43 thoughts on “Uni of Warwick – false accusations of aggressive & misogynistic behaviour”

1. Horrible libels of you. I wear the T-shirt. They have no scruples whatsoever.

   1. The impeccably behaved tee shirt

      1. I see

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBH6XONDpes

         1. The behaviour gets ever more impeccable

            https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20171121-pro-israeli-mob-with-ties-to-edl-causes-mayhem-at-balfour-event/#.WhR0sQ0ubOg.facebook

            1. Impeccabler and impeccabler said Alice. This one much loved and publicised by David.

               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXw9kkYLsR8

               1. Palestinians Celebrating 9/11 Attack

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOZvbYJMvU

            2. Is that your line with this one Stephen – to deflect from the false accusations mentioned by linking to things that have nothing to do with me. Far, far more pro-Israel events have been disrupted, and to a far greater level, than the other way around. I openly disagree with any form of disruption as I believe regardless of how limited, it almost always plays out badly to a wider audience. As it rises to a level where it impacts on the event itself, I disagree with it on various other grounds too.

               And she wasn’t talking about anyone else, she was talking about me. And explicitly tied the complaint of aggressive behaviour into the gender issue. As lies go, she is pushing a whopper. On a side note – In the blog I explicitly referred to ‘some Faculty’ rather than ‘Faculty’ – so see, I do listen.

               1. Not really David it was merely a response to Scoffie saying he has worn the tee shirt. My line on this one is not formulated yet. I will follow developments with interest

                  1. A word to the wise – stick with the one who believes that ‘truth matters’, and you won’t go far wrong on this one.

                     1. Well one day the truth matters to someone the next day it matters less. Truth is a very weird concept. And then there is what ” this one ” is

                        1. for the moment if you stopped referring to yourself in the third person it would be stylistically beneficial

                     2. thing is….

2. I like the way you have framed the university as a reasonable place for Jewish students.
   In my experience it is only a very small coterie of students and staff who create an impression of bigness solely because of their inordinately loud noise.
   A serious problem is the serious effect on freedom of speech that can be caused to students by a fear that radical accademic staff can affect grades and performance of students who disagree with the accepted narrative on campus that is anti-Israel

   1. I think that was important, and was lacking in the first report. When others picked up my story, it was then distorted out of recognition, as if Jewish students there need special protection to get to class. As I understand it Warwick’s atmosphere is generally good and there are far worse places in the UK. This led to a discomfort amongst some students who felt the external reporting didn’t provide an accurate representation, so they released their own statement This in turn led to their statement being used against the basic idea that a problem of any kind exists. A bit messy. Hopefully, this places it all into perspective.

      Yes, this is a major concern. It is why I often reference that point. It also operates like a silent boycott, where people conform out of fear, without saying a word.

      1. Time to consult a lawyer specialising in defamation?

         1. That would be fun.

         2. I suppose it best I should not make mention of Fraser V University & College Union, which I believe found in the Union’s favour!!!!

            1. Here is what Adam Wagner had to say about it.

               Adam Wagner is a Jewish human rights lawyer. Here is what he had to say about Newmark et al and the FUCU case…….

               Sometimes we need an outsider’s perspective to bring into focus uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Just before the Passover festivities, the Employment Tribunal released a 45-page judgment full of Biblical fury which did just that.

               The judgment was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union. He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.

               The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.

               I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.

               The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

               Let’s just step back for a moment. Just because a judge rules on something doesn’t mean they are right. Judgments get appealed and overturned. Reading this one, and not having been in court for the weeks of evidence, there are at least two possibilities. First, that the Tribunal has taken an irrational or perverse dislike to the claimant, his lawyers and some of his witnesses – that is a real possibility, given how scathing the judgment is. The second is, however, is that the Tribunal has got it broadly right, having listened to the extensive evidence and nonetheless dismissed the case out of hand.

               As I said, I wasn’t there – this is an evidence heavy case so you really have to have sat through it to reach a proper conclusion. But assuming for the purpose of this article that the Tribunal did get it right, there is a lot here to be worried about.

               Preposterous

               Let’s take just a single paragraph, number 148. Here the Judge is summarising his conclusions on the claimant’s witnesses who included British Jewish luminaries such as the author Howard Jacobson. Some gave “careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence”. Others however, “seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.” Again, ouch.

               Particular criticism was reserved for Jeremy Newmark, the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, a committee of community grandees:

               We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

               Wow. Here are some words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”. To recap, this is the Chief Executive of an organisation which is arguably now the main ambassador of the Jewish Community to the wider British community. This may all be unfair and perverse, but if it is not then we should be worried about the implications.

               Then came the MPs. Not just any MPs, but Denis MacShane and John Mann, both well known to the Jewish community; Mr MacShane chaired the The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, Mann authored the Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, it’s bad:

               We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti- Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

               As I said, wow. These are MPs who have been lionised by the Jewish community, and in particular the Jewish Chronicle (perhaps not incidentally, Anthony Julius chairs the JC board, a point highlighted by the Judge). ”And on the topic of that Parliamentary Committee”

               157… The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

               The sarcasm drips off that final sentence, doesn’t it? Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the claimant’s arguments, the Union’s meetings were “well-ordered and balanced” and that almost the entire case was “manifestly unmeritorious”. Most importantly, the Tribunal rejected out of hand the argument that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment” can amount to a protected characteristic.

               Lessons not learned

               Where does this leave us? It is tempting to see this “sorry saga” as no more than an unfortunate and hubristic litigation fail, or an “act of epic folly” as the Jewish Chronicle’s ‘Ask the QC’ QC Jonathan Goldberg commented. But I think there are wider lessons here which we would ignore at our peril.

               Anyone who follows Jewish communal politics and reads the JC will recognise many in the cast of characters as well as the arguments. Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. Despite the good work of organisations like Yachad, this is still a regular and well-supported narrative at the centre of much of the Jewish communal response to criticism of Israel. But that approach – which really amounts to communal comfort food – has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.

               Of course, some criticism of Israel is linked to or motivated by anti-Semitism, but isn’t it time to stop using vast resources to paint legitimate debate as racial hatred? As well as failing miserably as an pro-Israel argument, this approach also risks fatally undermining work against real anti-Semitism. Aren’t we just a little bit ashamed for major communal leaders and organisations to have backed a claim showing a “disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”?

               In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues”

               It certainly did crystallise broader themes and issues. But not the ones the cheerleaders hoped for. As said above, it is possible that this Tribunal reached a perverse decision. No doubt some will say so once the recriminations begin to fly. I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. And that is the lesson of this sorry Passover saga.

               1. The Hasbarafia won’t be going back there in a hurry. Julius hasn’t been seen or heard of since.
                  Another one while clever is not clever enough to understand the difference between cleverness and expertise.

                  Amnesty is now being threated. Amnesty has nothing to worry about

                  1. Will David going to go there I wonder. I am having a whole container load of popcorn shipped in on the off chance

                  2. Never in the field of human conflict has 600k been blown so quickly and so forlornly

3. David I think you can measure the value of your posts by the speed with which the panicked opponents dive down their rabbit holes. Bellers brings out his holy trinity; personal grudges, style critique and some old bollocks along the lines of “truth is as truth does”, which is as impenetrable as a Cork Colleen wearing two pairs of 800 denier tights and her Dunne’s double gusset combat knickers. Chris prefers his legal precedents; a case which found that nothing that a Uni did ever, ever, ever constituted antisemitism. As someone said “when a political party wins 100% of the vote you know it’s rigged”.

   They don’t like it up ’em Capt. Mainwaring.

   1. Brilliant Ian

   2. Surely, according to these clowns nothing done by ANYONE (at least since 1945) constitutes antisemitism.

      1. Old Bellers has no absolutely no interest in antisemitism Leah. In fact his rather cutting response to anything tends to be “not arsed”. This is mostly true unless you get him onto one of his personal grudges which he likes to air either here, on his blog and other social media sites. His targets are mostly obscure rival activists that exist within their own little ecosystem and like Bellers rarely peer into the daylight to bother ordinary civilians. Here he tries to get a rise out of David but always fails because our boy simply has far superior knowledge of the subject matter and skill in presenting it. This is why you’ll see our Provo Prognosticator diving down the nearest rabbit hole at the first sign trouble. I think he said he’d learnt this tunneling technique during his time as Bedouin Brickie but he may have made that up.

         1. Ian you put me in mind of that horrible hour, 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm, on radio 4 consisting of a bunch of unfunnys trying way too hard to be funny. A time I have to quit listening and read my Fat Freddies Cat magazines awhile.

            Your minder ” don’t mess with my boy Dave” routine is mildly funny in a peculiar sort of way, on second thoughts.

            Coincidently I am sure, Leah was one of Scoffies online incognito girlie names.

         2. Like everything else, I suspect, Ian. Including the myth that anyone reads his stupid ‘blog’.
            Do you know what this ‘Scoffies’ is supposed to be? Because I sure don’t.

            1. Happy to be of service ” Leah”

               Stephen Oryszczuk is the Jewish News Foreign Editor. Afew weeks ago he wrote, and the Jewish News published a piece about Jonathan Hoffman entitled ” You can’t put lipstick on a pig.” After about a week it was taken down but not before many people had taken screen shots. It seems to have done the trick since Hoffie hasn’t been seen around those parts for a good while.

               Here is the text…………..

               When I was young, my favourite prayer was one by St Francis of Assisi. It begins: “Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, j

               These days, I am reminded of this prayer whenever I read anything by a blogger who seems to be taking up ever more air in the newspaper I love.

               Let’s call him Yonatan Scoffman.

               Mr Scoffman (heretofore referred to as Scoff, for brevity) can put an argument together. But his arguments are bigoted and his actions embarrassing. He disrupts meetings, screams abuse, waves Israeli flags and gets dragged out by security.

               Often these meetings offer legitimate discussion on Israel, with open-minded audience members looking on, but to Scoff nuance and reason are the enemies of slander and character assassination, and must therefore be slain.

               To him, people are either haters (of Israel) or idiots (supporters of Israel who just aren’t as passionate as he is). He dismisses fellow Jews who don’t agree with him as ‘As-a-Jews,’ simultaneously dismissing the reasons he behaves as he does.

               To be sure, Scoff is a bigot in bigot’s clothing, but for some reason (his bigotry, possibly) we keep publishing him. I’ve tried everything – hacking the site’s homepage, wrestling the editor to the ground, turning all the office lights off and pretending to be out. Still we persist. So, in the absence of alternatives, I’ll aim to do as St Francis advises, and try to sow love, pardon, faith, hope, light and joy in Scoff’s hate-filled garden of injury, darkness, sadness and despair. I’ve been given about 500 words to do it in.

               In one recent op-ed, Scoff details the young Ilford MP Wes Streeting’s treachery after Streeting points out that Gaza is suffering a humanitarian crisis (sorry, Wes, you have to pick a side). In his vehemence, Scoff lays waste to a Scottish breast surgeon who’s saved lives in Gaza, a Palestinian schoolgirl who, aged 12, really should know better, and CAABU, for using the term “occupied territories” as per the government’s own designation (but hey, who’s counting).

               Scoff then says Wes “clearly didn’t like the fact that we pooped his anti-Israel party” (I suspect Wes just doesn’t like it when people go in to shout down those they disagree with, but who knows). Wes then calls Scoff “yobbish,” which is no less hurtful for being true, but where there is darkness, Scoff, let us sow light.

               Rather than trampling on free speech in the name of it, why not attend calmly and rationally, making the case for Israel without standing, shouting, waving, hurling, unfurling, marching or speaking over the speaker? In short, why not be normal? Make your point, question, be prepared to listen, and others will respect you, and in turn, Israel’s supporters, who are all otherwise sullied by your antics.

               Just an idea.

               In another op-ed, Scoff discusses a survey on anti-Semitism, having a go at Reform Judaism for covering up the fact that Britain is a hotbed of seething Jew hatred, then taking aim at the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) for setting the anti-Semitism bar too low, because why count just those who hate Jews when you can count Israel-haters too

               Scoff then re-imagines the survey to suit his own inclinations, whereupon the proportion of left-wing anti-Semites balloons from three percent to 23 percent. He says this proves that JPR’s work should be cast asunder, adding – with a semi-automatic firing of adjectives – that this “misbegotten ill-conceived fatally flawed work should never have seen the light of day”.

               Breathe, Scoff, breathe. Where there is darkness, let us sow light. Let us hoist those stats up to the sun and let our eyes adjust such that, when the sting abates and our focus returns, we see that 79 percent of British left-wingers do NOT hate Jews, as you claim, and that disagreeing with Israeli policy towards Palestinians does not a person racist make. Or words to that effect.

               In another op-ed, Scoff hacks away at the CST’s argument that “anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism”. Really, CST? REALLY? R-EA-LLY? To Scoff, anti-Zionists (those who disagree with Zionism) are one and the same as anti-Semites (those who hate Jews because they are Jews). It matters not to him if you are an established charity with decades of experience in protecting Jews and tackling anti-Semitism whose opinions are sought and respected by the police, CPS and government – you are wrong. WRONG! And he’ll say it in bold italics with double-underlining if he has to.

               Scoff then says he has “never met” an anti-Zionist who is not an anti-Semite. Yes, Scoff, when you equate the one with the other you won’t have. Then, having left the CST gasping its last breaths, Scoff has a pop at the Jewish Leadership Council for “badmouthing” the Campaign Against Antisemitism for saying that British Jews have packed their bags and bought their tickets.

               Then, suddenly, as if not to be pigeon-holed, Scoff turns and has a go at the CAA for having a go at Kevin Myers, the Irish columnist who said “Jews are not known for selling their talent at the lowest possible price”. This, to Scoff, is not anti-Semitic. That the Board of Deputies, senior rabbis, Jewish MPs, the former head of BBC News, the editor of the Financial Times, the Jewish press and Jewish radio personalities all thought so just goes to show how right he is. The whole ‘Jews and money’ thing from Myers was just “idiosyncratic,” says Scoff. Why defend Myers? Because Myers is usually nice about Israel. There are some lines you just don’t cross, and attacking Israel supporters is one of them.

               To Scoff there is no hate-filled world view not worth highlighting in thick black marker, nor any bad point made repeatedly in one op-ed that cannot be repeatedly made yet again in another. Good for him that he does not shirk from commenting on his own articles after publication, in some cases several times.

               It is gratifying to note that, for Scoff, there is no irony or hypocrisy worth worrying about. Scoff can, in the same breath, showcase a left-wing racist and tarnish everyone left of the EDL with the same brush, while simultaneously commenting on a “strategy to attribute to all Zionists the action of one. If any Jewish Zionist said or did anything negative… X uses the example to reflect the action back on all Zionists”. How interesting. The strategy seems vaguely familiar, but for the life of me, I cannot think from where.

               Scoff then returns to his raison d’etre, his core defining campaign: to tell the world that people who hate Jews and people who object to Israeli policy are THE SAME! You remember 2014, at the height of the Gaza conflict, when 200,000 people marched through the centre of London protesting Israeli action? You remember them? All anti-Semites. All.

               And that’s just the tip of the anti-Semitic iceberg otherwise known as Britain.

               Don’t even get Scoff started on God. Israel and God are the same. “Show me an anti-Zionist,” says Scoff, “and I’ll show you someone who tries to separate Judaism from Zionism.” Not to him is one a religion and the other is a movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East. “Show me someone who doesn’t like pears,” Scoff adds, “and I’ll show you someone who tries to separate pears from apples.” I jest. He doesn’t. But he may as well do.

               Where there is doubt, Scoff, let there be faith. Where there is hatred, let us sow love. Where there is… Oh, sod it. Lord, I hate to break it to you, but that ship has sailed. As Scoff himself writes, in bold and italics: “You can’t put lipstick on a pig”.

               ————-

               1. Barely literate and utterly ignorant verbal diarrhoea from Bellend. What a surprise.

            2. It’s one of the things about living in a narrow silo Leah. After a while the inhabitants get lost in their own petty grievances and personal grudges against imagined opponents and it becomes their whole world. Bellers must be one of the last virtualistas to post old YouTube clips of obscure Mick rebel songs and almost certainly weeps buckets during re-runs of Ryan’s Daughter. Now that nobody’s arsed about them anymore he pretends to care about Arabs so that he can fill his days whining about Jews and especially those that he reckons have done him wrong in one way or another. Ain’t life a hoot?

               1. Who done me wrong Ian ? I wanna know. I want names cuz they aren’t getting away with it

               2. Yes, he really is one pathetic loser.

4. I can’t do shtick like you Bellers but as I mentioned I’m not a real activist. Fair play on getting one of your grudgees into another post though.

   1. quit trying to make me blush its working

   2. Indeed. Deflection is the primary tactic. Have no idea at all what the Fraser case is doing here.

      1. Not at all David. It is here in response to ” Leah” ‘s advocay of legal action.

         1. Leah is my Jewish name, you sad excuse for a thick 13-year old.

5. David, insofar as I understand the basis of your complaint against the University of Warwick, it is your contention that, in denying you entry to the meeting, you were subjected to direct discrimination on grounds of your protected characteristics, as defined by Equalities Act (2010).

   The judgment of the Employment Tribunal in the Fraser case is of direct relevance to the adjudication of your complaint as it established an important legal precedent in relation to claims of direct discrimination on those grounds.

   If you haven’t read the judgment in its entirety, then I would encourage you to do so:

   https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/eemployment-trib-fraser-v-uni-college-union-judgment.pdf

   1. David, you must admit Josh has a point. If you intend to go to public meetings in the future you may want to arrive with your ticket, your entry fee and several expert lawyers armed with relevant tomes of legislation and case law precedent like any normal attendee. Good advice as Josh does talk like someone in the second year of a polytechnic law degree so best not argue.

      1. Ian when you have the balls to do what David does you will accrue the right to encourage him down dangerous paths.

         1. Nah, not for me that Bellers. I’m more the little timid bloke standing behind the big bloke going ” yeah…. what he said..” and then legging it when it all goes tits up.

            1. I couldn’t have expressed that better me umble self

   2. An interesting parallel here is that it was the evidence of Newmark in denied entry to a UCU AGM , where he had no right to be, was an application of a ” pushy Jew “stereotype, that caused the Tribunal to describe him as ” preposterous”.

      That was before they even got round to arrogant, liar, , or a worrying disregard for plurality and diversity.

Comments are closed.