1. Imagine you’re on a bus and everyone is using a cloth or surgical mask. Your (and everyone else’s) risk of infection is very low, since viral particles can't get out into the air. Everyone protects everyone else.
2. Now imagine one person removes their mask. What happens to your risk of infection? It goes up a little bit, because there is now the possibility of viral particles in the air and your surgical or cloth mask offers little protection to you the wearer.
3. As more people remove their cloth masks, the risk of infection grows, until when everyone has removed their mask, infection risk is at its maximum.
'Damaged by agonies over antisemitism' says impartial BBC's impartial Laura Kuenssberg, perhaps momentarily forgetting how she and they manufactured and sustained this confected bullshit for five years. Damaged? Oh yes.
BBC, with Guardian, were the top performers in the antisemitism bullshit wars. Has Laura perhaps forgotten this, how she and her employer systematically character- assassinated the left with smears about Jew-hate? Do you think we should perhaps remind her of this?
Exposing the smearing war is necessary for a number of reasons, I think.
The first and most obvious is that it was a lie from start to finish, and lies should always be exposed.
Second, it influenced two general elections and was a significant campaign issue in both.
But there’s more.
Third, it severely undermined trust in our news and broadcast media. Amongst those who knew how dishonest the campaign was (and still is), being bombarded with news you know, with certainty, to be false is not something you can just shrug off afterwards.
The scale of lying, the unanimity of it, the fact that every paper and news programme was pumping out the same lies at the same time showed our news media for what they really are: propagandists.
•a public officer acting as such;
•wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
•to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder;
•without reasonable excuse or justification.
•Boris Johnson is an office-holder, and was acting as such
•He wilfully misconducted himself by misusing public funds and then lying about it
•This is a major breach of public trust
•There is no imaginable 'excuse or justification'
One of the most striking features of the antisemitism smearing war is the fact that many - I’d say most - of the accusers have literally no idea how logic or reason works.
A recent accuser was adamant about his claims. But when asked to produce evidence, he seemed affronted. “Oh, you’re obsessed with evidence, are you?” he said.
There’s a world of revelation behind that statement.
First, he felt fully justified and entitled in making the most appalling accusations imaginable *without first compiling his evidence*. Showing evidence simply had not occurred to him until he was asked to do so.
Baddiel's latest intervention in the Labour antisemitism campaign is intriguing. Baddiel claims 'someone on the NEC' told him something - 'and this is probably true…’ - and then the smear.
I think it’s possible this marks a new phase of the smearing war. Previously the smears have been predicated on at least *some* evidence, no matter how flimsy or distorted or exaggerated. There was something concrete to point to - a mural, a wreath, whatever else.
But here, we just have ‘someone said something which is probably true.’ That’s the entire evidentiary warrant for this story - that someone Baddiel doesn’t name told him something, and Baddiel thought it was probably true.