Sauce for the goose and all that….

“Collier has been a member of a 27,000-member Facebook group called ‘International Community’ since 4 August 2016. Antisemitic and Holocaust denial content is posted in that group regularly, alongside Islamophobic material (as well as entirely innocuous pieces). I found numerous examples of hate speech there, none of which appear to have been challenged by Collier during his time in the group.

Debra R Cohen added Collier to the group. As can be seen from the example below (the screengrab with images of Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić), she has expressed genocidally anti-Muslim views in the group.”

Steve Cooke

Advertisements

Jeremy Newmark a One Man Crime Wave

The most hilarious aspect of the Newmark business is all the feigned surprise.It has long been obvious to anyone with ears to hear and a willingness to see, that Newmark is as bent as a wad of £9 notes,  a one man crime wave. Newmark should not be anywhere near the Labour Party, let alone the most powerful man in it and a parliamentary candidate. Newmark’s history has been widely known but the Labour Party have found it politic to ignore it.

Only when his attempt to cheat a Tel Aviv taxi driver became public, and then a leak of the JLC audit, dropped into Pollard’s lap did the denial become untenable. Pollard, after having his dream of leader writing for The Times shattered and being exiled to the North London equivalent of The Bridlington Free Press, has never given up the faint hope of journalistic fame. The prospect of his first ever scoop was irresistable. Fuck community solidarity.

The Labour Party has been fully aware of Newmark’s history of union busting and his part in creating the myth of the Labour Party having a particular problem with antisemitism. But under the malign influence of Jon Lansman, it persistently indulged him. The unwritten part of the Labour Party constitution, a kind of basic law is that Newmark must not be upset lest it fuels the antisemitism myth further.

Newmark and his character, or lack thereof, first came to light via his role in the FUCU  Tribunal case. This was a concerted attempt by the Israel Lobby to bust a Trade Union by crippling it with massive legal expenses and having it branded as institutionally antisemitic. Newmark played a major role in  organising this. It was a complete disaster. The Tribunal found against the Lobby on every ground and called it an impermissable attempt to establish political points by litigious means. In a lengthy scathing judgment the Tribunal described the action as one that should never have been brought.

In the course of the judgment Newmark was described as being…

preposterous

arrogant

a liar

and of having a worrying disregard for plurality and diversity.

Jonathan Goldberg, the ultra Zionist QC described the enterprise as an “epic folly”.

Ordinarily costs are not awarded in Tribunal cases unless actions are deemed to be mendacious and wholly without merit. Since this action clearly was mendacious the Union sought to recover its costs of around £600,000. The Lobby bleated about the trial judge being unfit to hear the application given his scathing attitude to the complainants case. So the judge recused himself. Only when it was obvious that the replacement judge was of much the same mind as the original one did the Lobby fold.

Ronnie Fraser was in no position to cough up this kind of money so the Lobby Grandees passed the hat round. While we don’t know exactly who came up with the money, you can safely bet that among them would be much the same grandees that coughed up to paper over the holes in the JLC  accounts that Newmark’s embezzlements created.

Newmark has long fulfilled the role of the Lobby’s money launderer. It is the practice of the ” respectable ” organisations among those that make up the lobby to create or engage shell organisations to say and do things that the establishment organisations prefer not to be seen saying and doing. So Fair Play Campaign was set up by Newark as a joint JLC / Board of Deputies enterprise. FPC was set up for one purpose and one purpose only. That purpose was to bung money to David Hirsh ( 50k in all ), to help fund his role in the assault on the Universities and Colleges Union.

Newmark set up and arranged the funding for Israel Solidarity Campaign.

The purpose was to fund the abomination called Israction Day, thankfully now dead on its feet. The issue was that at the time the ” respectable” orgs didn’t want to be seen directly shovelling money to the nut jobs of Sussex Friends of Israel and North West Friends of Israel. Newmark sorted that out by setting up ISC and channeling the money through there. Newmark would have been perfectly comfortable doing this of course since both of these ” grass rooter ” orgs  have more than their fair share of criminal minds not unlike his.

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

and

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

The missions being accomplished, FPC and ISC have been consigned to gathering dust on the shelf.

So there we have it. Liar, perjurer, money launderer, fare dodger, embezzler of the funds of at least one charity. ( Probably more, we will see what the calling in of the cops to JLM brings ).

The problem with Newmark is that he has an incurable criminal mind. He reminds me of someone I had dealings with many years ago. This bloke would rather make 50p crooked than a quid straight.

That this man has been able to run amok in the LP for so long almost beggars belief. He should be kicked out without further delay and the racist JLM’s affiliation to the LP ended at the same time.

ISRACTION DAY

https://wp.me/p5W2a1-P5

ADDENDUM

So who did bust Newmark? Who did bring theJLC audit to the attention of the JC ?

Well its pretty obvious really. Here’s some clues.

Who had the necessary access ?

Who has the necessary grudges ? ( motive )

For whom was the timing right ?

 

 

 

Adam Wagner on Newmark et al and FUCU

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.

 

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

Clive Lewis didn’t get proper guidance.

Some wierd stuff has come out of the mouths of politicians recently accused of sexual harassment. Stuff that would be funny were it not so tragic. But probably the funniest is Clive Lewis’ defence. That is he blames it all on not having had proper guidance.

Well that can be easily fixed.

Right Clive. I am going to try to talk to you in language you are most likely to understand.

This cut out represents wimmins. You know those strange creatures that you seem unable to have a grown up relationship with.

In this area here we have appendages technically known as mammary glands, which you, being a colloquial kinda guy,  doubtless routinely refer to as tits. This bit is really simple. Unless you have an established erotic relationship with the wimmins concerned, tits are absolutely non tocare grazie.

Ok now it gets complicated.

I have spun the effigy around and approximately half way down you will notice the area we commonly call the bum. You will also notice this dotted line which functions as a kind of plimsoll line in reverse.  You can see that it is located a good deal higher than the bum. It delineates how low your hands may stray when you are giving a wimmins a friendly, comradely hug.

Now I know that this is a lot to take in all at once, but don’t worry. These guidelines are to be published in video form, and will be available for viewing on you tube as from next week.

Anyway the next LP  conference is 10 months away and I have every confidence you will have grasped it all by then.

 

 

 

IF JEREMY CORBYN IS YOUR FRIEND DO YOU REALLY NEED ENEMIES

Then along came Jeremy Corbyn…………

A politician with a difference we were told. And at first he behaved for all the world as if he WAS different. Or at least made all the right noises. A man unfettered by the extremes of self serving personal interest and ambition that we are used to seeing in those that would  “serve” us. A man we could trust. At last what was supposed to be a socialist party had a socialist leader with the added bonus that it was plain to see that here we had an honest man.

Well we bought it and on a massive scale. Even a died in the wool cynic like me was moved to join a political party for the first time in his life.

When evidence began to emerge that all of this might be a fiction we put aside our discomfort and went into denial.

We put aside our troubled feelings as Corbyn failed to display any real comradely support in the face of  the McNicol/ Newmark purges. The victims were persecuted in Corbyn’s service. They were targeted by the  thousands because they were identified as being likely to vote Corbyn in his second leadership election, and/ or they were identified by Newmark as having an unwelcome attitude to The State of Israel. All kinds of laughable pretexts for those witch hunted were  invented but nobody could deny what was happening and keep a straight face.

Now it was understandable Corbyn couldn’t make a fuss during his election campaign. He would have been represented as making excuses in advance of an election defeat. But after his resounding victory there was no longer such a restraint. Yet his back stabbing silence continued. An honest and grateful man would have demanded the re instatement of his supporters in the loudest possible terms and would have continued with these demands until they were met. It should be the first thing on Corbyn’s mind when he wakes up every morning and would be if he was the man that received wisdom holds that he is. His cynical casting aside of these people now he doesn’t have any further use for them tells us that Corbyn can back stab with the very best.

Disposable supporters are not the only ones that have felt the pressure of Corbyn’s knife between their shoulder blades. For many years Corbyn postured as a friend of the Palestinian people, and an uncompromising advocate of their rights. It seems that this was a sham. Doubtless he feels no further need for this particular charade.

He seems to have calculated that his interests lie in the direction of courting the racist anti socialists in the Party that are implacable enemies of Palestinian people

As I have said we have been in denial. We have loved the Corbyn we thought we had  too much to give up on it. We no longer have that option. His abuse of the family of Del Singh, who had been a personal friend of Corbyn makes that impossible.

In order to get a proper sense of the full horror of this abuse, it is necessary, to get a fix on the Jewish Labour Movement and its leader Jeremy Newmark, who was once famously described as “ a brown shirt for Israel.”

The JLM had been a dormant affiliate of the Party for decades. Then in 2016, as part of the Israel lobby’s invocation of the AIPAC inspired nuclear option against the Labour Party, it was resuscitated and Newmark “ elected” as its leader.

It describes the Israeli Labor Party, which spawned the Israeli colonialist expansion in the ME, as it’s sister party. It is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation, that pours billions into the support and expansion of Israeli colonies in the West Bank. It is signed up to the Jerusalem Declaration, which is a call to settle Eretz Israel. It is affiliated to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, notorious for its links to the far right, notably the EDL and Britain First. Links maintained by it’s erstwhile Vice Chair, Jonathan Hoffman. It is the emanation of The State of Israel in the Labour Party.

Newmark is an ex CEO  of the JLC. However, he has long had a wider role functioning as a kind of quartermaster for the lobby. It was he who organised the funds for the abomination that is Israction day. It was he who organised the funding for the disastrous assault on the Universities and College Union and doubtless who organised the £600,000 to pay the costs award the union obtained.

Let us be clear. This was a highly organised attempt by the lobby to bust a trade union. The aim was to get the union branded anti-Semitic. This and an astronomical legal costs liability would have been a double whammy that killed the union off.

Newmark gave lengthy evidence in the case and was branded by the Tribunal as an arrogant, preposterous liar, with a worrying disregard for pluraliy and diversity. That is Newmark lied his butt off in a court of law in an attempt to bust a trade union. It is this man that Corbyn and Lansman prostrates thmselves before at every opportunity.

Del Singh was a friend of Corbyn. He was a tireless worker for human rights and a highly active aid worker. He was a passionate campaigner on behalf of the Palestinian people to a degree that got him permanently banned from Israel and the territories in 2006. In 2014 he was murdered by the Taliban in Kabul.

At this years LP conference a smirking Corbyn presented the JLM with the Del Singh Memorial Award, citing it as being for outstanding campaigning. Somebody seems to have forgotten to tell someone that it should be awarded for campaigning for the LP not for campaigning for the state of Israel.

The family were hurt and horrified at the using of Del’s name in the context of an award to an organisation that “ opposes much of what Del Stood for “  . The JLM, the statement says have ” tirelessly defended the human rights abuses of the Israeli occupation that Del spoke so passionately against.”

They are demanding an apology and the revocation of the award.

The ironies are multiple. Not least that if Del had lived the JLM  would be branding him as anti-Semitic and Newmark, backed up by Lansman, would have arranged for McNicol to expel him from the Party.

There are those who feel the family will get the apology and revocation they deserve. History is not on the side of this optimism. The hasbarafia do not readily take a step backwards. Newmark has chillingly announced that he plans to “ meet with the family in due course. “ This is code for they are going to be leant on very heavily and subjected to the usual cocktail of threats and blackmail. Lansman will be backing Newmark as per and Corbyn will look on in his usual craven silence.

Full text of the statement from Del Singh’s family can be read here.

http://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/labour-party-policy/family-protest-giving-del-singh-memorial-award-lousie-ellman-mp-jlm/

It gets worse or to say the least it doesn’t get any better.

The strategy of Lansman and Chakrabarti at this years conference was to make one last big indulgence of the JLM  and the lobby in general and then ” we can move on”.  It is becoming increasingly obvious that Lansman has some kind of learning disability and has infected his new ally Chakrabarti with it.

Once you have entered into what Mark Braverman calls The Fatal Embrace with the lobby,  moving on is virtually impossible. Once you have supped with this particular devil you don’t easily walk out of it, anymore than anyone leaves the mafia.

The great last indulgence was the rule change. A change that not only makes saying and/or doing stuff that displeases the Israeli Embassy an expellable offence but which makes THINKING the wrong kind of stuff an expellable offence too.  You can be expelled for having the wrong thoughts. How your thoughts are to be policed, we are not told. Probably Jeremy Preposterous Arrogant Liar Newmark voicing his suspicions about your thoughts to McNicol, will be good enough.

This bullshit was signed off at a pre conference meeting between Newmark and Chakrabarti.

Witness Chakrabarti’s abject panic at Len McCluskey’s mood music comments. These threatened to ” upset” Newmark and thereby undermine the entire moving on strategy.

This strategy is of course, so naive it almost beggars belief. Within a few hours of conference ending JLM  were demanding the expulsion of Naomi Wimbourne – Idrissi who had made an unwelcome conference speech. They then immediately moved on to Moshe Machover who they labelled ” an immoral historian.”

This put McNicol in one hell of a fix. McNicol is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but he is not entirely stupid. He immediately grasped two seemingly irreconcilable facts.

Firstly, Jeremy Preposterous Arrogant Liar Newmark had to be satisfied. Far from allowing the party to  ” move on” the Israelists, as they invariably do, pocketed the Danegeld without so much as a thank you. They had immediately demanded that the LP demonstrate its seriousness by instituting a further purge of socialists and others with the wrong attitude to Israel. That Newmark must not be ” upset” was an unwritten Party rule established by Lansman. They had not been really serious in the case of Idrissi, but were deadly serious in insisting that Moshe Machover had to go.

Secondly, McNicol knew this would be near impossible. The charge of ” antisemitism” would have to be ” investigated”. Moshe is 81 years old, a life long socialist, antiracist and a world famous professor of logic, philosophy and mathematics. Faced with his razor sharp mind, plus his legal advice, McNicols dim witted gopher ” investigators” would be torn to shreds and precedents would be set that would be a great protection for future McNicol/ Newmark targets.

What to do ?

Well someone, probably not a million miles from the CST,  had a brilliant idea. They came up with the wheeze of switching the charge of antisemitism to a charge of associating with organisations other than the Labour Party.

This is not the place to discuss the details they can best be found here…….

http://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/

The great beauty of this wheeze is that the Party rules provide for ” auto exclusion ” when JLM level this particular charge. That is, the compliance unit simply write you a letter telling you that you are expelled. No investigation, no defence, no appeal. Thats it. You are out. In the month leading up to the 1916 leadership election 618 socialists and/or non Israelists were expelled in this way.

It is even cleverer than just this. Not only does Newmark get rid of Moshe, but now there is no ” investigation” of an antisemitism charge, with all it’s attendant dangers,  because Moshe is not now a member of the party !!!!!!!!!!

Where is Corbyn ?

Well he wasn’t quite as deadly silent as he was in the Del Singh case. He said ” we do not comment on disciplinary matters”.

That craven reaction is not good enough.  Corbyn has run out of slack on these issues. It is time for him to declare, uniquivocably, which side he is on.

Now lest I be misunderstood. I sincerely hope Corbyn gets to be Prime Minister, and afterwards gets promoted to God, should there be a vacancy.  But it is not certain. The bubble may implode and he may sink back into near obscurity. In this case he  will have to hurry past the ghosts of Del Singh, Moshe Machover , Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and the thousands of nameless los desaparecidos. Now he won’t have his principles and the comradeship of those that shared those principles to keep him warm. Certainly Lansman, Jones etc won’t be anywhere to be seen.

He is going to be a very lonely man.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An offer to my Zionist friends that want to talk about antisemitism. I won't mention Israel if you don't. Deal ?