacks more than it hurts us. Now where did I last hear that argument. Hmmmmm

    1. So Bellers, if we take the uncharacteristic approach of having a moment of lucidity here rather than simply adopt our more traditional roles I’ll ask a serious question. What positive outcome do you think will come from the meeting mentioned in the above piece? ‘Positive’ here can be entirely subjective and wholly abstract. I won’t judge. I fully expect you to sidestep this question or ignore it completely but will be pleasantly surprised if you fancy a brief couple of seconds of sincerity.

      1. Not too much of any kind of outcome Ian. Anymore than good comes out of, say, Board of Deputies meetings. I don’t do meetings myself other than if they are very focussed on a specific issue that there is some chance of impacting on.

    2. Stephen, as I am sure you are aware, absolutes don’t exist, and that comment, can be lazily thrown against any situation where some people are asking others to make a sacrifice. Clearly it cannot always hold. Even putting aside the bad and faulty comparison between Apartheid and Israel, the ‘HOSTAGE’ situation is entirely different. The blacks in South Africa never turned down their full rights, there was no 1947, there was no period between 1949 and 1967 and there were no negotiations ruined by an impossible maximalist position. Had the Arabs assumed a less than maximalist position, they would have had a state a long time ago. Which means the argument is not one about their freedom, or human rights, or statehood, but about the size of that state, or its ability to threaten its neighbour. So the use of the ‘comment’ falls flat. These people are not asking Arabs to suffer to achieve their rights, but rather to stake claims that go way beyond those simple principles

      1. David my comment was about that particular part of your argument and how it chillingly resonated and reminded me of a similarly structured argument I had heard in the past. Nothing more nothing less.

        Equally whenever I hear Israelis and their apologists telling us how the Palestinians are the best off Arabs in the ME it resonates too.

        i.e We have the happiest blacks in Africa.

  2. Given your concern for the Arabs of the West Bank, David, can I expect you to lobby for the removal of the illegal settlements and the subsequent creation of a Palestinian state on that land?

    1. I do love this argument. Let me see if I understand you. You maintain that the Jews, who exercised their ‘right of return’ to Hebron, after they were massacred and ethnically cleansed in 1929 – have to be ethnically cleansed again. You also maintain that the state of Palestine has to be rid of all Jews (entirely ethnically cleansed). Whilst at the same time maintaining that the Arabs, who you suggest where ethnically cleansed, should have the right to settle wherever they want. Have I got it straight?

      1. Neat way to avoid answering. Side stepping with a hint of ad hom.
        So, is your research peer reviewed and if so by whom (in general terms, no need to name names).

  3. Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.

    Perhaps David will have updates on his research and his book reviewed by someone who doesn’t have a Jewish sounding name.


    1. First part is absolutely correct and I would expect nothing less than a blind peer review process for any piece of research.

      Otherwise it is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

      1. Perhaps you need to read some of David’s research. It’s a lot more than “anecdotal evidence”. He uses people’s own words–demonstrably from them because they appear above their names–to tell us what they really believe. That’s far from anecdotal and needs no peer review to authenticate it. It will take you no more than a few minutes to see that David is simply reporting on facts.

        1. All research needs peer review. Preferably blind peer review where no one knows who wrote what.
          I am sure that David as a professional researcher knows all this.

  4. That’s a true Star Chamber panel David. Wear your exclusion as a badge of honour. Then report your concerns through the appropriate channels.
    These wretched individuals prefer to conduct their nefarious activities behind closed doors and are terrified of being exposed for what they are .
    You shine a light on them and they cannot stand it. They spin their web of lies and hate for the benefit of no one but themselves and a few crusty old lefties . I’m sure it’s cathartic for all those involved , but in reality it’s a futile waste of their time. Things have moved on . The planets are realigning in the Middle East and former implacable enemies are finally talking and acting together for the greater good of the region. As you rightly say David , the proto fascists who saw fit to deny you entry are no friends of the Palestinians . In their own desultory way they help perpetuate the conflict. It’s fundamental to the far left whereby the end justifies the means. Except there will be no end , at least not in the way that ‘eminent ‘ Star Council would aspire to.

  5. Write to: Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
    House of Commons
    London SW1A 0AA
    (must be hardcopy, no emails)

    Dear Commissioner

    An anti-Israel meeting took place in Committee Room 6 (5.30pm 29 November). The venue was changed from Committee Room 9. Because Room 6 is smaller, some people who had previously registered have had to be told they cannot now attend. There is a suspicion that those chosen for deselection are disproportionately those with Jewish-sounding names. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that someone (without a Jewish name) successfully registered AFTER some people were told they could not now attend, due to the smaller capacity of Room 6.

    The Room is (presumably) booked by Tommy Sheppard MP, the host of the meeting. If deselection fell disproportionately or even exclusively on those with Jewish-sounding names, this was done in the name of this MP and would clearly represent “damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons”.

    1. Why is it that in this day and age of the Internet and email, the Parliamentary commissioner for standards can’t accept a representation to cancel the meeting today 29th November 2017 on the grounds that the organisers allegedly and seemingly may have acted in discriminatory way which is illegal according to general understanding of the law. Is this a case of bureaucratic inefficiency?

  6. David, if as you say you have been excluded on discriminatory grounds as seems to be the case, I would ask whether you are not within your right from an equality point of view to request that the organisers meeting is cancelled by the parliamentary administration whoever they may be. This is not a question of trouble making but simply upholding the law against discriminatory behaviour seemingly evident practiced by the organisers in the seat of law making in the UK. Totally unacceptable and illegal.

  7. David – A recent post on Twitter by Asa Winstanley referred to you as anti-Palestinian. I immediately tweeted back and instilled in to him that David Collier is a Zionist and not an anti-Palestinian. I am frankly appalled at the prejudice, ignorance and arrogance who now represent the left-wing.

    1. Mike – the necessity to have me labelled as ‘racist’, is precisely because they cannot handle the light I shine on the situation.

  8. When I was a student at Birmingham Poly in the mid 70s, Hugh Lanning was the Students Union chair. I don’t remember if in those days he was a Marxist-Leninist, a Trotskyite or a member of the Socialist Workers Party. What is definite is that he was way to the left of the Labour party. The man is typical of the extreme left professional agitators who haven’t done a day of productive work in their life. He was anti-semitic then and he hasn’t changed a bit.

  9. David I am struggling to understand how someone that has been massacred is then able to exercise a right of return. Being massacred would seem to me to be pretty final. I also doubt that the Jews that colonised Hebron post 67 were ethnically cleansed in 29. I have been face to face with these folks on a goodly few occasions and I have to say, they look way too young.

    1. Stephen, I am merely pointing out the inconsistency, rather than attempting to stand on the argument myself. These ‘rabbit holes’ are the ones I spend time avoiding. But if as you say these people are too young to have been involved in the 1929 massacre (massacre occurs – survivors flee), then by extension what do you think should happen to the Arabs born in Lebanon who are living in refugee camps?

        1. Oh come on Bellers. I’ve seen your blog. Your quite happy to tap out a thousand words on the targets of your personal grievances, with photos. Go on give it a go.

        2. Translation – I realise that my last post totally contradicts my own argument, so will concoct an utterly pathetic excuse to avoid replying

    2. So Bellamy , no doubt you express the same sentiments as regards the so called second and third generation Arab ‘refugee’ who are clamouring for RoR. To paraphrase your comment “ they look way too young “.

      1. And how many generations of Jews is it after they left Roman Palestine till the Law of Return?

  10. This is turning into a really interesting thread. David uncovers an issue that may represent antisemitic behaviour, one that will certainly require a response from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the sock puppets go into frenzy. Their feeble response is to deflect to any area far enough removed from the issue in an attempt to waylay a linear discussion; David’s research credentials, Middle Eastern history, some bloke that winds Bellers up, anything that will move the goalposts away from the airing of a painful truth. This is the sort of cowardice that lives in the same stable as hiding behind silly names when posting. Wimps! You’re hitting the targets David and they’re getting desperate.

    1. Seriously Ian, do I come over as desperate to you ? And do you really think that organisers of the meeting in question are on a mission to exclude certain people because they are Jews ? And who is the bloke that has wound me up ?

      1. “do you really think that organisers of the meeting in question are on a mission to exclude certain people because they are Jews ?”
        Did you read David’s article? If you did, provide an argument against this conclusion.

      2. David has presented some information above Bellers and we can only respond to it. Are you offering your traditional blocker, that he just made it all up?

        1. Ian it really is simple. I very much doubt that anyone was excludedd becauase they were Jews. I have doubted many things that subsequently turned out to be the case. I merely asked what you thought. Do you think people were excluded because they are or are thought to be Jews ?

          1. Bellers, considering all of the details that David presents above it seems reasonable, on balance to conclude that there is some effort at exclusion taking place. Whether the organisers have the skill to segment on names alone or whether there is more detailed investigation afoot is a different question. On the face of it would they know which of Bellamy or Kay was the Zio and which the anti-Zio?

          2. Stephen,

            As with much of what Mr Collier claims, the facts, when investigated fully, transpire to rebuke the claims he makes. Here’s but one example of his egregious claims, which upon investigation prove to be false, totally misrepresented or grossly exaggerated: I’ll let the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner do the talking, but as with his attacks on Baroness Tonge, this is but hot air & blather I’m afraid:

            1. Oh Chris – You clearly neither read that specific blog nor fully understood the parliamentary investigation report, that uses my work as a reference. I am always careful to quote properly and to attribute the comment to the person who said them. I also almost always suggest that a remark, or action is antisemitic rather than the person behind it. That some complainants, or newspaper articles were a little less careful, is nothing to do with me. As for an investigation that isn’t willing to accept the mention of Wise was a specific reference to Zionists, well that is never going to reach the right conclusion anyway. Go bark somewhere else.

              As for this latest event. you have simply sought to deflect. I, like several other Jewish guests were de-registered. Several were turned away at the door. Only one got in – and she was pretending to be someone with an Arabic name and wearing clothes that could be mistaken for Arabic attire. You may claim it is purely a coincidence that all the Jews were locked out – I prefer to live in a world that doesn’t accept this type of discrimination so easily, and at the very least, will choose to investigate it.

          3. Ah, David,

            I see I’m accused of deflection, which is rather strange, given you are making quite serious allegations once more about the Palace of Westminster, and alleging that persons were not admitted to the ‘open’ gathering because of their ethnoreligion. This I find a little perplexing, if only because many folk I know don’t actually have surnames one would associate with being Jewish, despite some having claims to being Jewish if that’s how they desired to identify. By way of example, your surname is Collier, and in my neck of the woods, the only Colliers I know are all Welsh & attend the Church of Wales – perhaps they all converted?

            Now, just maybe, as the well known troublesome sort you are known as, perhaps the organisers felt better than to let you disrupt the proceedings, particularly if they thought your colleague Jonathan Hoffman was also in tow, perhaps with Paul Besser as well to make it a triumvirate.

            As for your research, well, as others have asked, may we actually see some peer reviewed work undertaken by you and published in academic Journals we usually find in our University Libraries, which, as you and I both know, are actually peer reviewed.

            Again, I trust as normal you’ll be making a complaint to the Parliamentary Standards Commission, and as ever, it will find against you – which is a nice thought.

            Still, if we go looking for monsters everywhere, we are are sure to find them, which in your case you are indeed a Master of this fine art.

            Thankfully, I’m lucky I live in Wales, although dissatisfied that what few Universities we have, are afraid to discuss topics that may make some feel uncomfortable, which is what I always considered University to be about, a place to challenge our views and learn.

            Good luck with the anti-semitism witch hunt and glad my own little country does not suffer from such hysteria as witnessed on this Blog, despite some well founded concerns about English influence on our body politic, or perhaps more correctly, Norman influence.

            1. We so far have a list of names of some of those rejected, many of them identifiable as ‘sounding Jewish’. It is both odd that the one which used a Muslim name, did not get rejected, as it is odd, that within an hour of overbooking, they were still taking reservations from others.

              What exactly is the ‘troublesome sort’ meant to mean? Have I ever caused trouble? Perhaps you think people with Muslim names should be stopped from going to places, because some are also ‘troublesome’? You see I would oppose blocking anyone, because of the actions of others, especially if we are dealing with ‘racial profiling’, because, because,,,what is the word I am looking for? Oh yes, it is racist. Maybe I should be banned because you don’t like what I write? Oh and the guilt by association lark doesn’t wash with me.

              If only those talking about ‘peer review’, actually knew what they were talking about. The position is nonsensical. A blogger conducting research, needs to have it peer reviewed in academic articles? Sorry, but the line of argument is poppycock.

              I have never (as yet) made a complaint to the Parliamentary Standards Commission. I have no idea what you are talking about. This habit you seem to have of putting words in my mouth, accusing me of things I have never done, and so on, it will grow tiresome really quickly. If you do want to play here, you really do need to stick to facts and focus.

              As for your ‘monsters’ comment. Over 40% of people who attended several demonstrations against Israel, had shared hard-core antisemitic material. In one Scottish BDS demonstration about 40% had shared material denying the Holocaust. I am opposed so ardently by the other side, because my work is so effective and accurate. Over 40%. It isn’t so much as having to look for monsters, as trying to desperately find the decent people amidst the swarm of night creatures they seem to hang out with.

          4. Mr Collier,

            Given the serious allegations you make about anti-semitism everywhere in the UK, all conducted by your very own research, then I’m afraid to say, given how boastful you are – I suggest persons look at your Twitter account – that you open up your prestigious volume of work for peer review, otherwise, no one actually takes it seriously, apart from Israeli apologists and those who wish to undermine a left-leaning Labour Party, a Labour Party that hopefully will overturn 100 years plus support for the Zionist project, a project who’s consequences have not been too nice for the original indigenous inhabitants of what became the British Palestinian Mandate – despite any claims you may like to give, such as the lands were given to persons by God, a God I’m afraid that does not exist, sort of like your anti-semites under each, and every rock found in the UK.!

            Now, Baroness Tonge quite clearly points the finger at you and this Blog for some serious allegations made against her, despite the fact most making said allegations where no where near the Committee Room – lucky for her, despite breaking Parliamentary rules on camera’s, the event was recorded & accusations emanating from your Report were found false, or lacking in credence.

            Further, and given you work closely with Hoffman, please explain why he seems to be hanging out with neo-Nazis’s, namely members/ former members of Britain First, which has been somewhat in the news these last few days.

            You speak about combating racism, and yet your fellow Instigator-in-chief hangs out with persons who support organisations anathema to most British persons.

            As for your assertion that on various BDS demo’s you have been to, no doubt in the good company of Hoffman, or is it Besser? These Demo’s allegedly have loads of anti-semitic material being handed out openly, which is strange given any material that incites racial hatred would actually be seized by the Police, with charges pursued & files submitted to the CPS, so please direct me to said documented Prosecutions.

            Again, you state I don’t stick to the facts, well the facts are you have given me some pretty concise percentages of material being handed out at said BDS Demo’s, so, I take it samples were taken, these were weighted against all other materials made available at each Demo attended, and then via some quick maths some percentages were to be found. PROOF, PROOF, PROOF please, such as your methodology, sampling techniques and criteria utilised as to what may, or may not constitute anti-semitism.

            Again, readers are but to take your word for it, because you are a Blogger, you don’t undertake serious research, as your research is not open to scrutiny, that is scrutiny by experts in this field, that is credentialed experts who’s work is actually peer reviewed and appears in academic perodicals that other experts and laypersons rely upon.

            As Witchfinder Generals go, the evidence you present is about as worthy as that presented during the Inquisition, at least they had the excuse that they tortured persons to get confessions, which as most know, is a most unreliable way to extract information, just like your here say & opinion.

            1. Chris

              You are currently just embarrassing yourself with the peer review nonsense. My reports that exposed antisemitism amongst PSC activists and SPSC activists, as well as the in-depth article into the Suarez book, are open and published. The Sunday Times noted that to be included in my research you would have to ‘work pretty hard at it’. You are more than welcome to hand it over to any academic you like for comment. The response (and they were all taken very seriously) to the vile amount of antisemitism uncovered, was in many places one of shock, mainly due to the highly concentrated levels. The methodology and evidence is all contained within the reports. The only response from the other side, were two really bad attempts at discrediting the reports, that in effect were ‘shoot the messenger’ articles. Similarly with the recent personal attack on Electronic Intifada – they try to attack me, because they couldn’t dent the research. On topic – I do not think you know what peer review is, what type of articles require it, nor what it is for. If you did, you wouldn’t be going down that road, it is just silly.

              Then once more you resort to toothless attacks. Why on earth have you brought god into the discussion- did I? I don’t think I have ever written about god in any blog I have here. See, this is just further evidence of your pointless rambling, making long posts that don’t actually deal with any of the matters at hand. Blindly arguing with a monster you see in your head.

              I will give you another example of why I will soon tire of you and stop wasting my time with you. You said:

              “Now, Baroness Tonge quite clearly points the finger at you and this Blog for some serious allegations made against her, despite the fact most making said allegations where no where near the Committee Room “

              This from my report on the event

              “As it turned out Tonge was tame, but there was still much to shake me.”

              This too

              “From that moment I knew Jenny Tonge would be on her best behaviour.”

              So what allegations against Tonge at the event are you accusing me of making? See. you are making it up as you go along. I clearly and blatantly said she did nothing. It is in my blog. If you cannot even be bothered to read the piece, before coming here to accuse me of doing things I didn’t, there is no reason I should take you seriously.

              Your next attempt was guilt by association. I know Hoffman – Hoffman was photographed once standing nearby someone, therefore everyone is guilty. Yawn. 40% of those standing at anti-Israel protests SHARED hard-core anti-semitic material. Not their friends, not someone they stood near – they did it. This for some reason, doesn’t seem to bother you. That material, almost all of it, comes from white supremacist websites in the US… KKK stuff. Yet, when I seek to expose them, you attack me. Why is that? Seeing as you clearly have an issue with far-right politics, why are you attacking someone who exposes it?

              Had you bothered to even look before attacking – you’d know your last few paragraphs are absolute poppycock – all the material is publicly available, but then lets be honest, not a single one of your arguments held any water at all.

          5. David it is rather more more than someone was once photographed standing next to someone.. There is a whole library that I am currently putting together in publishable form.

            Further Scoffie is currently tweeting to Besser whose tweets are protected and which only confirmed followers have access to.

            I have on more than one occasion pointed out to you what you get when you lie down with dogs.

            1. Stephen – Not interested in the library bit, it bores me. I am just a man with a political opinion who makes use of his legs and a keyboard – there is no more to me than that. As I have said before, you spend too much time focusing on a blogger for it to be healthy. You see connections where none exist. As for Jonathan, I am neither his guard, nor master. I regularly tweet to Atzmon, what does that make me? If you follow me, you’d have seen I bought his book. A true fan no doubt. I follow all sorts on twitter – from hard right, to hard left, and many fruitcakes in between. Unsurprising because it is part of my research. Content Stephen, content. What did Jonathan say that was unacceptable, what is HE guilty of?

          6. No David,

            The embarrassment is on your shoulders I’m afraid, specifically you claim to be a Researcher of high standards, and yet, we are never privy to the actual research criteria you adhere too, that is a criteria that one would expect of any student undertaking a Phd.

            That you fail to address said concerns, suggesting that you are a Blogger, so such stringent criteria cannot apply to you – a straw man in ever given the number of Israeli apologist organs that reference your work – one actually would expect better.

            I think Sarah Glynn writing on 5 September on Bella Caledonia best sums up your work, Namely: “This is a report that had already decided its conclusion before it began; that knew what it was looking for and searched until it found it. It is a concentrated product of two years of trawling and sifting and of ignoring evidence of higher aims and ideals. It presents an extraordinarily biased view of all those it names, and imputes motives on no evidence. As an attack on SPSC it cannot be taken seriously, but it still makes for some uncomfortable reading.”

            1. Oh Chris, you have picked up the opinion of an activist with motive to throw at me. So my first question is, did that piece pass a peer review? Or is it acceptable to you because you agree with it? Anyway thanks for bringing up the Sarah Glynn article, because it is a perfect example of an article that deflects. I did a thorough take down of that article and you can read it on this site, but for now I will simply respond to the section you quote.

              Glynn has clearly either misunderstood or chosen to deflect from the methodology. I didn’t search for anyone, nor did it as she implies take me two years of ‘trawling’. The most important part of my research (and why it is so damming), is because THESE PEOPLE FOUND ME. They are the ones that turned up to demonstrate. In the case of SPSC, not once, not twice, but three times, all in the space of a few short months. My research wasn’t based on Facebook posts, but rather those activists that turn up to wave the SPSC flag. It is why the method is so clear cut. As for the ‘higher aims and ideals’ nonsense. The world is full or racists with higher aims and ideals. Racists think they are right and want the world to be a better place. Glynn produced a nonsense piece that protected hard core racists.

              Now you have a habit of running from comments. You accused me of writing the complaint, only to find out I didn’t, you accused me of making accusations against Tonge, only to find out I didn’t. You suggested I silence dissent here- which I don’t – and each time, you simply move onto a different type of attack. Any chance you will acknowledge you have made mistakes here and perhaps apologise for the false accusations?

            1. I have known Jonathan for a few years now, I have never heard him make an extremist comment, nor have I ever seen him ‘cultivate relationships with extremists’. In fact, because a negative isn’t as strong as a positive, I will go further. I can tell you I have heard Jonathan refuse to support actions because he found the central message too extreme, I have heard him argue against extremism and extremists, and have listened in detail to his political arguments, that are placed well in the centre of the Israeli political spectrum (pay a price for peace but not a shekel for an imaginary peace). Someone either is or is not in support of far right wing politics, and I believe Jonathan, like most Jews, finds them disturbing. This constant need you have to tie someone in to someone else’s opinion, without them actually supporting it, makes you seem like Timothy – a Jew stalker, who spends his time at events, trying to perfect the camera angle so he can capture me in the same frame as someone he can use to smear me.

          7. David your lack of interest in something does not make it not so.

            Here we have a classic illustration of there being none so blind as those that simply refuse to see. You adopt a similar ostrich like position re Sharon Klaff.

            The evidence that Schoffie cultivates relationships with far right racists, including a group that spawned the killer of Jo Cox, and Jewish terrorist groups is overwhelming. Yet you declare that it is all about someone one time being stood next to someone.

            The evidence that he is also a yob and an hooligan is at least as overwhelming.

            I didn’t intend to get into this. It was your comment that kicked it off.

            1. Except Stephen, the problem with the type of connections that you draw, are they are based on the flimsiest of evidence with little or no supporting cast. There ARE major issues here – assumptions upon which you have placed a lot of sand. You have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, what arguments have taken place, or whether or not everyone DIRECTLY involved knows exactly where I stand on specific matters. You are basing your opinion on the fact nobody is telling you about it. Which is not quite the same thing. I will take responsibility for the words that I write, and where I make mistakes, I apologise for them. I have no interest in dancing to the tune of others.

          8. Further I have stated unequivocallly that I don’t think you are a racist. If I am tying you into anything it is indifference to racism when the racist in question worships the same idol as yourself. I also have occasion to point out how dangerous I think this indifference is for you.

  11. George, when describing Mr. Lanning as ‘antisemitic’ you really need to be more specific as to how you reached that conclusion. David has created for himself a tome listing thousands of actions that to his mind makes it so.

  12. Again, so funny to see the trolls scrambling for some high ground here. (Not you Bellers. At least you’ve had a go at the actual subject matter). David writes about a serious issue that could be damaging to the reputation of Parliament and the trolls have the rug pulled from under them, leaving nothing but feeble accusations about his funding and his general research process. The idiots have come to a gun fight with balloon on a stick.

  13. But those people are by far the most recent from the land. Most Israelis vacated the area thousands of years ago.

    1. David, even Liverpool don’t leave gaps in their defence this big. People will start to think he’s throwing the game.

  14. “Better than being a perpetual JSA bandit”.

    Don’t be downhearted, Harvey. Learn some new skills and you could be employed.

    1. It was aimed at the PSC / anarchist wastrels who spend much of the working week on their unsavoury causes

  15. Lol, awaiting moderation !!
    Can’t have a debate, just shut down all dissenting voices. You’re great ?

      1. Ha ha ha, no thanks mate. If I want to listen to a bunch of self righteous wankers congratulating themselves then I’ll turn up to one of our local council meetings.
        I just hope your lot learn to have some respect for other races before it’s too late and you get driven out of yet another country. As you have noticed, the tide is turning and not in your favour. Peace out ✌️

        1. Oh dear. You know what puzzles me most about the human race ? No of course you don’t so I will tell you. It is this seeming inability to quit while you are winning

        2. Good morning from the Jewish State Chris. As a serial, self righteous and self congratulatory wanker myself, I’m grateful for your acknowledgement. Not a huge fan of unearned respect though so we’ll have to live with the eternal disappointment of ‘other races’ for now. Nice of you to worry on our behalf about the direction of the tides but fear not. Our lads have a long history pf parting the waves if they become too threatening.

          I was going to sign off with some acerbic put down but given the style in which you opened your post I assume that you are an 11 year old girl and would not want to appear inappropriate.

        3. the ‘your lot’ comment, and ‘driven out of yet another country’, is not acceptable here Chris. I do not moderate political comment or criticism, but as with some of the comments you posted on the Facebook page – you cross lines into overt racism. I do not like racists, and have little tolerance for them (you may have noticed this blog is all about finding racists and outing them).

          1. You are funny. The overt racism was directed at me and my family and you sanctioned it.
            I pointed out some inconvenient truths, not opinions and you removed my posts but not the racist ones directed at me.
            Your line of “I don’t like racists” stinks of insincerity and hypocrisy.

          2. It seems that those comments directed at me on your Facebook page that you deemed acceptable were actually not acceptable.
            Facebook have removed them for displaying hate speech because you wouldn’t.
            Doesn’t do a lot for your credibility or claims of outing racists now does it ?

            1. Oh Chris, I did not deem ‘anything acceptable’. I have no intention of going through each post to moderate them, I don’t do it here, and I certainly do not do it on Facebook where I am hardly ever on the site. Do you think I have nothing else to do? As for racism, you, are hardly one to start pointing fingers at others about racism. Now, you are more than welcome to post here, on topic, and without over the top personal comments. Please keep the antisemitism at a bare minimum.

    1. His comment was I moderate here to avoid a debate, and just shut down all dissenting voices. So now you agree with this Mike? Is this what I do that he ‘nailed me’?

  16. ” I do not like racists”? Perhaps Mr. Kay requires moderation. He referred to Israel as the ‘Jewish state’. It’s the Jewish majority state.

    1. Thanks for the name check Mikey.

      Feel free to call my country anything you want; Narnia, Middle Earth, Mr. Fancy Trousers or any other fantasist bollocks you prefer. Bellers likes to call it Basket Case and that keeps him happy . It really doesn’t matter a jot to us. We call it the Jewish State and as it’s our country that’s all that matters. Turns out Jerusalem is our capital as well. What a day to be alive!

      1. Yes, I think that’s his point though it seems to have gone way over your head. You call it the Jewish state because you see yourselves as superior to the indigenous population. From that state of mind great evil arises.
        And as for your comment about being way out of my depth, thank you for re-enforcing my original comment about your self righteousness.

        1. This is the Jewish State because the Arabs attacked us and we won. We have no ŕesponsibility to reward defeat. That’s what victory looks like. Self righteousness is just an added perk.

  17. “He is guilty of cultivating relationships with and enlisting the support of the far right including The EDL, the terrorist JDL and more latterly Britain first. ”

    Bell-arse is a lying piece of shit

  18. A media responder’s masterclass Bellers. David identifies an irregularity at the heart of parliamentary procedure that frankly, should concern everyone and you manage to direct the thread back to some feeble attack against someone with whom you have a personal grudge. Well played. I doubt that it will stop David in his endeavours nor really achieve anything at all. But I suppose that’s social media skirmishing for you. At least you’re having a better go of it than Mikey and the idiot Chrises who seem to be miles out of their depth here.

    1. Except Ian it was David that directed it in that direction. I responded to a comment he made on that subject

    2. No, this type of thing doesn’t impact at all on my endeavors. I am having a holiday today. I finished analysing the General’s Son and Atzmon’s new book this week. Today is a rest day – my batteries need recharging. Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of Dictators awaits.

      1. Ah, the fun of doing what you fancy on welfare from others, David, and to no end.. You must be purring

    3. Miles out of their depths, the only person miles out of his depth is the blog host, and hanger ons like yourself who believe all the crud he posts on this Blog. Conspiracies, conpiracies, conspiracies & not a shred of proof, apart from his testament, which like most Israeli apologists, when it comes to an English Court of Law, or, Parliamentary Standards Committee is usually thrown out, that is all charges merit no substance.

      Further, given the MSM seem to relish dealing with Mr Collier based on the fact his research is allegedly impeccable. Well, what a joke, given, and as pointed out, his research would not gain muster for any PhD in the UK, given he lacks a research matrix, one that can be judged against other academic peers.

      Still Ian, you may believe his nonsense, others certainly do not and based on standards many find important. Namely, you cannot claim to be impartial & undertake serious research if the conclusion you desire has been set before under taking any research. As they say in economics: “Garbage in. Garbage out’. And this website is a class example of that.

      Serious research my arse!!!!!!!

      1. Oh Chris, we get you don’t like my research. Tell you what – there is a book coming out soon, that carries with it most of my central ideas. I am sure, that the ‘other side’ will place it under the microscope. In the meantime, those false accusations of yours, (the complaint, the Tonge allegations, and the moderation), how about admitting you were wrong about them? Admit you just came here slinging misdirected mud. Show at least a little integrity.

      2. Chris you naive old booby. This is social media and nobody comes here to have their mind changed about anything. Like you my minds made up and David’s work is just a reinforcement for me that I’m on the right side. So I don’t give a toss whether he has a local authority researchers licence, certificated accreditation for authorship or any of the other deflective drivel you post to shift the narrative from the subject to the author. We’re all grown ups here so stop pretending you give a toss either.

    1. It looks at the entire conflict history through the lens of agency theory, and places an illuminating microscope onto the suggestion we need to ‘decolonise Palestine’.

      1. David a serious question. What do think the purpose of the settlement of the West Bank enterprise is. I would have liked to say colonising enterprise but that would have derailed any possibility of a discussion about purpose so I have kept it as neutral as I can. I am sure we can agree that there is a settlement enterprise.

        What do you think its purpose is ?

        1. Stephen – I think it has evolved and is multi-faceted. Originally, I would imagine the main thrust was more of a strategic ‘safety net’, that sought to protect Israel’s soft underbelly. Coming on the back of the 67 war, and at a time when conventional land forces posed the most serious threat, the Israelis simply wanted strategic depth between the airport and Jerusalem, and a security barrier down along the Jordanian border. This would have gained urgency after the 1973 war exposed the deadly nature of the threat. The entire area is small, and in places, with only several miles between ‘enemy territory’ and the sea, Israel had every right to be concerned. On top of this was the ‘spoils of war’, mainly Jerusalem and to a lesser degree Hebron. Given the history, it is unsurprising the Jews sought to build up Jerusalem.

          Over time, the ‘religious nationalist’ element became stronger, spreading in a ‘stagnating’ environment that was favourable to it, and piggybacking on Israel’s rather slanted electoral system. Much of this was driven by those who see the land, all of it, as belonging to Israel. Politically, these people have been both given free reign (government support), and at the same time, restricted (real assistance given within certain areas only – the settlement ‘blocks’). For as long as the stagnation continued between Israel and the Arabs, the Israeli government was always going to be in the position of permitting settlement activity in return for political stability. All the coalitions have to an extent been dependent on political parties that favour settlement.

          But in reality, the settlement enterprise, isn’t, nor has it ever been the real stumbling block on the road to peace. If you look at the agreements, all of them, they have dealt directly with the matter and for most of the last two decades, almost all Israeli building has taken place within those areas already dealt with. It wasn’t because of the settlements that the agreements were not signed. Not sure if this answers your question – but it is the way I understood it.

  19. You seem quite happy to besmirch the term ‘Jewish’ by describing the state of Israel as such. Israel does not have a good name in the areas of human rights and respect for laws and the Geneva Conventions, to which surprisingly, it is a signatory.

    1. If by bismirch you mean proud as punch you’re spot on old son. Nice try with weedy attempt at Jew Baiting. How’s that going for you, keeping you busy?

  20. Chris you naive old booby. This is social media and nobody comes here to have their mind changed about anything. Like you my minds made up and David’s work is just a reinforcement for me that I’m on the right side. So I don’t give a toss whether he has a local authority researchers licence, certificated accreditation for authorship or any of the other deflective drivel you post to shift the narrative from the subject to the author. We’re all grown ups here so stop pretending you give a toss either.

  21. So, proud to support a state that rides roughshod over agreements, laws and conventions,to abuse those under its occupation, destroying the homes of innocent Palestinian families in nothing more than vengeful spite. The Israeli state was born of terrorism,the goodwill of others, and has prospered more recently due mainly to the patronage of those that view it as its military base in the middle east also providing it with the largest tever welfare package. For decades now the world has appeased them in memory of those who years earler were subjected to oppression and ethnic cleansing.

    ‘Jew Baiting’? A term well used by David himself. He’s rubbing off on you, Ian. He’s moulding you in his own image. Will you succumb?

    1. ‘Jew baiting’. I searched this site and came up with one semi-hit, and one direct quote from someone else. How well do you claim I use this term?

    2. “Rubbing off” Mikey please! Are you a homophobe as a well as a Jew Baiter? Seriously ,when do you find the time?

      There’s always a tiny part of me that imagines that people that write the sort of stuff that you do are just a little confused and possibly ignorant of historical process.; that this foggy thinking makes you keen to critique my country because our history is happening whilst you’re alive rather than at some long forgotten point back in time. Perhaps you’d have been the same if you’d been around when Europeans were slaughtering natives to create America or further back when the Norse and French were fashioning England into a country by massacring the locals and stealing their land. Unhappily that’s how countries have always come about and ours isn’t much different. It’s just happening now and not in a book. Pity for you really that, as a species we haven’t really developed much in all the time we’ve been on the planet. We still tackle issues of survival with the use of brute force just as we always have and luckily for the Jews we are strong enough now to create our own state and survive in it. I have nor doubt that this will irk those that would prefer that we weren’t here, people like you. But that’s really your problem to deal with not mine. In a couple of hundred years Israel will be just another country born out of conflict, Bibi will probably still be the PM and archivists will read this sort of nonsense and wonder “why did they bother?”

Comments are closed.