Things We Already Knew - Jonathan Freedland is a Pillock

 Jonathan Freedland uses the fall of Boris Johnson to continue to fight two wars that any sane, non-obsessed man would have put behind him.  In an article titled Everything Tainted By Johnson's Lies Needs To Be Undone, he first decides 2022 is CLEARLY the most opportune time to have another go at Jeremy Corbyn and the buffoons who made him leader:

In 2019, it put to the electorate an alternative to Johnson who, by every possible data point, was shown losing and losing badly. By sticking with Jeremy Corbyn in the face of all that evidence, Labour flung the door of Downing Street wide open for Johnson and all but ushered him in.

No, Jonno.  YOU and your Guardianista, relentless anti-Corbynista partisans in the media flung the doors of Downing Street open to Johnson and ushered him in, because you would rather see that happen than see Corbyn win.

Don't try to shift the blame to the Labour membership who elected Corbyn leader twice - remember it is THEIR PARTY, you arrogant prick.  If you don't like their choices, feel free to join the Tory Party, or perhaps the Lib Dems - where you might feel comfortable as you (like them) like to enable Conservative governments.

Given your bully pulpit in the Guardian you COULD have supported the Corbyn project and helped 'usher in' a social democratic government that might have made things a bit better for the people of Britain.  Instead, you and your trendy journo mates and buddies in the rightwing of the Labour Party opted to torpedo the leader of the Labour Party.

And when your first attempt to do it failed, you redoubled your efforts and the result was an 80 seat conservative majority.  Which you clearly preferred - since you've never said so much as "Aw, rats, that sucks!"

Now, years later, instead of hanging your head in shame when you look at the consequences of your decisions back in 2017 you indulge in a spot of victim blaming, telling the membership they were too stupid and short sighted to see what was obviously going to happen.

Yeah, maybe.  Perhaps they were foolish thinking the right wing of the Labour party might tolerate a left wing leader.

I don't think you are stupid, by the way.  You knew what you were doing and could clearly see what was going to happen, and did it anyway.

The other war Freedland is still fighting the apparently unending attempt to turn back time and undo Brexit.  He is pretty explicit about the, not pining in maudlin mode for the good old days of ever closer union: "Surely, a country will lose faith in the product it bought when the man who sold it to them has been exposed as a fraud."

Mate, this is your delusions speaking again.  Boris Johnson did not "sell" Brexit to the British people.  They voted for it in 2015, remember.  He wasn't Prime Minister then.  He wasn't even the NEXT Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister who oversaw the crucial preliminaries, or triggered Article 50.  He was a part of the Leave campaign but only one - to characterise him as the one who "sold" Brexit to the public signals a height of delusion on Freedland's part that is almost Johnsonesque.  the arrogant assumption of superior insight and dismissal of those silly little people - with their Jeremy Corbyn and their Brexits - makes you wonder if Mr Freedland and Mr Johnson are not, in fact the same person.

But Freeland's bonkers narrative requires a magical re-writing of the past just like he had to re-write history to blame 209 on Corbyn and the dim witted members of the Labour party, and not the intractable MPs and journalists who set out to destroy him.  Somehow, the collapse of the Johnson administration negates the referendum, the 2019 election somehow means all that history can be undone.  Jonno, mate, the reason there are people saying leaving the EU was a mistake is the same reason they were saying we should leave in the first place - because they are unhappy with the way things are and are looking for a panacea or at least something to blame.

But like the pillock you are you think people being unsatisfied with life in general means they actually support your pet cause.  they don't, you sheltered Guardian column writing pillock.  They are fucked off because life is shit and it is shit for a lot of people all around the world and it is likely going to stay shit for a long time leaving the EU was only a teeny-tiny contributing factor to that shitness.  It didn't cause Russian to invade Ukraine, it didn't cause Covid, it didn't cause climate change, it didn't cause the cost of living crisis or the breakdown in the NHS or social services or fear of crime or mental health issues.

But YOU, by helping sabotaging a decent prospect of getting a half decent leftish government into Downing Street - by helping sell Johnson to the British public by focusing your energies on destroying Corbyn - did contribute more than any decent person should to some of those festering cankers.

You, Sir, helped bring all this about.  You are tainted by Johnsonism.  So hang your head in shame, or fuck off.

FOX news for Britain?

Seriously, as the BBC and the Guardian have demonstrated over the last few years, this really isn't necessary:

Rival efforts are under way to launch a Fox News-style opinionated current affairs TV station in Britain to counter the BBC. 

One group is promising a news channel “distinctly different from the out-of-touch incumbents” and has already been awarded a licence to broadcast by the media regulator, Ofcom, under the name “GB News”. 

Its founder has said the BBC is a “disgrace” that “is bad for Britain on so many levels” and “needs to be broken up”. 

A rival project is being devised in the headquarters of Rupert Murdoch’s British media empire by the former Fox News executive David Rhodes, although it is unclear whether it will result in a traditional TV channel or be online-only. 

Both are pitching to a perceived gap in the market for opinionated video output fuelled by growing distrust of the BBC among some parts of its audience, especially on the political right over culture war issues such as Brexit and whether Rule, Britannia! should be sung at the Last Night of the Proms.

Obviously, this will greatly improve the quality of journalistic discourse in Britain.

The BBC and the Guardian will doubtlessly respond to a challenge from the gutter-right by providing high quality, impartial and balanced news.

No way it would be dragged further and further to the trash heap.

We already have the Mail, which supplies plenty of bias and bile in print form.  Why the need to add 'opinionated video'; or is it a tacit admission that a substantial part of the target demographic aren't capable of reading the hate speech and propaganda of the Mail and the Sun?

Mr Freedland in the Guardian

Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian has penned a column which chastises the left wing of the Labour party for daring to retain principles and ideals, qualities - it seems - that should be jettisoned in pursuit of power.

Never mind that Freedland was an ardent Remainer, that is to say, one of the people who fundamentally didn't get it and argued vociferously for the Labour Part to commit ever more public acts of self-mutilation.  Now he's on the job and about his usual business of telling the little people what's best for them to think.

He ends it with a paragraph of blatant self-justifying, it-weren't-my-fault-guv blame shifting:

But the first step is to accept its importance, to recognise that winning power is the sine qua non of politics, literally the thing without which there is nothing. Labour deputy leadership candidate Richard Burgon might worry that party members will panic and “just reach out for whatever is most conventionally electable”, rather than opting for the most “radical” wishlist of promises, but there is a ready response to that. Labour’s experiment with the not “conventionally electable” ended in a conventional crushing two months ago – and there is nothing socialist or radical about that. Its only achievement was to grant the Tories five more years – and the power to reshape the world around them.

Mr Freedland should have spent the last four years writing columns like this reminding the right wing of the Labour party that winning power was far more important than undermining and besmirching the reputation of the Labour leader.

Instead, as I recall, he and his ilk in the allegedly leftwinf media were more than happy to join the Mail, Telegraph and the howling decayed giblets of the Murdoch press in demonising Corbyn. To borrow Freeland's own climactic line, "Its only achievement was to grant the Tories five more years – and the power to reshape the world around them."

But, of course, the same people who gleefully joined in the kicking to death o the Labour party between 2017 and 2019 are the same people busily re-writing history to disguise their culpability in handing Johnson those five years. By repeating the lie that defeat was all down to Corbyn and his radical policy platform they mask their own guilt.

I'm a forgiving chap but the likes of Freedland, Cohn and Toynbee need to acknowledge their own responsibility rather than pointing the finger elsewhere.

More lies on the Twitter (Dan Hodges edition)

The other big story concerning Leeds Hospital is Boris Johnson's bizzare behaviour at Leeds Hospital, where he was confronted by a journalist and challenged about a four year old boy with suspected pneumonia who was left sleeping on the floor, rather than getting  abed like a sick kid would in a decently funded heath system.

Johnson refused to engage with the journalist and refused to look at a photo of the child and then - bizarrely - tried to steal the journalist's phone to head off further challenges.

On Dan Hodge's Twitter feed (Hodges is a 'commentator' for the Daily Mail) that narrative is challenged:

Peak hysteria from the Guardian. pic.twitter.com/h1rsPdbMW9

— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 9 December 2019

So, a clear GOTCHA.  Johnson is looking at the image.  The Guardian is full of hysterical FAKE NEWS bullshit.  A picture is worth a thousand words, eh, Dan?

Only, if you read the piece in the Guardian that Hodges sneers at, some of the words indicating Johnson did not look at the image are direct quotes from Boris Johnson:

Johnson refused to look at the photo and, out of camera shot, eventually took the phone from the reporter and put it in his own pocket. 

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, responded by tweeting a video of the exchange with the message: “He just doesn’t care.” 

First asked if he had seen the photographs, Johnson said he had not. The ITV reporter, Joe Pike, then showed the prime minister the photograph on his phone, describing what it portrayed. 

Johnson declined to look at the picture, saying: “I understand. And obviously, we have every possible sympathy for everybody who has a bad experience in the NHS.” 

He went on to discuss investment in the NHS and Brexit. Pike pressed the prime minister: “I’m talking about this boy, prime minister. How do you feel, looking at that photo?” 

Johnson replied: “Of course. And let me tell you … I haven’t had a chance to look at it.” 

Pike asked: “Why don’t you look at it now, prime minister?” Johnson, still not looking at the photo, replied: “I’ll study it later.” 

Pressed again, he said: “If you don’t mind, I’ll give you an interview now. What we are doing is we are taking this country forward, and we are investing in the NHS.”

Sorry, Dan, but if Boris Johnson is saying he hasn't had the chance to look at the image, either he hasn't had a chance to look at it (and thus your photo with its squiggly yellow lines is worthless) or he's a serial liar who was trying to bluster his way out of having to address the issue.

Obviously, Dan Hodges thinks that latter.  And if Dan Hodges wasn't running cheap propaganda for the Conservatives - he also ran with the 'protester punched a SPAD' lie for a short while - he'd be tweeting about how Johnson is a dishonest liar who will bluster and lie to avoid having to address the reality of austerity.

LabourActivistPunchedMattHancock'sSPADGate

So, for a brief period of history, it was alleged that a protester had punched Matt Hancock's SPAD (not a euphemism; special adviser) when Hancock visited Leeds Hospital.

This was reported by the likes of Robert Peston and Laura Keunssberg, as well as the less credible Guido Fawkes.  It also quickly made it into the Mail, the Sun and the Express.

Video quickly emerged proving it didn't exactly 'go down' as had been claimed - a protester was gesturing, and the SPAD walked into his (unclenched) hand.

Keunssberg and Peston, eventually acknowledged they were spreading false information and apologised:

Happy to apologiSe for earlier confusion about the punch that wasn’t a punch outside Leeds General - 2 sources suggested it had happened but clear from video that was wrong

— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) December 9, 2019

It is completely clear from video footage that @MattHancock's adviser was not whacked by a protestor, as I was told by senior Tories, but that he inadvertently walked into a protestor's hand. I apologise for getting this wrong.

— Robert Peston (@Peston) December 9, 2019

But note that lines: "2 sources suggested" and "I was told by senior Tories" - who the Hell fed them the misinformation?  And why are they protecting them?

The real story isn't that a protestor didn't punch someone.  The real story is that 'senior Tories' are feeding lies via respected journalists and those journalists are diligently repeating those lies.  And - even when they are caught - the journalists are so cravenly, sycophantically aligned with the 'senior Tories' they will cover up who is trying to feed falsehoods into the election campaign.

Media impartiality

Sky's economics editor, Ed Conway has posted a Twitter thread responding to a claim that - as far as I can see - Labour never made:

Are NHS operation cancellations at an all-time high? That's the impression you might have been left with if you read this story from the Labour party today, about some FOI numbers it's gotten hold of https://t.co/abKijDB8BA

— Ed Conway (@EdConwaySky) 4 November 2019

Note, "All time high."

The tweet that provoked this, from Jonathan Ashwoth, Labour's Health and Social Care Secretary:

A decade of the Tory NHS:

🔹Tightest funding squeeze in history, cuts to public heath & social care
🔹Over 15,000 bed cuts
🔹Short of 100,000 staff
🔹Hospital repair bill ballooned to £6.5 bn

It means 80,000 cancelled operations & record waiting lists. https://t.co/ovPDmQEtMt

— Jonathan Ashworth (@JonAshworth) 4 November 2019

Nothing there about cancelled operations at an all time high.

The Ashworth tweet links to a statement put out by Labour which also does not make the claim Conway (using the weaselly "the impression you might have been left with") inveigles into the debate:

New data obtained by Labour through FOIs has revealed a huge increase in the number of cancelled operations because of staffing issues and equipment failures.

Last year, 78,981 operations were cancelled. These operations were either classed as urgent or were elective operations cancelled at the last minute – either on the day the patient was due to arrive in hospital or after they had already arrived.

The number of operations cancelled because of staffing issues and equipment failures have each increased by a third in two years. Last year, 10,900 were cancelled because of staffing issues and 4800 were cancelled because of equipment failures.

There are currently over 100,000 staff vacancies in the NHS, with shortages of 10,000 doctors and 43,000 nurses. Cuts to NHS Capital Budgets have left the health service with a £6.5 billion repair bill.

Again, nothing in there to justify Conway's disingenuous claim.  It's odd he would put these words into a Twitter thread where he then goes onto do some really detailed statistical analysis ... Unless, of course, he was just trying to create a false impression about what Labour were claiming, or wasn't very good at his job.

Corbyn the Mighty vs BoJo the Clown

Interesting contrasting pictures in the Guardian:

Corbyn gets the classic positive shot - low angle and a clear background, making him look authoritative (of course, being Corbyn, he doesn't do authoritative very well).

Where as Johnson gets pictured with children at some sort of mad-hatters' tea party:

Begging the question, who is the adult in THAT room?  ANd who is the odd large blonde child in the comedy suit?

It shows impressively poor foresight by the Conservatives. They KNEW there was an election coming and they let their candidate who looks like a clown at the best of times - sit down with a bunch of school kids.

What is more interesting, though, is that the Guardian decided to use these pictures, suggesting a more positive attitude towards Corbyn than I might have anticipated.

Corbyn, Black September et cetera - I was, of course, completely wrong

Just a heads up that yesterday's post, suggesting that the images of Corbyn waltzing about a Tunisian cemetery with wreaths were taken at different times and locations is completely wrong.

While the people in the images do change, and the chain does seem to disappear from one shot to the next, if you look at the background it is clearly the same place; and studying the dents and marks on the underside of the canopy confirms it.

I shall leave that post up as part of the historical record, in which I am sure my ramblings will be very significant.

But, yeah, I called that one completely wrong.

Which takes us back to the question posed in my first post on this: whose grave are they actually honouring?

More on Corbyn, Tunis, Black September et cetera

Look very closely at this image:

Corbyn holding a wreath, right?

Note the people standing around him, particularly the two dapper chaps in suits with blue ties. Note the chain on the right, attached to the black post. Note the Check Shirt Dude, one arm draped nonchalantly across the chain that so clearly separates him from the graves or memorial.

Now look at the next image:

Corbyn helping lay a wreath, presumably (as the Mail would like us to think) on the grave of a Black September murdering terrorist.

Again, note the people - the two dapper chaps are still there, and they are joined by Pink Tie Guy and a Mystery Woman. Note the chain.

Now look at this image:

Corbyn making a show of joining in the gestures of respect. This is obviously taken very shortly after the first two images and is in the same location - Pink Tie Guy, the Mystery Woman and the two dapper chaps in the suit appear are still there (the first two just visible on the left) and you can still see the chain attached to the black post - or at least the brass coloured clip that attaches it to the post.

Conclusion - these pictures were all taken in one location and over a very short period of time.

Now look at this one, the one that places him, supposedly, at the grave of a Black September killer (never mind the Mail doesn't identify whose grave it is):

Note how the cast has changed. Pink Tie Guy and Mystery Woman have disappeared. The two Dapper Chaps are still there, but one of them appears to have found time to do up his suit jacked - in previous photos it was open, revealing his splendid belly to the world. Also note that Check Shirt Dude is still there, but the chain that was so obviously apparent, right in front of him, has disappeared.

That would suggest this last photo was taken at a different time and in a different part of the cemetery.

So the implication that Corbyn assisted in laying a wreath on the graves of Black September murderers and joined in a prayer at their graves is very shaky indeed. It looks like he laid a wreath - presumably at the memorial for those killed in the 1985 raid as he as always said - joined in the prayer there, then followed others over to see what was happening at the other grave. Again, confirming what he wrote in 2014. A main wreath was laid at the memorial for the victims of 1985, and he was part of that. Other wreaths were laid on other graves and he wasn't part of that.

But there is no evidence he laid a wreath at the Black September graves, or honoured them. Look at his posture in that final photo - hands in pockets, slouched, typical Corbyn. He isn't honouring nothing there. He's probably wondering if his allotment is being well looked after in his absence.

Corbyn, Black September Graves et cetera

During the election campaign last year a story surfaced briefly about Jermey Corbyn visiting a cemetery in Tunisia and taking part in a ceremony to honour 'Palestinian martyrs'.  The controversial aspect was that - buried in the same cemetery were the bodies of some of the terrorists who kidnapped, tortured and murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

Corbyn described the event like this:

October 1 is a poignant day in Palestinian history and is commemorated in Tunisia. This year was no exception as a group of us gathered at the hillside cemetery overlooking the villages and walked down to the town and the beautiful blue Mediterranean where in 1986 Israeli jets screamed in to bomb the relocated headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, causing many deaths.

The offices and buildings were destroyed and once again Palestinians, in exile, became the victims.

The PLO had relocated after the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla in 1982 when Israeli troops oversaw massacres by Phalangist militias at the huge refugee camps in Lebanon, home to Palestinians driven from their homes in 1948.

After wreaths were laid at the graves of those who died on that day and on the graves of others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991, we moved to the poignant statue in the main avenue of the coastal town of Ben Arous, which was festooned with Palestinian and Tunisian flags.

The story was unearthed in 2017 during the election campaign and repeated with varying degrees of speculation, conjecture and hyperbole.  Guido found the bottom of the barrel, pretty quickly, claiming "Corbyn honoured Munich massacre terrorist", a claim which is not borne out by any of the facts presented in the piece that followed.  In particular, he attempts to conflate the unidentified persons described as being "killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991" with Atef Bseiso, one of the planners of the Munich murders.

Bseiso was killed, possibly by Mossad agents, in Paris.  But this happened in 1992, not 1991 and was a single killing, when Corbyn refers to 'others'.

Three members of Black September were killed by Mossad, in 1991, but not in Paris.  So it is hard to square Guido's interpretation with what Corbyn reported.  As Guido points out, there are no killings attributed to Mossad in 1992 in Paris.  So quite who Corbyn was referring to is unclear.  According to the Indie, The Times asked Corbyn if he meant Bseiso:

According to The Sunday Times, that was a reference to Atef Bseiso, a PLO agent who was involved in the 1972 attack. Mr Corbyn denied this was the case.

The story went away, quite quickly, and the election went about its business.

Now it has resurfaced.  The Mail apparently has obtained pictures and even went as far as to visit the cemetery.  The claim the pictures show Corbyn standing at the graves of the Black September murderers:

One picture places Mr Corbyn close to the grave of another terrorist, Atef Bseiso, intelligence chief of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Bseiso has also been linked to the Munich atrocity. Another image shows the Labour leader apparently joining in an Islamic prayer while by the graves.

Last night sources close to Mr Corbyn insisted he was at the service in 2014 to commemorate 47 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike on a Tunisian PLO base in 1985.

But on a visit to the cemetery this week, the Daily Mail discovered that the monument to the air strike victims is 15 yards from where Mr Corbyn is pictured – and in a different part of the complex.

Instead he was in front of a plaque that lies beside the graves of Black September members.

On first glance, the pictures bear out the Mail's implication (never directly stated) that Corbyn was taking part in a ceremony honouring Bseiso, Salah Khalaf, Fakhri al-Omari and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, who are all buried in that part of the cemetery.

But look more closely.

Here are the pictures:

This image clearly identifies the graves occupied by the Munich murderers.  Note the plaque to the right, in front of another, slightly elevated tomb.  The occupant of this tomb is not identified by the Mail.

Now, look at the image of the wreath laying.  You'll see they are standing right in front of that plaque, which the Mails states is "honours three dead men: Salah Khalaf, who founded Black September; his key aide Fakhri al-Omari; and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, PLO chief of security."

Pretty damning, huh?

But look more closely, and read more carefully. First of all, the Mail slyly admits the plaque lies "lies beside the graves of Black September members," not in front of it; it is not claiming the grave behind the plaque belongs to a Black September member.

And (important bit) the photograph clearly shows the wreath has been placed on the tomb. You can see it in the bottom right corner of the photograph.

When you are placing a wreath at a monument, you do not place it BEHIND the monument. You put it in fron of it. This would clearly indicate they were honouring the person or persons in the grave, not the persons commemorated in the plaque; and the grave they appear to be honouring is not identified as a Black September grave. This is all from the photographs the Mail provided and - crucially - the information they chose to withhold.

Now, if that grave contained the body of some heinous individual, would the Mail would have coyly kept that information to themselves? If they knew who was in it and if that person was a rotter they would have told us.

The Mail state they visited the cemetery to confirm the details of the story. You'd think they wold check who was interred in the grave the group was specifically honouring.

So either they didn't bother to find out (poor journalism, verging on the deliberately dishonest) or the person who was being honoured is someone not too repugnant, and the Mail opted to trick casual readers into thinking the ceremony was honouring the Black September murderers.

Hannity II

Another conflict of interest / undisclosed relationship type thingy is emerging, involving Sean 'Death of Journalism' Hannity and people who got frequent boosts on his show, without Mr Hannity bothering to acknowledge that he had a relationship with them beyond the studio:

For months, Fox News’s Sean Hannity has promoted Henssler Financial and its Principal and Managing Director, Bil Lako. Hannity has featured articles from Lako on his website, and had Lako appear as a special guest on his radio show. Describing Lako as a “good friend”, and his “financial adviser”, Hannity failed to disclose that he stood to financially benefit from promoting Henssler.

Most recently, Lako wrote an analysis piece on Hannity.com criticizing the cost of the Special Counsel, writing,

“The funding is built into the congressional budget, so if you were really wondering, the citizens pick up the tab. That’s right, a political game funded by taxpayer dollars. Shocker!” Corporate documents and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records have revealed that Hannity is secretly a co-owner of Henssler Financial’s affiliate, Henssler Capital. His advertisement of the financial advisory firm came as the group sought and received millions of dollars in funding from investors.

Buried within Henssler Financial’s 2018 brochure are a list of its affiliates, including Henssler Property Management and the aforementioned Henssler Capital. It states, “[Henssler Capital] is owned by Dr. Gene, Mr. William G. Lako, Jr., Mr. Christopher E. Reeves, and SPMK II, LLC.”

Hannity’s involvement with Henssler Capital is shielded via his use of a shell company, SPMK II, based in Georgia. Shell companies such as the one managed by Hannity are typically able to keep their beneficiaries secret, however when a company enters into a Limited Partnership, the representative of the company must sign official documentation. In 2007, Hannity certified to the Georgia Secretary of State that he is the Manager of the General Partner SPMK II.

I'm sure Sean will quickly and efficiently respond to this, and clear everything up.

Nope, looks like he's using Twitter to grizzle about how the liberal media are on a witch hunt, fixated with smearing good honest Republicans and decent folk:

Up next we’ll show you the media's new sick and twisted obsession about President Trump. @seanspicer on that and more.

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) 21 April 2018

Dude!  The birth certificate!  The emails!

Another example of Mr Hannity's projection / complete lack of self awareness / supreme mastery of irony.  Or plain brazen desperation to deflect attention away from his increasingly compromised position.

More on Labour / Anti-Semitism

So, someone decided to stage a Three Billboards style protest about anti-Semitism outside Labour Party headquarters.

Clever, eh?  That'll show that nasty old anti-Semitic Labour Party the errors of its ways.

Obviously a stunt like that requires a bit off effort and money to stage.  It was carried off by something called "Community United against Labour Party Antisemitism’ aka Culpa.

Their spokesman is someone called Jonathan Hoffman who seems to be quite vociferous on twitter about anti-Semitism and how much he dislikes Jeremy Corbyn.  Beyond his high volme tweeting, Mr Hoffman has a considerable cyber-footprint.

Let's look into some of the organisations that have hosted Mr Hoffman's views, shall we?

• On visiting the United With Israel website, I was prompted to watch "A moving tribute to fallen IDF soldiers" and asked whether I thought Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel.
• Harry's Place is somewhere I haven't looked at in years. Glancing in today I see the first article, by 'Lucy Lips' describing Jewish Voice Labour ' as 'Quislings.' Quisling, you will recall, is the fellow who served as a Nazi figurehead in Norway in WW2. Yup, that's someone describing Jews as Nazi collaborators. Wonder if that will get bigged up by Jonathan Hoffman? Or is it only ant-Semitic if Corbyn does it, Jonno?

• UK Media Watch admits openly (though perhaps disingenuously) that it was established to promote "Fair and accurate coverage of Israel."
• Z-Word seems to be a defunct, indeed perhaps entirely deleted, blog, run by the American Jewish Committee which describes its mission as "Advocating for Israel and the Jewish People." Interesting they put Israel first ...

Hoffman was also, apparently, chairman of something called the Zionist Federation until 2012, at which point he seems to have been booted out of it for abusing people he did not agree with and for cosying up to the racist English Defence League. I am not making this up.

It was interesting to discover the intriguing connections between an anti-Corbyn stunt and various pro-Israel organisations. This is nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it is obviously a hatchet job on Corbyn because of his pro-Palestinian views and links.

You do not get fundamental political changes in a fortnight

Sorry to be both repetitivie and continue Grinchy, but I feel the all consuming urge to rain, Harvey-like, on Labour's parade.  Yes, it is jolly exciting to have Labour actually ahead of National in the polls - without having to include the Greens and New Zealand First to get there - but let's be sensible for a moment, amid the euphoria.

One poll in twelve years?

That doesn't indicate a profound political shift.  People aren't suddenly casting aside their convictions of the last more-than-a-decade, discovering the joys of socialism capitalism-with-a-bit-of-social-conscience.  If it was about policy, people would have been flocking to Andrew Little's (very, very light) red banner.  They didn't exactly flock.

Ardern is waving the same very, very light red banner.  But now the people are flocking.

For a lot of the electorate, Jacinda Ardern is a new shiny object and they are naturally excited by this new toy.  But otherwise, the 'phenomenon' will be a sort of adult fidget spinner – must-have object of fascination for six weeks, then completely forgotten about.

I suppose the question is, will the fad last up to election day? And are we cynical enough to celebrate an election that is won on ephemeral froth, not policy?

I suspect we are.

'Jacindamania' (ugh!) is personality driven stuff - Ardern's youth and vitality contrasting with the drier, more ... senior ... asspect of English and Little.  A lot of it is media driven hype. But the media will bend whatever way they think the wind is blowing. They are no longer the fourth estate, they are just PR and revenue source for their owners.  Right now, Ardern is hot news and click-worthy.

If she actually becomes threatening to the people that own the media and control wealth, she'll suddenly receive a lot less positive coverage.  So she will become a prisoner of her own success - not able to follow whatever radical instincts she may harbour because her success depends - like Tony Blair - on media image.

It has begun ... (amended because I was wrong)

So I wake up this morning, make a cup of coffee, fire up my laptop and discover that mild mannered Jeremey Corbyn has been busily laying wreaths on the graves of terrorists, or some such.

The story was reported in the Sunday Times before feeding out into the wider internet.  It is already being twisted in all sorts of ways.

It was actually a memorial service for the people murdered by Phalangist militias at Sabra and Shatilla in 1982.

What Corbyn actually wrote:

The PLO had relocated after the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla in 1982 when Israeli troops oversaw massacres by Phalangist militias at the huge refugee camps in Lebanon, home to Palestinians driven from their homes in 1948.

After wreaths were laid at the graves of those who died on that day and on the graves of others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991, we moved to the poignant statue in the main avenue of the coastal town of Ben Arous, which was festooned with Palestinian and Tunisian flags.

It is not clear who he means when he refers to murders in Paris in 1991 - but claims it was connected to the Munich murders look very weak, as Atef Bseiso was killed in 1992, and also Corbyn refers to 'others' - more than one person.

In a sane world, someone might ask Corbyn what he meant before blasting the stroy across the internet.  But that was beyond the capacity of the Sunday Times (the original source of the smear) because it isn't interested in proper journalism, just propaganda.

Tories using the mass murders of Sabra and Shattila to score political points. That's pretty despicable.

EDIT - I am, of course, completely wrong.  The commemoration service was not for the victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, but the Israeli attack on the PLO headquarters.  Still nothing to do with the Munich Massacre, however.

And at least my error was the result of genuine uselessness, not deliberate malfeasance.

HA! HA!

I'd normally ignore everything to do with Katie Hopkins, on the principle of not feeding trolls, but this is a special occasion; she has just been found guilty of defaming and damaging Jack Munroe's reputation.

Horrible bully gets her comeuppance.

Wonder if the Mail will mention this detback for their star columnist?

Oh, the (unintentional) irony

The Guardian is running an article about how the BBC 's Laura Kuenssberg has been found to have been impartial in her reporting of a statement from Jeremy Corbyn:

The broadcaster’s regulator concluded that a Laura Kuenssberg report for the News at Six in November 2015 breached the broadcaster’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines, in a ruling that triggered an angry response from the corporation’s director of news.

The News at Six item included a clip of the Labour leader stating: “I am not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive.”

Kuenssberg had presented that as Corbyn’s response to a question put to him on whether he would be “happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack”, but the Trust concluded that Corbyn had been speaking in a different context. sdsd

Which is hilarious, coming from the Guardian, with its ignoble history of inaccurate and anti-Corbyn coverage. Even today, they are running a report titled, Corbyn to order Labour MPs to vote for article 50 trigger; even though he has said no such thing:

Jeremy Corbyn will order Labour to vote in favour of triggering article 50 in a move likely to prompt a rebellion of around 30 MPs, including several frontbenchers.

The Labour leader signalled on Thursday that he would impose a three-line whip if the government lost its supreme court challenge and brought a Brexit bill to parliament.

However, dozens of Labour MPs, especially those with largely urban constituencies that voted to remain, are known to be agonising about whether to defy the party line.

If you read further down the article, you discover that Corbyn did not actually say he was going to issue a three-line whip:

Asked by Sky News how he would handle any legislation in the Commons, after the Guardian revealed that some shadow cabinet ministers were considering voting against it, he said: “It is very clear. The referendum made a decision that Britain was to leave the European Union. It was not to destroy jobs or living standards or communities but it was to leave the European Union and to have a different relationship in the future.

“I’ve made it very clear the Labour party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.”

When asked if that meant a three-line whip, an order to MPs to vote for the bill, he replied: “It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”

Notice how "ask" morphs into "order" in the headline.  The Guardian might argue that Corbyn is talking in euphemisms, and if it was another politician they might have a point; but Corbyn doesn't tend to do that.  When he says hell ask them to vote for Article 50, he probably means that.  He is not an authoritarian leader.  He allowed a free vote over Syrian air strikes and on Trident.  As a life long rebel against the party line himself, it does not seem to be in his nature to impose strict discipline on matters of conscience.

Presumably, when he doesn't actually issue said whip, they Guardian will accuse him of backing down in the face of pressure ...

Obnoxious Nicky Cohen

I break my long and mysterious silence merely to draw everyone's attention to an egregious piece by right wing lefty Nick Cohen in The Guardian / Observer:

The Daily Mail might have compiled the far left’s hitlist of Labour MPs. Seven of its apparent deselection targets are women: Angela Eagle, Jess Phillips, Stella Creasy, Louise Ellman, Anna Turley, Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth. Of these, Angela Eagle is an out lesbian and Louise Ellman, Ruth Smeeth and Luciana Berger are Jewish. Most are young by the standards of politicians and nasty old men have always enjoyed humiliating young women with ideas of their own. 

The Corbyn gun club does not only have women at the end of its firing range. A list of MPs Jeremy Corbyn claimed had been abusive towards him included many men. But when Labour activists talk of the men most likely to be deselected the list narrows to three: Neil Coyle, Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle. Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle are, since you mention it, gay.

Well, it is nice to see Nick is really making an effort to unite and heal divisions!

Note the language: 'the far left's hitlist'; the 'Corbyn gun club' and women 'at the end of its firing range.'  This is the language of violence, shameful after the murder of Jo Cox.

Note also the mention of a list.  What list?  Does he mean the list of MPs alleged to have been abusive or disrespectful towards Corbyn or his supporters?  It can't be, because that list does not mention Angela Eagle, Stella Creasy, Louise Ellman, Anna Turley or Ruth Smeeth.  What list is it, Nick?  You can't just claim - in the very first line of your article - that there is a hitlist, name the names on it and then not actually produce the hitlist.  If you want to make up any old shit you like, quit the Guardian column and get a blog.  You've said there is a list.  Produce it, please.

Note the description of Corbyn and his inner circle as 'Nasty old men' - is this really the language of grown up discourse, Nick?  And the headline (which Cohen may not have been responsible for) repeats this unjustified, childish smearing.  'Good and Brave' Labour MPs need to be defended.  From the 'Nasty old men' (Why do you hate old people, Nick?) who are presumably also bad and cowardly.

(Nick then goes on to lay into Shami Chakrabarti, writing off the investigation she conducted into antisemisim in the Labour Party as a 'sick joke of an “inquiry” into left antisemitism.'  Sorry, Nick, what were you saying about nasty old men humiliating young women (you patronising fart!) with ideas of their own?

He doubles down on this by commenting how 'the Livingstone left accuses Jews of always raising fake claims of antisemitism to silence criticism of Israel.'  the emphasis on 'always' is Cohens, by the way, not mine.

Ken Livingstone is, of course, a dickhead who has said many stupid things over the years, often about Israel.  But I doubt Livingstone has ever accused 'Jews' (nice bit of elision there, Nick) of 'always' making false claims.  Cohen may have strayed into libel here, if Livingstone is in a litigatious mood.  I'm not sure he will appreciate his name being used in such a manner.

(For what it is worth, the 'Livingstone Formulation' Cohen mentions earlier does not refer specifically to Jews, or claim that it is always being deployed.  In 2006, Livingstone said, "For far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government, as I have been."  No mention of Jews there, Nick, you naughty boy!  I suppose adding 'Jews' into the paragraph added a bit of emotive colour.  Because no-one, quite rightly, likes people who bash Jews.)

Nick finishes with a curious flight of fantasy where he contemplates what  'Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott and the rest of Corbyn’s prominent women supporters' should be saying. (One would have thought a 'nasty old man' like Corbyn would not have 'women supporters.'  It must be some sort of Stockholm Syndrome.  Why else would they stand by someone who delights in 'humiliating young women'?)  It includes the bizarre claim that deselection of these women must be an act of misogyny:

Even though Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy are my opponents, it would be intolerable for them to lose their seats to misogynist enemies, just as it would be intolerable for antisemites to drive out Ruth Smeeth and other Jewish MPs.

Note how Cohen is deploying his own version of the Livingstone Formulation.  Any criticism of the likes of Eagle, Phillips, Creasy, Ellman, Turley, Berger and Smeeth (the names he mentioned earlier) can not be for genuine reasons around competence or simple dissatisfaction; it has to be the result of misogyny or antisemitism (why not both, Nick?).  Impressively, Cohen manages to libel the candidates replacing these MPS, characterising them as 'misogynist enemies' and 'antisemites' before they have even been selected, or the sitting MPs even deselected, or even before any move has been made to deselect them.  Talk about demonisation.  This is pre-demonisation.  If any of these MPs stand down or are deselected, Cohen has already proclaimed whoever replaces them a misogynist or antisemite.

There is lots more.  Berserk religious imagery (Corbyn is Pilate.  Does this make Owen Smith Jesus Christ?), references to the French revolution and Stalinism.  It is a genuinely strange piece of vitriol, more appropriate to some obscure little blog (unlike Cohen, who comes across as a rather nasty old man himself, I have a trace of self awareness), not the pages of a major newspaper.

Cologne attacks - a quick comment

A lot of people are getting a bit excited over a news story about a report into the assaults on women that took place in Germany over the New Year:

At least 2,000 men sexually harassed women on New Year’s Eve across Germany, but it will be impossible to track them all down, police said, adding that the attacks have been linked to mass migration. 

Police said there were cases involving over 1,200 women, adding that apart from Cologne, sexual harassment was reported in Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart and other cities across Germany. 

The report from the Federal Office of Criminal Investigations (BKA) was seen by Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper and broadcasters NDR and WDR. 

According to the report, at least 642 crimes of a purely sexual nature were reported in Germany. Plus, police registered 239 other “combined crimes” that involved both sexual assault and theft. 

Of the 2,000 alleged attackers, only 120 have been identified so far, according to police reports. Many of the attacks were carried out in large groups. 

“We need to assume that many of the perpetrators will not be investigated,” BKA President Holger Münch said, as cited by the paper. 

According to police estimates, most of the identified offenders came from North Africa and over a half of the attackers had spent less than a year in Germany.

This actually tells us nothing new.

Of the 2000 attackers, only 120 have actually been identified.  The statement that "According to police estimates, most of the identified offenders came from North Africa and over a half of the attackers had spent less than a year in Germany," has to be read with that in mind. "Most of" refers to the 120 identified offenders, not the 'gross' figure of 2000. The identity of 94% of the perpetrators is simply unknown. They might be white, black, brown, yellow or green.

I don't suppose that will stop the anti-Muslim, anti-refugee making a predictable unpleasant fuss about it, though.

Labour and anti-Semitism

It's been a bit interesting watching the current shit storm in Britain.

It reeks of right-wing desperation.  Are they really reduced to trawling through the pre-parliamentary twitter feeds and online wibblings of Labour MPs to find anything that can be spun as dicreditable.

I refer, of course, to the fuss about Naz Shah's comments - made two years ago, before she became an MP - about relocating Israel to the USA as a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem.

In subsequent events, Labour veteran loudmouth Ken Livingstone may finally have gone too far and be forced to retire in disgrace, a sad end to a career in politics that has been amusing, infuriating and only sometimes offensive.

First, Ms Shah.  Yeah, she made some thoughtless comments on Twitter.  Were they anti-Semitic?  I wouldn't have thought so.  Just a bit crass, and only anti-Semitic if you are one of these people who conflate Israel with all Jews.

It was interesting watching how this story was reported.

The Mail's first few paragraphs is a masterclass in disingenuous reporting, making it sound like she did it recently, while in her role as an MP:

A Labour MP today has resigned as an aide to John McDonnell after sharing a graphic on social media that appeared to say Israel should be 'relocated' to America.

Bradford West MP Naz Shah shared an image that showed an outline of Israel superimposed on to a map of the USA.

The headline on the image said: 'Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict - Relocate Israel into United States.'

Note 'A Labour MP today has resigned as an aide to John McDonnell after sharing a graphic' - yeah, almost 2 years afterwards she shared it, and a year after becoming an MP. And 'Bradford West MP Naz Shah shared an image' - the Bradford MP Naz Shah did nothing of the kind, Naz Shah, did, before she became the MP for Bradford West.

Clever, though disheartening stuff.

Whereas Shah's action was not clever, and also disheartening.

Ken Livingstone's intervention is more problematic.  In fact, he should be banished from the party and should be sacked and thrown in the Thames. Not because of what he said, as much as the stupidity of opening his mouth and turning an annoyance into a crisis. Government looking useless and divided, the first polls showing Labour in the lead, a bit of a hint of Corbyn starting to impinge on the public consciousness as something more than a bizarre situationist prank, and then Livingstone goes and shoots his mouth off.

He's actually managed to make things much worse for Shah. Her silliness - two years ago, before parliament - would have been forgotten and after an 'investigation' and a stern talking to she could have been re-admitted. But Livingstone - who should know better, given he's been around for a colossally long time and presumably knows a few things about the right wing media works - should have anticipated what would happen if he started shooting his mouth off.

Now there will be far more swivel eyed attention paid to Shah's case, and it is possible she won't be back in at.

It's monumentally depressing.

Almost as depressing as this extremely depressing article by George Eaton in New Statesman, puffing up a bunch of rumours and snipes from the Labour right.  Not exactly fair, balanced coverage there, George.

The central contention is that Jermey Corbyn is not up to tackling anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

Only, he has been.

Post Options Post by lala on 26 minutes ago People are screaming and running around like idiots as if this is a new thing, and Corbyn et al are fumbling to make a response to the scorching searchlight now being shone on them ... When Labour has actually been addressing the issue of anti-Semites and racists in the party before it became a Meja sensayshun:

A Labour councillor has been suspended from the party over anti-Semitic comments on her Twitter account. 

A message on Luton councillor Aysegul Gurbuz's Twitter feed claimed Hitler was the "greatest man in history". 

Another tweet on Ms Gurbaz's account suggested Iran could develop a nuclear weapon to "wipe Israel off the map". 

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said anyone who makes anti-Semitic remarks is "auto-excluded from the party" pending an inquiry.

Note that this story is dated the 10th of April, well before the Mail et al became hypocritically excited about anti-Semitism.  But Corbyn's position is quite clear.  Anti-Semitism is not tolerated.  Suspension pending investigation.

Yet still the right wing of his party - more interested in destablizing him, still afflicted by the deranged idea that he can be overthrown, are trying to stir up trouble and make out that he is dithering and is not trying to address the problem.

Sweet Baby Jesus Wept: The Mail

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has been having a fine old time with the horrible accounts emerging from Cologne.

What better way of stirring up bigotry and hysteria (the Mail's stock in trade when Kim K is not showing us her arse) than running dozens of stories about Muslims molesting European women?

Even better when it is being claimed that the perpetrators are asylum seekers, ungrateful refugees repaying German generosity by sexually assaulting and robbing vulnerable women?

Today the Mail reached a pinnacle of irresponsibility, running a story headlined, "18 Cologne sex attackers were asylum seekers". The implication is pretty clear - 18 people charged with sexual assaults were refugees.

The juxtaposition is pretty clear, leading the reader to think, reasonably, that 18 people who committed sex attacks at Cologne have been revealed to be asylum seekers.

Only, no-one has actually been charged with a sexual assault in relation to the events on New Year's Eve.

So far, 31 people have been arrested.  As the Mail admits, far down the article, "None of the 31 has been accused of specifically committing sexual assaults, the aspect of Cologne's disturbances that attracted most public outrage at home and abroad."

So the 18 "sex attackers" were - based on what they have been charged with so far - likely thieves and brawlers.

But let's not miss a chance to smear refugees and drum up a bit of hate, eh?

This whole story has been horribly exploited by the neo-fascist right.  Social media has been brilliantly manipulated.  Rumours and unsubstantiated claims have been spread, supposed conspiracies exposed and continual conflation of any Arab or North African involved in criminality with 'refugees' .

It is depressing - though not entirely surprising - to see the Mail following this lead with such gleeful insouciance.

Power without responsibility, and all that.