Category Archives: Uncategorized

Adamwagner:racist

It has come to my attention that Adam Wagner is calumniously busy accusing me of posting antisemitic material. And that he is taking legal action against me and plans to call the cops on me for something or other. There is obviously going to be some very interesting conversations taking place. To kick start these conversations I enclose the text of a complaint about Mr Wagner that I have submitted to the Bar Standards Board. You will note that it doesn’t even touch on Mr Wagner’s activities as a leading covidiot obstructionist, activities that have surely led to numerous unnecessary deaths. That is a story for another day. For the moment we will concentrate on the racism issue.

” If you tweet enough you will eventually reveal your off duty thoughts”

me

———————————————————————————–

I wish to lodge a complaint against the right wing part time barrister Adam Wagner of Doughty Street Chambers.

I do this in the context of your advice to barristers in respect of their social media activities. That is……

Remember that you are bound by Core Duty 5 not to behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or the profession at all times.”

The essence of the complaint is that Mr. Wagner is given to the expression of racist sentiments particularly in the course of his activities on twitter. I do understand that 114,000 tweets is likely to rot anyone’s brain. There has to be something wrong with someone that tweets from his sick bed and tweets while he is out on a school trip with one of his kids. But I would contend that this is no valid defence.

He seems to have a particular disdain for black people. In particular I would draw your attention to his infamous tweet to the effect that references to to the Windrush scandal are  merely attempts to distract attention away from what Wagner calls “ antisemitism”. Screen shot below.

What is particularly alarming about this is the attitude of Doughty Street Chambers. It is helpful to compare and contrast this attitude to that of Cornerstone Chambers vis a vis Jon Holbrook. Holbrook posted a tweet in which he referred to a black teenager as “a stroppy teenager of colour.” Some felt this was unforgivable racism. Others felt that while it was an indication that Holbrook was a bit of a Col Blimp given to what the BBC have taken to referring to as “ outdated language” but it was scarcely a hanging matter. But in any event the army of twitter lawyers called for complaints to be made to the Bar Standards Board and demanding stares were cast in the direction of Holbrook’s chambers. Cornerstone’s response was swift and merciless. It was made clear that Holbrook’s attitude was inconsistent with membership of the chambers and Holbrook had to resign.

These things are all relative I guess. But however one feels about the case it can surely be agreed that it is pretty trifling relative to Wagner’s contemptuous dismissal of the horrific lived experience of an entire generation of black immigrants.

By contrast with the attitude of Cornerstone, Doughty Street are completely relaxed about Wagner’s behaviour and sentiments and  find them  to be perfectly consistent with membership of the chambers, and fully in line with the chambers code of conduct.

In the face of a backlash from horrified black folks and others, Wagner showed no contrition. No pleading that it was an inevitable slip that afflicts twitter obsessives, even those with the very best of intentions. Rather he did what he always does when he encounters significant criticism. He appointed himself judge and jury and declared a twitter trial. This consisted of the usual meandering “ thread” of over twenty tweets of self absorbed justification, at the end of which he, inevitably,declares himself not guilty.

Image

Wagner is not a fan of Muslims either.

This became apparent when Abi Wilkinson alerted the world to the relationship between Daniel Finkelstein and the Gatestone Institute. Finkelstein is something of a wolf in sheep’s clothing who promotes a persona suggesting that butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. Behind the candy floss of his public face, however, he is highly manipulative.The Gatestone Institute exists for one reason and one reason only. To bait Muslims and spread anti Muslim hate. Finkelstein was on the Board of this racist cess pit for two years and lied about it.

Abi drew attention to  Finkelstein’s connections. Further she  drew attention to the association between Gatestone and the notorious racist  Douglas Murray. Murray, of course, is of the view that “ things have to be made harder for Muslims all round “. 

Finkelstein seems to concur. He just shrugged and told how he  “finds Douglas stimulating and often right”.This is consistent with his being in the habit of lamenting what he regards as the problems Muslims have integrating.

There was the inevitable twitter pile on. But it was not as you might expect directed at Finkelstein, but rather was directed at Abi Wilkinson.

Now there was no need for Wagner to get involved. But he seems to think that nothing can be allowed to pass without benefit of his fully considered disinterested opinion. So he jumped in, attempting to justify Finkelstein’s unjustifiable behaviour and attempting to  shut Abi Wilkinson down. 

Astonishingly he goes on to tell us that “ Danny is my role model”. A position that is only explainable by Wagner sharing Finkelsteins racist instincts and being willing to give expression to them.

Wagner is fond of telling us that he is proud of “ working closely” with an organisation that calls itself Campaign Against Antisemitism. This is an organisation that is notoriously engaged in Muslim hating and baiting. It is especially given to the dissemination of racist cartoons. Example below. It is not known how close Wagner is to the dissemination of this material. What we can say is that he is closely associated with the organisation concerned and proud of it.

CAA are best characterised as a nut job bunch of racist trolls. Essentially the lunatic fringe of the Israelist lunatic fringe. Anyone seeking a simple and emphatic introduction  to these crazies can see one here. The head banger Glasman tried to bully youtube in removing this video but the estimable Asa Winstanley secured it.

You will see that Glasman reserves a particular eulogy to one David Toube, AKA Habibi, AKA Lucy Lips.. Here is Lucy on his finest form. It seems Lucy is very much part of the Wagner/ CAA axis.

Wagner’s cosy relationship with this profoundly racist organisation is firmly grounded in a common hatred of free speech on the subject of Israel/Palestine. This manifests itself in an irrational, obsessive campaign against the Labour Party. I am no fan of the Labour Party, it can burn in hell for all I care. But the pathological fantacism of Wagner is suggestive of a significent and dangerous illness. He is for ever demanding purges. That is, he seem to think that the best way to make make the party more welcoming for Jews is to expel a bunch of Jews. Those that are the wrong kind of Jew so far as Wagner is concerned.

Wagner’s distaste for Muslims is conclusively demonstrated by his shrill and obsessive shilling for the abomination that goes by the name of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition of Antisemitism. The purpose of this is to prevent Palestinians from giving expression to their lived experience in the Middle East and to restrict the human right to free expression on the matter of Israel/Palestine. Wagner’s activities here suggest that he is either stupid or that he thinks the rest of us are. E.g.

“ From a human rights perspective one of the best reasons for agreeing a definition  is to *protect free speech* as if it is carefully defined with examples, per IHRA, it can help people claim free speech and say definitively their speech doesn’t fall within it.”

 I have witnessed less absurd thinking from my sister’s pet canary’s retarded cousin. Notice that he regards the IHRA thing as definitive. That the ” in the circumstances ” caveats are just a smoke screen, never to be referred to again. We knew that already.

It is hard to believe that Wagner really believes that the meanings of words and expressions in the English language are established by the musings of a bunch of bums on chairs around a table. Such a belief was one of the surer signs that Humpty Dumpty was nuts. “ A word means whatever I mean by it”. Of course it is no part of the business of the BSB to protect the public from the stupidity of a barrister. That is entirely a case of caveat emptor. 

However the real issue here is racism.

Wagner proudly boasts that he was largely responsible for having the IHRA thing “ adopted” by the Labour Party. However, it should be remembered that the great bulk of the thing was READILY “ adopted “ by the Labour Party. The kerfuffle was all about two of the eleven “ examples” that were entirely to do with Israel and nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism This despite the fact that if you were to spend a day on a random street asking passers by what they understood by the expression “ antisemitism” it is highly unlikely that Israel would get a mention. I know this because I have done it.

The biggy was to the effect that it was antisemitic to claim that The State of Israel was a racist endeavour. The racism here should not be too difficult to spot. There may be some Palestinians that don’t think Israel is a racist endeavour but in all my considerable direct on the ground experience I never met any. Further it is a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. 

This is to say that Wagner brands every Palestinian, almost down to the last man, woman and child, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims as racists. Imagine the reaction were someone to say that every Jew was something or other, the something or other being highly uncomplimentary.

………………………………………………………………..

Nothing will come of this of course. The BSB is a toothless tiger but it is always good to get stuff on the record.


peace in our time

Well here we go again. Palestinians getting stroppy.

There was peace. Then there wasn’t peace. Then an uncaring, posturing world demanded there should be peace again. In less time than it takes to properly assess Hull City’s chances of winning the Champions League sometime soon, it was so.

The peace in question is not peace as we ordinarily understand it. This is Israelist peace. Pax Israeliana. The Palestians accept their submissive place in the de facto one racist state between the river and the sea and desist from being troublesome. It is only necessary that they appear to tolerate their condition. Of course if they can be persuaded to like it so much the better.

There is peace. The strength and health of the peace can be measured by the number of interfaith knitting clubs in and around Tel Aviv. Ideally there will be enough to enable the Israelis to plausably claim that they do indeed have the happiest blacks in Africa.

Now some say the Israelis don’t want peace. This is nonsense. They do want peace. Peace and quiet. Every thief wants to be left in peace to enjoy his ill gotten gains. And, of course, no thief wants justice for obvious reasons.

the bod, the church of england and stephen sizer

The campaign against the Methodist church, was, of course, part of a wider campaign against the churches generally. A campaign that is now being extended to the universities.Here is another blast from the past, that I put together a while back.

……………………………………………………………………………………..

As we have said the campaign/vendetta(s) against Stephen Sizer has been long, intense and vicious.  It reached a peak in January 2010 and that peak became a plateau.  For most of the time it has been a hotch potch of hysterics by individuals, though not without varying degrees of coordination.

Here, we tell the story of how communal organisations i.e the Council of “Christians”  and Jews and The Board of Deputies of British Jews came to formally join in.   It is an extremely gruesome tale.

Stephen Sizer first came to the attention of the Hasbarafia in consequence of the juvenile antics of one Joseph Weismann, a third generation Messianic Jew and his mentor, one James Mendelsohn.  This all seems to have begun in 2006.  Weismann was, and doubtless remains, a flaky juvenile idiot that engagingly describes himself as “a gifted writer“.   Perhaps the most telling comment about that is that his scribblings do seem to be appreciated at the meeting ground for Islamaphobes of all shades and hues known as Harry’s Place (recommended by the EDL).

Mendelsohn is a law lecturer at the University of Huddersfield and another emotionally fragile Jew for Jesus.  He is a long standing activist in the Messianic Jewish Alliance of Great Britain, through whose ranks he rose, and whose President he eventually became.  Weismann is/was a member of the same organisation and his relationship with Mendelsohn seems to have been one of something akin to hero worship.

Weismann’s campaign against Revd. Sizer, though full of juvenile idiocy, was certainly energetic.  Using numerous aliases, establishing a website dedicated to the cause, and working it seemingly full time, he began a process of attrition that has had unfortunate consequences and his harassment of  Revd. Sizer, his employers and his colleagues in real time, along with his internet campaign, must have caused Revd. Sizer’s family some discomfort.  A (presumably) coincidental break-in of the Sizer family home contributed to this discomfort, for sure.  The Hasbarafia cheered him on from the sidelines and then gleefully joined in.  The moronic drama queen, Jonathan Hoffman, was moved to declare “We are all Joseph Weismann now”, after Revd. Sizer went to the police for relief, setting off an Habarafia blogosphere feeding frenzy condemning the action as an attempt to censor free speech.

However, while these two bottom feeders can be identified as the ultimate source of all the needless trouble they are not especially relevant to the aspect of it all that is the subject of this ditty. For that, we have to move on to a certain “Revd” Nick Howard, the Council of “Christians” and Jews and certain members of the Board of Deputies glitterati.  Weismann and Mendelsohn are a story unto themselves and they will be revisited elsewhere.

THE ADVENTURES OF REVEREND NICK

Nick Howard is a case and a half.  Not withstanding his Jewish lineage and upbringing, he converted to Christianity while a 15 year old Eton schoolboy on the back of attending one lecture.  You could accuse young Nick of many things, but not of being indecisive.  At the still tender age of 21 and a third year student at Oxford, he embarked on a rampage of attempted conversions of Jewish students. This caused quite a stir.  Rabbi Shomley Boteach, who ran a society for Jewish students described his activities as “spiritual Nazism”, and complained to the Vice Chancellor.  A Jewish Chronicle leader commiserated with his father, the former Home Secretary Michael Howard, for the embarrassment Nick had caused him.

Nick had explained that that so far as conversion was concerned, the Jews were a priority (our emphasis) but Nick’s “Christianity” soon conveniently “matured”.  Within three years, he had moved on.  In an interview with the Daily Mail he explained the urgency of bringing Muslims etc.  to Christ, but Jews were not on the list.  The Jews, who a very short time ago were a priority, now don’t even get a mention in this context.  Presumably, “the Jewish Question” could be safely left until the Second Coming when their re-gathering in the Holy Land would be complete, and they would be given their final chance.  Or, alternatively, “I’d better leave that lest I upset my grandmother and disgrace my father, yet again”.

On leaving Oxford, Nick went to Durham as a theology student with a view to ordination by the Church of England (funded by the Diocese of Oxford).  His relationship with the College was a very difficult one.  Essentially, the problem was that the College thought he was there as a student and Nick thought he was there to teach.  During the course of his second year, Nick was warned that his attitude was not what was looked for in Anglican priests.  For example, Nick is vehemently opposed to the ordination of women, which is fair enough.  He is not alone in that.  However, Nick flatly refused to discuss and debate this and other issues. Further, he flatly refused to take communion with his tutors and fellow students because, by and large, they held opinions that differed from his own. Inevitably at the end of his “studies”, the College recommended that he not be ordained and he duly wasn’t.

The next few years were an extremely miserable time for Nick.  He felt increasingly irrelevant and unfulfilled, making a desultory attempt to keep body and soul together giving talks on behalf of  the Association of Evangelists, to anyone that would listen and offer him a cup of tea and a biscuit, in return.  Along with these feelings, festered the important ones, so far as this story is concerned. Anger and bitterness at the Church that, as he sees it, treated him so cruelly, set in.  Eventually, he went off to America where anyone can buy an ordination online for fifty bucks.

Nick managed to do a little better than that and succeeded in getting himself ordained by the Convocation of Anglicans of North America in November, 2010.  Who????  Well, it is a kind of obscure purpose built home for Episcopal disaffects.  Along with this came a job as assistant pastor at a CANA church in New York.  Attempting to reinvent himself, Nick became Bernard.  So, he’s Nick in London, and Bernard in NYC.

But this was not much comfort for Nick, and the festerings festered on.  Sometime between Nov. 2010 and Nov. 2011, Revd. Sizer came onto his radar, probably as a result of Nick’s observation of the vendetta(s) being conducted by the Hasbarafia.  Nick joined in and eventually, as we shall see, took it to another level.  It seems that all of  Nick’s hate and bitterness toward the Church, the Church he regards as “going rotten from the inside”,  crystallised around the person of Revd. Sizer who was everything he wanted to be, and yet whose theology and attitude to the Holy Land diametrically opposed his.

At 22.05 hours on 16th November 2011  Nick  emailed Christopher Hill, Bishop of Guildford and opened as follows……

Dear Bishop,

I am writing to you to appeal to you to suspend Rev Sizer from his position as Vicar of Christ Church Virginia water…………

Yes really.  That is how he opened.

He then went into the now familiar diatribe about anti-Semitism, linking to web sites blah blah blah, la di da.

A Diocese official immediately called it for what it was…. “mischief making“, and on 22nd November, the Bishop responded, saying that differing political opinions are definitely exempted from disciplinary proceedings in the Church of England and that he sees nothing that would merit disciplinary matters.

But  Nick is irrepressible.  The festering festered  on and eventually, on 27th December, in desperation, he resorted to making a “guest post” on Harry’s Place (recommended by the EDL) entitled…

“The Church of England must take action against Rev Stephen Sizer“

This is a long meandering regurgitation of the same old, same old that probably made Nick feel better for a while, but only a short while.  The depression will have set in again very quickly.  Then, for probably the first and only time in his life,  Nick had a brilliant idea.  Maybe daddy could help…..

THE MARCH BLITZ KREIG

Daddy,  Michael ” something of the night” Howard, indeed could and would help.

michael-howard-cartoon

In an eyebrow raising move, the Council of “Christians” and Jews had co-opted Michael Howard onto its Board of Trustees.   This had provoked considerable puzzlement. Even the high Church, high Tory blogger calling himself Archbishop Cranmer mused about it, pointing out that  Howard was a strange bedfellow for an organisation allegedly devoted to working for understanding and dialogue.

 “He is not noted for his diplomacy and dialogue, has never written about his faith, is not noted for his work in the promotion of religious and cultural understanding between Christianity and Judaism.”

The explanation is to be found in the fact that the CCJ had moved on from its original laudable mission of fostering understanding between Christians and Jews, one that it had followed for most of its long existence, and had become politicised.  Many now say that a more descriptively appropriate name would be Christian and Jewish Zionists For The Occupation.  The confirmation of the reason for the co-opting of Howard is to be found in David Giffords’ response to the criticism.

“ ….has a lot of ideas and is very vocal. …….the Board’s new focus will be tackling anti-Semitism BIG TIME” (our emphasis)

So there you have it.  The CCJ confirms it is no longer in the dialogue and understanding business but has moved into the anti-Semitism business.  By anti-Semitism of course, they don’t mean concerning themselves with Jewish children being baited on the school bus and other mundane things like that.  Once again, IT IS ALL ABOUT ISRAEL, and  the BoD’s political  agenda.In essence, they have left the dialogue and understanding business and gone into the Hasbarafia business.  Obviously, this is going to involve some sleeves rolled up street fighting and nobody loves a good brawl and a good vendetta more than Howard.  In that sense at least, the apple didn’t fall far from the tree.  In this light, the co-option makes perfect sense.

When Nick went to Daddy with the Sizer issue, he (Howard Sr.) adopted it as a mission, partly from personal conviction, partly from a simple, primitive love of a good fight and,  partly as a way of giving his loser son a leg up in the self-esteem stakes.  He found enthusiastic allies in “Christians”,  Nigel McCulloch and David Gifford.

Nigel McCulloch is an extremely unpleasant character.  A committed Christian Zionist and a lover of plots and intrigue, he is perhaps most famous for campaigning for the ordination of women and then promptly ordaining his own wife.  More particularly in this context, he loathes Revd. Sizer, to the extent that he is given to referring to him as “Mr.” Sizer.  He has respectful options like “Revd.  Sizer“, “Dr. Sizer“ and “Stephen Sizer“ but he prefers  the, in the context of a senior priest, dismissive, “Mr.“ The exception is those formal times when he deems it more prudent to be polite.  Then he holds his nose and manages to type “Stephen“.  It is all very, very personal and very, very political.

Howard’s role was to raise the  matter with the Trustees and with the help of McCulloch, get an agreement that “something must be done about Sizer“ and in effect, give McCulloch and Gifford the green light to get that something done.  A little dickie bird, not directly involved in the business but close to it, tells us that Howard threatened to resign as a trustee if didn’t get his way on this.  We are not able to corroborate this but it is consistent with Howard’s character, or lack of it, and with the development of the story at this point.  Howard then sat back and kept a brooding, menacing eye on things, being “copied“ and “informed“.   Nick took it upon himself to keep prodding everyone concerned, making sure there was no falling down on the job.

McCulloch and Gifford put together plans for THE MARCH BLITZKREIG, liaising with the Board of Deputies (Jon Benjamin).

Revd. Sizer is to be attacked simultaneously on four fronts:  the press, the police, his Bishop, and Lambeth Palace.   Of course Nick can be trusted to put in his two pennyworth on the blogosphere.

A press release was prepared denouncing Revd. Sizer, and at the same time, a complaint to the police was put together charging Revd. Sizer with fomenting racial hatred.  Lambeth Palace was kept informed, much to the discomfort of the Palace official Toby Howarth, who clearly wasn’t buying this bullchit.  Meanwhile, David Gifford arranged for the Board of Deputies to meet with the Bishop of Guildford.  McCulloch was anxious that the timing of the press release be carefully managed to ensure maximum impact and in particular, that it reached The Church Times and the Jewish Chronicle as soon as possible.

Two considered and conscious decisions were taken, the first, by McCulloch and the second, by Gifford.

1)      The Bishop of Guildford is not to be supplied with a copy of the press release.

2)      The flat refusal of the Board to meet with Rev. Sizer and discuss their concerns with him is not to be made public, but to remain confidential. ( make of that what you will )

The press release appeared March 13th, the charge of hate speech was deposited with the police  around the same time and on the 15th March, TWOarticles appeared on Harry’s Place (recommended by the EDL) smearing and abusing Revd. Sizer, one by  Nick, and one by Joseph Weismann.   Nick and Weismann seemingly have unfettered access to the outlet.

Throughout this build up and beyond,  Nick was writing the scripts for both the CCJ and the Board.

For example, the Board readily accepted Nick’s offer to write their briefing for the meeting with Bishop Hill and their crib sheets for use in the meeting.

Yes, the venerable Board of Deputies of British Jews went to a meeting with a Church of England Bishop with crib sheets provided by  Nick Howard.

Get your head around that, if you possibly can.

At the same time, Nick was drafting letters for Gifford, who merely signed them.

Inevitably, it all went belly up.

We have no record of the meeting between the Bishop and the Board, but subsequent events tell us that the Board didn’t get anywhere near what they seem to have wanted.  Nick and Joe’s huffing and puffing on Harry’s Place (recommended by the EDL) produced the usual histrionics from the  crazies that infest that sad and sorry location, but to no real effect, just more preaching to the choir.  Lambeth Palace seems to have maintained its jaw dropped “can’t believe these idiots are doing this“ posture.  Then in April, the police more or less told them to quit playing silly buggers.

THE RETREAT FROM MOSCOW

At this stage McCulloch wanted out.  He had previously held that having received a serious complaint (omitting to mention it was from the nut job Nick, the son of his most influential trustee), the CCJ   had a responsibility to act.  He now  advised his trustees that this responsibility was discharged.

The CCJ  Trustees were not unanimous in their belief in the wisdom of this enterprise. Some of them were emphatic that Revd. Sizer was not anti-Semitic and over the coming  weeks, more cautious voices gradually came to prevail.  The CCJ  had shown itself for what it had become, a highly politicised BoD propaganda machine, albeit a highly incompetent one.   It had embarked on a nasty vendetta that made it look petty and ridiculous, and stood to be regarded as a laughing stock.  It had allowed itself to be used by the Board to do its (the Board’s) dirty work with disastrous results.

McCulloch was no ingénue here.  He knew he was being used by the Board, but he was ok with that.  He was fully aware that it was the reputation of the CCJ that was on the line, not that of the Board, and he worried, lest the Board left the CCJ  isolated.  In short, he knew there was no honour among felons and didn’t seem to trust the Board as far as he could throw them.  Yet, he was willing to risk the well being and reputation of his organisation in pursuit of the gratification of a personal obsession – the humbling of an influential anti Christian Zionist Vicar.

There had been a not inconsiderable back lash from the CCJ grass roots.  Many members were horrified by the action that had been taken and had made their feelings clear, including in the blogosphere.  The failure of the actions on every front fuelled the discontent.

McCulloch embarked on some pretty dismal and pathetic damage limitation.  To be fair, he didn’t have much to work with.  TheMarch 13th statement refers to the CCJ’s  “ …. drawing of the attention of the Surrey police to what they claim was an action tantamount to encouraging race hatred.”  That is, they TOLD  the police Revd. Sizer was encouraging race hatred.   Following the police response, a document appeared on the CCJ website designed to pacify the discontent in the ranks.  This said “We sought the advice of the Surrey police to ascertain the nature and the content of the website to which Mr Sizer provided a link”.

So TELLING the police and charging Revd. Sizer with stirring up race hatred becomes SEEKING THE ADVICE OF THE POLICE, on the nature of the content of a website, when they had already made up their minds on this.  McCulloch had already declared Revd. Sizer’s linking to an innocuous article on the site which discussed the window of time available to Israel for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities a “disgrace to his calling.”

The police response declared unequivocally that there was nothing unlawful in  Revd. Sizer’s behaviour.  Yet, everywhere McCulloch refers to the response, he inserts the word ACTUAL.  That is, there had been no ACTUAL criminality, implying there had been something close.  Sigh.

You will not be surprised to learn that both these documents have been disappeared and can no longer be found on the CCJ  website.

Nick of course, didn’t go away.  He kept poking at the trustees and getting the occasional half-hearted response.  He teamed up with James Mendelsohn to write an open letter to the South East Gospel Partnership demanding that they discontinue fellowship with Revd. Sizer AND Christ Church, Virginia Water.   No prizes for guessing how many fingers were employed in the response.  Further, he has never been able to wean himself off the habit of harassing Revd. Sizer’s staff.  The degree to which the BoD encourages and cooperates with this outrageous behaviour, we’re not at liberty to reveal yet.

By now, the CCJ had had more than enough, particularly as McCulloch himself, was the subject of a formal complaint to the Archbishop of York under the same Clergy Disciplinary Measure under which the Board are now pursuing Revd. Sizer.  The charge was conduct unbecoming and was in reference to McCulloch’s manipulation of the police response.  The charge was eventually dismissed on the grounds that the complainant had insufficient personal interest.

So the CCJ drew the line.  Not under any involvement, but under their publicly leading the charge.  The Board had assumed that the CCJ  led offensive would bring the desired result.  After realising that it was not to be, they hit upon the idea of the CDM complaint.  The CCJ  were careful not to publicly go anywhere near this, but encouraged the Board, made supportive noises in private  and passed on to them Nick’s pearls of wisdom.  In early October 2012, Gifford supplied the  Board with a link to a piece on Cranmer”s blog which they felt the Board would find helpful (presumably on a tip off  from Nick), and expressed his Trustees’ frustration at the slow progress in the CDM enterprise.

In October 2012, the Board asked the CCJ for support in their CDM complaint against Revd. Sizer, in the form of their adding an appendix to the charge sheet containing evidence of their own.  The then layout of the charge sheet had a space for the CCJ contribution.  However, no appendix or other visible support was forthcoming.  This time, it was the Board that had been left isolated.  Once bitten, twice shy.

All in all, it has to be said that McCulloch’s behaviour has been outrageous to a degree that invites the suspicion that as well as “fixing” Revd. Sizer, he was motivated by a wish to humiliate Bishop Hill.  It is a well established and accepted church norm that one Diocese does not interfere in the affairs of another, particularly with respect to the Bishop’s pastoral responsibilities towards his priests.  Also, he knew that the Bishop had made a public statement of support.  Yet months later, without any consultation with Bishop Hill, he issued a press statement charging one of Bishop Hill’s priests with racism and claiming to the police that he was guilty of stirring up racial hatred, and instructing that Bishop Hill not be provided with a copy of the statement.

Conduct unbecoming ?

adam wagner: blood on his hands

The right wing part time barrister Adam Wagner has blood on his hands.

When I have conversations with people about Wagner, it is often suggested to me that he is stupid, usually in reference to his seeming inability to grasp the simple concept of stay at home, stay safe, save lives and help relieve the pressure on traumatised front line health workers. It does seem that twitter and 112,000 tweets has rotted his brain.

I am not so sure. He is a highly effective self publicist. Further, he is an expert on infectious deseases and assures us we won’t get infected outdoors and that it is another ten years before I need worry about the next pandemic.

It could be less that he is stupid and more that he thinks everyone else is.

Unfortunately a lot of you are.

So 150,000 deaths and rising. A veritable holocaust. A lot of people have much to answer for. Principally this shit show of a government. Who could have even imagined that a virus so deadly and Bojo would arrive at much the same time. But there others that are guilty. Among them the denialists and the ” Englishman’s right to go to the pub” brigade.

Prominent among the latter is Wagner. The poster boy of The Brady Bunch.

There is a simple and direct line between Wagner’s social media activities and bodies on mortuary slabs. His starting point is not the horrendous nightmare that our health workers are living through, a nightmare that has one in five nurses having thoughts of suicide. Nor is it the traumas of 150,000 families. Rather it is what he calls, in the context of the governments admittedly ham fisted attempts to control the situation, ” a massive assault on our civil rights”.

Wagner is commonly referred to as ” the human rights lawyer Adam Wagner “. What exactly is a human rights lawyer and how do I get to be one ? I first have to be a lawyer, I get that. But what next ? It would seem that I just have call myself such. If I call myself a human rights lawyer consistently and often enough then this label will come to acquire the status of a self evident definite description. That is how Wagner got to be one. Certainly Wagner is highly selective about the human rights he champions. He is no fan of the right to freedom of expression . But that is a long story for another day.

His perspectives are way out of sync with those of the overwhelming majority of regular people.

” My 46 year old ex work colleague just died from Covid. He had no pre existing conditions. Protect your families and ignore the Covid Idiots.”

………John Kingsley

“It will not matter a jot to me that my individual liberty has been protected and my economic prospects are brighter if I am dead.
Simon Morgan (cancer patient), Crayford, London

Some say that if Wagner emerged from his elitist bubble and spent a couple of weeks working on a corvid ward, or working as a hospital porter wheeling out the bodies it might go a long way to sorting out his head and reorganising his priorities. Then again it might not. The reality is that Adam Wagner has only one priority and that is AdamWagner. I guess there is always the option of shipping him off to Indonesia ,where, it is said, they put obstructionists to work digging graves for corvid victims.

Not so long ago Wagner was a deservidly obscure barrister. He was going nowhere. In desperation he turned to twitter in an attempt to boost his profile.

I was a junior barrister and it gave me a voice” he declared in a recent podcast.

He cheerfully acknowledges that his prolific tweeting was a career move. When he boasted that he charged £300 an hour one wag commented……

300 squids an hour! Jesus if you ever got off twitter you could be rich.”

Although I love doing public commentary I can’t deny there are professional benefits (as long as I don’t make an idiot of myself) through profile raising, a bit of paid media work and related work coming in.

Much of the ” related work ” that he refers to, of course, is arising out of his wholly improper relationship with the so called Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once again, a story for another day.

The Bar Standards Board is a wholly toothless tiger that functions to protect iffy barristers, not the public. It has , however, in the context of the Hewson case, made it clear that “a barrister’s actions on social media can diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in individual barristers and the profession.

As we find ourselves in the midst of a terrible winter/spring Wagner doesn’t care. So he just waffles on about ” accountability”. He tells us that while the virus moves fast, ” it doesn’t move so fast that there couldn’t be fourteen days consultation and discussion before any new regulation is brought in.

He tells us this in conditions in which even a days delay can cost thousands of lives.

The people don’t give a shit about accountability. they just want the powers that be to do something that works.

Way back in early March 2020 when the seriousness of the corvid infections became apparent, I really felt that Wagner would struggle to make it all about him. I needn’t have been concerned.

His campaign against the Labour Party had blown itself out.The stark reality of anti black racism had put firmly into perspective the problem of what he calls “left wing antisemitism ” . Windrush and BLM, to Wagner’s intense irritation, drove it right out of the public consciousness, if it had ever been there.

He had no interest in the public health catastrophe and the unimaginable misery that was about to befall the populace. He saw only opportunity, much in the way that the black market spiv sees war time as such.

He would become the twitter guru on the virus and what he calls the “”human rights” implications of the regulations that emerged in the governments cack handed attempts to deal with the horror. Regular people are as interested in the difference between a law and a regulation as you are in last Sundays results in the 4th division of the Albanian basketball league.

The rights we are concerned with are the right to health and the right to not suffer avoidable disability or premature death. We don’t give a flying fuck about the esoteric twitter notions of Wagner and the other elitist twitter lawyers, who really should find something more helpful to do with their time. It would seem, unfortunately, that Doughty Street Chambers has a disproportionate share of coevid cavaliers.

Wagner tells us that he would not recomend that other lawyers should spend all the hours he has on this batshit but ” at least I have become an expert on the covid regulations”.

There has to be somebody out there that cares. But then there must be somebody out there more boring than Paul McCartney.

As the death toll mounted in the spring, Wagner and his acolytes just prattled on. As the numbers went through the roof this winter , Wagner continued to just prattle on. Not a single solitary word about the public health implications of the actions of our hapless government. The people are well aware that a bit of authoritarianism is necessary in these circumstances. Check it out with the the folks in Wuhan and New Zealand. It is not a bit of playing fast and lose with executive power that troubles regular people , it is the fact that they they are so crap at it.

When the ” rule of six ” arrived Wagner squealed like a poor girl’s Rees Mogg ( sit down Jess Phillips), that ” bang goes my game of five a side”. Poor baby.

Last spring he spent much of his time patrolling his local park and harrassing hapless police officers that were trying to get people to desist from behaviour that was obviously putting all our lives at risk. There are times when the police deserve harrassing. When they are trying to help contain a deadly virus is not one of them.

When the Welsh devolved authority tried to prevent people travelling to Wales from England where infection rates were much higher, he gleefully informed us that we should not worry about this since ” the police have no power to enforce it.” This prompted one startled twitterat to bitterly suggest to him that he should tell this to the desperate and overrun health care staff who surely ” will be pleased to here this”.

With an unbelievable lack of self awareness he cheerfully tells us….

I am balancing the need (as I see it) to continue this discussion from a human rights perspective and not be seen as endorsing a lax approach to following government guidance. Have had enough emails already saying I’m killing people”

That is, Wagner feels that his insatiable appetite for self promotion is an adequate balance of 100,000 deaths. He feels compelled balance the tsunami of deaths and disabilities with his need for self promotion.

With similar lack of self awareness he recently announced. , ” 100,000 deaths. This is a very dangerous virus.”

He didn’t think to ask himself how many of these deaths were down to him.

Other members of the profession are becoming increasingly uneasy about his activities. One barrister advised him, in the context of the 400 nut jobs at an Haredi wedding in Stamford Hill to “ be more thoughtful about the impact of your statements”. Wagner had advised them that they should ” do whatever is necessary to protect your mental health” . They took this to mean that if not having a 400 guest wedding would make them a bit depressed they had clearqance from a leading authority on the regulations to go ahead and have one.

Wagner has had several twitter convos with the barrister Becky Agate. Notably…….

BA ” The number of people dying is doubling every three days Adam. Enough is enough, please stop. These rules are designed to save lives Now enough is enough”

AW ” I think it is important to consider whether the extreme restrictions on on our lives are necessary and proportionate. I can’t think of a more important time to engage from a human rights perspective.”

A couple of regular people jumped in.

” Welsh girl abroad ” Adam these are two of a friends triplets( picture) Both premature and therefore vulnerable. An old school friend died yesterday. I am finding the idea of further restrictions perfectly proportionate at the moment.

Geoffrey Healy … Human rights are not much use if you are dead

BA…”The difficulty Adam is that your analysis translates into excuses to ignore the science based restrictions designed to keep the most vulnerable in society alive . Your speculation about what may or may not be lawful is forgetting them. You are on the wrong side of this right now. I absolutely believe in your right to free speech but implore you to use it more responsibly“.

Ultimately the problem with Wagner is that he is a narcissistic elitist and racist. And he is addressing a situation that is largely a class and race issue.

He sits safely in his ivory tower in Zoomerabia cheerleading for the ” libertarian ” right. Meanwhile the epidemic rages wildly disproportionatley through ethic minority communities and the downtrodden disadvantaged sections of society.

Wagner doesn’t care. He is particularly dismissive of the experiences of black people.

Image

The interesting thing about this abomonable tweet is to compare and contrast the attitude of Doughty Street Chambers to the response of Cornerstone Chambers to the faux pas of Jon Holbrook. They declared that Holbrook’s social media activities were ” irreconcilable with membership of the chambers”.

Holbrook departed.

Doughty Street are perfectly comfortable with Wagner’s racism and find it perfectly compatible with Wagner’s membership of the Chambers.

Wagner’s tweet provoked a considerable critical response not lest from black people. Wagner huffed and puffed and blustered. These tweets he has deleted. Gambling, successfully, that nobody would have taken screen shots. The original tweet was left up because he knew screen shots had been taken and deleting it would not have been a good look.

It is not just black folks that Wagner is disdainful of. He is not a fan of Muslims either. But this racist stuff is to be the subject of an upcoming complaint to the Bar Standards Board so there is no need to expand here.

You may be familiar with the great work recently done by Good Law Project in securing a judgment by the High Court to the effect that the government have acted unlawfully in failing to publish details of corvid related contracts.

I can see that you are wondering what Wagner was doing at this time.

Well he was busy taking his obstructionism to a new low. He excitedly announced that he was acting for the bunch of ambulance chasers PGMBM in respect of their seeking a judicial reveiw of the governments quarantine regulations. PGMBM are crowd funding for ” barristers fees”. Wagner is obviously looking forward to a slurp at this particular trough.

This at at a time when border control is the single most important element of the current ” strategy “.

Not for Wagner, or certain other Doughty Street denizens of Zoomerabia, is there any concern for how many possibly vaccine resistant mutants are flown in from Manaus and elsewhere. Or for the untold number of consequent deaths among our most vulnerable.

He is delighted, he tells to be working on this case with that other notorious right wing head banger, Francis Hoar. Hoar of Field Court chambers, is a more expicit corvid denier than Wagner. He professes himself a big fan of Charles Moore for fuck sake. They are, however, very much birds of a feather.

Hoar is of they view that the the restrictions are just a big con that the people will wake up to, and that there ” will be anger and vengeance when they do.”

Lockdowns, Hoare declares, “should be prohibited in any circumstances.

And the shameless chancer has the nerve to retweet this from April last year…

Adam Wagner@AdamWagner1 · Apr 8, 2020The freedom we are now fighting for is to live our lives free of this virus. Our personal freedoms have been suspended to achieve that ultimate aim. Viewed in one way, it is an extraordinary collective effort to save life and determine our collective fate https://youtube.com/watch?v=qIp_8RNNX4k…

Wagner is a very dangerous man. He has to be stopped.

The Jewish Chronicle: Evil is as Evil does

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.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ipso-upholds-labour-activist-s-accuracy-complaint-against-jc-1.493698

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.”

Why Lansman stabbed Corbyn in the back

 Why did Lansman and Rhea Wolfson stab Corbyn in the back and humiliate him at the September 4th NEC  meeting, a few short weeks after declaring the LP’s Code of conduct to be ” The Gold Standard” ?

Why did Lansman go on radio 4 on 25/0219 and go along with the assertion that it is all Corbyn’s fault ?

And what is Lansman up to now ?

So far as Wolfson is concerned the story is a short one. Lansman told her to. She is entirely beholden to Lansman who is the bedrock of her strategy for winning a seat in parliament. In Lansman’s own case the story is rather longer and more tortuous.

The Labour Party, Lansman  never tires of telling us, needs to regain the trust of the ” Jewish Community”.  Just who or what is being referred to here can be elusive, but that is an analysis for another day. But whatever it is Lansman is determined that its trust be regained. We don’t, for the moment need to address the question, of whether this loss of trust  is deserved. And we won’t, for the moment, go anywhere near the question of what the ” Jewish Community ” needs to do to regain the trust of  Labour Party members

For Lansman, it would seem, this ” trust” has to be ” regained” at ANY price. Including the riding roughshod over the rights of the membership not least their rights to free expression as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act and the labelling of every Palestian, down tho the last man, woman and child as racist a la the batshit dogs dinner, the IHRA thing. The price also extends to the undermining of the socialist project that Corbyn is the inspiration and the figurehead for, not least by risking the forfeiting of the projects majority on the NEC, and the precipitation of a split in what we might call  ” the  Corbynite left ” between Lansmanistas and the rest ( now affectionately known as cranks).

Shortly after his declaration of the  LP ” code” to be the Gold Standard, The Jewish News  announced that Lansman was now lobbying for the “adoption” the IHRA thing “in full.” In the course of composing a brilliantly economical and incisive article Asa Winstanley invited Lansman to comment on the Jewish News claim. This he refused to do. At that point it was clear which way the wind was blowing.

Lansman arranged for Pete Willsman to be removed from the ” centre left”  NEC  election slate even though it was too late to find a replacement. Pete had had a bit of a rant at the July NEC meeting when the adoption of the Code of Conduct had been discussed. Someone ( not a million miles away from the racist Jewish Labour Movement ) had secretly recorded the proceedings. The secret recording of goings on in allegedly ” safe spaces” is an established tactic of the JLM. Attend any of their ” trainings ” at your peril. There was the usual  hissy fit from the Israelists. There was nothing either untrue or unreasonable in the content of what Pete said. The manner was a bit OTT but that’s Pete. A long time associate commented ” Pete shouts when he is asking you if you would like a cup of tea. “

The outcome was the nine became eight so that Pete was effectively standing as an independent. This meant  that there was a real chance that the ninth place will fall into the hands of the right, which the slim socialist majority could ill afford and which would threaten the whole project. Democratisation, reselection, socialism and all the rest. This could  but cause us to wonder just what are Lansman’s priorities.

Now the thing is Pete’s little wobbler was on July 17th. Lansman was present and sat through it all. He never expressed any kind of disapproval. As late as July 29th he was exhorting people to vote for Pete. Shortly thereafter he arranged for Pete to be removed from the slate. Obviously he had been paid a visit and had been reminded on which side his bread was buttered.

So where is Lansman coming from when he behaves like this ?

When this whole LP/AS thing kicked off I was amazed at how it developed. Under Lansman’s malign influence Corbyn and the Party rolled over at the first wiff of grapeshot. They rolled over again at the second wiff,  and so on. I couldn’t believe the naivety. Did they have no understanding of what they were dealing with ? Did they not get that every concession is pocketed without so much as a ta very much and, with barely a pause for breath, they are back for more ? Did they not get that every concession is Danegeld ? Did they not get that there is no drawing a line under it ? Or not until the last pip has been squeaked. And even then you are not free. You are on probation. Once you have fallen into what Mark Braverman calls the Fatal Embrace, your chances of finding your way out are slim. And the LP’s embrace of the Israelists is as close now to fatal as makes little difference.

You would have thought the natural leaders of resistance to all the politically motivated batshit would be the influential democratic left. But what we found from Lansman and the opinion formers of the glam left luvvies, the Jones’, the Zarb-Cousins, the Segalovs the Shabis etc. was not no pasaran, but complicity. Be clear. Without this complicity, and it must be reluctantly said, without the complicity of Corbyn and McDonnell themselves, what we are experiencing today would not be happening. It would be ancient history. I have seen time after time, particularly in the context of the churches, what doesn’t work, and what does. The Israelists are not as powerful as they may seem. They only seem powerful when their targets are VOLUNTEERS. Left to just howl at the moon they soon get tired and move on to what they think may be greener pastures.

At first I put it down to the  inexperience of Lansman and others around Corbyn. After all not everyone has had the benefit of hanging on their every word for ten years plus. But as time went on, as experience was gained but there was no sign of any learning taking place, as Lansman dragged Corbyn from one humiliation to the next, the inexperience theory  became increasingly untenable and eventually had to be abandoned.

So my next theory was that it was all about money. The threatening by Jewish donors and stuff a la the Milliband days. But I was never very sold on it, It was just that, at the time, I couldn’t think of anything more feasible. Eventually,  the penny dropped. For Lansman ( and for Jamie Schneider, don’t underestimate his influence) it was ideological. Lansman is an ideological Israelist. This explains his behaviour over the past few weeks. He is an ideological socialist too, but this is secondary to his Israelism. He will try as far as he can to keep these ideologies compatible with each other. So he broke his back over the LP code thing. However,  whenever there is what he perceives to be insurmountable dissonance between the ideologies he will go with Israelism. The truth of this he is currently clearly demonstrating.

In late March 2016, I was horrified to find a longish article written by him published in the Jewish Chronicle. It’s appearance clearly indicated that he hadn’t quite grasped what he was dealing with. He didn’t quite get how the Chronicle’s wildly zenophobic and rabidly racist editor operates. The article was a lukewarm defence of the two ” Oxford names “. Less a defence more an apologia. Sure enough it was all a set up. Pollard set Lansman up as a pin for Mark Gardner to knock over a week later, in the most dismissive and contemptuous terms imaginable. Sadly, Lansman learnt NOTHING from the experience. On the contrary it was the beginning of the ongoing Lansman/Pollard love in. Lansman was assigned the role of ” delivering the left”. A role he has played with barely concealed  enthusiasm.

Lansman got into his stride immediately. He soon after told us that antisemitism in the LP is much more extensive than the pitiful number of alleged cases would suggest. He told us that he was working closely and constructively with Labour Friends of Israel and the  Jewish Labour Movement. He excitedly announced that they were willing to build bridges, even with Corbyn. On their terms of course.

He removed all comments from a Left Futures post declaring them to be antisemitic. LF, now defunct, was at that time the house journal of Momentum. I did not get to see these comments but judging from the overall tone of the post, it is likely that the crime was the use of the expression ” Zio” which was now antisemitic but which hadn’t been antisemitic six months earlier.

He hurriedly deleted a comment on the next post.

Robert Green

June 21, 2016 at 3:15 pm

You should be more worried that you participated in a New Labour/Zionist witch hunt of Palestinian supporters in the Labour Party which has left activists and elected representatives vulnerable to murderous fascist assaults.

He welcomed the eight point plan to deal with antisemitism in the party, describing it as ” very good“. This was a “ plan ” published by Richard Angell, chair of the hard right Progress group, that included rule changes, Re-Education programmes ( presumably at regional Gulags) and vetting processes, to be put before the 2016 conference. This, although published by Angell, was spoon fed to him by the notorious perjurer, would be union buster, money launderer,  serial embezzler, and one man crime wave, the then chair of  the Jewish Labour Movement, Jeremy Nemark.  Angell testily denied this yet at the same time affirmed that he would happily put his name to “anything written by Jeremy.”

A major problem that Lansman encountered was that local Momentum branches were having trouble sticking to Pollard’s script.

Haringey Momentum decided they would have a meeting on Friday 27th May to talk about  the Labour Party problem with Jews thing. They invited Jackie Walker who had been  suspended from the Party on the say so of the Israelist Ultras, and Annie Cohen, a member of the extremely loose association that call themselves Jewdas. This didn’t go down well with the Ultras who proceeded to have one  of their famously well rehearsed melt downs.

The Jewish Chronicle went into its usual routine. Jackie Walker’s alleged ” crimes” were once again cynically misrepresented and Annie was described as a member of ” the anti Israel organisation Jewdas.”  The Jewdas guys and gals would probably describe themselves more as a ” get Israel the fuck out of my  Jewish life ” association. Annie is a charming, bright and funny young woman. That the Israelists couldn’t stomach the thought of her presence is a good indication of the sickness they are infected with.

Dave Rich, the designated twitterato of the highly dubious organisation known as The Community Trust, which is, quite frankly, as bent as a wad of 9 shekel notes, whined that Jackie’s presence was inappropriate since she was suspended by the Party. Rich had no issue with the then suspended Naz Shah’s presence at a meeting organised by the Leeds Representative Council, because Naz has been fully tamed and was there as a supplicant, to grovel and apologise. Being suspended by the Party was not here an issue.

However,  the timing of the meeting was made into the real big deal. Didn’t they know that Friday eve was the beginning of the Jewish Shabbat and observant Jews would not be able to attend ? Seriously, that is what they said. I mean, the number of strictly observant Jews that would have wanted to attend this meeting but ” couldn’t” because of the religious imperative would be, well, I am guessing, zero.

Haringey fiddling the start time, to make attending and respecting the religious observance possible, wasn’t good enough. It wouldn’t have been. Because the crying and whining was entirely a red herring.

The Jewish Chronicle summoned Lansman and told him to sort it. Lansman hastily assured Pollard that…..

 I wasn’t involved in the planning of the meeting and didn’t know about it until yesterday

then…..

 The timing of it is regrettable and unfortunate”

and…..

“ I am not happy about it.”

Come Thursday Haringey had CANCELLED the meeting.

Lansman………

 I am relieved that Haringey decided to POSTPHONE the meeting.”

Then it was announced that the Meeting would in fact take place but now under the auspices of  MomentumThanet, Jackie Walker’s own branch. Before it could take place Jackie had been pressured into stating  that the meeting was not, in fact, an enterprise of Momentum.

What Lansman  learned from this is that he couldn’t have Momentum branches running around on frolics of their own, and upsetting the Israelists that he was having a “constructive dialogue” with. So he identified a compliant branch, Lewisham,  and had them organise a meeting on the subject and selected himself and his protege Rhea Wolfson as speakers. This got  around the charge of having stifled debate and yet kept Lansman firmly  in control of who speaks where and when, and in control of what is said.

Interestingly the pre event publicity blurb contained a photo of a group of people one of whom was holding a placard declaring HITLER WAS RIGHT. WELL DONE ISRAEL. We are not told who this person is but are  clearly meant to assume that this is a leftie  Labour Party Member. The purpose is to establish the point that the Labour Party DOES indeed have a problem with Jews. Lansman establishes this as the starting assumption of the meeting. None of this Jackie Walker nonsense for Jon.

Then there is the murky Ken Livingstone/ Rhea Wolfson business.

Now I am not here  to defend Ken Livingstone over his remarks. They were typical Ken. Were they racist ? Obviously not, but you will have bought or rejected the notion that Ken is antisemitic long before now. The consensus of thoughtful, informed opinion seems to be that there is a grain of truth in what he said but not much more than that. Nonetheless, in his inimitable style, Ken stands resolutely by his comments.

There are a couple of interesting issues here.

Firstly, Ken’s membership was suspended for something that, prior to the very recent invention of the idea that the Labour Party has an antisemitism problem, would have provoked nothing apart from a few eye rolls and a bit of gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects. That is, the sincere expression of a doubtfully accurate historical claim now brings the Party into disrepute, while senior Party figures sitting on the policy council of the Muslim baiting/hating HJS and people perjuring themselves in an attempt to falsely brand a Trade Union as antisemitic, is all just fine.

Secondly, there is the reaction of Jon Lansman. It will be recalled that Lansman’s  mission is to “deliver the left” to an acceptance of the idea the Party has an antisemitism problem, and a consequent acceptance of the ” remedies” of the Tory dominated ” mainstream Jewish organisations” and their army of sans culottes internet trolls.

Lansman  declared that Jeremy Newmark is “ very upset” . ( like who, apart from Lansman cared about the one man crime wave Newmark’s emotional state). Then Lansman  goes on to tell us that Ken is yesterdays man and “should retire from any kind of public life” . There is a clear communality of interest here between Lansman, the racist Jewish Labour Movement and the hard right of the LP. This explains why there was an initial Lansman inspired delay in dealing with Ken’s case. The pressing issue for this communality of interest is ” Keep Livingstone off the NEC“. If there is to be an acceptance  of the Israelist  remedies  the attitude of the NEC  is crucial, and its attitude is a function of its make up at a particular time.

Of course this is not the only time Lansman has been distressed by Newmark being upset. After Jackie Walker had been stitched up by Adam Langleben at an officially sanctioned JLM led ” antisemitism training” session at the 2016 conference Lansman’s response was depressingly predictable. No condemnatory outrage that JLM had violated the Party’s trust by secretly recording participants. But rather…..

“I spoke to Jeremy Newmark this morning. He is very upset. I have been working closely with Jeremy. “

The ” Centre Left ” slate for the NEC elections contained six names, reflecting the fact that six members were to be directly elected by the membership. Ken’s was one of those names and he would have been a shoe in. Ken was suspended on April 28th. He must, at all costs remain suspended on June 24th when nominations closed.

Of course, Ken would have to be replaced on the centre/left slate. Lansman and Newmark had that covered. Step forward Rhea Wolfson.

Rhea was simply perfect for the purpose. Her Corbynista credentials seem , on the face of it, to be impeccable. She is also an ex chair of the Zionist Youth Council. The ZYC is a constituent of the Jewish Leadership Council. The JLC is rabidly Tory and operates as an extension of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Its recently departed chair, Mick Davis, bought a knighthood off David Cameron for £1.4 million and enjoyed a spell as Party Chairman. A noisy recipient of JLC  welfare handouts is, of course,Adam Langleben.

Rhea, is also a vociferous member of the racist Jewish Labour Movement and so we had the bizarre situation of there being a communality of interest so strong that she found herself being nominated by JLM  and being the Momentum choice for the left slate !!! Rhea proudly announced that she ” had the confidence of both sides.

Needless to say Rhea has played her part well. It was her emotional outburst at an NEC meeting that ensured the referral of Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth to the NCC.

And so it has gone on.

And so it goes on.

Lansman now found  himself lobbying for the IHRA thing and jointly headlining with Margaret Hodge at the JLM annual conference on September 2nd. You can be sure they found his contribution highly satisfactory.

Lansman has made several interventions in the ongoing Jewish Labour Movement and Jewish Voice For Labour issue. JVL are a left wing group of Labour Party Jews. Len McCluskey affiliated Unite with them. McCluskey correctly characterised the JLM/ JVL issue as ” a left wing / right wing thing”. JLM are firmly on the hard right of the Labour Party. It is said that 94% of their members voted for Owen Smith in the last leadership election. They are firmly in the camp of Akehurst, Austin, Phillips, Streeting etc etc ect. Mny, probably most , are not Jewish, and many more are not members of the Labour Party. We are reminded of the Holy Roman Empire. Neither Jewish, nor Labour, nor a movement.

Lansman’s answer to the fair question, which side are you on boy is unequivocal. It is a no brainer. His attitude to JVL is a simple one. The problem with them is that they exist. On the other hand JLM , the emanation of the  Israeli Labor Party in the British Labour Party are the true representatives of Jewish LP supporters. It is here that the correct attitude to Israel is located. This despite there being barely 2000 of them, many of whom are not Jewish.

This has practical and serious consequences for the socialist project.

Recently there were six grass roots places for the LP National Constitutional Committee up for election.The NCC is the body responsible for disciplinary matters in the party. It is they that will kick you out if you are seen to have an unacceptable attitude to The State of Israel. It is usual for the left wing Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, of which Momentum is a part, to draw up a left wing slate to contest NEC elections.

When it was clear that a certain Stephen Marks was headed towards inclusion on the slate Lansman objected. It was soon clear that his objection was going to be ignored. Lansman therefore led Momentum away in a big sulk.

Lansman then announced that Momentum would produce its own slate in direct competition with that of the CLPD. This they duly did. Needless to say Marks wasn’t on it.

Lansman claimed that Marks inclusion made the slate too ” London centric”. The real reason was that Marks was a member of JVL and this would upset the ” the Jewish Community” ( yes that again) who would ” find it unacceptable“. That is , for Lansman, JLM Pollard and the Tories of the Israelist organisations are to have a veto on left wing slates in LP internal elections.

Let us be clear here. Lansman was willing to undermine left wing influence within the NEC by splitting the left wing vote to appease the Israelist lobby whose prejudices on certain matters he shares.

Once again his ideolical Israelism was to trump his socialism.

Fortunately the uproar was such that Lansman soon realised he had over reached and he came slinking back to the CLPD with his tail between his legs and there was a unified slate once again.

Needless to say the whole slate, including Marks was elected. Lansman just had to accept the inevitable flack from the hard right.

Anyone in any doubt about where Lansman’s heart is need only reflect on the case of David Rosenhead. David tweeted a link  to an account of his family’s treatment at the hands of Pollard’s Jewish Chronicle It included……

“Back in 2011 the Jewish Chronicle ran a piece on me, which also included mention of my parents and their politics, and my childhood and education, none of which had any bearing whatsoever on the story. One of the consequences of them running this piece is that my parents and I were profiled by far right racists and fascists. Some fascists got hold of my parents’ address, and some details about all of us were shared on extreme far right forums like Stormfront. I received death threats, while my parents had to find ways to secure their home. In all cases these threats were explicitly linked to us being identified as Jewish, by far-right antisemites. At the time my parents and I wrote to the editor, Stephen Pollard, and requested, given these grave antisemitic threats, that the article be removed from the Jewish Chronicle website (it had already gone out in a print edition.) He refused and the article remained online.

“So excuse me when I can’t quite believe my ears, when you protest there is an ‘existential threat’ to Jews. The one time in my life I was profiled and violently threatened by known antisemites because I was Jewish, you refused to help. It turns out safety should only be guaranteed to the ‘right’ sort of Jews, and only when it serves your political agenda”

Lansman responded with comradely support right? Well not quite. He said…….

I have every sympathy with you & your family on this David, but now is a time when @UKLabour has to rebuild a relationship with the mainstream Jewish community to prevent the breakdown of trust from empowering real antisemites around the UK from spreading their hate with impunity. “

In other words he tells David to stop whining. We need to regain the trust of the hard right racist Pollard, and he ( David ) just has to take one for the team.

FURTHER READING

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/06/lansman-corbyns-restrict/

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jon-lansman-believes-jvl-s-very-existence-inflames-tensions-between-labour-and-jews-1.471144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last chance for corbyn to grow a pair

THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL IS UNELECTED UNACCOUNTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE “

Jonathan Arkush

Jeremy Corbyn’s performance in the  face of the campaign by the unholy alliance of the Israel lobby and the hard right of the PLP, to create and establish the myth that the LP has a particular problem with antisemitism, has not been good.  He rolled over at the first wiff of grapeshot and has been prostrate before them ever since. A bit of steadfastness at outset would have killed the whole thing off before it had even got properly started. Instead he has allowed himself to be led by Lansman from one excrutiating humiliation to the next.

Admittedly he has been under malign influences notably those  of the arch Israelists Lansman and Jamie Schneider and the unbearable narcissist and selective anti-racist, Owen Jones. That is even before we get to the naive influence of McDonnell who speaks of ” taking the advice of our friends at the  Board of Deputies.”  If John thinks that the Board luminaries are his friends it can only be concluded that thinking is not his strong point.

Corbyn stood silently by while innumerable people have been purged and persecuted.The victims that were persecuted were largely people in Corbyn’s service. They were targeted mainly  because they were identified as being likely to vote Corbyn in his second leadership election, and/ or they were identified by Newmark/Lansman 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.

He has stabbed long time political allies, such as Christine Shawcroft, in the back.

His complicity in the abuse of Del Singh’s family is borderline unforgiveable. Borderline because it is not too late for him to fix it had he a mind to.

Corbyn’s supine letter to Arkush in the wake of the mural thing seemed to me at the time to be the final capitulation and that he was a hopeless case. However, the Jewdas seder business and Arkush’s typically OTT response has given him a get out of jail card, a last chance to demonstrate some backbone.

It will be recalled that he had offered to meet with  Arkush and Goldstein ” at the earliest opportunity” . This offer was rejected by the self styled “leadership of the Jewish community” which further declared there could be no meeting until Corbyn had taken certain actions that would demonstrate his commitment to doing their bidding.

The news of Corbyn’s attendance at the Jewdas seder completely wrong footed Arkush, who is not very good at thinking on his feet and is apt to let his emotional fragility get the better of him in circumstances such as these. The complaint was that Corbyn had met with the wrong kind of Jews. This was an uncomfortable position because Corbyn had offered to meet with the right kind of Jews ( them) and had been turned down. Arkush dealt with the problem by having a tantrum on national television during which he declared Jewdas to be purveyors and fuellers of antisemitism, which caused the Israelist establishment itself no end of embarrassment. He then backtracked and decided he would meet Corbyn after all. The pre conditions were dropped in favour of the acceptance of an agenda. That is, each precondition became an agenda item.

Arkush does a lot of back tracking. Notably when he bottled out of his CDM complaint against Stephen Sizer and when he found himself eyeball to eyeball with Mick Davis, the then chair of the JLC. Arkush is a congenital bluffer and turns out be a bit of a snowflake when his bluff is called. He really is easy to deal with. Why anyone is intimidated by him is a great mystery.

The issue du jour is which Jews Corbyn should meet with, if any.  The line is that he should only talk to the ” representatives of the mainstream Jewish community “. The problem is that these alleged representatives don’t exist. For Arkush it means himself since he is the President of the BoD which, he claims, is the only democratically elected representative Jewish organisation. This status of the BoD is trotted out endlessly and swallowed whole and unquestioningly by the British establishment including the media.

Corbyn seems to have done quite well at yesterdays meeting but time will tell. In the meantime it might be worth taking a look at the organisations and people that claim to be the only voices of British Jews. Just who do they represent and how united are they ?

The BoD is essentially synagogue based. Each synagogue may send Deputies to the Bod, the number is dependent on how many members it claims. It is true that a majority of Jewish families are affiliated to a synagogue.  Some out of religious conviction and preference and a lot because membership is an important facilitator of rites of passage. Many are excluded by the eye watering cost of membership.

So the first identifiable group that the BoD does not represent are the poorest sectors of the Jewish population.

The second is the fastest growing sector of the Jewish population, the ultra Orthodox, whose synagogues do not send deputies.

There are just over 400 synagogues in the UK. It is likely that the number that send Deputies does not exceed 150. We can’t be sure of the exact number because the BoD is highly secretive about these things. But a look at the general make up of the Bod leads inexorably to the conclusion that 150 is a top figure.

Now these Deputies are supposed to be elected representatives. In reality if you wanted to count the number of Deputies that found their way to the BoD  via a contested election you would need more than one pair of  hands but less than four. The overwhelming majority of Shuls that send Deputies, are, in this context, rotten boroughs. It is a matter of finding a volunteer. The volunteers are invariably right wing activists. We even have the absurd situation that one of the BoD’s vice Presidents lives in London and is a deputy for a Shul in Wales !!! So the congregation of this Welsh Shul are deemed to be represented.

The BoD is a bastion of the conservative and right wing United Synagogue. So much so that when Laura Marks, a member of a Reform synagogue , ran for President in 2015 she felt a need to add an affiliation to a US shul to her membership of a Reform Shul.  She was right. Only US deputies get elected President as the US deputies vote in a religious block on matters pertaining to their privileges. It didn’t do Marks any good. The President of the US declared that her action would be divisive and could result in the US  distancing itself from the BoD. This was a potent threat. The BoD would be no more.

Obviously the penchant for bullying and black mail by the US  grandees is for internal as well as external use. Israelist so called democracy is not a pretty sight.

You might also find yourself becoming a Deputy if you are a member of the right kind of organisation that has in excess of 500 members and has had during the two years preceding application. Well 500 members is a high bar and its purpose is to make sure the organisation is firmly ” mainstream”.  The Board is terrified of plurality and diversity.  It doesn’t mind a few racist off the scale right wing  nutters like Jonathan Hoffman because they are sound on Israel. Indeed it accomodates more than a few.The defensive wall is shored up by the requirement that an organisation must secure the votes of two thirds of Deputies. It would be an interesting plenary if Jewdas really did apply for affiliation. Geoffrey Cohen versus Jerry Lewis would be fun.

And of course the applicant organisation must sign up to the Board’s aims and objectives foremost of which is ” the advancement of Israel’s security well being and standing”  You don’t have to be concerned about the well being of any other country, not even that of the UK. Obviously if you are anti-Zionist, a non Zionist or not much concerned about Israel, but more concerned about the condition of Jews in the UK, you are excluded. The Board does not represent you.

Be clear. In practice this means the Board positively FORBIDS itself ANY criticism of Israel and would impose the same restriction on the rest of us if it could. Maybe it can. Its erstwhile treasurer, Laurence Brass, had enough of this and was consequently hounded out of office. Brass ruefully observed, ” The perception that the Board is an extension of  the Israeli Embassy is not helpful.”

Deputy places are also reserved for appointed reps of special interest groups including places reserved for Israelis !!!! Yes, you have to be an Israeli to fill one of those places.

The idea that the BoD is some kind of democratic elected body representing all the Jews in Britain is ludicrous.

ARKUSH GETS ONE THING RIGHT

The JLC is unelected, unaccountable and unacceptable

Jonathan Arkush

The Jewish Leadership Council represents nobody but itself. It came to be when a bunch of very rich Jewish grandees decided that the Board was no longer fit for purpose. That its bureaucratic lumberings hampered the task of creating an Israel friendly Britain. What was needed was a well funded and highly connected organisation that was much faster on its feet. These oligarchs then simply declared themselves ” Jewish Leaders”. What we have seen since then is an unseemly turf war

The JLC has slowly but surely elbowed the Board out of its traditional roles, in particular out of its role of the organisation that has the ears of, and access to, the high and mighty. It is all about money and monied connections. The JLC  grandees are mega rich and the Board is perennially flying by the seat of its financial arse. The grandees are not shy about exploiting this situation.

During the Board Presidency of Vivian Wineman, there was much talk of the BoD and JLC merging. That is, of the JLC  taking over the Board. During this time the JLC  kindly kept the Board afloat financially. All this merger talk came to an abrupt end when Wineman moved on and Arkush took over.

Arkush hates the JLC . In particular he hates its previous CEO  Jeremy Newmark on account of his dalliance with the LP. Arkush of course, being a rabid hard right Tory.

Even more does he hate Mick Davis, the recently departed Chair of the JLC and now chair of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Arkush had a long standing ambition to be President of the Board and regarded the end of Wineman’s second term as his big opportunity. Imagine his pain as he watched Wineman’s retreat in the face of the JLC encroachment. He stood to get to be President of nothing. Someone as emotionally erratic and with so little impulse control had to erupt at some point. And he did.

The tipping point came in 2012. The JLC had established for itself an annual audience with David Cameron, the then Prime Minister. The purpose was to give Cameron his instructions for the coming year and to make sure Cameron fully understood what was required of him. The JLC  were in the habit of taking reps from a few affiliated orgs along for the ride including a rep from the Board. By this time the BoD was an affiliate of the JLC. Arkush, of course thought it should be the other way round. He has never accepted that the BoD walks and money talks. So the Board were to be there AT THE INVITATION OF THE JLC. Subsequently, it might be recalled, Davis bought a knighthood off Cameron for £ 1.4 million on the spurious grounds that he had chaired some committee or other for 12 months.

But anyway Arkush had an almighty wobbler at a Board plenary, denounced the JLC  as “unelected, unaccountable and unacceptable”.  He went on to accuse the JLC  of corruption in that they bribed organisations to affiliate. It was the Leeds and Manchester rep councils he had in mind.

Well the roof fell in on him. The nutter fringe cheered him but the saner, wiser among them understood the implications. Those that didn’t immediately grasp them were quickly reminded by Davis. He warned of ” consequences” , declared Arkush’s position to be ” untenable”  and  said JLC members “may feel that they can no longer provide ongoing financial support for the Board while being subjected to this sort of attack by the senior vice-president of the institution”.

Jerry Lewis demanded that Arkush resign. Laurence Brass suggested he take a break from communal politics.

The outcome was a series of the most grovelling apologies imaginable, including a letter circulated to all deputies in which he said that his remarks were ” inappropriate ” and had been made when he was ” unwell”. He was in particular “sorry to have made references to any financial matters. I withdraw those remarks in their entirety. There was no suggestion of impropriety.”

The Jewish News remarked that Arkush had ” lost all credibility.”

Of course subsequent events have shown us that his judgment that the JLC  is corrupt was well on target. When it became clear that  Newmark was ripping the JLC off big time Mick Davis embarked on a distasteful cover up. Newmark was allowed to resign on ” health grounds” and the grandees dipped into their pockets to plug the holes in the JLC  accounts that Newmark’s embezzlements had created. Under pressure from the Jewish Chronicle the JLC  announced an independent enquiry into its handling of the affair. Then we learned that permission had been obtained from the Charities Commission for the terms of reference to exclude the question of whether the JLC  should have called in the police. In other words there isn’t going to be a meaningful enquiry at all.

Why did the Charity Commission grant this extraordinary permission ? I doubt it had anything to do with the head of the Commission being William Shawcross, a rabid Israelist who spends more time in Israel than he does in the UK.

But anyway the business burned into Arkush’s soul a festering hatred he has not been able to rid himself of. The President of the BoD is automatically a JLC trustee and as a sop is offered the Chair . When Arkush succeeded Wineman he announced he would sit as a trustee but not accept the chair. At the same time he expressed the hope that the JLC would “ recognise the BoD’s pre eminent role as the representatives of Britain’s Jewish community.” 

If you think this is ancient history, six months ago Paul Edlin a long time deputy and unreconstructed Arkushista declared that Arkush’s 2012 comments ” remain true” . In the aftermath of Newmark getting busted, Arkush demanded that the JLC ” get its house in order.”

So who did bust Newmark ? Well we will never know. But there are pertinent facts we do know. Arkush doesn’t have an ethical bone in his body. Arkush, as a trustee, had access to the relevant audits. Arkush has the necessary grudges ( the people most damaged by the revelations are Newmark and Davis). Arkush is stepping down as a trustee so the timing is good.

Such is the the state of those that claim to be the leaders of the united Jewish community that Corbyn seeks to divide and rule.

WHO ELECTED MARK GARDNER

The delegation that lined up against Corbyn yesterday included Mark Gardner of the scam operation we know and love as the CST.  Who elected him to represent the ” Jewish Community” at a meeting with the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition ? Well nobody. He was appointed by the unelected, mega fraudster ,time served old lag, Tory and good friend of Sadiq khan, Gerald Ronson.

Well as I have said the meeting yesterday could have gone much worse. At least Corbyn has not yet committed himself to anything too stupid. But I am not persuaded that he can be trusted to continue to do the right thing.

It must be remembered that it is a zero sum game for the Israelists. Anything you give them is Danegeld. It is not about antisemitism, it is about Israel. They will never stop until they get the ultimate result. What might this be ? Howard Jacobson and Ruth Deech, lacking the political nous of the seasoned,professional Israelists, tell us.

Jacobson tells us that antisemitism won’t be fixed until Israel is fixed. He goes on to tell us that what he means is until talk about Israel is fixed. Ruth Deech in Hirsh’s whitewash video independently spills the same beans.  That is, the aim is to constrain talk about Israel in the LP within acceptable parameters. This won’t be  some rough and ready guidelines. The IHRA batshit is but an interim measure. The first step. The final destination is a full and  detailed CODIFICATION.

But we knew this already.

And what will it mean for the Labour Party? The acceptance of just one of the Israelist demands will be a statement that the Party is in the grip  of a bunch of hard right Tories. That it is unable to manage its own affairs. It will be hard to see how it then can manage the affairs of the country. If it is not unelectable then it should be.

This will be Corbyn’s legacy.

 

 

 

 

 

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

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 why the LP ( or anyone else ) should not trust the ” mainstream ” Jewish orgs.

PROLOGUE

The right wing antihuman rights lawyer Adam Wagner is proving himself to be a bit of a weathervane in a hurricane. He is currently positioning himself as defender in chief of the mythical ” Jewish Community” in its tussles with the big bad Labour Party. This is because he now judges that this is the way the wind is blowing and where the glory is. However, it has not always been the case that this was his judgment. Witness his 2013 diatribe against the Israelist orgs.

The background was an employment tribunal case in which a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser accused his union, the Universities and Colleges Union of racial discrimination. Fraser v  Universities and Colleges Union. Forever to be affectionately known as the FUCU case.

The ” mainstream” Iraelist orgs had been getting increasingly fed up at the union’s conference passing resolutions that were less than eulogistic about the State of Israel. They were deemed to have gone too far when a resolution was passed refusing to adopt something called the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism, which the batshit IHRA thing is a resurrection of.

They decided to stamp on this once and for all, and selected Fraser to front a discrimination case ( all expenses paid). This was an invocation of what AIPAC calls the nuclear option. Never again would anyone deny that antiZionism was antisemitisim. Not if they knew what was good for them. 

Virtually the whole of the heavy duty Israelist lobby was involved in what the Tribunal came to call “ an impermissable attempt to achieve a political objective by litigation “, an attempt that showed “ scant regard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”.

Prominent among the conspirators  was the Community Security Trust and the whole thing was coordinated by  Jeremy Newmark, the notorious perjurer, money launderer, serial embezzler, fare dodger and one man crime wave. Newmark was at that time the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council and is the man that invented the Jewish Labour Movement. He is also a big buddy of Clive Lewis and Jon Lansman.

The joint BoD / JLC front org, Fair Play Campaign, according to Fraser’s testimony, bunged David Hirsh 50k to finance his help in facilitating the scam. Hirsh, of course, is famous for the notion that it is possible to have a world rampant with racism but nonetheless does not contain a single racist.

Be clear. This was an attempt by the mainstream Israelist orgs to bust A TRADE UNION with a double whammy of false accusations of antisemitism and crippling  legal costs. The legal charge was led by Mishcom de Reya who we are currently hearing a lot more about.

But anyway, over to Adam who told it much more  eloquently, than I ever could.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

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.

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 a 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.

POSTSCRIPT

Adam points out that legal judgments get appealed. Not this one. The ultra Zionist Jonathan Goldberg QC laughed off any such suggestion.  He similarly derisively dismissed the idea that an attachment to Israel was a protected characteristic. ” You might as well say that supporting Tottenham Hotspur is a protected characteristic because a lot of Jews do.”

Inevitably this was all explained away by declaring the Tribunal was antisemitic. “Antisemitic Bastards ” declared Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust.

Costs are not usually awarded in Tribunal cases and not unless the complaint is deemed to be frivolous and mendacious. The union clearly felt this to be the case and applied for costs in the region of £ 600,000 !!! By this time the Israelists had dumped Anthony Juius and replaced him with Dinah Rose QC. Unfortunately Rose proved to be equally hapless. She demanded that the trial judge recuse himself from the costs hearing and he did so. But when it became clear that the replacement judge was very much of the the same mind as the original one they settled.

Obviously Fraser wasn’t good for 600K  so the whip round must have been a merry one.

Mr R Fraser -v- University & College Union