It is Time for George Versus the Dragon

Israel was created in the same year as the Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury. “Go home”? Think on.

.

Jezza for PM now.

.

Ah….the Babes of the Blair’s Babes.

It’s unfair to put the reasons for female Blairites acting as they do down to Women only selections stifling the
men’s conversations about manly issues.

Mrs May is a woman and I’m not against her because she is a woman – I’m against her because I am against her politics and policies.

Ditto with the likes of Jess Philips.

As we have witnessed over the years with the attacks on Corbyn, the Blairites ( male and female ) had become used to their cosy world of percentages of austerity and siding with the US in attacks ( they are not wars) on the Middle Eastern nations. Add to that the abstention on the Welfare Bill – as they didn’t want to be seen as the party of benefits- are we surprised that a lot of these people have emerged. Most of them come from the Voluntary/charity sector and have never had any contact with Trades Unions or the working class in general. Basically they view themselves as arbiters between the poor/workers and not the advocates of the same when they land in Parliament.

This is the class chasm between those current politicians and Galloway.

Jess Philips is only one of many uninformed politicians.

Male and female.

Deselection might sort the thing out though.

@ Mark,
I don’t know if you watched Question time when he faced a hand picked, completely Hostile Jewish audience. The hatred against him was palpable and embarrassing. It was clear as day just what the Palestinians are up against.

Here’s WHY George will never be heard in mainstream, or be given a fair hearing.
>>>
If only Britons knew…
This article about the British charitable organisation, the Campaign against Anti-Semitism (CAA), and its officers, Gideon Falter and Steve Silverman, examines events in England but ought to serve as a cautionary message for Canadians, Americans et al..

This article will delve into the corrosive methods of the CAA; review the manner in which this ultra Zionist group “discovers” anti-Semitic “incidents”; examine their inaccurate statistical “studies” and see how they seek to intimidate Political Parties, venues, (David Ike fits here..) the press and others; and look at the court cases which the CAA has prosecuted, in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism. The CAA has managed to manoeuvre British society into ABDICATING ITS CORE LIBERAL VALUES, INITMIDATE THE PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND SILENCE CRITICISM OF ISREAL in both social media and the mainstream media.

The CAA does not just attempt to LIMIT speech; it openly follows a scorched earth policy “that if someone commits an anti-Semitic act in the UK (including criticism of Israel)” the CAA “ENSURES RUINOUS CONSEQUENCES, be they CRIMINAL, PROFESSIONAL, FINANCIAL OR REPUTAITONAL”.
For example, in the last 18 months Britain’s largest political party, the Labour Party, has suspended and expelled over 100 of its members for expressing their views on Israel or Jewish history. Presumably these dismissals act as a DETERRENT to others who might also wish to express their opinions.
Hard as it is to believe, in 21st century Britain people have been imprisoned for trying to be funny…
The CAA’s “success” in Britain is not irrelevant to Americans.
Despite the First Amendment, rules limiting speech have been creeping into our society, notwithstanding our constitutional protections.
Organisations not unlike CAA have been operating in the US for some time. In South Carolina ‘criticising Israel is essentially prohibited’ on public university campuses, and in other states support for BDS (the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement) will prohibit one from getting a Government job or contract. Similar laws have been proposed in the US Congress.
It is crucial that we resist this slide into controlled speech at the expense of our crucial values of free expression and tolerance.
The case of Rowan Laxton
In 2006 Rowan Laxton was using an exercise bike ALONE on the mezzanine floor of a London gym when he saw a television report about an elderly Palestinian man killed by the Israeli assault on Gaza. Laxton allegedly exclaimed: “F…..g Israelis! F…..g Jews!” Gideon Falter (now head of the CAA) and William Lemaine, who were on a LOWER FLOOR USING WEIGHTS, claimed to have overheard Laxton, and complained to staff at the gym.
The police were going to let Laxton off with a caution but, before it could be arranged, Falter found out that Laxton was a senior Foreign Office official and brought the story to half a dozen newspapers.
The police decided to proceed with a prosecution.
Laxton was initially found guilty of “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour… within the hearing or sight of a person LIKELY to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby…” aggravated by using abusive words that had a racial or ethnic element. Laxton was fined and removed from his Foreign Office position.
Laxton exercised his right to an appeal and a re-hearing wherein the Crown Court found that Laxton did not say “f…..g Jews”, the comment on which the prosecution was based and which he had always denied. The court also found, as an alternative ground, that Laxton would have thought no one was within earshot.
The Daily Mail played a KEY ROLE in ensuring that the case received national attention and went to trial, but seems not to have reported the appeal and acquittal at all.
It is an open question of HOW Falter heard Laxton’s alleged outburst, if at the time NO ONE WAS WITHIN EARSHOT of Laxton. One reasonable assumption is that the court did not believe that Falter actually heard Laxton’s statement.
Eight years after the Laxton incident… Gideon Falter founded the Campaign Against Anti-Semitsm, a hardcore Zionist charity that advocates zero tolerance of, and vows to ensure “criminal, professional and reputational consequences”, to those it decides are anti-Semites.

Stephen Silverman is the CAA’s “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” and has DEDICATED MUCH OF HIS TIME TO RUINING THE INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC CAREERS OF OTHERS. Silverman is himself a musician wannabe, and runs a music school in a London suburb.
In the last few years Silverman and the CAA have engaged in a relentless assault against Artists, Intellectuals, Religious leaders and elected Politicians operating in or visiting England. The “Director of Investigations” does not like ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone, nor does he approve of a list of Academics or Church ministers who care for Human Rights or DARE TO DISAGREE WITH ISRAHELL. The self-appointed inquisitor DESPISES the hugely popular Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Silverman has made a number of attempts to ruin the music careers of both Alison Chabloz and Gilad Atzmon. In addition, Silverman takes it upon himself to write and call music venues demanding that they cancel Atzmon concerts claiming that Atzmon is a notorious anti-Semite. (I wonder if it was he who was responsible for having David Ike conference cancelled in Leicester?) Stephen Silverman, was exposed in open court in December 2016 as having been the Twitter troll @bedlamjones. As a Zionist troll, Silverman abused anti-Zionists, particularly women. His sadistic posts called for arrest and imprisonment in response what he considered to be “anti-Semitic” comments.
Silverman has also determined that Gordon Nardell, the man who has taken on the unenviable job of policing anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, is insufficiently sensitive to anti-Semitism. Apparently, according to Silverman, “Nardell has also turned his sights on Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, stating that our work to combat hatred directed at Jews by Labour members is “revolting” and results in anti-Semitism being “abused and belittled”.
For Nardell’s sin of distrusting the CAA, the CAA has demanded that “An independent and transparent disciplinary process… be instituted in the Labour Party”. The CAA’s website does not explain why the Labour Party need justify its own campaign against anti-Semitism to the CAA.

What is anti-Semitism?
UNESCO’s DEFINITION of racism is that it is “A theory of races hierarchy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.”
Whereas, THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION of anti-Semitism is the “criticising of, or discriminating against Jews for being Jews”. This definition is not substantially different from UNESCO’s definition of racism.
However, despite the fact that enforcing hate speech laws based on a traditional definition of racism would protect Jews as well as others, in December 2016 the United Kingdom followed other countries in adopting the “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION of anti-Semitism”, which begins by saying: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The new “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION” is troubling because it specifically targets speech and THOUGHTS and fails to define what a “certain” perception of Jews is, and an expression of hatred towards Jews is cited, not to make the definition more precise… but only as one possible example.
It is well worth reviewing the “examples of anti-Semitism” included in the “international definition” which are extremely broad and include, among other things, ”Accusing a Jewish person of ”valuing Israel or his fellow Jews over his home country” and the seemingly paradoxical provision prohibiting speech ”denying that Jews have the right to self-determination through Israel.”
But if racism against one group is to be fought on a broader basis than other forms of racism, that extra protection ought to be to aid a group uniquely needing the state’s protection – an allegedly poor, downtrodden and persecuted group…..
It is of note that, in contrast to the downtrodden, Jews as a group have been extraordinarily successful at ”utilising the media and the courts” and obtaining the power to “Hold the feet of the government to the fire”.
If UNESCO’S DEFINITION at defining racism as a universal problem, the “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION” adheres to the idea that Jews are not a part of the universal, they are ”somehow different, their plight is unique.”
Why do the Jews in particular need a broader definition of racial hatred?
Why do Jews see a need to create a category of hatred that applies only to them? What is lacking in the UNESCO definition that is covered by the “international” one?
The answer is that the “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION” serves to restrain speech and restrict thought. It conflates the Jewish State of Israel with Jews as it vets a range of discourses such as criticism of Israeli POLITICS, Jewish CULTURE, Jewish HISTORY and Zionist IDEOLOGY.
It is not surprising that this definition is espoused by some Zionist institutions. However, its adoption by so many countries is perplexing and begs an explanation. In a world in which free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are valued, there is a real question of why such a broad definition of anti-Semitism is appropriate and what exactly it is designed to accomplish?
Then there is the CAA, for whom the international definition is only a starting point… . Their accusations of anti-Semitism go beyond even the very broad and over-inclusive definition of the “international definition.”
If you find anti-Semitism in t-shirts, major party political gatherings or stupid pet videos, then the definition is very expansive indeed.
Why would an organisation dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism be so interested in finding anti-Semitism in every possible utterance?
It is clear that the CAA wants to stop any discussion of Jews, Israel or Jewish history in any but its prescribed manner. In its aggressive policing of speech, the CAA and others work to ENFORCE Jewish power precisely as it is defined by Gilad Atzmon: “the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power”.

Freedom of t-shirt
While freedom of speech may be evaporating throughout the English-speaking world, at least we are assured that freedom of t-shirt is still protected in England.
Last year, the CAA’s website bemoaned that Edinburgh-based law graduate Sophie Stephenson won’t face criminal charges for wearing a Hezbollah t-shirt.

The CAA wrote that: “On 1 July 2017, Stephenson tweeted a photograph of herself wearing a Hizballah t-shirt, explaining: “Went out to dinner with my family tonight wearing a Hizballah t-shirt.” And then, even worse, Stephenson confirmed: “I have a flag too.”
The CAA, in its zeal to fight anti-Semitism, reported Stephenson to the Police, alleging that she had committed an offense under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. But despite the CAA’s urging, Scottish Police declined to act against the young “rebel”.
The CAA “Considered undertaking a private prosecution” against Stephenson. However, its website lamented, “We were unable to secure enough funding to do so”. Following its report of the supposedly anti-Semitic/terrorist-loving Stephenson, the CAA called upon the public to “Consider making a monthly donation to help fund Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” presumably to allow it to CONTINUE TO HARASS BRITONS, accusing them of anti-Semitic behaviour, and interfering with their elementary freedoms including the right to wear rebellious t-shirts. Disturbingly, asking for donations in this context suggests that the CAA is attempting to cash in from its dubious anti-Semitic claims. Not exactly the ethical conduct you might expect of a charity.
Methodology, it is not!
The CAA claims to run “METHODOLOGICAL” “research into anti-Semitism in British political Parties”. Trolling and spying on elected British Politicians on social media and public meetings, the CAA keeps a “record” of allegedly “anti-Semitic discourse and discourse that enables anti-Semitism, by officials and candidates in political parties”.
This means that a Jewish organisation with a clear political agenda endeavours to monitor the British Political discourse to RESTRAIN certain political opinions. The CAA’s actions prosecuting its farfetched “findings” are dangerous enough, but more troubling is its success in TERRORISING the British political universe into compliance with its dictates….
What are some “examples” of discourse that the CAA has claimed enable anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas?
Ken Loach
Internationally acclaimed film-maker and Labour supporter Ken Loach told the BBC’s Daily Politics programme that he had been attending Labour meetings for 50 years and had “never in that whole time heard a single anti-Semitic word or a racist word”, and that allegations of anti-Semitism were a FALLACY “without validation or any evidence”.
The CAA claimed that Loach’s statement brought to light a “Discourse that enables anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas.”
How is Loach’s statement racist? Does it target Jews, identify Jews as a collective or advocate discrimination against Jews or anyone else?
Is there even a criminal category or a showing of bias in which “not witnessing” conduct implicates one in that very conduct?
How does not witnessing anti-Semitism make one into an anti-Semite?
Does not witnessing a murder makes one a murderer?
Under the CAA’s “rationale” anyone who fails to see the anti-Semitism, is an anti-Semite.
Diane Abbott
Abbott ran foul of the CAA when she said: “It’s a smear to say that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism. It is something like a smear against ordinary party members.” The CAA claimed that “Abbott’s comments were widely condemned. The overwhelming majority of UK Jewish Community Bodies have expressed public concern about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, including the chief rabbi.” Whether or not this statement is accurate, how is it that Abbott’s statement was misinterpreted as a criticism of Jews when it is clearly a defence of the Labour Party?
Ken Livingstone
The CAA has a long file on former London Mayor Livingstone, beginning in 1982 when the paper, the Labour Herald, of which Livingstone was co-editor, ran an unfavorable cartoon of the then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
According to the CAA, Livingstone’s most egregious anti-Semitic remark was his claim that in 1932 (Hitler came to power in 1933) Hitler had championed Jewish emigration to Israel (actually, then Palestine) and was “supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”.
The United States Holocaust Museum website generally supports Livingstone’s statement and reveals that until 1941, Germany encouraged Jews to emigrate and that 60,000 Jews left Germany/Austria for Palestine, a number second only to the number of Jews who went to the United States.
Livingstone rejected claims that he had brought the Labour Party into disrepute and said he was not guilty of anti-Semitism, but resigned from the party and acknowledged that his comments had upset Jews and offended others. “I am truly sorry for that,” he said.
Some of Livingstone’s critics were NOT SATISFIED with his apology for his truthful statement. Ruth Smeeth, a Labour lawmaker, described his behaviour as “grossly offensive to British Jews”. MP Smeeth’s reaction is bizarre.
Is it anti-Semitic for Livingstone to discuss Jewish history?
The Transfer Agreement between Hitler’s Germany and the Zionist Congress may be embarrassing for some Jews, but how is recounting history hate speech?
MP Smeeth, the CAA and others claiming to be offended managed by ousting Livingstone to enforce their ironclad rule that CERTAIN Jewish history is “off limits”.
War on Labour:
Following its anti-methodology, the CAA came to the conclusion that the British Labour Party is “eight times worse than any other party”. Not 5, 6 or 8.3 but exactly 8. What “evidence” supports this “finding?”
The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions.
The CAA’s website publishes an “ENEMIES LIST” of sorts, chronicling the alleged anti-Semitism of 39 members of the Labour Party. A striking number of the CAA’s complaints address statements about Israel, not about Israel as Jews, but about the actions of the country.
To date, about 150 members of the Labour Party have been expelled for alleged anti-Semitism and there is a backlog of cases.
Dubious cases such as those cited here are treated by the CAA as “anti-Semitic incidents” that help the CAA feed the idea that England is rife with anti-Semitism. The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions.
Fiddling with numbers’
Fiddler on the Roof may be emblematic of Eastern European Jewish folklore but fiddling with numbers is a symptom of contemporary Zionist politics in general and of the CAA in particular. he CAA compiles and disseminates information on anti-Semitism, basing its claims on methodology that is patently unreliable.
The “anti-Semitism audit” produced by the CAA purports to track incidents of anti-Semitism on an annual basis. The audit is a deeply flawed document, relying on data known to be unreliable and subjected to NO proper statistical analysis.
Even the CAA’s use of the term “audit” is inappropriate. An “audit” is defined as “an official inspection of an… organisation’s accounts, typically by an independent body”.
The CAA has no official or professional status as an auditor, nor would its methods be accepted by anyone in a position to conduct a professional audit.
The CAA has been advised by Police Forces that comparing police reports across jurisdictions and years ‘leads to misleading results.’ The CAA’s anti-Semitism audit was heavily criticised in the Jewish media by statistics experts who noted that the CAA’s “methodology” was “flawed”, “amateurish” and “misleading”. But none of that stopped the CAA from promoting its manufactured “findings” in the mainstream media……
The CAA based its audit on gathering data from the Police?? But the CAA doesn’t enjoy free access to police files. Instead, it uses different techniques to gather information. This haphazard “methodology” creates crucial problems:
1. Police forces in different regions of Britain use different standards to gather data regarding hate crimes.
2. Police forces in Britain are presently in the process of revising how they collect their hate crime records so that data from one year may show different results than data from a different year even if the number of hate crimes remains constant.
3. The CAA basically gathers information on the volume of incidents recorded that IT CONSIDERS to be anti-Semitic. But the CAA itself is actively engaged in increasing this volume. It frequently reports incidents to the police and urges other members of the Jewish community to follow suit.
An interested body that actively contributes to the rise of reported anti-Semitic incidents cannot also claim to be objective in its “audit” that measures the rise of anti-Semitsm.
4. While the CAA’s audit of anti-Semitism shows a nationwide rise of 14.9% in anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017, this is based on data gathered by the CAA half of which shows wild year to year fluctuations of up to 1050 %. Such fluctuations defy any rationale.
These statistical anomalies beg careful analysis that the CAA not only fails to apply – the CAA fails to address this drastic shift in number of reported incidents.
The CAA’s study aggregates divergent data collected in different ways and calls that an “audit” of anti-Semitism in Britain. The flawed study was released to the British public with the help of the disgracefully gullible British media. The BBC, Sky, the Guardian and others reported the amateurish statistical “audit” to the British public WITHOUT RAISING A SINGLE QUESTION AS TO ITS RELIABILITY.
The 2016 audit;
In July 2017 the CAA published its 2016 annual audit of anti-Setmitic crimes in the UK. The audit’s first pages raise serious questions as to its reliability:
On page 4 it reads: “2016 was the worst year on record for anti-Semitic crimes”, reporting a 14.9 % rise in crimes “targeting Jews” nationwide. But a few lines below, the audit states that during the same period “violent anti-Semitic crimes fell by 44.7%”. This difference in incidences appears contradictory…..
The CAA admits that it doesn’t have an explanation for the drop in violent crimes: “We have considered various explanations; however at this point we do not find them persuasive.” (page 6). This drop occurred even though the CAA INFLATED the number of “violent incidents” by expanding the Home Office definition of violent incidents. (page 16) The CAA defined violent anti-Semitic acts as the combination of the Home Office categories of “homicide” or “violence with injury”, and the heretofore non-violent “assault without injury” and “racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury”.
This means that the audit conveyed the good news that, even using the CAA’s inflated category, the number of “violent anti-Semitic incidents” DROPPED. Strangely, the Jewish pressure group does not write that the drop in violent anti-Semitic crime is a POSITIVE finding.
Fishing for J words;
Since the CAA doesn’t have an access to each police force’s records, it derives its statistics from police reports. When a police force does not flag anti-Semitic Some police forces made the CAA aware that their KEYWORDS method is not a reliable way to find anti-Semitic crime. “Not all incidents where ‘Jew’ is mentioned are anti-Semitic,” wrote the Northumbria police force. It also refers to the CAA exercise as a “fishing expedition”. The CAA ignored this caution and simply used as the number of incidents the data they had been warned were incorrect. incidents, the CAA asks that police force to conduct a keyword search of its files: <<>>
there is more to this article, if you can stomach it.
It is jaw dropping but extremely informative:
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2018/11/30/exposed-how-britains-anti-semitism-scaremongers-operate-2/