All posts by Stephen Bellamy

s

Liars, Damned Liars and Preposterous Liars

At one point in the AL Jazeera doc ,” The Lobby”, Jackie Walker mentioned that Jeremy Newmark, at a meeting, had whispered into her ear that she was a ” Court Jew “. An expression equivalent to ” House Nigger”.

Newmark has subsequently stated that this didn’t happen.

Now he can’t be saying Jackie is mistaken. It is a very definite and distinctive expression. Hardly mistakeable for some other.

So he is saying that Jackie just made it up. She is lying.

Well for sure somebody is.  And when somebody says ” black ” and another says ” no, white”, and there is no water tight evidence deciding the issue, we are left with a balance of probabilities. Here the balance is overwhelming and compelling.

The proven character of the disputants is always a reasonable place to start.

Many things have been said about Jackie Walker, in attempts to damage her. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever before accused her of seeking to damage another by simply saying made up stuff about them.  And accusing someone of saying what she says Newmark said, if untrue, would be despicable to say the least. I think we can safely say that such a thing is so wildly out of character as to be implausible in the extreme. Even her most determined declared protagonists would struggle with this one.

There are also, of course, at least two witnesses to the occurrence, though they will undoubtedly be dismissed as partisan. These would have to be also dismissed as shameless liars too.

Then of course we have the protagonist in the blue corner, Jeremy Newmark.

Newmark is a former CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council. He is now the the Chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement. The JLM is an extension of the uber racist Israeli Labour Party, whose leader’s declared worst nightmare is that one day  a Muslim might be PM  of Israel. The JLM , then dormant, was hurriedly resurrected as part of the triggering of the Zionist nuclear option against the Labour Party, in particular, and the ” left” in general.  The ineffectual Chair, Louise Ellman, who seems to have trouble figuring out what day it is, was elbowed aside by Newmark who then promptly installed himself in her place.

To a racist like Newmark, a black Jew and a ” Court Jew” probably amounts to much the same thing.

The case could probably be rested here but we may as well dot the I’s and cross the T’s.

Newmark has a long track record of being in the van of plots to smear pro Palestinian organisations and people with the charge of antisemitism. He is particularly associated with the Fraser v UCU  fiasco, forever to be affectionately known as the FUCU  case.

This was an attempt to have a TRADE UNION wrongly branded as institutionally antisemitic, and to bust the Union via the incurring of unliveable with legal costs.

Now, virtually the entire sum of the establishment Zionist organisations were involved in this plot, including the BoD, the JLC and the CST. But Newmark was the instigator and the coordinator.

In the event the whole case was contemptuously dismissed by the Tribunal as “ an impermissable attempt to achieve  a political objective by litigious means “. Eventually the Union recovered £600,000 in costs, an indication of how mendacious the charge was.

More pertinently, for the issue at hand, Newmark gave lengthy evidence, preening himself throughout. The Tribunal judgment declared him to be an ” arrogant and preposterous liar” with a ” worrying disregard for plurality and diversity.”

His evidence was declared to be ” untrue as other more truthful witnesses for the plaintiff testified”

Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust, declared the Judge and fellow members of the Tribunal to be “ sneering bastards”

So there you are and there we have it. We have competing claims to veracity. You choose.

The man who would, and does, run the Labour Party, and who, you can be sure, won’t be suspended.

Image result for jeremy newmark

Sadiq Khan, A Man For All Seasons

” I’ve said it loudly, I have said it clearly, and I’ll say it again. I’m not going to get involved in the leadership contest.”

Why did Khan change his mind on this?

Because Gerald Ronson told him to.

Thus  Khan has revealed his shameless, self serving duplicity for all to see.

The reality is that Khan has only one concern, and that is Sadiq Khan.

In October last Geoffrey Alderman devoted his then regular weekly Jewish Chronicle column to Khan. It was entitled  ” Khan: A friend and a boycotter”

Alderman started by saying that he is Party apolitical, and has never advocated voting FOR a particular person or organisation. He has, however, sometimes  advocated voting AGAINST someone or some organisation and that is what he proposes to do on this occasion. The person he had in mind was none other than Sadiq, and the context was the coming Mayoral election.

Jews shouldn’t vote for Khan because……

In January 2009, Kahn was listed as a speaker at an event in Tooting (hosted by Wandsworth Stop The War Coalition, of which Jeremy Corbyn was a co-founder) that had as its purpose the denunciation of Israeli policy towards Gaza.”

The following month ,” according to a local Tooting newspaper, Khan was a speaker at another demonstration, a march and rally called in support of Palestinian suffering in Gaza. A spokesman for Wandsworth STWC, interviewed by the same local newspaper about the same event, announced that the objects of the campaign were “to lift the economic blockade by Israel, open check points to allow aid, and revoke export arms licenses to Israel. We’re also boycotting Israeli goods.

Worst of all ( apparently ) ” speakers are reported to have included that well-known friend of the Jews the Reverend Stephen Sizer.”

The Jewish Chronicle itself later continued the theme.

Sadiq Khan regularly lobbied for sanctions against Israel when his party was in government, despite using his London mayoral campaign to claim he had consistently opposed such moves.”

” A message sent from his then Parliamentary office manager to a meeting of the Stop the War Coalition in Wandsworth revealed the efforts the Tooting MP had made to challenge Israel.”

The letter, sent around the time of Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza, explained that Mr Khan had “regularly” been in contact with then Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Middle East Minister Bill Rammell, as well as Foreign Office officials.”

” The office manager added: He also wrote to David Miliband… asking that sanctions be brought against Israel.”

” The message to the hard-left group ( SWC ) added: “Sadiq’s commitment to the situation in Palestine is longstanding and will, I can assure you, continue into the future.”

A fortnight ago Sadiq was a principal speaker at the launch of the Labour Friends of Palestine group, which has been set up to help to ensure the Palestinian voice is represented amongst MPs and the Labour party.”

You would think it was a long hard road from principal speaker at a Labour Friends of Palestine launch to guest of honour at CST  dinners, wearing a kippah and drinking a toast to The State of Israel. I  would too. But for Sadiq, it seems , it was easy peasy lemon squeasy.

A spokesman for the post Mayoral candidate Sadiq tells us “ Sadiq’s position on boycotts, sanctions, and divestment of Israel could not be more clear: he completely opposes them.”

So here we have Sadiq being clear again.

Alderman finishes his JC  piece by telling us that it is possible for Khan to turn over a new leaf and….

“As he does so he should reflect on the fact that at the 2012 mayoral contest one polling organisation quizzed a sample of London voters generally over a wide range of issues, including “the poor relationship between Ken Livingstone and the Jewish community.” Of those respondents who declared themselves first-preference Boris Johnson supporters some 40 per cent specifically identified Livingstone’s attitude to Jews as either a “very important” or a “quite important” factor in propelling them to vote for his Conservative opponent.”

Then the final chilling threat…

 Worth thinking about, Mr Khan, isn’t it?”

As it happens Mr Khan was ahead of Geoffers on this one.  He had either worked it out for himself or, more likely, as a result of being the recipient of some ” quiet words “, and some friendly advice pertaining to where his best interests are located.

He had told the Jewish News that they could be assured that he wouldn’t be another Ken Livingstone. This in an article that effectively declared Livingstone to be a racist and which assured us that he would have zero tolerance. Zero tolerance in this context means they could rely on him to keep discourse about Israel in London within bounds that they would find acceptable, and that the police would be made to understand this too.

In a sense Khan has been smarter than Corbyn and his advisers on this. He at least seems to have understood that these people cannot be appeased, that it was a zero sum game. Corbyn should have not given this problem with Jews in the Labour Party bullshit any hint of house room whatsoever, and let them huff and puff and blow themselves out. Instead he fed them little bits hoping they would be satisfied not seeming to understand that what he was giving them was danegeld. And so we are in the totally insane situation we are in today.

Khan judged his political requirements were such that his best option was to hand them everything all at once.  Basically he has said just tell me what to say and do. And of course, they are not shy about doing just that. So he trumpets the Labour Party problem with Jews stuff. He declares it to be a badge of shame.  He declares that the NEC  should get training on antisemitism. No prizes for guessing who he thinks should do this training. He goes to CST dinners. He has taken to wearing a Kippah. He drinks toasts to The State of Israel. To the best of my knowledge he does not drink toasts to any other country.

Basically he has adopted the entire shebang.

On October 8th Khan explained to the Jewish Chronicle why he ” changed his mind about boycotts”

So Khan now has three stories running in parallel.

He supports boycotts.

He has always consistently opposed boycotts.

He did support boycotts but has now changed his mind.

The Jewish Chronicle just has to be the most scurrilous, racist rag published in this country. And this is a good example of their style. Its racist editor, Pollard, doesn’t quit even when he has won. Khan is theirs. He can’t bend over any further. But still it goes on.

Reading this article almost made me feel sorry for him. I said almost. He ducks and weaves and squirms. But the gist is he came to realise that he could no longer support boycotts on evidential grounds. The evidence is that boycotts do not help the cause of ” peace “. Pax Israeliana that is.

Khan is closely supervised by the Community Security Trust.( CST ). The CST plays a highly specialised role in the Israeli Hasbara effort in this country. Levels of antisemitism in the UK are hopelessly too low for the purposes of the political agenda. The CST’s role is to raise PERCEPTIONS of it as high as possible. It does this very effectively.  It is an enterprise of that galactico of fraudsters, Gerald Ronson. Khan now describes Ronson as a “ good friend“.

It would be interesting to know how much Ronson gave to fund Khan’s mayoral campaign.

We do know that the Zio nut job, Michael Foster, was a significant contributor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Jewish way of giving ?

Food poverty in this country is on a scale that no nation with pretensions of being civilised should tolerate.

More than 8 million people in Britain live in households that struggle to put enough food on the table, with over half regularly going a whole day without eating, according to estimates of hunger in the UK.

One in 10 adults suffered moderate levels of food insecurity in 2014, placing the UK in the bottom half of European countries on hunger measures, below Hungary, Estonia, Slovakia and Malta.

In this situation food banks are a lifeline, literally, for a large and inexorably increasing number of people. While they are a welcome emergency reaction, the reliance on them seems to have become an acceptable norm.

This time of year, typified by displays of ostentatious plenty, is particularly hard for the hungry and homeless to bear and particularly painful for the rest of us to observe. Fortunately it is somewhat matched by a big spike in direct charitabe aid.

The response of the London Muslim community this year has been stupendous. Led by the East London Mosque, Muslim Aid and  together with their Christian neighbours and allies, the community has collected a jaw dropping ten tonnes of food to be donated to the charity, Crisis. Ten tonnes and still counting.

Shaykh Abdul Qayum said the drive was inspired by their faith. ”  It is a religious duty for Muslims to try to help others, irrespective of a person’s faith or background.”

Rev Ben Bradley said it was a great example of faiths working together.

muslim-aid-52.jpg
Bernadette Hegarty of St Pauls, Bow Common Church helps Muslim Aid volunteers
muslim-aid-04.jpg

All of this is simple selflessness. No self aggrandisement, no political points

What has the Jewish community been up to all the while ?

Well it depends where you look. If you look at the community’s self appointed, self styled ” leaders”, and their nut job ” grass roots” allies,  the contrast, unfortunately, could not be starker.

They  looked at the the hunger all around them and thought ” there must be something in this for Israel.” It was but a short step from here to ISRACTION DAY !!!!!!!!!

Israction day is not just the worst pun in the history of the world, it is now, apparently, the Jewish way of giving.

The idea was dreamed up by Simon Cobbs. Then it was enthusiastically  taken up by other  grass rooters and then formally adopted by the  ” leadership” establishment.

The idea is that it would be a wonderful piece of Hasbara if Israel fed a few desperados for a couple of days. It works like this. You buy up Israeli foodstuffs, mostly in Manchester, but a few little bits elsewhere. You put together what  you have managed to buy, add in what Simon Cobbs and Anthony Dennison have managed to shop lift, and you give it to some food bank or other. The point being that the hungry  would come to see that if it wasn’t for Israel and its fans they wouldn’t be eating. Also, following an intense orgy of self promotion, the rest of us would come to see this too.

I immediately spotted a structural weakness in this idea but to my amazement the grass rooters were one step ahead of me on this point. The problem was that hunting down Israeli stuff in supermarkets would be hard work and many grass rooters would not be up to the job. A lot of people could starve to death while earnest young Zionists  scurried around  desperately trying to find some Israeli camomile tea.This was deftly dealt with by expanding the options to kosher food, So not only do the hungry not get to eat until they have taken on board the political point, they don’t get to eat without going along with Jewish religious  observances. Pass the sick bag Alice.

All of this prompted one horrified  observer to ask….

Is this now the Jewish way of giving ?”

 

The impetus came from two scurrilous” grass root” orgs. Sussex Friends of Israel and North West Friends of Israel.

SFI consists of a couple of Jews, a fake Jew, and a  few Christian Zionists with glazed over eyes. Its mouthpieces are Simon Cobbs and Fiona Sharpe. Simon is a pretend Jew and a notorious fraudster, who has had the pleasure of being the guest of her Majesty in  Exeter Slammer, in consequence of the said frauds. Fiona’s  main claim to fame is for bearing false witness and perjuring herself in a court case involving a pro Palestinian demonstrator.

You can read all about SFI here.

http://wp.me/P5W2a1-6J

NWFOI are a much more substantial organisation, but scarcely  more edifying. They are mostly famous for their close association with the Muslim hating/baiting English Defence League. They usually are spoken for by their Chair, Anthony Dennison, another fraudster and struck off solicitor.

You can read all about NWFOI

http://wp.me/P5W2a1-6M

Not everyone in the Jewish Community is enamoured with this Jewish way of giving of course. Gabriel Webber says………

But what makes IsrACTIONday a disaster is this: it treats the poor as pawns. The project organisers are using the poor, placing them in intolerable political positions that have nothing to do with them and taking away their dignity and independence, all for their own political ends.

In Hebrew, the word for ‘poor’ and the word for ‘oppressed’ are the same. Maimonides made it a task of all righteous Jews to work towards ending this link. Those supporting IsrACTIONday are cementing it.

If they cared even a little about the poor, rather than about their own machinations with BDS, they would not be forcing food banks to expend time and social capital on dealing with this controversy. They would not be using the controversy to score points, and they would not be disingenuously accusing their Jewish critics – including me, no doubt – of being both anti-Israel and anti-charity. The organisers are the anti-charity ones, for faux charity is no charity at all.”

Richard Mather is the editor of the Jewism Media Agency. He says ….

I am a passionate Zionist but the reason I took exception to this campaign is because it is quite obviously a publicity stunt –  a cynical gesture designed to raise the profile of certain grassroots Israel advocacy groups.

If the Jewish community wants to help the homeless, then it should do so without fuss. Homelessness and food poverty are serious issues. But Sussex Friends of Israel and Northwest Friends of Israel have hijacked these problems for their own self-promoting ends.

And that’s the reason why the I didn’t cover the story.”

NWFOI tried to bully the Zionist human rights lawyer Adam Wagner into supporting  Israction day but were brushed off with, “ I couldn’t support anything that is to do with an organisation as reactionary as yours.”

The main Jewish organisations, the self styled, self appointed leaders, what we might call the Jewish hard right, are all for the wheeze of course. As are the twin pillars of the Jewish gutter Press, the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News. In fact the Board of Deputies and their much more powerful rivals, the Jewish Leadership Counci, both heavily fund SFI and NWFOI. The glitterati of these orgs and similar are falling over  themselves to make video cameos supporting the abomination.

Interestingly, your favourite socialist and mine, Jeremy Newmark, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and erstwhile CEO of the JLC, confesses to having organised the funding  of Israction day itself.

Here is BoD President Jonny Arkush with his little basket of ( allegedly ) Israeli foodstuffs.

Image may contain: 1 person

For those of you with the stomach for it  here is the gut wrenching thing in full

The sheer sickness of it all is easily illustrated. Faced with two products. An Israeli one and another almost identical and at least as nutritious but half the price, they would buy the Israeli one. Despite this being only half as efficient in an opportunity cost sense in feeding the hungry.

Time for Jewish Students to Grow Up?

I don’t know many Jewish students but have always assumed they are, like the general population, a rag tag mixed bunch.

There are those that tell us,ad nauseam, otherwise. They do, apparently, all get offended by the same things at the same time. Which is a very antisemitic attitude. This being the case therefore, they can be spoken for, by any organisation that pushes itself forward with ” Jewish” in its name. The brand leader here is Union of Jewish Students.

The current UJS  President is Josh Seitler. If Josh is as representative of Jewish students as he would have us believe, it must be said that, on the strength of his recent article in Huff Post,  it is high time Jewish students did some growing up.

The article, brimful of narcissism and whining self pity, was a hopelessly transparent and inept attempt to blackmail the NUS and bully its President, Malia Bouattia. Part of, it must be said, a coordinated campaign. Witness Izzy Lenga’s latest histrionics.

The UJS is not a fan of Malia. There is a motion before the upcoming UJS  conference to the effect that UJS should cut ties with the NUS. Josh tells us that if Malia does not do this, that, and the other, he wouldn’t be surprised if the motion was carried.

What he requires is a series of ” proper” apologies from Malia, chiefly as follows……

Malia apparently referred to the University of Birmingham as ” a Zionist outpost”.  This is probably enough to establish that she is not a big fan of Zionism.

The Hasbara machine of course represents this as her saying that  there are too many Jews at Birmingham University. A representation that Josh seems to go along with. In any event , he wants a proper apology, or else.

Zionism, of course, is a basket of political ideologies, that have in common advocacy of the settlement of Jews in what we might call the Holy Land, and might just as easily call the Holey Land. In practice, the active ingredient here, is support for, and apology for, the modern State of Israel and all its numerous racist iniquities.

Malia clearly regards Zionists as political opponents, in much the same way as she probably regards Tories as political opponents. Lamenting the strength of political opponents in a particular location is surely perfectly legitimate. If she had said it was a Tory outpost or a Trot outpost nobody would be whining and crying.

Ah but Josh says, this is different. Disparaging Zionism is an assault on our very identity.  Most Jews are Zionist so attacking Zionism is an attack on this  identity. An affection for Israel is a kind of  protected characteristic . As such Zionism should be exempt from the rough and tumble of political debate and exchange. A political leaning that, uniquely, must not be opposed.

Err no.

As the Zionist barrister Jonathan Goldberg pointed out in the context of the FUCU case, “you might just as well say that supporting Tottenham Hotspur is a protected characteristic because a lot of Jews do.”

The claim is that ludicrous.

Josh presumably would have it that Malia couldn’t say anything pejorative about Spurs.

Bad news for Arsenal fans.

Nobody is born a Zionist, just as nobody is born a communist. Being a Zionist is a contingent state of affairs. But Jewish students are, as is everyone,  free to define themselves however they want. It is nobody’s business but theirs. There is no requirement for the rest of us to bother our heads with it. We can if we want, we can not if we don’t want.It is no business of mine, or of yours, or of the NUS  or of Malia Bouattia.

Let us make an important distinction that seems to me is rarely made. There is a difference between opposition to Zionism and the expression thereof, and abusive behaviour towards Jewish students that makes their participation difficult. There is no requirement for someone to tone down their anti Zionism because Jewish students might be offended by it. There  is a requirement to respect their right to be where they are and to speak as they may, without, with justification, feeling intimidated and bullied, on a personal level.

There is some of this bullying going on. Not nearly as much as the Zionist machine would have us believe. Israel apologists do have a great propensity for melodrama and exaggeration. Don’t they Ruth? Izzy ?  However much there is, is that much too much, and there must be an unequivocal attitude of no pasaran in respect of it.

The UJS tell us that…….

” Jewish Students should have the support and space to explore their connection to and relationship with Israel.”

I can’t quite understand what they mean by ” support”. I can’t see that there is a requirement that someone actively support someone else’s explorations. They can of course, do so if they wish.

Space ?

If they mean University political forums and Campus space, they hopefully understand that these will be shared spaces, not given over exclusively to their explorations. If anyone gets distressed having to share a space with political views different to their own, maybe a university is not the right place for them.

There is NOTHING you can say about the State of Israel that is antisemitic. Just as there is nothing you can say about The Russian Federation that is anti Slav racism.There may be a very few of you whose strident views on Israel are motivated by antisemitism. If you are one of those very few, please feel free to burn in hell. The rest of you must hold fast to your right to speak as you feel inclined to within the law. And to speak as vigorously as you want.

If,  like me, you think The State of Israel is a crappy , racist, kleptomaniacal basket case, then there is no requirement on you not to say so. You will get the antisemitism charge hurled at you but, that, I am afraid, is a little shiralee you will have to bear. Civil liberties, including freedom of expression within the law , were hard won but can be very easily lost. Its very much a case of use it or lose it. Understand that the present tsunami of Zionist McCarthyism is the most intense and coordinated assault on civil liberties in this country that we have witnessed in modern ” normal” times. The universities are very much on the front line.

If you are feeling generous and accused of antisemitism, you could ask for evidence of any hatred of Jews or a wish to discriminate against Jews or a wish to persecute  Jews. You could but it will be a waste of time.

Personally I have always found a simple  ” fuck off ”  works best. But that is just me.

I have one advisory. Do you really want to use Nazi analogies in discourse about Israel ? It doesn’t make you antisemitic, but it makes you silly and highly counterproductive. What is the point in saying things that the least informed Jack and Jill on the street intuitively knows not to be true ? Just an advisory. Its your call.

MALIA HAS NOTHING TO APOLOGISE FOR HERE.

The hapless Josh goes on to demand Malia apologise for “ not acknowledging that only Jewish students can define antisemitism”.

I really ought not to have to say anything more about this  absurdity. You all should be laughing your heads off as you read it. I fear that is not the case. So………

Antisemitism is an established expression in the English language that has a perfectly well understood meaning. It means hatred of Jews, discrimination against Jews, persecution of Jews or some combination thereof.

The meanings of words and expressions are not established by stipulation,  They are not established by bums on chairs around a table. A parliamentary Committee table, say, or a table at UJS HQ.

Jewish students  have no more status than anyone else when it comes to the meanings of words and expressions in the English language. Meanings are established by observation of the sum force of the uses of the expression, by the speakers of the language. In the case of English 1.5 billion of them.These meanings can be found in any good dictionary.

Not only is this a ludicrous and narcissistic attempt at linguistic fascism, an attempt to disenfranchise the English speaking world, but is also indicative of a certain kind of megalomania.

Further ” a word means what I mean by it ” was one of the surer signs that Humpty Dumpty was nuts.

The UJS  risk landing themselves with one hell of a logistical problem.  Having stipulated a change in the meaning of “antisemitism,” how do they propose informing the 1.5 billion speakers of the language that it no longer means what they thought it meant. The biggest mass mail out in the history of the world ? Or do they plan not to bother and just leave the rest of us in ignorance?

However if Jewish students want to be the sole arbiters of the meaning of antisemitism because they are the potential victims , then they would presumably accept that only the Palestinians can define Zionism.

NOTHING FOR MALIA TO APOLOGISE FOR HERE

An increasingly over excited Josh then demands Malia apologise for her non acceptance of the mythical EUMC working definition of antisemitism.

Well he seems to be getting himself in a bit of a tizz here. Having told us that only Jewish students can define antisemitism, he now tells us that agencies of the European Union can define antisemitism. It is unlikely that all the members of EU agencies are Jewish students at UK universities.

The unkind ones among you might say Josh seems a bit dim. I couldn’t possibly comment.

But anyway, since there is no such thing as a EUMC definition of antisemitism and there never has been such a thing as a EUMC definition of antisemitism, it seems a bit cruel of Josh to require that Malia accept such a non thing.

For how this EUMC myth came to be see here

http://wp.me/p5W2a1-Cw

If you can’t be bothered, the active ingredient is …..

From the FRA, the new name of the EUMC

” We are not aware of any official definition of antisemitism.”

” We have never viewed the document as a valid definition of antisemitism”.

” The document has been pulled along with other NON OFFICIAL documents”.

” The Agency does not need to develop its own definition of antisemitism in order to research these issues” .

” The Agency has no mandate to develop its own definitions.”.

An FRA press officer went on to explain to the BBC Trust that the definition was ” never adopted by the European Union.”

The European Commission Directorate emphasised ” Neither the Commission nor the European Union have an established definition of antisemitism and there is no policy to create one.”

NOTHING FOR MALIA TO APOLOGISE FOR HERE

If the UJS  does vote to bite off its nose to spite its face, take its bat home, lower lips a trembling,it is hard to see how it hurts NUS. The only sane response would be to wish them luck as you wave them goodbye.

The Methodist Church. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.

The only surprise about the racist behaviour of the Methodist Church in Norwich is that anyone is surprised. It is a Church that has, in recent years, foregone any pretence of self respect.

The  Church is wholly owned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in tandem with its extension, the Council of ( alleged ) Christians and Jews. To understand how this control was achieved it is necessary to understand the role of the CCJ.

The BoD is nothing other than an extension of the Israeli Embassy, as its erstwhile treasurer, Lawrence Brass, ruefully acknowledged, and the CCJ  functions as its attack dog in its dealings with the Churches.It  is an unholy alliance of Jewish ultra Zionist Zealots and Christian Zionist rabids. Among the local branches you will find plenty of people of goodwill and integrity that genuinely work at maintaining good relations between Christians and Jews in the localities. This is not an onerous task. Relations are unproblematical in any event.

At the top, however, it is rotten to the core and has been for a good while.

Jane Clements, who became CCJ director in 2014, has made a valiant effort to clean it up, with a little success, but not a lot. She has had to admit defeat , however, and is moving on. She has been  replaced by Elizabeth Harris – Sawczenko. Elizabeth, came to the CCJ   effectively on secondment from the Board of Deputies.

So the  CCJ is back firmly in the control of its dominant Trustee, Michael ” something of the night ” Howard and his nut job messianic son, Nick

CCJ’S Programme manager is Rob Thompson. Along with his dad, Bruce, Rob was largely responsible for stitching up the 2013 annual Methodist conference in the service of the Board of Deputies and the 2014 resolution imposing a ban on any mention of Israel at conference.

The CCJ  Branch Liason officer is Joy Barrow, another Methodist ultra Christian Zionist.

Given this state of affairs, the denial of the presence of Jackie Walker on the premises of an allegedly Christian Church, was entirely predictable.

In its web site gloat the BoD  thanks ” everyone involved for their help and cooperation “. They mean the CCJ and what we might call, ” Methodist Central.”

Jackie Walker never had a snowball in hell’s chance of speaking in a Methodist Church.

The hounding and persecution of Jackie Walker, which is far more virulent than in the cases of others they have identified as ” miscreants “, has clear and unmistakeable racist undercurrents. The BoD, CST , JLC, et al distinguish between good Jews and bad Jews. Jackie Walker is very much the wrong kind of Jew, on at least two major counts. She is non Zionist and she is black.

That the Methodist Church would stoop to indulging and participating in this kind of racism, is, as I have said, no surprise to me. It is nonetheless very, very sad.

Now many people are going to be saying that my claim that the BoD/CCJ own the Methodist Church is a hyperbolic, antisemitic conspiracy theory. Not that I care. I just consider the source.

The  detailed account of how this owning came to be can be seen here……

https://hurryupharriet.wordpress.com/howtheboardofdeputiessecuriedavetoontheologicaldebateinthemethodistchurch/

And here…….

https://hurryupharriet.wordpress.com/how-the-2013-methodist-conference-was-ambushed/

The process was completed at the 2014 conference . Here the Methodist leadership, now completely in the pocket of Jonathan Arkush, managed to get a resolution passed that put a three year moratorium on any resolution being presented that mentioned Israel. One veteran commented that he had been coming to conference for many years and this was the first time he had known conference forbid itself from discussing a particular subject.

You can be certain this moratorium will be extended in 2017.

The Board made great use of the facts that Jackie has been suspended by the Labour Party   and  removed as vice chair of the Momentum steering committee. To a hopelessly uninformed Norwich Pastor all this must have seemed very damning, and as a free pass for them to exclude her too. So those that facilitated those moves bear a big responsibility. I am not talking about McNicol, Angell and such. They are beyond the pale.

I have in mind those on the ” left ” that facilitated these moves and those, like the narcissistic young fogey an, ego leftist and video star, Owen Jones, that remained silent in the face of them. Jones, Lansman, the AWL faux socialists on the Momentum steering committee, Christine Shawcroft, and others, would do well to sit down and have a good think about what they have done.

That twin pillar of the Jewish gutter press, the Jewish Chronicle, thinks all of this is a great wheeze.The  little Pollard clone, Marcus Dysch, congratulated the Methodists for ” heaving”  Jackie out of their church. Obviously Marcus has no concept of what a church is  ( or is meant to be) and what a church is for. I don’t know enough about Jewish practice and religious organisation to know if heaving people out is what happens at synagogues. But a Church of Jesus Christ is meant to be universally inclusive and is meant to be dragging people in, not heaving them out.

The JC then gleefully headlined that the ” Methodists had closed their Church door on Jackie Walker”.

This kind of sickening ungodly  behaviour from the JC is par for the particular course and is no tragedy. The tragedy is that the Methodists themselves share the attitude.

The heading on the Chapel Field Road  Methodist Church website……

Everyone is welcome here”.

If only.

Two Jewish Zionist barristers, Jeremy Newmark and John Mann

FIRST UP

Human rights lawyer Adam Wagner

Adam (@adamwagner1) is a barrister specialising in human rights & medical law. He is founding editor of UK Human Rights Blog….”
5th April, 2013

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 Goldbergcommented. 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 Jewish Chronicle 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.

POST SCRIPT

Newmark, this shameless perjurer, preposterous arrogant liar, with a worrying disregard for diversity and plurality, and would be Union Buster, is now the most powerful man in the Labour Party. He works closely with McNicol implementing the purge of Corbyn supporter,  with Jon Lansman and the ego leftist Owen Jones.

Can we really continue to tolerate this situation ?

NEXT UP

Jonathan Goldberg QC

Why the Ronnie Fraser case against the UCU was a legal and public relations disaster
By Jonathan Goldberg, April 22, 2013

Rebecca from Finchley writes: I was furious to read your comment last week that bringing the Ronnie Fraser harassment case against the University College Union was “an act of epic folly”. Surely it was high time the Anglo-Jewish community stood up for its rights, win or lose?

Rebecca, I am unrepentant in my view that bringing the Ronnie Fraser litigation was a legal and public relations disaster. All those concerned should first have reminded themselves of the rabbinical saying that “All Israel is accountable one for the other.”

It was misconceived in law, wasted a fortune in legal costs (rumoured in legal circles to be over £500,000) but worst of all showed no Jewish seichel or streetsmarts whatsoever.

You only litigate such hotly contentious matters if you are being dragged to court as the defendant and thus have no choice, or if, as claimant, you are sure to win. This case sent out the worst possible message to our many hate-filled enemies, namely that rich Jews threw huge resources at a failed attempt to stifle free speech. The result was entirely predictable and had been anticipated by several wise legal heads.

Those who now react to this defeat with sour grapes should more carefully study the judgment, which even an old warhorse like me had to read three times for all the nuances. Seehttp://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/fraser-uni-college-unio….

From a lawyer’s point of view, it is impeccably written and all too compelling. I cannot see any viable appeal arising from it and I would predict further damage and ignominious failure if such were attempted.

I do not accept that the court was antisemitic, as Dr David Hirsh and others have insinuated. Should Jews now be whiners who cannot admit we fought the wrong battle and miscalculated badly?

Do those who so rashly suggest on such shaky foundations that an English court was antisemitic have any conception of the damage they are doing to our community thereby?

Of the 10 factual complaints brought by Mr Fraser against the union, all but one were found to be unmeritorious after an exhaustive 20-day evidential investigation, with detailed reasons being given as to why the court rejected them. And even that one was brought out of time.

A main premise underpinning the claim — that the union was responsible in law for anti-Israel views promulgated by individual members in its annual congresses and in-house internet chatroom — was held wrong in law. Nor was that by any means the only error of law.

The underlying notion that a commitment to Zionism should be a “protected characteristic” in English employment law was in my view almost as fanciful as suggesting that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic, because so many Jews do so.

Who is qualified to say, unless they sat through the 20 days of evidence, that the particular criticisms made of the evidence of Jeremy Newmark and two MPs were not reasonable. And just as important, why did Mr Newmark and the others ever voluntarily place themselves in a position to be so criticised in support of a claim brought on such dubious legal foundations?

And why should the court be criticised, as so many have done in this newspaper, for saying “a belief in the Zionist project, or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment, cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief.”

The critics have chosen to take five words out of context from this much longer passage in order to condemn the court for allegedly not recognising the attachment between the Jewish religion and Israel.

In context, the court was saying no more than that an attachment to the modern State of Israel (“modern” is important here) is not intrinsic to Jewishness. And that is surely correct.

I yield to nobody in my love for Israel and my support for Zionism. But who can ignore the stark fact that many fellow Jews, including, for example, certain Israeli academics and at least one sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews, are among Israel’s most rabid detractors, whereas many gentiles are fervent Zionists (Lord bless them).

Why was not a fraction of these legal resources used instead to bring a private prosecution against those activists who disrupted the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra or the Batsheva Dance Company?

Such cases would almost certainly have succeeded. Having recently attended the stellar AIPAC conference in Washington, Rebecca, I have to say this debacle would never have happened in America.

Unlike in the UK, communal organisations there are not constantly jockeying with one another for power and prestige.

POST SCRIPT B

The Union had run up costs of close on £600,000 defending itself. Ordinarily costs are not recoverable in Tribunal cases, unless the claim is held to be frivolous and/or  mendacious.

The Union was advised that an application in this case would succeed and so an application was made. Judge Snelson recused himself from hearing the application.Unfortunately it was soon clear that the replacement judge was much of the same mind as Judge Snelson and the Zionist orgs caved in. We do not know who stumped up the 600K,  but you can be sure it wasn’t Ronnie Fraser.

The great purge of 2016

Image result for tom watson

 

Image result for Iain McNicol

If the whole Corbyn thing ended tomorrow, we have at least learned the full scale and extent of the corruption in the governance and administration of the Labour Party. It is always good to have no illusions about what you are dealing with. It has been laid out before us with unambiguous clarity.

The NEC, in the iron grip of the appalling Tom Watson, and his no less appalling side kick Ian McNicol, reveals itself as a kind of Stalinist Politburo with not even a passing interest in  notions such as democracy, or natural justice. In McNicol, it has to be said, there is something of the night. For his part Watson is not a fan of LP members. He regards them as nothing more than a fucking nuisance. He regards the Party as a sheltered workplace where he can live out the lucrative managerial lifestyle he loves.

Expense fiddler extraordinaire  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5429883/MPs-expenses-Tom-Watson-to-resign-from-Government.html

And where he can get his mammoth ego perennially stroked. He is terrified of transformative change.

I have no intention of attempting a detailed account of what is currently happening. This will be done by others, better equipped and better placed than me. I merely seek here to give my impressions of the principles that seem to be the framework of  the present Stalin style purges. The full story will eventually be told and it will be gruesome.

 What astonishes me is not the level of the corruption but the cheerful brazenness of it. All pretence has been dropped. There is no attempt at fobbing us off with plausible lies. No longer any pretence that what is happening is anything other than a purge of as many people as possible that they have reason to think might be tempted to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. They know that it is widely understood that Corbyn would romp home in anything remotely resembling a properly run election. They equally well know that if Smith were to win, or even get close, the whole world will be fully aware of why and how.

They don’t care.

They know there will be consequences but are embarked on a zero sum game. All that is important is that as many people as possible are prevented from voting for Corbyn. Any back lash is something to worry about afterwards. Doubtless, in their arrogance, they are confident that they can handle it. Watson, in particular, seems to think he is untouchable and unimpeachable. He could be right and he could be wrong. Suffice it to say, mightier than he have been known to fall..

Thanks to the execrable Johanna Baxter we know the outline of how the purge has been organised. Two groups of three NEC members have been established. They have been charged with trawling social media accounts and with being the gathering points for ” information”. Upon encountering, or being presented with information, the groups of three, ” democratically” decide whether it would be helpful to purge the person in question.

Relevant information, remember, is anything that suggests  you might vote for Corbyn. They are uninterested in you being an already proven crook, that has now been buying Romanian rent boys, procuring illegal drugs, and  then demonstrably been  more interested in the impact on your political neck than the effect on your wife and family. They are more interested in you having expressed pro Corbyn sentiments at a meeting or you having retweeted a tweet by Caroline Lucas several years ago.

Its all about Labour Party Values you see.

Following the discovery or receipt of the right kind of information, one of these twin Committees of Public Safety, sends McNicol a name along with a drawing of a down turned thumb. Murky McNicol then gleefully sends out the now infamous letter.

We aren’t , of course, told who these six are, how they were appointed and by whom. But then you knew this already. We can only assume that they are members of the secretive Stasi like Compliance unit. Except we do know one of them is Johanna Baxter. We know this because she tells us so.

 Saturday night. A big spreadsheet of member/supporter applications for vetting. The glamorous life of an NEC member…

She seems to have had her knuckles rapped over this because she has made no subsequent mention of it. This must have been difficult for someone as narcissistic as Baxter. In any event she seems to be revelling in the ” power “.

They seem to be using a bot software system that trawls social media accounts for key trigger words. Words they have designated as ” abusive.” These words seem to include ” traitor “,  “blairite “, Nazi ” and ” Zionist”. A quick check is made to satisfy the witch hunters that the perpetrator is likely to vote Corbyn and immediate suspension follows. This, of course, is pending an ” investigation”. An investigation that will not take place before the leadership. contest. Ken Livingstone’s investigation has now been pending for  a good while now.  An investigation that should have taken all of ten minutes has not been concluded in five months. Maybe John Chilcot has been put in charge of it. In this case it is more about keeping Livingstone off the NEC.  They are shameless. It is painful to point out that there has been significant complicity on the part of several influential figures on ” the left” in this case. Sit down Owen Jones and Jon Lansman. But that is a story for another day.

Many people have been naive enough to complain that they haven’t received a ballot. This is often because they have been purged and have not yet been told. But it can also trigger the purging. If you complain about not receiving a ballot it draws attention to you and guarantees that you will be checked out for Corbynist sympathies. In a growing number of cases the complainant gets a ballot, votes, and  then, within a very short time  gets a purge letter together with the news that their vote has been discounted. The time gap can be as short as two hours.

All members and supporters are not equal in this respect.  If you dont look like a Corbyn supporter on the available social media evidence, you will be ok. If you are an anti Corbyn MP  you are guaranteed immunity. If you or I called a comrade a Nazi apologist we would be gone in the fluttering of an eye lash.

If you are Rent A Mouth John Mann MP it is just fine.

If you or I gleefully announced that we  told a comrade to fuck off. then likewise ……….

If you are the appalling  gobshite  Jess Philips MP, and you gleefully announced that you told a comrade and fellow MP  to fuck off, it is just fine.

Clearly anti Corbyn MP’s are not expected to conduct themselves to the same high standards expected of mere ordinary members and supporters. Pro Corbyn ordinary members and supporters, that is.

Don’t worry if you have lied your butt off in a Court of Law in an attempt to get a Trade Union wrongly branded as antisemitic. They won’t be fussed about that. On the contrary it will be taken as welcome evidence that you will not be voting for Corbyn. # Jeremy Newmark # notorious perjurer.

Watson and McNicol are not remotely interested in the human impact of their behaviour. It is all just a political game to them and their acolytes. They sell the purge as a legitimate exercise in protecting the Party against infiltration by entryist Trots. Yet a miniscule number, if any at all, of those purged could be described as such. Many are long time members that have given outstanding service to the party, sometimes over decades. Others are excited recent members enthused by Jeremy Corbyn and the prospect of the Party developing a transformative edge. What they invariably have in common is that they represent a vote for Corbyn.

Watson and Murky Mc have  no sense of how their behaviour might impact on their victims lives and those of their families. They don’t care. These people are sick, sick, sick. The people they are despatching are not really people at all. They don’t have feelings and therefore cannot be hurt.

To that extent it is not personal, though to those affected it must feel like it is. The victims are not people they are potential Corbyn votes that have to be eliminated..

Pamela Fitzpatrick  is a Labour councillor in Harrow. In late August she wrote to McNicol asking some questions about the high volume of suspensions that were taking place. On the Sunday of the August bank holiday she noticed an email marked ” supporter applications “. She assumed, perhaps naively, that this was a response from McNicol to her questions. McNicol does not do question answering, he issues edicts. Instead she found that it was a letter announcing her own suspension.

She had, the letter stated, broken a Labour Party rule. This rule related to “ conduct towards other members and at meetings”.

There was, of course no further details. The rule she had in fact broken is the unwritten rule that McNicol is above being questioned.

She is obviously devastated by this treatment. In her own words……

The bank holiday weekend was intended to be one of relaxation with my family and friends. Instead I spent the whole weekend in a state of shock and upset. Not knowing what you are accused of and therefore not being able to defend yourself is something I would not wish on anyone. I have spent most of my whole working life representing clients in what is often described as the Kafkaesque world of social security. Nothing however has been quite as Kafkaesque, as the labour party purge of its own members. The suspension letter gives virtually no detail of the allegation. It also does not give clear information about how to appeal or whether there are any time limits……”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/pamela-fitzpatrick/labour-party-suspensions_b_11855966.html?

Pamela subsequently had her suspension lifted. As did the prominent Trade Union official Ronnie Draper. What these two have in common is that they each were becoming a cause celebre, and potential rallying points. They do seem to be sensitive to this,  as they demonstrated in the case of Jackie Walker. The cost of lifting the suspensions was two more Corbyn votes and they doubtless felt this was not too bad a price.

By way of a parting fuck you gesture, and to leave her in no doubt as to who is in charge, shortly after lifting her suspension, they suspended her son for expressing the blinding  bleeding obvious truth that the  chickencoup MP’s  were more concerned about themselves than the interests of the Party.

Anyone that doubts the impact of the behaviour of Watson and McNicol might take a look at some twitter accounts. If you care enough. e.g.

Claudine Lewis @QuietNotStupid

Catherine Higgins @justmebeingme4

Anna – Rose Phipps @lopcute

Maureen Royce @maureenroyce.

You might then compare these experiences with that of Cllr John Ferrett.

Ferrett is a serially abusive anti Corbyn councillor in Paulsgrove, Portsmouth. When asked why he hasn’t been suspended he is given to replying that he ” has friends in high places.”  Ferrett is a blow hard but there seems to be some truth in this claim. After numerous  complaints from constituents Ferrett was not immediately suspended like thousands of potential Corbyn supporters. Rather, he got invited to meet with the Compliance Unit and was found ” not guilty.”.

Perhaps the most jaw dropping bit of all this is McNicol’s recent letter to the NEC. In it he  gives examples of statements that have resulted in suspensions. Some of them are pretty gruesome, and you certainly wouldn’t want to be in the same party as some of the people concerned. He gives thirty six examples. Thirty six out of the thousands of Corbyn supporters he has purged. Does he think we are all stupid ?

Then there is Michael Foster

Michael Foster

Foster is a Labour Party member and former donor. He is also a simple, uncomplicated  thug. He has always been such and doubtless always will be. His long record of thuggish and abusive behaviour does, however,  seem to be perfectly consistent with the present Labour Party Values.

Foster is extremely rich. Maybe all Labour Party Values are not equal, but they constitute a weighted basket in which Foster’s ” values” carry an overwhelming and conclusive weight.

Foster first came to wider attention after yelling abuse at Jeremy Corbyn at an LFI event.

He then took the Party to court in an attempt to keep Corbyn off the ballot.

He subsequently went on to secure his place in infamy by writing an article for the Daily Mail , no less, explaining why he despised Jeremy Corbyn “and his Nazi stormtroopers”.

A whole book could be written on Foster’s toxic influence in the Labour Party. His main interest in the Party seems to be in its attitude to a foreign power. But the above mentioned article is more than enough for the present purpose.

Foster’s latest self indulgent melt down was big news and obviously came to the immediate notice of the purge team. For them this was awkward. Firstly Foster was obviously not going to vote for Corbyn and there therefore was no reason why his rantings should concern them. But there were also other complications.

Foster is much given to waving his money at the Party apparatchiks. He is forever telling us that his family have given over £400,000 to the Party over the years. He further claims that a third of of the personal donations in the run up to the last GE were from Jewish donors. That would be a figure in excess of £3m. This year they have not donated anything.

Now I don’t know if any of this is true, or if it is, what the implications are. Personally, if Foster told me night followed day I wouldn’t act on it without getting it independently checked out.

Make of it what you will.

Now he seems to be focussing his economic largesse, not on the Party as such, but on individuals he judges to be on the up in the influence stakes. For example, he funded Sadiq Khan’s mayoral campaign, presumably as a reward for Khan’s dramatic U-Turns on matters relating to The State of Israel.

Foster escaped any punitive action for weeks. In the end Foster was suspended.  On reflection, this is probably a smart move. So smart, it is an idea  worthy of Foster himself. It maybe was an idea of Foster himself. The problem was that people being suspended invariably compared their experience with that of Foster. This could be unhelpful in any post election investigation of what has being going on. So the suspending of Foster, was a deflection, a deflection in advance is it were.

Fosters response has been rather strange. There was the initial squeals of seeming outrage. But since then, nothing. Foster is not one to drop an issue. My guess is that before Foster was suspended, he ok’d it and the initial outrage was entirely faux.

After the election of course the Chakrabarti report will be actioned. It can’t be actioned now because the natural justice recommendations would put a brake on the purges. Foster will be back along with most others that continue to make a fuss. It won’t matter because the suspensions have served their purpose and the plan is to move on to disenfranchising the entire membership. Electoral colleges and similar bullshit.

The Party has reaffirmed that it takes  the issue of racism in its ranks very seriously. This is good. Or at least it would be if it meant all forms of racism.

A major clue for McNicol et al as to whether someone is a potential Corbyn voter is whether they have ever referred to the State of Israel in less than eulogistic terms. ” Zionist” is is one of the trigger words.

Given this anti racist resolve you might have wondered how the following remain members and get to vote.

Margaret Becket

Ben Bradshaw

Hazel Blears

Chris Bryant

Dai Havard

Meg Munn

Jim Murphy

John Spellar

Gisela Stuart

Derek Twigg

Lord Dibs

Lord Moonie

Lord Wiseman

Lord West

You will note MP’s , ex MP’s, Peers of the Realm and ex Ministers.

What do they all have in common ? They all sit on the Policy Council of the Muslim baiting/hating Henry Jackson Society. HJS boasts the incorrugible racist Douglas Murray as a director and  was named by Hope Not Hate as one of the organisations responsible for ” dragging Muslim hate into the mainstream”.

http://wp.me/p5W2a1-kf

A couple of recent developments.

First Kristina Veasy

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kristina-veasey/labour-party-member-nec_b_11892426.html

Then the underwhelming ” condemnation” of the whole business from the young fogey Owen Jones who seems to have gone down the pan since he set out to be a video star. He finds it a teeny weeny bit inconsistent and unfair and undemocratic. Jeez Owen that really socked it to em. Talk about being savaged by a dying sheep.