The Jewish Chronicle, under the “leadership” of the rabid racist Stephen Pollard, has evolved into a representation of the very worst of the gutter press. Most people know this but because the title has the word “Jewish” in it, very few feel able to say it. Since I don’t give a fuck about the God forsaken rag and its bullying ( or its lawyers ) I can be one of the few.
I have long been of the view that it was impossible for the Chronicle to sink any lower. However, its role in the horrible pile on against Holly Rigby has blown that theory out of the water.
This pile on was inspired by a certain Gabriel Webber, a wannabe Rabbi proud of what he regards as his consumate cleverness and his ” liberalism”. The reality is that Webber is a racist with the intellectual capacity on a par with that of my sister’s pet canary’s retarded cousin. He spends most of his time on twitter being ” clever”. Except whenever he encounters someone who calls out his bullshit he runs away. He is obviously a chip off the old Mirvis block.
Holly Rigby is a teacher. She works in an inner city London school with a student population as diverse as you would expect. She is, by all accounts talented and dedicated. She upset the Israelists with comments that implied a less than eulogistic attitude to The State of Israel. As she has pointed out these were statements of obvious political fact .
Now Holly expected the Israelists to come after her. She was from the outset expecting it to cost her her membership of the Labour Party which, thanks to the likes of Jon Lansman and Owen Jones, the Israelists now own. She had ruefully accepted this as the price of speaking truth to power. What she didn’t expect, and didn’t factor in, was that they would also seek to destroy the career of this pricelessly dedicated teacher by whingeing and whining to her employer like the narcissistic cry babies that they are.
Webber kicked it off with a not so subtle threat.
Replying to @hollyarigbyAre you currently a teacher? Your anti-Semitic tweet is plainly a breach of the Teachers’ Standards (see in particular page 14): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665520/Teachers__Standards.pdf
Pollard, took it to another level, naming the school at which she was employed and extracting a craven, sinister and disturbing comment from the school.
“…..it was taking reports of her comments seriously. We are looking into the matter using our internal policies and processes and will take any appropriate action that is necessary.”
Hopefully Holly will get the support of her colleagues and her union that she deserves.
Evil and meaning are difficult concepts. But if this behaviour by Webber, Pollard and others isn’t evil then the word must be consigned to the trash can as being meaningless.
So what do Holly Rigby’s crimes consist of ?
Well there was some of the same old tired stuff blah blah blah. She defended Chris Williamson and Pete Willsman and / or maybe Ken Livingstone. Who knows. Who cares. But the real crimes were some comments that reflected badly on stuff dear ro the Israelist heart.
First she addressed the issue of the intervention of Mirvis. She might have said Mirvis is a racist. And/or she might have made reference to……..erm……..lets call it his intellectual limitations. I would have. But then Holly is a much nicer person than I could ever hope to be. She simply put the intervention into its proper and rightful political context. That is, Mervis is on the hard right wing of the politic spectrum and a mega fan of BoJo, referencing his eulogistical welcoming of BoJo’s election to the Tory leadership.
Pollard, under his nom de plume, Rosa Doherty, protested that the congratulating of BoJo was a common formality whenever a new party leader is chosen. Really ? I have no recollection of the Chief Rabbi congratulating Corbyn when he was elected. My powers of recollection are not all they used to be so if someone can help me out on this one………In any event this was more than a piece of common courtesy and established protocol. Mirvis expressed his ” delight” at BoJo’s election. Nor was Pollard’s case helped when the very day after his intervention photos appeared of Mirvis being high fived by the racist President of Israel.
Holly went on to describe the Labour Party’s adoption of the batshit thing known as the IHRA ” definition” of antisemitism as ” shameful”. Now the thing to remember about this is that not only does the “definition” define antisemitism in a way that would not be recognised by the overwhelming majority of the 1.5 billion stake holding speakers of the language but it has a not so secret protocol to the effect that criticising the ” definition ” is itself antisemitic. It is this not so secret protocol that Holly has fallen foul of. And then of course the notion that the meanings of words and expressions in the English language are established by bums on chairs around a table is absurd. But absurd does not equate to ” shameful”.
What is shameful about the IHRA thing is that it is profoundly racist. Declaring the sentiment that ” The State of Israel is a racist endeavour ” is antisemitic, brands just about every Palestinian down to the last man woman and child as racist. Imagine my saying every Jew is a racist. There may be a few Palestinians that don’t think Israel is a racist endeavour but in a total of nine months in and around the Jordan Valley I never met one. In order to argue against the sentiment without being racist one should argue that it isn’t true, not that it is antisemitic. Thats racist. Similary, of course it labels the vast majority of Muslims as racists. Maybe Pollard, Webber et al think they are. Koff.
Now Israelists trying to screw perceived enemies through their employment and destroy their careers is not entirely new. But until recently it has been an activity confined to the lunatic fringe, the Colliers, Hoffman’s, Phillips and Pickens of this world. Now it is a tactic employed by what we may call the ” mainstream” so that these orgs are not now distinguishable from the traditional nut jobs. They are all the lunatic fringe now.
As luck would have it, the case of Audrey White came along at about the same time. It is important to understand that this case is not a one off. This is how Pollard works, it is merely that it is all here in illustrative detail.
Note the last two paragraphs. IPSO realised they were dealing with a serial dissembler and its concerns about Pollard were ” drawn to the attention of IPSOS standards department”
“The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable.
The Committee’s concerns have been drawn to the attention of IPSO’s Standards department.”