'Far more powerful is Berger’s chilling account... of buckling under the weight of anti-Semitic abuse as an MP in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.'
Come on here and try that old cobblers, @FionaLondonarts. See how far you get. Dare you. #ItWasAScam inews.co.uk/culture/arts/j…
That whole 'Labour antisemitism crisis' narrative beloved of Freedland and Oberman and the rest - and, apparently, you also - has been so comprehensively debunked that clinging ono it starts to look pathological.
Here's some hard, cold evidence of fraud:
There's plenty more where that came from.
Here are ten more, including Freedland's 'irony' smear, which is *right there in the Royal Court blurb*.
You've been shown the evidence of fraud. Should you persist with your hate campaign after this, you do so knowing it to be false.
No-one is expecting you to reply, of course. What could you possibly gain from it?
But you don't get away with it on here. You never will. #ItWasAScam
Now Al Jazeera’s Labour Files have delivered the coup-de-grace to the ‘antisemitism crisis’ narrative, we enter a new phase, an uneasy stand-off between reality and what we see in the papers.
There are fairly obvious reasons why Starmer’s party can’t acknowledge even the existence of these documentaries, let alone comment on their content, which is that they represent one of the most damning indictments of a major political party anyone has ever seen.
Starmer’s party became a sort of Poundshop Stasi. They stalked a Black member’s *children*. They compiled lengthy, detailed surveillance ‘reports’ on members who were any kind of a challenge to the suffocating Starmer orthodoxy.
Three years ago today, senior BBC presenter and former Political Editor Nick Robinson was forced to delete a tweet falsely accusing @Jackiew80333500 of antisemitism. His tweet also accused (then MP) Chris Williamson by association.
Robinson was forced to concede that the tweet gave an 'insufficiently accurate impression' of what @Jackiew80333500 said or, in less emollient terms, was a stupid and outrageous BBC smear.
Hi @tomhfh.
There are just two possibilities here: 1. You genuinely believe this to be true, or 2. You know it to be false but say it anyway.
Not sure which is worse, really.
Care to clarify which applies to you?
Just a wild guess, but I reckon you'd go for 1: 'I genuinely believe this to be true.'
But then we hit a problem: there exists no reason to believe anything of the kind.
Even BBC have been forced to admit there is 'absolutely no evidence' Corbyn is or ever was an antisemite.
It's possibly worth clearing this up to avoid confusion.
If someone lies, we call them a liar.
It doesn't make any difference how tall they are, for instance, or what colour hair they’ve got, or whether they like mustard or not. A liar is someone who lies.
If the someone-who-lies has other identities - French, male, vegetarian - it doesn’t mean they’re lying *because* they have those identities. Those other identities are irrelevant: all that’s relevant is that they’re liars.
They’re not ‘French liars’ or ‘male liars’ or ‘vegetarian liars’. They’re just liars.
I've tried to explain this to you before, but you never seem to get it.
It doesn't make any difference whether I'm a good person or a bad person. It does not affect the truth-value of any statement I've made, because truth is *non-contingent* on the speaker of it.
Go look it up.
So if a bad person says 'Today is Saturday', and it is Saturday today, that remains true, no matter how bad the person saying it is. The truth of it being Saturday today is *non-contingent* on the virtue of the person who says it.