It is appropriate that on Stephen Pollard's last day as Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, it publishes this disgusting headline.
As people examine his tenure, I wonder if they actually are aware of the positions the Jewish Chronicle published during his tenure as Editor?
Thread.
After 51 Muslims were killed in a terror attack in a mosque in Christchurch, The Jewish Chronicle *chose* to publish this disgusting piece by Melanie Phillips playing down Islamophobia.
This whole thread could be about how the Jewish Chronicle chose (A) to publish Melanie Phillips; and (B) to publish disgusting pieces by Melanie Phillips - given how it is an indicator of the choices by the Editor.
But let's move onto the Jewish Chronicle's lies about Muslims
Here is where the Jewish Chronicle under Stephen Pollard's tenure as editor, was forced to apologise for falsely linking the charity Interpal to terrorism, necessitating an apology and paying libel damages
Here is where the paper falsely accused Nada al-Sanjari of
- Inviting an antisemitic activist
- Turned a blind eye to antisemitic statements
- Launched a vicious protest against Luciana
Here is when The Jewish Chronicle corrected & apologised for its attempt to slur Professor Salman Sayyid with extremist links, as part of its ongoing campaign to undermine the definition of Islamophobia
Here is when the Jewish Chronicle lied about the largest Muslim body in the UK, and had to apologise for their error.
Could go on and on...but let's highlight another perspective.
After research, The Jewish Chronicle praised Colonel Richard Kemp & claimed "no comments made by Colonel Kemp could reasonably be interpreted as “Islamophobic”".
If you want to find hated people within many Muslim communities, the place to find support for them, seems to often be within the pages of the Jewish Chronicle under Stephen Pollard's tenure.
But, on the other hand, what about prominent Muslims who speak out on Islamophobia?
For example, when Baroness Warsi raises issue of Islamophobia amongst a senior politician, he attacks the Muslim woman messenger.
But this is of course not new....there is a long history. See for example how he made the false suggestion that Islam Expo Limited is a "fascist party dedicated to genocide which organised a conference with a racist and genocidal programme".
Apology here.
It's also not historic.
Here Stephen Pollard seems to care about 2 Muslims holding up a Palestinian flag but not others similarly holding up a Nigerian flag.
I wonder why.
I guess maybe I should be happy that he retracted one set of false allegations against me personally?
Anyway, I better stop but hopefully the above gives another perspective to Stephen Pollard as he completes his tenure as Editor of the Jewish Chronicle.
Those upset about my thread include:
1. Robert Spencer - banned from the UK because it was not conducive to the public good
2. David Atherton - former-Breitbart columnist
3. Alt News Media - David Vance's outfit (he has been banned from Twitter after being accused of racism)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
But it is fair to say Jake Wallis Simons has a particularly awful history during his editorship of the paper.
His attitude towards Muslims is vile.
But his defence of Douglas Murray, his attacks on ordinary protestors, his attacks on journalists, his attacks on even calling for a ceasefire, are just a small snippet of his awful views.
This protest was almost entirely peaceful with minimal arrests.
With a protest of this size, there are always a handful of idiots, but from the reporting it seems there were far less than for example at this pro-Israel rally a couple of years ago.
The idea that those exercising their democratic right to protest it show solidarity to Palestinians, are somehow an "intimidating mob" is just not okay.
After her racist smear was forcibly corrected (ht @cfmmuk), a source close to Braverman admits:
When referring to the 'grooming gangs phenomenon', she only meant high profile cases where Pakistani men were involved & not all group-based child sexual abuse bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
Whilst this source calls the ruling "perverse", they are clearly wrong:
Only calling high-profile group-based child sexual abuse done by Pakistani men as "grooming gangs" is an astonishing admission, unjustifiable and incorrect
The IPSO ruling makes it clear how it is inaccurate. It is not a "political attack" - merely the correction of a false racist smear.
Outrageous the Home Secretary defends Douglas Murray as "mainstream"
She is *actively* promoting a man who said objectively racist & extreme things such as “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board" & who has defended Tommy Robinson
Douglas Murray says London has become "foreign" because "in 23 of London's 33 boroughs "white Britons" are now in a minority" i.e. being non-white, means you are foreign and can't be British
Is the government view *really* that this is a mainstream view? @Tories4Equality
@Tories4Equality Murray said "less Islam" is a solution to terrorism (whilst talking about Muslims).
Is it *really* a government position that this is a "mainstream" view and not extreme?
Shawcross, Gove & The Times appear to want to publish names of who they consider to be "extreme" Muslims/Muslim groups as part of their attempt to refocus Prevent on Muslims & not the far right
This is after a far-right terror attack against a migrant centre
Thread
ICYMI Shawcross said "..Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future"
He targeted Muslim charities. He defended torture. He seems to even have wanted Foreign Office officials to mock Islam
Whilst @KeithPrinceAM has now apologised and a few thousand have seen the apology, the GB News tweet with the conspiracy theory remains up with no clarifying tweet from @GBNEWS.
It'd almost as if they want the conspiracy theory to be shared.
Does anyone know if they apologised on-air and just didn't clip it up?