Anorak

Politicians Category

Politicans and world leaders making news and in the news, and spouting hot air

Labour kick out an alleged antisemite; Corbyn stays

A mere 22 months after the incident, Marc Wadsworth has been expelled from the Labour Party. The Momentum activist made comments at an antisemitism event – no, not a rally for Labour anti-semites, although Corbyn’s Labour could fill a large venue for that do; Wadsworth clashed with Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth at the launch of Labour’s inquiry into antisemitism. You’ll recall that Labour invited Shami Chakrabarti to investigate the rampant Jew hatred in its ranks. She joined Labour, discovered a “minority hateful or ignorant attitudes and behaviours” and was made a Labour peer and shadow attorney general. What looked like a duck, walked like a duck and quacked like a duck was a dead ermine, said Shami admiring her new robes.

But the Labour Party’s Jew haters kept popping up. Being antisemitic in Labour was not rare at all. Things came to a bit of a head when something finally stuck to nuanced and slippery Jeremy Corbyn, who admired a massive public artwork, an artwork Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson called “a horrible anti-Semitic mural”. Corbyn wanted it kept on display. The local Labour mayor thought it revolting and ordered it to be painted over.

Corbyn, who was at the launch of the party’s antisemitism drive, was filmed on camera talking with Wadsworth at the event. Both deny being antisemitic.

One paper stirred the pot, reporting:

A video has since emerged showing the Labour leader laughing along with Mr Wadsworth as they exit the launch. Mr Wadsworth can be heard saying: ‘You saw what happened.’ Mr Corbyn replies: ‘Yeah, I did.’

It’s here – but there’s very little to it. Leader meets fan might be the better description of the happening:

 

 

Wadsworth denies any wrongdoing. He says today:

“I deplore anti-Semitism, anti-black racism, Islamophobia and all forms of prejudice, bigotry and discrimination that I have campaigned against all my political life and will continue to do so.

“With my brilliant legal team, who won the arguments hands down, I will be looking at all my options to legally challenge the decision.”

The Guardian outlines the case:

Wadsworth came to prominence after he challenged Smeeth at the launch of Shami Chakrabati’s inquiry into antisemitism in 2016, accusing her of working “hand in hand” with a Telegraph journalist.

Smeeth has said she was reduced to tears by his remarks. Wadsworth, who was distributing flyers at the event, has said he did not know Smeeth was Jewish.

The matter was heard by the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), Labour’s top disciplinary body. Says Labour:

“The NCC has found that two charges of a breach of the Labour party’s rule 2.1.8 by Marc Wadsworth have been proven. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of Labour party rules will be expulsion from membership.”

The rule states that “no member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party [including actions] might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation… racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic”.

Labour MPs, Chris Williamson and Clive Lewis gave character references for Wadsworth. Lewis said people “do not get to be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to who’s expelled or not. Go read a history book about what happens when an accusation equals evidence.”

Smeeth is pleased – but makes no specific mention of antisemism:

 

But is it over? Is it there? Ken Livingstone, currently suspended from Labour over remarks linking Adolf Hitler and Zionism, tells LBC today:

“I’m not discussing anti-Semitism until after the election is all out the way because it is a complete diversion. We had this last year in the run-up to the local elections then. We had it two years ago in the run-up to the election of Sadiq Khan. It didn’t damage us at the last two local elections but it is a complete diversion.”

 


 

 

And on it goes in Corbyn’s Labour…

Posted: 27th, April 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


Trump and Melania join the crown green bowls club

trump melania woman

 

When Donald Trump and Melania were welcoming the French President and his wife, the First Couple opted to wear flannels and thereby best absorb some of drooling Macron’s copious amounts of salvia (see hands, faces, necks – the guy gets rid of best he can but we’ve started to notice; he’s almost resorted to licking people).

Previously:

 

melania white

 

Spotter: @waathepies.tv

Posted: 27th, April 2018 | In: Politicians | Comment


Ed Miliband’s speech writer says Jews have no place in Corbyn’s Labour Party

Is being a Labour Party member compatible with being a Jew? That’s a rhetorical question. It isn’t. At least it isn’t for the wrong kind of Jews. Jamie Susskind, the lawyer son of futurologist Richard Susskind (The End of Lawyers?) who has written speeches for former Labour leader Ed Miliband and is a former chairman of the Oxford University Labour Club, has resigned from the party. Membership to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour is an “insult” to his heritage. He accuses Corbyn of “erecting a bureaucratic shield for anti-Semites in Labour”. It’s all about deference to Party process with slippery and nuanced Corbyn.

Susskind has posted his resignation letter on twitter:

 

 

I’m amazed more have done the same.

Posted: 26th, April 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


Arf, Arf – Nigel Farage’s Kids Have German Passports

A lovely little story producing giggles among the Remainaiacs – Nigel Farage’s kids, the very kids of that arch anti-EU campaigner, have German passports. As well as their UK ones of course. This is, of course, producing more than a little mirth.

Nigel Farage has admitted two of his children have both British and German passports, which would allow them to take advantage of free movement rights post-Brexit, but insisted they feel British rather than European.

Nigel’s second wife is German, her children gain German citizenship that way. So far, so not funny. But that Farage’s second wife is German allows a little explanation of Ukip itself and the Leave campaign which led to Brexit. I can be trusted as a source on this, I used to work for Ukip, directly for Nigel, even stood as an MEP candidate for them.

We’ve no problem at all with Europe. In fact, rather like, even love, the place. The wines, the food, the people, the other countries, why not, many of them are fabulous (and then there’s Belgium of course, the rudest word in the known universe). Why wouldn’t we like all these things – and I speak as someone who lives in Portugal.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 19th, April 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


Corbyn exposed and isolated by Labour’s anti-Semitism problem

David Lammy told us that “when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas”. The Labour MP was talking about the ordeal faced by the Windrush children, transformed from British citizens into criminals by a lazy and callous immigration policy. Lammy was linking that story to what he sees as Tories pandering to racist right-wingers and Brexit. What, then, does he think of his own party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has called Jew-haters his “friends” and presided over a Labour Party rife with anti-Semitism? Ever the nuanced and slippery figure, nothing really stuck to Corbyn, not even the fleas. Until something did.

When Corbyn made a Facebook comment about a hideous mural in East London, the story shifted from being about his Jew-hating “friends” to his own prejudices. Corbyn offered his support to the mural’s artist, which many of us consider to be anti-Semitic in tone and subject. The then Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfar Rahman, ordered council officials to “do everything possible” to remove the mural, arguing that “the images of the bankers perpetuate anti-Semitic propaganda about conspiratorial Jewish domination of financial institutions”. But Corbyn liked it and wanted it to remain on view.

That was 2012.

 

Corbyn mural east london

Corbyn and who could be his fellow former Press TV presenter Yvonne Ridley both like the mural.

 

In 2018, Corbyn said he should have looked “more closely” at the massive mural that covered the entire end of a building – the mural he now finds to be “deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic”. Corbyn said “sorry” for not having studied the content of the mural more closely”. Tom Watson, Corbyn’s deputy, called the artwork a “horrible anti-Semitic mural”.

 

 

Hugo Rifkind adds:

Corbyn is also reported to have been a member of two Facebook groups, and perhaps a third, where such things were widespread. Did he never look closely? Above his comment is one by Yvonne Ridley. This, presumably, would be the journalist Yvonne Ridley, who once wrote that David Miliband was “a gutless little weasel who lost more than his foreskin when he was circumcised”. She also used to host a show on the Iranian PressTV on which Corbyn was a guest. Did they never speak? When Corbyn speaks of the “pockets within the Labour Party” in which antisemitism has occurred, what he leaves out is that, for the first 30 years of his career, these were the pockets he was in.

Yesterday, Labour’s antisemitism problem was debated in the Commons. Dame Margaret Hodge, 73, the Labour MP for Barking and the daughter of Jewish refugees, told her peers that she felt like “an outsider in the party I have been a member of for 50 years… I have never felt as nervous and frightened as I feel today at being a Jew. It feels that my party has given permission for antisemitism to go unchallenged.”

 

 

Luciana Berger, Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree, said: “I have no words for the people who purport to be both members and supporters of our party, who use that hashtag JC4PM [Jeremy Corbyn for prime minister], who attacked me in recent weeks for my comments; they attacked me for speaking at the rally against antisemitism… who say I should be deselected.”

Ruth Smeeth, the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, read out a message she’d received:”First job for Jeremy Corbyn tomorrow, expel the Zionist hag bitch Ruth Smeeth.”

Tom Watson was not sat by Corbyn at the front – he moved from his usual spot in the Commons to sit between Berger and Smeeth. He sees the problem. Do you?

Here’s Labour MP John Mann. He gets it. People are scared. Anti-semitism is rife. If you acquiesce to it, if you make anti-Jewish comments, if you don’t speak out when you hear it, if you turn a deaf ear to it, if you don’t think it’s worth bothering about, you’re wrong. It’s dangerous:

 

Posted: 18th, April 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Windrush children only became visible when they became criminals

At what point do you realise that the country thinks you’re worthless? Asking for a friend who came over to the UK on the Windrush on June 22 1948. The British government of the day invited her family to work in the country. They accepted the invite, and came across the Atlantic Ocean in search of better lives. In 1971, Commonwealth migrants were given indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

 

windrush rudd may

 

My friend and many like her are now being offered the chance to return from whence they came decades ago and have never returned to since – or else. The British government has been rounding up these workers from the Commonwealth.

Michael Braithwaite is 66. He’s lived in the UK since he was nine. If time spent in the country is a measure of citizenship, Mr Braithwaite is more British than Prince Harry and Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary. Last year. Mr Braithwaite, who worked as a special needs teaching assistant, lost his job. He was branded an illegal immigrant. ‘Albert Thompson’ (not his real name; he wants no publicity) has lived in Britain for 44 years. He was offered the chance to produce a British passport or pay £54,000 for his cancer treatment. He didn’t have the money nor the passport. So he went without. He was evicted from his home and spent three weeks homeless. Paulette Wilson left Jamaica when she was 10. She’s lived in the UK for more than 50 years. She was employed at the House of Commons, where she served food to MPs. Aged 61, the State threw her into Yarl’s Wood detention centre for a week and told she’d be deported. At the last moment, someone finally listened to her and she won a reprieve.

These people’s crime was to have never applied for a British passport. In its haste to clamp down on immigration, the Government decreed that all  migrants in search of work, housing or benefit must provide documents. But the Windrush children who arrived here on their parents’ passport and never applied for their own. This presented them with a hideous problem. From being British citizens they were are the stroke of a pen turned into criminals. Guilt is assumed. They have to prove their innocence. They must do this by showing official documents for each year of their stay in the UK.

Amber Rudd has now apologised for this horror. After much asking, Theresa May has finally has only just agreed to meet with Commonwealth leaders to discuss the matter. Until last Friday, the Government’s advice was for anyone worried about deportation to speak with a lawyer, placing the onus on the innocent to find the time and money to make right the Home Office’s egregious error and demeaning oversight. Hiring lawyers is often stressful and expensive – the cost becomes prohibitive when you can’t earn money.

But now Amber Rudd says she’s sorry. She says her department “sometimes loses sight of the individual”. Nonsense. They only do that when the individual doesn’t matter. They didn’t lose sight. They never saw them to begin with.

Rudd’s set up a task force of 20 Home Office wonks to help her notice people who have lived and worked in the UK for decades. That’s how valued my friend is  – Rudd needs 20 people to notice her contribution to the country. She only became visible when the State wanted to make an example of her and send her ‘home’.

Posted: 17th, April 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Stormy Daniels vanishes from twitter; Porn Barron lives the dream

Stormy Daniels, the walking aide to masturbation who claims she was squired by Donald Trump –  and to whom Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid a big was of cash to keep from spilling the beans about Trump allegedly spilling his beans in the run up to the 2016 election – has taken to twitter. She seen something unusual – and she’s seen Trump naked (allegedly):

So we did. We searched ‘Stormy Daniels’ on Twitter. We saw the system cough-up some Trump-themed tweets. But we don’t see any tweets from the adult movie actress. Is this a shadowban? The Urban Dictionary explains:

shadowban
Banning a user from a web forum in such a way that the banned user is unaware of the ban. Usually takes the form of showing that user’s posts/profile/etc. only to that user; other users never see them. Considered underhanded chicken-shit behavior.

So much for the tech.

But does anyone else think Stormy would have made a better First Lady than Melania – considering the bonus that the couple’s son would have had embodied the American dream; you know, what with his being a real-life Porn Barron?

Posted: 13th, April 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Politicians | Comment


Jeremy Corbyn’s free bus pass takes youth for a ride

If Jeremy Corbyn is to be the country’s Donald Trump – and by that I mean win the popular vote – he needs to work on that message of democratic aspiration. Trump turned desire for success into a cult. Corbyn promises us free bus travel for everyone under the age of 25. Trump gave us The Art of the Deal, his 11-step formula for business success and riches. Corbyn’s handing us a bus timetable, a little yellow book detailing how to get around for no money, featuring lots of waiting and scheduled stops. And someone else is driving.

In Corbyn’s world people over 60 – i.e. people like him – will be joined on public transport by the under-25s on free bus rides. Everyone in the middle will be made to pay to make the same journeys. Let’s call that group ‘the workers’. The 54-year-old office cleaner will pay to get to and from work by bus. The 52-year-old supermarket butcher with two children will pay to ride the bus. But the young, able-bodied man goes free.

Corbyn’s free rides will have the added bonuses of turning bus journeys into extensions of Labour Party clinics. It’s Glastonbury on wheels, where the old get to mingle with the youth. They can chat about stuff. The elderly man can tell the kidults about when he left school at 16, went to work and saved hard to buy his first house and car; the 23-year-old can show him their new iPhone and that meme about Corbyn sticking it to the – irony of ironies – privately-educated, well-paid, pale, stale and male home owner.

And what of cars, once the surest symbols of independence for the young and thrusting? Under Corbyn, the future is about bus travel. But he quite likes cars. After all, drivers will fund his £1.4 billion project. Sod the drivers, then. Those planet-mashers in their hatch-backs, vans and trucks aren’t worth the bother of trying to persuade to vote Labour. Tory scum.

This is, of course, Corbyn’s latest attempt to seduce the youth he wants to coset through life, or at least until the next General Election when they will all vote for him. Free university education and now free buses for them. But what of the elderly woman who’s paid into the system her whole life and is only using her bus pass because she no longer feels safe to drive? Why is something she earned through hard work and longevity given for free to a healthy 24-year-old who’s never worked? Why must a hard-working driver on their way to the building site be made to pay for other forms of travel that won’t help them in their working day?

Why does Corbyn view younger voters as more desirable than older ones? And why does he seek to get them through handing out freebies?

This is about trust. Corbyn doesn’t trust the young to see the bigger picture, consider the family unit and make reasoned choices. He views them with suspicion and derision – a feckless group of persistently needy juveniles who can be wooed to vote for him with free stuff. Sod opportunity, the economy, war, pensions, society, autonomy and all that aspiration. Just slide a voting slip in amongst the freebies. Corbyn’s economics is the stuff of hucksters, marketeers and looters. And he’s banking on an infantilised youth voting for it.

Posted: 13th, April 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Indy journalist on anti-Semitism: ‘Why do some groups have so much power’?

anti-semitism

 

Have we forgotten about the Holocaust? You might think it’d be hard to. It’s taught in schools and there are some movies entertaining enough to keep industrial mass murder palpable, even humorous. But the mood has changed. The oldest story is back. Antisemitism is rife and mainstream.

Why?

Well, in The Spectator, Alistair Thomas outlines why Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party excuses alleged Holocaust denial, gives a safe space for members to deny and downplay “the reality of anti-Semitism” (the words of Christine Shawcroft, the head of the Labour Party’s disputes panel in her resignation apology for opposing the suspension of a council candidate accused of Holocaust denial); and can have in its ranks MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, who a year before she won her Commons seat shared an image of Israel’s outline superimposed on a map of the US below the headline “Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict – relocate Israel into United States”, with the comment “problem solved”, compared Israel to the Nazis and stated “the Jews are rallying” – she said sorry and left her post as – get this – John McDonnell’s parliamentary private secretary. How does someone with such abhorrent views rise to high in Corbyn’s Labour? And there’s the mural, the Facebook Posts aboutpowerful” Jews and Corbyn’s “friends“. And Ken Livingstone. AndAnd

For anyone unsure what anti-Semitism looks like, Andrew Neil has provided this handy guide:

 

 

Thomas writes:

…for Corbynites of my age (early twenties), the whole issue remains just another attempt to delegitimise Corbyn’s bid to become prime minister. That’s why Twitter accounts were awash with the hashtag #PredictTheNextCorbynSmear, which mocked all accusations of anti–Semitism. It demonstrates the Corbyn faithful’s remarkable capacity for indifference…

It’s all a conspiracy. And like any good conspiracy, it feature the Jews. You can read all about it on The Protocols of the Elders of Facebook.

They’ve all studied the second world war at school; they know how much Jews suffered and how dangerous discrimination is. Surely they must have a problem with that blatantly anti-Semitic mural that Corbyn himself had endorsed?..

They find Israel, as a country, guilty of all kinds of crimes, and regard Jews, anywhere, as Zionist sympathisers. Within the far left, the de facto position is one of hostility and distrust, not just towards Zionists but towards Jewish communities wherever they are. This attitude infects the whole party, even my friends.

 

"Jews for Jez" - with a yellow star, to boot. Some people, eh.

“Jews for Jez” – with a yellow star, to boot. These are Labour’s ‘Good Jews’.

 

anti-Semitic new statesman kosher conspiracy

Just Labour under Corbyn? The Labour Party supporting New Statesman had a question that might have been rhetorical.

 

The Jew can be a good Jew or a bad Jew. But being a Jew is what defines you totally. Jews are traduced and homogenised. Howard Jacobson understands, of course:

Christianity is key here…. Christianity’s had to leave [Judaism] behind, so it’s had to hate it, it’s had to say, we are not that, we are not that anymore, and then to say we were never that – so that’s a necessary hatred. And then out of that grew a sense of the possibility that all cultures have to have someone to hate. Not just a scapegoat. It’s more essential than that. Who am I, what am I? I am not that. To the degree you know that, you know who you are.

Today on Good Friday many Christians will utter their Prayer for the Jews. The third of the Solemn Collects in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England is as follows:

O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of any sinner, but rather that he be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

The Catholic Church’s Prayer for the Jews has been changed a little. This is the 1955 version (via):

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. (‘Amen’ is not responded, nor is said ‘Let us pray’, or ‘Let us kneel’, or ‘Arise’, but immediately is said:) Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

The bigotry never vanished. The Jews continue to define what the righteous reject. And once again anti-Semitism is to the fore.

These are worrying times to be a British Jew. If you would not excuse any other form of racism, don’t excuse anti-Semitism.

Lead image:

 

In response to her tweet the writer who, as Stephen Daisley notes, contributes to the Indy added on Twitter (before blocking us):

 

A response to the tweets.

 

Vote now and vote often.

Posted: 31st, March 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


Jeremy Corbyn supporters call anti-Semitism protest the work of a ‘very powerful special interest group’

How goes the Labour Party’s response to accusations of anti-Semitism in the ranks? Party leader Jeremy Corbyn admitted to “pockets of anti-Semitism” within the Labour Party. He then went on to talk of “newer forms of anti-Semitism… woven into criticism of Israeli governments… Criticism of Israel, particularly in relation to the continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people, cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, comparing Israel or the actions of Israeli governments to the Nazis, attributing criticisms of Israel to Jewish characteristics or to Jewish people in general and using abusive phraseology about supporters of Israel such as ‘Zio’ all constitute aspects of contemporary anti-Semitism.”

Is the anti-Semitism really that “new“.

On Facebook, around 2.000 users purporting to be Jeremy Corbyn supporters have reacted to an open letter saying Monday’s Jewish-organised protest against anti-Semitism was the work of a “very powerful special interest group” wielding its “immense strength” to “employ the full might of the BBC”. The open letter posted to a open group garnered 936 comments before the admin disabled commenting, writing:

…exaggerating the influence/power of Jewish groups is a form of antisemitism. Jewish groups have the right to lobby and influence the same as other religious or ethnic groups do. You do not specify what ‘special interest groups’ you are talking about. If you are talking about groups like JLM etc, phrases like “very powerful” are totally inappropriate. I would also suggest the reason why the BBC ran the story at the top of it’s headlines all Monday is down to the Westminster clique, _not_ because of any Jewish lobby groups!

I’m turning off comments. The reason I’m not deleting this post is because screenshots are all over twitter, and keeping the post will help us get to the bottom of what’s happening here. Please do not delete it without talking to us first…

I deeply question the motives of the person that took this screenshot to score political points, rather than reporting it to us. This group has about 400 posts a day and about 10,000 comments. We are unpaid volunteers. We rely on people to report any concerns, especially when overwhelmed by a tsunami of posts from the subject being top of the news agenda.

One twitter screenshot is here:

 

facebook Jews Corbyn

 

Not everyone “endorsed” the letter as the Indy claims they did. Many who did respond have have. But, as noted, there have been dissenting voices, not least of all the group’s “admin”.

 

we support jeremy corbyn

The busy We Support Jeremy Corbyn group. Screenshot: 29/03/18

 

The open letter on the Facebook group “We Support Jeremy Corbyn” runs:

“Yesterday we witnessed the full onslaught of a very powerful special interest group mobilising its apparent, immense strength against you.

“It is clear this group can employ the full might of the BBC to make sure its voice is heard very loudly and clearly. It is a shame not every special interest group can get the same coverage…

“But, and it is a very big BUT, we live in a democracy, a one member one vote democracy and no special interest group, regardless of their history or influence, can be allowed to dictate who the rest of us can vote for or how we vote.

“I am writing this letter to say that I support you and I trust you, more than I would trust any politician, to do the right thing in terms of racism, antisemitism, and any hate mongering from anyone against anyone.

“We know that any politician who stands for the many and not the few will have very many powerful enemies and it is expecting an awful lot of a person to put up with the pressures that are put on you. But thank you, thank you, for your inspiration and steadfastness and be sure that you still have my support.”

As said, not all reactions have been supportive of the letter – the majority have been, but not all:

“Do people not realise how how absolutely ironic it is that in response to accusations of antisemitism that people accuse people of Jewish background of backroom organising and conspiracy?”

Beneath a link to the story on the letter published by the Indy, there is talk of conspiracy:

This is the first time ive actualy seen first hand how a smear starts from actually reading the letter in question when put on the group to how they have spun it in an almost villian like way

Anyone with an iota of common sense realises the anti semitic problem is an attempt to wreck the labour party. When it has the full support of the BBC it is patently obvious that there is collusion with the tory party, as we all know it is now totally controlled by these corrupt brigades who are up to their necks in corruption. The only way you would get an honest answer from them is if they were constantly wire up to a polygraph. We must bring them to account for the sake of all of our futures. Make no mistake we are being manipulated by pure evil…

And:

Just to alert you guys. There’s a journalist mole on this group who’s shared Frances Naggs letter.

Over on the BBC, the Jewish-organised anti-Semitism protest was followed by a new revelation. We meet Christine Shawcroft, 62, head of the Labour Party’s disputes panel who has “quit after it emerged she had opposed the suspension of a council candidate accused of Holocaust denial”. The accused Labour Party member denies any wrongdoing.

Are attitudes towards Jews finally changing within Corbyn’s Labour? Will Labour finally extend its self-aggrandised and self-hymned intolerance of all racism towards its members who attack, bait and demonise Jews with calls for them to be mass deported (that was from a serving Labour MP), monstering them as a people so uniquely barbaric that Jews are not worthy of the Holocaust – which, you know, might all be big ‘fake news’, a revolting and sneaky claim which makes liars of every survivor, their families and the murdered millions? Thankfully, we live in a democracy. So you can give two fingers to racism at the next election.

Vote now and vote often!

Posted: 29th, March 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


The racist Left, ‘Jews for Jez’ and Jeremy Corbyn’s inability to spot anti-Semitism

Only around a thousand people turned up on Parliament Square to protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. The polite request was that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn works to expose and confront the hatred of Jewish in his party’s membership – and that he stops acquiescing to anti-Semitism. Some Labour MPs did attend. And that’s great. But only about a dozen of them bothered to make the shot walk from the Commons to the grassy roundabout.

 

Jews for Jez

 

Accompanied by chants of “enough is enough”, the crowd heard from Haringey Council leader Claire Kober, and Labour MPs John Mann, Louise Ellman and Wes Streeting, Ian Austin, Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger, who said antisemitism is “very real” and “alive in the Labour Party”. Some Conservative MPs also turned up, including Priti Sushil Patel, and cabinet ministers Sajid Javid and Penny Mordaunt.

Mr Streeting told the throng: “To those Jewish members who felt enough is enough and cut up their membership cards and walked away, our commitment to you is to work with every ounce of strength to drain the cesspit of antisemitism in the Labour Party so you can come back. We know what needs to be done. We don’t need any more mealy-mouthed statements from the leader of the Labour Party, we need actions. The actions are very simple: Ken Livingstone should not be in the Labour Party. Antisemites need to be drummed out of the Labour Party. And that whitewash of a report – the Chakrabarti Report – can we at least implement every one of those recommendations. We had a wishy-washy report, it got someone a place in the House of Lords, but let’s at least make sure its delivers a genuine fight against antisemitism in our party.”

Slippery and nuanced Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t there, of course. He never is. But he did address the Jews via a letter:

“I recognise that antisemitism has surfaced within the Labour Party, and has too often been dismissed as simply a matter of a few bad apples. This has caused pain and hurt to Jewish members of our party and to the wider Jewish community in Britain. I am sincerely sorry for the pain which has been caused, and pledge to redouble my efforts to bring this anxiety to an end. I must make clear that I will never be anything other than a militant opponent of antisemitism.”

Not a single world on how he has contributed greatly to that “pain”. Not a single word from his supporters, those intolerant people who if this were a Tory or anyone else they did not like giving a big thumbs up to anti-Semitism would be demanding their resignation. They screamed in outrage when Conservative MP Anne Marie Morris said “nigger in the woodpile”. They howled for Toby Young’s removal because he’d tweeted about women’s looks and described wheelchair ramps as part of “ghastly” inclusivity in schools. They pilloried Tim Farron for his views on homosexuality (he called it a “sin”) – ubiquitous Corbyn fan Owen Jones called Farron’s comments “an absolute disgrace”.

To his supporters, Corbyn can do no wrong.

Some Corbyn fans are Jews. A small number arrived carrying signs that said “Jews for Jez”, the words written on a yellow star. If Brass Eye did protests:

 

"Jews for Jez" - with a yellow star, to boot. Some people, eh.

“Jews for Jez” – with a yellow star, to boot. Some people, eh.

 

Instead of being upset by Corbyn’s links to anti-Semitism, his supporters tasked themselves with getting the hashtag #PredictTheNextCorbynSmear to trend on Twitter. Blessedly, not everyone thinks anti-Semitism is no big deal:

 

 

 

 

Corbyn did have more to say. And it, as ever, vague:

“Sometimes this evil takes familiar forms – the east London mural which has caused such understandable controversy is an example. The idea of Jewish bankers and capitalists exploiting the workers of the world is an old antisemitic conspiracy theory. This was long ago, and rightly, described as ‘the socialism of fools’. I am sorry for not having studied the content of the mural more closely before wrongly questioning its removal in 2012.”

 

Corbyn racist art

 

Amazing, no, how Corbyn, a man who presents himself in public as highly sensitive to anti-Semitism can looks at the picture above and not realise its might be even a tad anti-Jewish without “study”. Is he blind to anti-Semitism or does he think it’s ok?

As Brendan O’Neill puts it: “Corbyn is in essence saying: ‘Ah, I didn’t notice the anti-Semitism.’ And that is precisely the problem. This section of the left never notices anti-Semitism. It always seems to pass them by. Or worse, they acquiesce to it in the belief that objecting to it might lose them support among some of their key bases, in particular the old left and young Muslims. I didn’t see it, they say, not realising that their failure to see anti-Semitism is the crux of the problem. It is a wilful blindness to hatred that they would treat as unforgivable in relation to any other racial or religious group.”

Anti-Semitism is a sickness. It’s been excused time and time again under Corbyn’s watch. You can look at Corbyn and his fans and ask yourself: if it looks like a duck, quack likes a duck and talks like a duck, what is it? And you can vote in the election.

Posted: 27th, March 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Jeremy Corbyn: Jews and your racist ‘friends’ know what you are

Corbyn racist art

 

If you’re still unsure whether or not the mural painted on an east London wall (see above) was anti-Semitic, you are either:

a) possibly not fully aware what anti-semitism is (see Shami Chakrabarti’s absurd report into anti-semitism in the Labour Party)

b) unaware that the artist, Mear One, said of his 2012 creation: “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are.”

c) did not hear Lutfur Rahman, the Tower Hamlets mayor at the time, say he wanted it removed because “the images of the bankers perpetuate antisemitic propaganda about conspiratorial Jewish domination of financial and political institutions”.

d) have yet to hear a Corbyn spokesperson tell everyone last week: “In 2012, Jeremy was responding to concerns about the removal of public art on grounds of freedom of speech. However, the mural was offensive, used antisemitic imagery, which has no place in our society, and it is right that it was removed.”

 

Corbyn mural east london

Corbyn and another former face of Iran-backed Press TV both like the mural.

 

Before this was news, Jeremy Corbyn rather liked the mural called “Freedom of Humanity”. When the artist wrote on Facebook, “Tomorrow they want to buff my mural. Freedom of expression. London calling. Public Art”, Corbyn replied: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera’s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.”

Corbyn was, apparently, referring to an incident in 1934, when a work by Mexican artist Diego Rivera was removed from New York’s Rockefeller Centre.

This might be tricky one to spin, then, even for nuanced and slippery Corbyn. As Rod Liddle puts it in the Times (“Nothing proves Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic — just everything he says and does): “I suspect most Jewish people will take the view that if it walks like an anti-semite and repeatedly quacks like an anti-semite, then it probably is an anti-semite.” Over in the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard (“There is only one word for Jeremy Corbyn”) writes: “Mr Corbyn is a liar.” Yeah, I thought he was going to call him something else, too. Pollard thinks Corbyn is a liar because of what he said then and what he said this week don’t really tally. Here’s Corbyn’s latest apology for having “friends” who dabble in anti-semitism:

“In 2012 I made a general comment about the removal of public art on grounds of freedom of speech. My comment referred to the destruction of the mural Man at the Crossroads by Diego Rivera on the Rockefeller Center.

“That is in no way comparable with the mural in the original post. I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic.

“I wholeheartedly support its removal.

“I am opposed to the production of anti-Semitic material of any kind, and the defence of free speech cannot be used as a justification for the promotion of anti-Semitism in any form. That is a view I’ve always held.”

But that’s not what he said before. How closely do you have to look at the image to think it anti-semitic, especially when you are as sensitive to anti-semitism as Corbyn says he is?

Maybe everyone is wrong? Maybe the Guardian is right to cast the whole thing as a matter of opinion. The paper uses inverted commas to soften the racism, saying Corbyn is in an “antisemitism row after backing artist behind ‘offensive’ mural”. Are you offended by what the Guardian calls a mural that “pictured several apparently Jewish bankers playing a game of Monopoly, with their tabletop resting on the bowed naked backs of several workers”? Corbyn wasn’t. The Guardian is unsure if its readers are.

But blessedly some Labour MPs have backbone.

 

mural antisemitic berger

 

Labour peer Stewart Wood said: “The German Social Democrats had an expression in the 1890s: ‘antisemitism is the socialism of fools’. Sadly, Labour’s leadership now faces the challenge of having to convince our party and country that they will not tolerate those who confuse the two.”

Dudley MP Ian Austin said: “Jeremy would never have defended racist imagery aimed at any other group.”

But some Labour MPs are just as slippery as their leader:

Corbyn’s Deputy Tom Watson, you know the bloke who takes money from Max Mosely (not a Jew) and who called dead Tory Leon Britton (was a Jew) “as close to evil as any human being can get” (he later apologised for that error) was shown the mural on BBC TV and asked for his reaction to it. “My reaction is that is a horrible anti-Semitic mural that was rightly taken down… You are showing it to me on a 32-inch screen on national television and I have seen it about 100 times on social media. It’s very different from seeing it on Facebook when you are on the move.”

There’s only move that chills us: Jeremy Corbyn’s relocation to 10 Downing Street. And he clearly doesn’t care if Jews vote for him are not.  It was Corbyn’s old mucker Ken Livingstone who explained Labour Party thinking on BBC’s Newsnight programme in 2012:

“People vote according to their income. Now that can change – it might be a generation before people catch up. If we were talking 50 years ago, the Roman Catholic community, the Irish community in Britain, the Jewish community was solidly Labour. Still the Irish Catholic community is pretty still solidly Labour because it is not terribly rich.

“As the Jewish community got richer, it moved over to voting for Mrs Thatcher as they did in Finchley.”

And we’re back to those Jewish bankers.

Stephen Pollard is right. Jews know what you are, Jeremy Corbyn. The terrifying thing is that not enough of your colleagues think it’s all that big a deal.

The oldest prejudice is back. And it is rampant.

Posted: 25th, March 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Trawling for Jeremy Corbyn’s Facebook posts risk turning anti-Semitism into a witch-hunt

The Times is going pretty big on news of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s Facebook activity. The Conservative-supporting Guido Fawkes website says Corbyn was a member of pro-Palestine Facebook group “History of Palestine”. Fawkes claims Corbyn was added to the group in 2014. He left it today. We’ve seen no comments made by Corbyn on the group, but the Times says there are posts saying things like: “Rothschild Zionist agenda and new world order”; “Jewish organ trafficking centre where kidnapped Syrians are stripped of their entire bodies”; and “Ambassador says Jews control 90 per cent of Canadian media.”

Mr Corbyn’s spokesman has responded thus: “Jeremy condemns antisemitism in all its forms in the strongest possible terms. He was added to this group without his knowledge.”

Dang! It just keeps happening.

Earlier this year we learnt that Corbyn had been commenting on the Facebook group “Palestine Live”. The group has about 3,000 members, “who have to be invited or added by administrators.”

Members have included Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier, and Jackie Walker, who has been suspended by Labour over accusations of antisemitism.

Corbyn, who left the group shortly after becoming Labour leader in 2015, made a few comments under group posts. Asked whether Mr Corbyn had known about antisemitic posts when using the group, a spokesman said: “I’m sure that he didn’t.” He added that any members found to have made such posts would “be investigated and action will be taken on the evidence”.

Also in the Times, Melanie Philips (“Labour can’t see its cesspool of antisemitism”) has enlarged on Corbyn’s Facebook pals. Noting the work of David Collier in finding Corbyn’s link to Palestine Live – in a long report, Collier alerted us to members  calling Jews “demons”, stating that Jews were behind 9/11 and the 2015 Paris terror attacks, and linking to far-Right websites – and that “several” Labour Party members were suspended for participation in this group, she cites the words of the group’s creator, Elleanne Green, who posted in February 2016: “Jeremy was a member of this group for several years until a few weeks after his election as Labour leader.”

Why did he leave? We’re not told.

During this time, according to other posts on the group’s forum, Corbyn was thanked for helping members organise an Israel-bashing meeting in the Commons. He posted an apology for not attending that meeting.

Yet Corbyn said he “was joined on to that group” without his knowledge and that he had merely replied to a “couple of things” posted there. He had “never trawled through the whole group”.

Putting it at its most charitable, Corbyn and other prominent participants never registered the vile nature of some of those alongside them in this forum. The reason for this moral myopia illustrates why the Labour Party finds it impossible to deal with the antisemitism in its broader ranks and why this is the problem that won’t go away.

Meanwhile, over in the Guardian, there’s no word on Corbyn’s alleged links to “History of Palestine”, but there is one article on his relationship with “Palestine Live”:

Corbyn posted several times in the group after being tagged in posts…

He was more passive than active?

Corbyn said he had not seen the other antisemitic posts on the group. “Had I seen it, of course, I would have challenged it straight away, but I actually don’t spend all my time reading social media… I have never trawled through the whole group. I have never read all the messages on it. I have removed myself from it. Obviously, any antisemitic comment is wrong. Any antisemitism in any form is wrong.”

So how did he become a member?

The Palestine Live group was founded in 2013 and was set up in a way that allowed administrators to add people to the group without their consent. It is understood that Corbyn believes he may have been added to the group by an acquaintance, who simultaneously added him as a Facebook friend when he was a backbench MP.

Understood. Believes. May. Surely we can find out the facts, no?

The Labour MPs Clive Lewis and Chris Williamson were members of the group, as were two former Liberal Democrat politicians, Baroness Jenny Tonge and the former MP David Ward.

Jacqueline Walker, a former Momentum steering group member, is also a member of the Facebook group. Walker has been suspended from the Labour party twice over allegations of antisemitism.

In one post, Walker appears to ask: “How safe is this group?”, to which the group’s founder, Elleanne Green, replied: “Very. no one is allowed in who is not trusted. I am very very careful, it is a secret group.”

So can you add people to a “secret” Facebook group without them knowing? It looks like it. This is on Facebook:

 

 

The bigger worry than any of this is why Jew hatred does not matter to Corbyn’s Labour? Why are they obsessed with Israel? Why is it okay for the Left to attack Jews if they can link their barbs to Israel – the skin between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel is porous?

And another question: how does showing a Facebook group Corbyn was a member of stymie anti-Semitism? To work under the assumption that membership of a Facebook group with a low barrier to entry represents tacit endorsement of every view espoused in it can’t be helpful. It runs the risk of turning the need to call out anti-Semitism into a hunt for people saying things that, however horrible, should not be unsayable.

Posted: 22nd, March 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Ben Carson blames his wife for $31,000 expenses error

Time to hear from “The Honorable Ben Carson”, summoned to tell a House Appropriations subcommittee why his official office came to feature a $31,000 mahogany dining set. The rules impose a $5,000 limit on cabinet secretaries for redecorating their offices. But in late 2017, Carson took delivery of some things whose cost exceeded that pretty measly allowance.

“If it were up to me my office would probably look like a hospital waiting room,” said Carson, “but at any rate, I invited my wife to come along and help me… The prices were beyond what I wanted to pay, I made it clear that that just didn’t seem right to me, and I left it with my wife.” He “dismissed” himself from the decision.

It wasn’t the former neurosurgeon who bought the reassuringly expensive furniture. It as Candy Carson.

 

 

It looks bad. But aren’t the only people who care about Carson’s table and chairs politicians and journalists? Voters have bigger concerns than Carson’s office accounts.

If Carson’s worried that his political career will be scuppered by some empty chairs, he should take a glance at the ups and downs of Maria Miller MP. In 2014, Miller resigned as culture secretary following an expose over her parliamentary expenses. The media gunned for her. Maria Miller apologised “unreservedly” to Parliament. Miller remains an MP and is Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee.

One irony about Ben Carson and his decorating skills: he’s the secretary of housing and urban development.

Posted: 21st, March 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


Stormy Daniels will reveal all about her candlelit romance with Trump if he returns $130,000 hush money

You know how it goes: you shag the billionaire and take his hush money. Then the billionaire becomes president of the US of And you realise you undervalued your services. And so it is that adult film star Stormy Daniels says she not longer wants the $130,000 she claims Donald Trump paid her to remain tight lipped about their affair. She thinks it best that she return the cash and place her story on the public record.

 

Stormy Daniels

Hush ‘n’ tell

 

Daniels, nee Stephanie Clifford, has laid out her plan in a letter to Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. She has set a deadline of Friday for the return of the cash. She will then be at liberty to “speak openly and freely about her prior relationship with the president and the attempts to silence her and use and publish and text messages, photos and videos relating to the president that she may have in her possession, all without fear of retribution or legal liability.”

“This has never been about the money,” Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, told NBC New. It’s the principle, right? “It has always been about Ms. Clifford being allowed to tell the truth. The American people should be permitted to judge for themselves who is shooting straight with them and who is misleading them. Our offer seeks to allow this to happen.”

 

Generous it is, indeed. And should Trump fall into a a trap marked ‘TRAP’ with huge arrow pointing at it, we can all marvel at how a man who outlined his mating ritual as “Grab her by the pussy” really treats women he fancies.

You can read Daniels’ letter in full here.

 

Posted: 13th, March 2018 | In: Celebrities, Money, News, Politicians | Comment


Trump voters least likely to stomach smell of other people

“Get a life in which you notice the smell of salt water pushing itself on a breeze over the dunes,” said Anna Quindlen in her Short Guide to a Happy Life. In a shorter guide: if you want to smell the linen and Alpine air, avoid Lefties. They stink and don’t much mind.

Jonas Olofsson at Stockholm University, Sweden, has linked a person’s response to smell to their politics. The less tolerant you are of another’s person’s stench, the further to the right you veer. Your attitude to personal hygiene can influence which political crowd you run with.

A test group of volunteers responded to questions about how revolting they found exposure to someone else’s sweat, the urine, faeces and more. Paired with responses to such statements as “Our country needs a powerful leader, in order to destroy the radical and immoral currents prevailing in society today”, Olofsson noticed that respondents most disgusted by other people’s smells tended to score more highly for authoritarian views. “Those that were most supportive of Donald Trump had the highest body odour disgust sensitivity,” says Olofsson. “People who react strongly to odours might claim to have a sensitive nose, but when we test them, they are average.”

Adding: “We think that olfaction might be at the root of the pathogen detection system, so body odour disgust might be the most primitive, most fundamental way to detect pathogen.”

The study, which can be read in full here, speaks of Trump:

Only a few studies have investigated the relationship between disgust sensitivity and voting preferences. In Study 3, we found positive evidence in favour of a weak relationship between disgust sensitivity to body odours and attitudes toward the Republican candidate Donald Trump. Importantly, this relationship is fully explained by authoritarian attitudes which were stronger among participants supporting Trump, a result that confirms the notion that in our study sample, Donald Trump was capable of attracting the sympathies of authoritarian voters.

Anyone else see a line of Trump-endorsed scent-free perfumes?

In fact, it can be argued that Trump’s firm stance against immigration, especially from groups viewed as culturally unfamiliar, might meet an implicit need of protection from pathogen threats from people perceived as either potential carriers of unfamiliar pathogens, or groups whose behaviours in disease-avoidance relevant behaviours (e.g. hygiene or food preparation) was perceived as deviant. Our findings suggest that high reactivity to pathogen threats signalled by body odours is part of an ideological disposition towards authoritarian candidates, because of the link between disease avoidance and authoritarianism.

Build a wall and stick some fans on the top of it. An ill wind blows…

Posted: 1st, March 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


North Korean leaders travelled the world on Brazilian passports

If you think the North Korean leader’s hair is an area of special scientific interest, you should see his bikini line. Reuters says Kim Jong-un and his dad, former North Korean Number 1 Kim Jong Il, each owned a Brazilian passport.

Everyone needs a break from the killing, torture and that oh-so tiresome issuing of most terrible threats. And the Kims are mostly human (source: CNN@WinterOlympics). So they used illegal documents to jet about the globe, selflessly exposing themselves to the horrors of plentiful food, back rubs and horrific US-sponsored imperialism. And, yes, I fear that includes a Brazilian.

 

 

Apparently, Jong Un was listed on one passport as Josef Pwag. Educated at an international school in Berne, Switzerland, where “he pretended to be the son of an embassy chauffeur”, Jong Un’s birthplace is given as Sao Paulo, Brazil. Big Kim was called Ijong Tchoi.

 

 

We don’t know where the Kims went, nor if they ever spent a busman’s weekend in East Glasgow. And we can’t know for certain why the Kims chose to play at being Brazilian, over, say, South Korean or German. Maybe it’s because Brazil has a rich history in giving sanctuary to murderous foreign loons (see Germans).

Anyhow, if you’ve any beach shots of the Kims getting waxed off, keep them to yourself and your nightmares.

Posted: 28th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


Jeremy Corbyn’s goes full Blair: for the EU not the many

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tilted his head and told us that the Labour Party will seek a customs union with the European Union. Total balls, of course. The European Union won’t go for it. To keep the country trading in cahoots with the EU stomps on the votes of 17.4 millions of us who got off our arses and voted for Brexit. But the EU won’t have an independent UK negotiating trade deals with them as equals.

Corbyn knows it’s nonsense, of course. This is all about him getting into power. If you still sue for Remain, then a vote for Corbyn is being presented as your best chance of securing it. The working class who voted Leave are getting stuffed. But with a Tory Party mired, who else do they vote for?

Meanwhile, Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) offers an insight into how the media Corbyn seeks to gag will behave and be treated under his government:

This just happened at a Jeremy Corbyn speech Q&A:
Rebecca Long-Bailey (ignoring multiple journalists’ raised hands): “Do we have any questions from non-journalists?”
Activist: “I want to say, please will you hurry up and be our Prime Minister”.

Maybe that’s the way to go: just abandon the established Press and go with citizen journalism and twitter? Everyone with an opinion and a social media account could sign up to Max Mosley’s state-approved regulator? Labour want it so that news organisations that don’t sign up to a the State’s regulator will have to pay all the costs of libel and privacy cases even if they win. Yeah, even if you lose, you win. It’s a Remainer’s paradise.

Posted: 26th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


Donald Trump channels Archie Bunker on gun control

 

Donald Trump surveys the death at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, hears the laments of the grief stricken and then tells everyone it’d be good idea to bring more guns into school. You let the teachers have them. “You give them a little bit of a bonus, so practically for free, you have now made the school into a hardened target.”

More guns equals less crime, then?  No:

The notion [that more guns mean less crime] stems from a paper published in 1997 by economists John Lott and David Mustard, who looked at county-level crime data from 1977 to 1992 and concluded that “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Of course, the study of gun crime has advanced significantly since then (no thanks to Congress). Some researchers have gone so far as to call Lott and Mustard’s original study “completely discredited.” …

Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard’s original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime.

“The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates” of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011, which includes the 11,000 or so gun-related homicides.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey 2011, 467,321 people were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011, including the 11,000 or so gun-related homicides. Guns are pretty good at threatening people. Bang. Bang. You’re dead.

In 2010 the FBI recorded 12,996 homicides – 8,775 were committed with guns; 1,704 with knives; 540 with blunt objects; 11 with poison. People murder, then, with the nearest most lethal object to hand. Or they become more devious: in 1927, America’s deadliest school massacre was carried out with dynamite.

But what about guns just going off?

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people. From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.

Matt Steinglass notes:

Gun-rights advocates often argue that there’s no point taking away people’s guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife.

In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn’t simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

But police having guns is good, right?

Not one but four sheriff’s deputies hid behind cars instead of storming Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., during Wednesday’s school shooting, police claimed Friday — as newly released records revealed the Broward County Sheriff’s Office had received at least 18 calls about the troubled teen over the past decade.

Sources from Coral Springs, Fla., Police Department tell CNN that when its officers arrived on the scene Wednesday, they were shocked to find three Broward County Sheriff’s deputies behind their cars with weapons drawn.

Stoneman Douglas had an armed guard who did not engage the killer.

There is no consensus over guns in the US. Maybe the focus should be on the ‘wrong kind of people’ having guns?

 

 

All the talk is of guns. But why do the State and ordinary people own them in the first place? And if anyone needs to be denied gun ownership, why shouldn’t everyone be made gun free?

Posted: 25th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


London Council bans fat children from climbing trees without a ‘reasonable excuse’

London’s Wandsworth Council wants to ban anyone from climbing a tree in the borough. Unless you have a “reasonable excuse”, climbing a tree could cost you a £500 fine. It’s all part of a range of new bylaws being proposed throughout Wandsworth to “protect the borough’s parks from criminal damage, anti-social behaviour and vandalism”.

How’s that Olympic legacy going?

The council says that’s nonsense. It says the new rules are “nothing” to do with “curtailing childrens’ enjoyment in any way and will help the council run its parks effectively as possible for the enjoyment all residents, especially children.”

Councillor Jonathan Cook, Cabinet Member for Community Services, says: “Stopping a child from flying a kite or climbing a tree, as has been suggested in some quarters this week, certainly will not be how we want to see the bylaws used.”

So the rules can be used to stop people climbing trees? The rules are open-ended and vague?

“Council set to ban ‘annoying’ tree climbing and kite flying,” says the Times. Paul Hocker, director of the charity London Play, says: “They are bolstering their huge bank reserves by fining children for climbing trees or flying a kite in the park.”

The council says Hocker et al are “misinformed”. Really?

The London Evening Standard reports:

Along with tree climbing, such traditional outdoor pursuits as kite flying or a knockabout game of cricket – along with other pursuits considered “annoying” to others – could fall foul of the regulations.

The borough’s previous 27-point list drawn up in 1924 will be replaced with 49 new diktats, including bans on metal detectors and remote control model boats on ponds…

The rules will be enforced by civilian park police – who dress like the Met officers with a kit of stab vests, handcuffs and bodycams, but lack their powers.

In the Mail, we hear from an insider:

A council spokesman told MailOnline: “A six-year-old child climbing a tree is one thing but an 18-stone rugby player who might damage the tree by breaking the branches is another.”

What about an 18-stone child? And why can’t a big lad climb a tree? Why do children get more rights than adults?

“That is the sort of behaviour we are trying to discourage. We have had people badly injury themselves in the past.”

So what? Adults knows the risks. Children find ways of working out their limits. We’ll take freedom over banning orders, thanks.

“It’s not about stopping children from playing innocent games or engaging in healthy, outdoors activities, it’s about making the spaces more enjoyable for everyone.”

The Express and Star also rehash the same Times report. But no paper lists the 47 new “diktats”. Under the heading “Wandsworth Council parks and open spaces bye-laws –  Laws governing the use of our parks, gardens and open spaces”, the council tells us what fun we can all have in the fresh-ish air (still free at the point of delivery!).

 

No Running in the non-running zone:

 

Make your babies walk! 

 

 

No Sliding – on ice?

 

 

Vagrants raus! Go to the library. Do not soil the grass:

 

 

Sod it. Safer – and cheaper – to stay in doors and watch it all on the telly. Pass the blankets, mum.

 

Posted: 24th, February 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Red trolls in Purple States: how Russia defeated democracy

 

The Guardian has a few words on the Russian State-funded trolls accused of swinging the 2016 US Presidential election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. Russia saw in Trump, so the allegation follows, a better chance to grow and protect its monocular, illiberal interests.

The Russian regime often looks guiltier than a dog stood by a pile of poo. When the Russian PR machine talks, you’d be wise to hold your nose. It’s a steady stream of bull-made effluent. And it makes you wonder why Russia’s tosh has been imbibed with such power. Did Russian bots and spods really win it for Trump, boost Bernie Sanders and root for the Green Party’s Jill Stein? Is its propaganda so much more effective than the stuff seeping from Western regimes? And why does any of it matter?

The Cold War was won. But look out – the Ruskies have moved on from invasion and armed global socialism to a fearsome social media strategy. They might not be able to hack United States military supercomputers and trigger World War III, but they’ve got some terrific gossip about Clinton having had on-the-clock sex with Trump on a yellowy waterbed as Saddam Hussein drummed out Back in the USSR on Bono’s buttocks. (That was the rumour, right? If not, Oleg, call me, I have ideas and hashtags.) Whatever the truth, mentally-negligible Mary-Sue in a swing state bought it.

The Guardian tell us:

It was from American political activists that they [Russian trolls] received the advice to target “purple” swing states, something that was essential to the ultimate success of the campaign.

Well, quite. You target the area where you can have most effect. You know, like the, er, Guardian did:

To maximise the likelihood of your efforts making a difference, we’ve zeroed in on one of the places where this year’s election truly will be decided: Clark County, Ohio, which is balanced on a razor’s edge between Republicans and Democrats. In the 2000 election, Al Gore won Clark County by 1% – equivalent to 324 votes – but George Bush won the state as a whole by just four percentage points. This time round, Ohio is one of the most crucial swing states: Kerry and Bush have been campaigning there tire lessly – they’ve visited Clark County itself – and the most recent Ohio poll shows, once again, a 1% difference between the two of them. The voters we will target in our letter-writing initiative are all Clark County residents, and they are all registered independents, which somewhat increases the chances of their being persuadable.

Before Twitter, there was the Guardian’s interventionism. Called Operation Clark County, the paper wanted to “help readers have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio”.

Here was one reaction from the mouth-breathing colonials:

KEEP YOUR FUCKIN’ LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN’T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT’S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON’T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS … TOUGH SHIT!
PROUD AMERICAN VOTING FOR BUSH!

How the modern Left loves democracy. You can intervene if is means sneaking the demos the right answer to the big question. Noble Obama telling us a vote for Brexit would put us to the back of the queue and helpful Bill Clinton backing Boris Yeltsin with $1bn of aid are great. But a Russian nerd in an out-of-town office tweeting bollocks is a threat to democracy – something so precious that its champions call everyone who voted for Trump and Brexit thick as custard.

So much for confidence in democracy. Because that’s it, no? It’s not about Russian might. It’s about us thinking our way of life is so precarious that a few rogue propagandists can destroy it with a tweet.

Posted: 20th, February 2018 | In: Broadsheets, Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment


Brendan Cox is publicly shamed

Who sets the news agenda that makes Israel the top story, China only newsworthy when our politicians are there for business and the allegation that Brendan Cox sexually harassed two women, a claim he denies, the lead issue on Sky and the BBC? Sky News led with Cox this morning on the telly, and the story is the second most vital on the BBC ‘s website, there after reaction to mass murder at a Florida school. And not that Cox (and, no, it’s not nominative determinism; he denies it) is the main thrust of his own story. The Beeb’s headline is: “Murdered MP’s widower Brendan Cox quits charities.”

The Telegraph pads it out, telling readers that Cox has quit two charities “set up in her memory after sexual assault allegations from his past resurfaced”.

Brendan Cox denied sexually harassing two women while he was married to the late politician, but accepted “inappropriate” behaviour, saying: “I made mistakes and behaved in a way that caused some women hurt and offence.”

Offence causing is a crime?

He has left posts at More in Common and the Jo Cox Foundation after the Mail on Sunday published accusations made by a former colleague while they both worked at charity Save the Children in 2015.

The Guardian hears from Jo Cox’s sister Kim Leadbeater, who says the family would “support Brendan as he endeavours to do the right thing by admitting mistakes he may have made in the past”. Mistakes he may have committed have been admitted to? Eh?
Well, it looks like they’ve had time to work it out because the Mail first reported the allegations in November 2015. Cox called them “untrue”:
Are they any more or less untrue now they’ve been repeated?
Labour MPs Yvette Cooper thinks some sort of justice has been served. “Hopefully we are seeing a change in climate and culture where people are recognising that those in positions of power should not abuse [those] positions,” Cooper told the Sky News programme Sunday with Niall Paterson.
And Labour MP Jess Phillips added – does she do anything other than talk to media? – “The fact of the matter is that it’s not enough just to say ‘oh, I’m sorry’. You have to show how you’re going to change the way you are in the future and I think Brendan, more so than many I’ve seen in this area, is actually trying to do that.”
One error and you need rewiring. How fair we are.
Public shaming of anyone who’s behaved “inappropriately” is a sad ambition. What happened to the rule of law and the right to defend yourself? When did the British wing of Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice start wathing us?

Posted: 18th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians, Tabloids | Comment


Sod the Green Belt: give people the right to own their own homes

The country needs more and better housing. That much is certain. Demand outstrips supply. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and more legislation rooted in it have stymied house building and skewed the market.

Around 10% of land has been built on. There’s space for housing. In expensive, congested, desirable, money-making, opportunity-rich London, more than a fifth of the land is classified as Green Belt.

And since the 1972-1973 building boom when around 300,000 new homes were constructed – the current supply is around 200,000 new homes; demand is 250,000; Chancellor Hammond says we need 300,000 – technology has improved.

What’s the problem, then? Why aren’t there enough homes?

Rowan Moore tells Guardian readers:

The problem that Britain has, partly as a result of cultural and governmental promotion of ownership, is that renting is, objectively speaking, second best. You can currently pay more in rent than an owner would in mortgage interest

Well, quite. It’s also true that the landlord doesn’t only pay a mortgage. Properties need to be maintained. Estate agencies are dedicated to overseeing property care, and ensuring a place is occupied. It’s not all profit.

But none of that explains why homes are not being built. It’s not about rented or owned; it’s about the total number of homes. We need more.

The question is why with such a pressing need for homes, so much land remains protected by legislation. If building homes is the priority, it’s time to free up the market and in so doing allow more of the less well off the opportunity to own their own homes and not be beholden to the State.

 

Posted: 18th, February 2018 | In: Money, News, Politicians | Comment


Russia meddled in US elections just as Clinton backed one Russian leader

Not done with trolling the US through Russia Today, the allegation is that Vladimir Putin meddled in the 2016 US election, chiefly backing Donald Trump in his against-the-odds victory over the pre-ordained Hillary Clinton. This week 13 Russians have been criminally charged with interfering in the 2016 US election. Also implicated is so-called “troll farm” the Internet Research Agency. A 37-page indictment alleges Russians were “supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J Trump … and disparaging Hillary Clinton”.

Foreign entities interfering in US elections is wrong. Barack Obama would never do that.

 

 

And neither would a Clinton:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, April 3— As President Clinton and President Boris N. Yeltsin of Russia began their first summit meeting today, Mr. Clinton presented the Russian leader with some $1 billion in American aid programs intended to support Russian democrats and spur the Western allies to make Russian reform their top foreign policy priority.

Among the new or expanded programs in the package were loan guarantees to build apartments for demobilized Russian soldiers; loans for Russian entrepreneurs; medical supplies, food and grain assistance; funds to help the Russian Government sell state-owned industries, and technical advisers to help repair pipelines and oil wells and begin exporting again.

Mr. Clinton said the package was intended to help promote free-market skills on a grass-roots level in both Moscow and the Russian countryside, so the movement toward democratic reform would continue no matter who governs in the Kremlin.

Is it only criminal when we don’t like the outcome? Is democracy being damaged by Russian oligarchs or helped by foreign billionaires? Do we only like the obscenely wealthy foreigners meddling with democracy when they’re on our side?

Posted: 17th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment


John McDonnell will bankrupt the Tube and there’s no such thing as a free market

No sooner has John McDonnell outlined his ambition to renationalise energy, rail and water than news reaches us of a shortfall. The Guardian notes:

Transport for London (TfL) has insisted it is not facing a financial crisis despite planning for a near £1bn deficit next year after a surprise fall in passenger numbers.

Mr McDonnell told BBC Radio 4’s Today earlier:

“It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost.”

The assets make the profits. The profits pay the bills. What about if people alter their behaviour?

He went on:

“We aren’t going to take back control of these industries in order to put them into the hands of a remote bureaucracy, but to put them into the hands of all of you – so that they can never again be taken away.”

But bureaucrats will still run the entity, albeit ones appointed by the State, right? Who are they accountable to? How does anyone get redress for poor service? Is McDonnell seeking to serve taxpayers best or just tying to give meaning, direction and authority to the State?

“Public ownership is not just a political decision, it’s an economic necessity. We’ll move away from the failed privatisation model of the past, developing new democratic forms of ownership, joining other countries, regions and cities across the world in taking control of our essential services.”

So you take over the London Underground, and budget accordingly. And then there’s a £1bn deficit. Which means..? As Ronald Reagan put it in 1986: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

 

 

But business has never been independent of the State. What of PPI, regulation and subsidies, which rather dampen the idea that immense profits are being made? (In 2006-7, the Government spent £6.8 billion of public money in the the privatised rail industry – around half what it cost to run the entire thing.) What of Government calls for curbs on executive pay and vows to “fix the broken housing market”? So much for the free market.

Tony Blair told us “Stability can be a sexy thing”. Theresa May wants to be “strong and stable”. They seek to maintain the status quo. Doesn’t that add up to the established businesses and their links to Government rolling on and on and not entrepreneurship, the best of which is often triggered by volatility and daring?

McDonnell’s monocular and forgetful call for re-nationalisation has not come out of the blue. It’s just an addendum to current and recent Government policy and a crisis of purpose.

Posted: 15th, February 2018 | In: Broadsheets, Key Posts, Money, News, Politicians | Comment