The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead.-a This individual may claim to have seen the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who made more of a
fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think
their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who made more of a
fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was actually subjected to
real aggravated harassment and hateful and insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think
their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who made more of a
fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was actually subjected to
real aggravated harassment and hateful and insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think
their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
On 05/08/2026 11:32 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice
because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen the
light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling antisemitic
behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who made more of a
fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was actually subjected to
real aggravated harassment and hateful and insulting behaviour from
Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think
their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
What do you say to the possibility of reform and rehabilitation?
And isn't it funny how time plays tricks on us?
A few years ago, Berger was persona-non-grata for many Corbyn supporters
who denied that there is any antisemitism in the Labour Party.
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice
because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead.-a This individual may claim to have seen
the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who
made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was
actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and
insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think
their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for
local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her door even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless like
to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character.-a Normally, serving your time repays your debt to society, and the fundamental humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh.-a Obviously, you
think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether he should represent them.-a If they do, what then?
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice
because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead.-a This individual may claim to have seen
the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who
made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was
actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and
insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think
their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for
local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her door
even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless like
to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character.-a Normally,
serving your time repays your debt to society, and the fundamental
humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh.-a Obviously, you
think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether he
should represent them.-a If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South
ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that he needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild trustrCY before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and
the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice
because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen the >>> light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling antisemitic
behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who made more of a
fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was actually subjected to >>> real aggravated harassment and hateful and insulting behaviour from
Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think
their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
What do you say to the possibility of reform and rehabilitation?
And isn't it funny how time plays tricks on us?
A few years ago, Berger was persona-non-grata for many Corbyn supporters
who denied that there is any antisemitism in the Labour Party.
What point are you making? She is still persona non grata as far as I am concerned. But that does not justify, or make me sympathetic to, the real antisemitic campaign waged by real antisemites against her.
She can be a less
than totally sincere propagandist for a foreign government but she still does not deserve that hate campaign.
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the
choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early
release, Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen
the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who
made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was
actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and
insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories
re-think their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for
local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her
door even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless
like to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character.
Normally, serving your time repays your debt to society, and the
fundamental humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh.
Obviously, you think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption
is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether
he should represent them. If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South
ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that he needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild trustrCY before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and
the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the choice >>>> because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early release,
Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen
the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who
made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was
actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and
insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories re-think >>>> their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for
local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her door >>> even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless like >>> to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character. Normally,
serving your time repays your debt to society, and the fundamental
humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh. Obviously, you
think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether he >>> should represent them. If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South
ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that he
needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild trustrCY >> before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local
council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and
the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
Sounds like he was incentivised to stand down, given "political adviser
to the national party" is almost certainly a better-paid role than
"local councillor", and I bet the biscuits in the meanings are better
too.
On 05/08/2026 07:54 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the
choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early
release, Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead.-a This individual may claim to have seen
the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who
made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was
actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and
insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister but
this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories
re-think their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for
local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her
door even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless
like to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character.
Normally, serving your time repays your debt to society, and the
fundamental humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh.
Obviously, you think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption
is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether
he should represent them.-a If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South
ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that he
needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild trustrCY >> before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local
council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and
the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
Tonight I learned that the ex-candidate is one of the team that does the "Crewkerne Gazette" videos.
He deserves a bit of credit for that, surely? ;-)
On 05/08/2026 07:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
She can be a less
than totally sincere propagandist for a foreign government but she
still does
not deserve that hate campaign.
Exactly. So what a good job it is that absolutely nobody said that she
does deserve it, eh?
But what about my actual question, which was:
"What do you say to the possibility of reform and rehabilitation?"
Any answer to that?
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then
for Kemi to defend that choice.
On 06/08/2026 00:59, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2026 07:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
She can be a less
than totally sincere propagandist for a foreign government but she
still does
not deserve that hate campaign.
Exactly. So what a good job it is that absolutely nobody said that she
does deserve it, eh?
But what about my actual question, which was:
"What do you say to the possibility of reform and rehabilitation?"
Any answer to that?
Of course there can be reform and rehabilitation. A person who is sent
to prison for his crimes can learn the error of his ways. That doesn't
make the person a good choice for a position of responsibility.
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate
A satirist can present extreme views and then claim it was an
exaggeration for comic effect, like when Norman says that shoplifters
should be systematically punished with tasering.
On 05/08/2026 07:57 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the
choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early
release, Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen >>>>> the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who >>>>> made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was
actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and
insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister
but this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories
re-think their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for
local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her
door even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless
like to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character.
Normally, serving your time repays your debt to society, and the
fundamental humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh.
Obviously, you think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption
is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether
he should represent them. If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South
ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that
he needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild
trustrCY
before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local
council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and
the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
Sounds like he was incentivised to stand down, given "political adviser
to the national party" is almost certainly a better-paid role than
"local councillor", and I bet the biscuits in the meanings are better
too.
It was stated (in a Sky News panel discussion Wednesday evening) that
the adviser post is unpaid.
On 06/08/2026 09:12, The Todal wrote:
A satirist can present extreme views and then claim it was an
exaggeration for comic effect, like when Norman says that shoplifters
should be systematically punished with tasering.
It wasn't satire, but a very sensible proposal, against which I have
heard no cogent argument.
Give it some proper thought.
On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 09:30:48 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then
for Kemi to defend that choice.
Kemi is on record as stating she does not make mistakes ("gaffes" I
believe was her vernacular). It is an article of faith in the Tory party.
It has to be, or you are out.
On 06/08/2026 01:00, JNugent wrote:
Tonight I learned that the ex-candidate is one of the team that does
the "Crewkerne Gazette" videos.
He deserves a bit of credit for that, surely? ;-)
I've not watched those videos. Satire? An attempt to continue the rather tired tradition started in Private Eye (which I still read)?
A satirist can present extreme views and then claim it was an
exaggeration for comic effect, like when Norman says that shoplifters
should be systematically punished with tasering. A bigot (I'm not
referring to Norman) can claim that the bigotry was just in fun.
On 06/08/2026 00:59, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2026 07:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
She can be a less
than totally sincere propagandist for a foreign government but she
still does not deserve that hate campaign.
Exactly. So what a good job it is that absolutely nobody said that she
does deserve it, eh?
But what about my actual question, which was:
"What do you say to the possibility of reform and rehabilitation?"
Any answer to that?
Of course there can be reform and rehabilitation. A person who is sent
to prison for his crimes can learn the error of his ways. That doesn't
make the person a good choice for a position of responsibility. A
computer hacker might be good at helping an employer detect hacking but
a shoplifter probably won't have any special skills to prevent
shoplifting and a person with a history of rabble-rousing bigotry
probably has no special skills to prevent antisemitism other than the
skill to say "Just do what I say".
Rolf Harris once made videos telling children that they must Just Say No
when an adult touches them inappropriately, before he was convicted of touching children inappropriately. It was a cynical way to protect his reputation. If he had continued making those videos after his conviction would it have atoned for his crimes and would it have persuaded people
that he had ceased being a paedophile?
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then
for Kemi to defend that choice. Giving the impression that she has no particular objection to populist rabble-rousing and would quite like to utilise the skills of demagogues.
On 6 Aug 2026 at 09:49:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 09:12, The Todal wrote:
A satirist can present extreme views and then claim it was an
exaggeration for comic effect, like when Norman says that shoplifters
should be systematically punished with tasering.
It wasn't satire, but a very sensible proposal, against which I have
heard no cogent argument.
Give it some proper thought.
How about it being incompatible with membership of European human rights convention?
Or being incompatible with minimal standards of civilised
behaviour? Just for the record, I know you will disregard and/or contradict this assessment.
On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 01:01:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2026 07:57 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the
choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early
release, Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen >>>>>> the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who >>>>>> made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was
actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and
insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister
but this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories
re-think their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for >>>>> local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her
door even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless
like to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character.
Normally, serving your time repays your debt to society, and the
fundamental humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh.
Obviously, you think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption >>>>> is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether >>>>> he should represent them. If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South
ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that
he needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild
trustrCY
before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local >>>> council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and >>>> the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
Sounds like he was incentivised to stand down, given "political adviser
to the national party" is almost certainly a better-paid role than
"local councillor", and I bet the biscuits in the meanings are better
too.
It was stated (in a Sky News panel discussion Wednesday evening) that
the adviser post is unpaid.
Which may not be the truth, though. I mean every disrespect, but the Tory party - like all other political parties - has a very loose relationship
with truth.
On 06/08/2026 02:46 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Aug 2026 at 09:49:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 09:12, The Todal wrote:
A satirist can present extreme views and then claim it was an
exaggeration for comic effect, like when Norman says that shoplifters
should be systematically punished with tasering.
It wasn't satire, but a very sensible proposal, against which I have
heard no cogent argument.
Give it some proper thought.
How about it being incompatible with membership of European human rights
convention?
The odds are that we'll be out of that in a few years' time.
TBH, we should never have been inside it. It doesn't do law-abiding
British people much good, does it?
Or being incompatible with minimal standards of civilised
behaviour? Just for the record, I know you will disregard and/or contradict >> this assessment.
Glock 17 with a clip of 9mm parabellum rounds?
On 06/08/2026 10:17 AM, Jethro wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 01:01:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2026 07:57 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the
choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early >>>>>>> release, Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen >>>>>>> the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling
antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who >>>>>>> made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was >>>>>>> actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and >>>>>>> insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister >>>>>>> but this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories >>>>>>> re-think their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for >>>>>> local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her >>>>>> door even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all
accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless >>>>>> like to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character.
Normally, serving your time repays your debt to society, and the
fundamental humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh.
Obviously, you think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption >>>>>> is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether >>>>>> he should represent them. If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South >>>>> ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that >>>>> he needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild >>>>> trustrCY
before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local >>>>> council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and >>>>> the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
Sounds like he was incentivised to stand down, given "political adviser >>>> to the national party" is almost certainly a better-paid role than
"local councillor", and I bet the biscuits in the meanings are better
too.
It was stated (in a Sky News panel discussion Wednesday evening) that
the adviser post is unpaid.
Which may not be the truth, though. I mean every disrespect, but the Tory
party - like all other political parties - has a very loose relationship
with truth.
Eh?
It was a journalist who said it.
On 06/08/2026 09:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 00:59, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2026 07:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
She can be a less
than totally sincere propagandist for a foreign government but she
still does not deserve that hate campaign.
Exactly. So what a good job it is that absolutely nobody said that she
does deserve it, eh?
But what about my actual question, which was:
"What do you say to the possibility of reform and rehabilitation?"
Any answer to that?
Of course there can be reform and rehabilitation. A person who is sent
to prison for his crimes can learn the error of his ways. That doesn't
make the person a good choice for a position of responsibility. A
computer hacker might be good at helping an employer detect hacking but
a shoplifter probably won't have any special skills to prevent
shoplifting and a person with a history of rabble-rousing bigotry
probably has no special skills to prevent antisemitism other than the
skill to say "Just do what I say".
Rolf Harris once made videos telling children that they must Just Say No
when an adult touches them inappropriately, before he was convicted of
touching children inappropriately. It was a cynical way to protect his
reputation. If he had continued making those videos after his conviction
would it have atoned for his crimes and would it have persuaded people
that he had ceased being a paedophile?
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then
for Kemi to defend that choice. Giving the impression that she has no
particular objection to populist rabble-rousing and would quite like to
utilise the skills of demagogues.
well... "demagogue" isn't anywhere near being a good description of him
now (from what I've seen, at any rate).
Let's cut to the chase - are you somehow saying that he can never be rehabilitated as far as you are concerned?
If so, why not?
On 6 Aug 2026 at 16:37:56 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Let's cut to the chase - are you somehow saying that he can never be
rehabilitated as far as you are concerned?
If so, why not?
I am sure he can be rehabilitated to the extent that he can be allowed to remain at liberty among us. But I doubt that he could ever be trusted to be a representative politician. For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
On 6 Aug 2026 at 16:42:24 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 10:17 AM, Jethro wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 01:01:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2026 07:57 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 11:32, The Todal wrote:
The Tory candidate for Somerset Council is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
Kemi Badenoch was interviewed and says that she approves of the >>>>>>>> choice because unlike many prisoners who have been granted early >>>>>>>> release, Joshua has served his sentence and is repentant.
Kemi seems to be a bonehead. This individual may claim to have seen >>>>>>>> the light after studying the bible, but he engaged in appalling >>>>>>>> antisemitic behaviour and harassed Luciana Berger, the Labour MP who >>>>>>>> made more of a fuss about antisemites in the Labour Party but was >>>>>>>> actually subjected to real aggravated harassment and hateful and >>>>>>>> insulting behaviour from Bonehill-Paine.
There are some who see Kemi as an excellent future Prime Minister >>>>>>>> but this seems to be a major gaffe which ought to make the Tories >>>>>>>> re-think their choice of leader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1q6167d3o
I doubt if it's usual for the party leader to vet every candidate for >>>>>>> local council elections personally, so it's hard to lay this at her >>>>>>> door even if there is anything to lay.
He has served whatever punishment was handed down, and is by all >>>>>>> accounts (apart from those of victims of course who would doubtless >>>>>>> like to see him drawn and quartered) a fully reformed character. >>>>>>> Normally, serving your time repays your debt to society, and the >>>>>>> fundamental humanitarian idea is that you can then start afresh. >>>>>>> Obviously, you think that's entirely unreasonable and that redemption >>>>>>> is a dirty word.
Anyway, it will be for the constituents in his ward to decide whether >>>>>>> he should represent them. If they do, what then?
Latest: he has "stood down". Did he step down or was he flung?
Joshua Bonehill-Paine had been chosen to contest the Crewkerne South >>>>>> ward of Somerset council in May but said on Wednesday afternoon that >>>>>> he needed to do more work to rCLhelp destroy antisemitism and rebuild >>>>>> trustrCY
before standing for public office.
Badenoch said she was rCLsadrCY Bonehill-Paine had withdrawn as a local >>>>>> council election candidate, but rCLglad he is going to work with me and >>>>>> the party on tackling radicalisationrCY.
[when you're in a hole stop digging...]
Sounds like he was incentivised to stand down, given "political adviser >>>>> to the national party" is almost certainly a better-paid role than
"local councillor", and I bet the biscuits in the meanings are better >>>>> too.
It was stated (in a Sky News panel discussion Wednesday evening) that
the adviser post is unpaid.
Which may not be the truth, though. I mean every disrespect, but the Tory >>> party - like all other political parties - has a very loose relationship >>> with truth.
Eh?
It was a journalist who said it.
Well obviously! But I think the previous poster is assuming that they got the information from a Tory Party source, rather than made it up on the spot.
On 6 Aug 2026 at 16:41:36 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 02:46 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Aug 2026 at 09:49:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 06/08/2026 09:12, The Todal wrote:
A satirist can present extreme views and then claim it was an
exaggeration for comic effect, like when Norman says that shoplifters >>>>> should be systematically punished with tasering.
It wasn't satire, but a very sensible proposal, against which I have
heard no cogent argument.
Give it some proper thought.
How about it being incompatible with membership of European human rights >>> convention?
The odds are that we'll be out of that in a few years' time.
TBH, we should never have been inside it. It doesn't do law-abiding
British people much good, does it?
I think you'd be surprised,
if your source of information about legal cases
was wider then the right wing press.
Or being incompatible with minimal standards of civilised
behaviour? Just for the record, I know you will disregard and/or contradict >>> this assessment.
Glock 17 with a clip of 9mm parabellum rounds?
Do the police actually use shooting as a punishment? I thought they firmly denied that.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 09:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then
for Kemi to defend that choice. Giving the impression that she has no
particular objection to populist rabble-rousing and would quite like to
utilise the skills of demagogues.
well... "demagogue" isn't anywhere near being a good description of him
now (from what I've seen, at any rate).
Let's cut to the chase - are you somehow saying that he can never be
rehabilitated as far as you are concerned?
If so, why not?
I am sure he can be rehabilitated to the extent that he can be allowed to remain at liberty among us.
But I doubt that he could ever be trusted to be a
representative politician.
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 09:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then >>>> for Kemi to defend that choice. Giving the impression that she has no
particular objection to populist rabble-rousing and would quite like to >>>> utilise the skills of demagogues.
well... "demagogue" isn't anywhere near being a good description of him
now (from what I've seen, at any rate).
Let's cut to the chase - are you somehow saying that he can never be
rehabilitated as far as you are concerned?
If so, why not?
I am sure he can be rehabilitated to the extent that he can be allowed to
remain at liberty among us.
He already has that liberty, so that's a highly magnanimous concession
on your part, eh?
But I doubt that he could ever be trusted to be a
representative politician.
Not even on a local district council?
What do you think hemight get up to?
And are you aware that there are at least two people with criminal convictions in the current Cabinet?
Perhaps left-wing criminals are capable of being rehabilitated, but right-wing ones can't?
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being elected
to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 09:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then >>>> for Kemi to defend that choice. Giving the impression that she has no
particular objection to populist rabble-rousing and would quite like to >>>> utilise the skills of demagogues.
well... "demagogue" isn't anywhere near being a good description of him
now (from what I've seen, at any rate).
Let's cut to the chase - are you somehow saying that he can never be
rehabilitated as far as you are concerned?
If so, why not?
I am sure he can be rehabilitated to the extent that he can be allowed to
remain at liberty among us.
He already has that liberty, so that's a highly magnanimous concession
on your part, eh?
But I doubt that he could ever be trusted to be a
representative politician.
Not even on a local district council?
What do you think hemight get up to?
And are you aware that there are at least two people with criminal convictions in the current Cabinet?
Perhaps left-wing criminals are capable of being rehabilitated, but right-wing ones can't?
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being elected
to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all just
politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics are
trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the reputation
of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the basest instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged invasion of
migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the alleged
incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the skills of any available populists.
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all
just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics are
trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the reputation
of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the basest
instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged invasion of
migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the alleged
incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the skills of any
available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and
instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally
reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office?-a That's a question you've studiously avoided answering.
On 08/08/2026 18:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently >>>>> rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all
just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics are
trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the
reputation of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the basest
instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged invasion of
migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the alleged
incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the skills of
any available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and
instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally
reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office?-a That's a
question you've studiously avoided answering.
I think you've studiously avoided reading my posts, then. Maybe you
should study harder.
The person in question has a history of extreme antisemitism and
harassment of Jewish people.
His claim that he has now repented of his
sins after reading the Bible in his second year in prison might convince
the gullible but is wholly unconvincing.
Josef Goebbels, had he lived,
might have claimed to be a reformed character if it had given him
immunity from being hanged as a war criminal.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support for him.
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 09:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
The mistake was for the Tories to adopt Joshua as a candidate and then >>>>> for Kemi to defend that choice. Giving the impression that she has no >>>>> particular objection to populist rabble-rousing and would quite
like to
utilise the skills of demagogues.
well... "demagogue" isn't anywhere near being a good description of him >>>> now (from what I've seen, at any rate).
Let's cut to the chase - are you somehow saying that he can never be
rehabilitated as far as you are concerned?
If so, why not?
I am sure he can be rehabilitated to the extent that he can be
allowed to
remain at liberty among us.
He already has that liberty, so that's a highly magnanimous concession
on your part, eh?
But I doubt that he could ever be trusted to be a
representative politician.
Not even on a local district council?
What do you think hemight get up to?
And are you aware that there are at least two people with criminal
convictions in the current Cabinet?
Perhaps left-wing criminals are capable of being rehabilitated, but
right-wing ones can't?
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all just
politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics are
trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the reputation
of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the basest instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged invasion of
migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the alleged
incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the skills of any available populists.
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all
just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics are
trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the reputation
of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the basest
instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged invasion of
migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the alleged
incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the skills of any
available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and
instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally
reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office? That's a question you've studiously avoided answering.
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 18:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if apparently >>>>>> rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all
just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics are
trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the
reputation of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted antisemite? >>>>
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the
basest instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged
invasion of migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the
alleged incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the
skills of any available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and
instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally
reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office?-a That's
a question you've studiously avoided answering.
I think you've studiously avoided reading my posts, then. Maybe you
should study harder.
The person in question has a history of extreme antisemitism and
harassment of Jewish people.
No-one is denying his history.-a You, however, seem to be denying the
fact that he has served his sentence and thus, according to the norms of society, has paid his debt.
Do you consider that he has, or not?
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly have reformed and changed his views, though without any support for that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
Furthermore, you seem to be drawing some sort of completely unspecified distinction between seeking public office and wanting to pursue any
other avenue he may be good at.
What is so special about public office, especially if the people want
him after submitting to a democratic vote (which I guess you never have)?
His claim that he has now repented of his sins after reading the Bible
in his second year in prison might convince the gullible but is wholly
unconvincing.
To you maybe.-a he now apparently conducts counter-extremism sessions
around the UK.-a Do you ignore all such evidence, or only when it suits you?
Josef Goebbels, had he lived, might have claimed to be a reformed
character if it had given him immunity from being hanged as a war
criminal.
But Bonehill-Paine has served his sentence.-a He's not seeking any
immunity, so that's a rather silly point.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it is
a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support for him.
That's not for you to decide, though.-a Anyway, why are you encouraging
her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you were decrying
what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed, changed her views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought home and could
become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving advice to politicians
about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists.
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 18:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if
apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all >>>>>> just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics are >>>>> trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the
reputation of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted
antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the
basest instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged
invasion of migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the
alleged incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the
skills of any available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and
instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally
reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office?-a That's >>>> a question you've studiously avoided answering.
I think you've studiously avoided reading my posts, then. Maybe you
should study harder.
The person in question has a history of extreme antisemitism and
harassment of Jewish people.
No-one is denying his history.-a You, however, seem to be denying the
fact that he has served his sentence and thus, according to the norms
of society, has paid his debt.
Paid his debt?
Do you consider that he has, or not?
Of course not. What a strange belief system you have.
If someone commits
a serious crime against you and spends several years in prison, do you
then say he had "paid his debt" to you or to society in general?
Obviously Luciana Berger does not consider that Joshua Bonehill-Paine
has "paid his debt" to her, in the sense that you won't persuade her
that his crimes have been expunged and no longer matter.
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no patience with.
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly have
reformed and changed his views, though without any support for that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed,
changed her
views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought home and could
become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving advice to politicians
about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists. I hope you will join the campaign to bring her home.
Furthermore, you seem to be drawing some sort of completely
unspecified distinction between seeking public office and wanting to
pursue any other avenue he may be good at.
What is so special about public office, especially if the people want
him after submitting to a democratic vote (which I guess you never have)?
There is nothing special about public office
- Kemi reckons that local
councillors merely look after the bins. Have you ever stood for
election? Are you quite good at looking after bin collections in your
local community? You too could become a bin-man.
His claim that he has now repented of his sins after reading the
Bible in his second year in prison might convince the gullible but is
wholly unconvincing.
To you maybe.-a he now apparently conducts counter-extremism sessions
around the UK.-a Do you ignore all such evidence, or only when it suits
you?
Are you gullible enough to admire him for his saintly work?
Is there
actually any evidence that he has converted any antisemites and shown
them the way, the truth and the life?-a Any thugs who are willing to tell the Press that they have become his disciples?
Josef Goebbels, had he lived, might have claimed to be a reformed
character if it had given him immunity from being hanged as a war
criminal.
But Bonehill-Paine has served his sentence.-a He's not seeking any
immunity, so that's a rather silly point.
Yes, he's seeking a new and more profitable image for himself. He nearly
got away with it.
I don't usually approve of antisemite-hunters within the so called
Jewish Community but here they got him bang to rights. It's very easy
for you to forgive an antisemite. Fortunately you represent nobody other than yourself and nobody would want you to help select candidates for office.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it
is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support for
him.
That's not for you to decide, though.-a Anyway, why are you encouraging
her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you were decrying
what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been seduced
by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe you'll be
very happy there.
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 18:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if
apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being >>>>>>> elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all >>>>>>> just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics
are trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the
reputation of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted
antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the
basest instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged
invasion of migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the
alleged incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the
skills of any available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and
instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally
reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office?
That's a question you've studiously avoided answering.
I think you've studiously avoided reading my posts, then. Maybe you
should study harder.
The person in question has a history of extreme antisemitism and
harassment of Jewish people.
No-one is denying his history.-a You, however, seem to be denying the
fact that he has served his sentence and thus, according to the norms
of society, has paid his debt.
Paid his debt?
To society, yes.-a Society prescribes the penalties for crimes in its laws.-a Those are the punishments society deems appropriate.-a If society meant the punishment to be greater, it would have prescribed it to be so through its elected representatives.
Do you consider that he has, or not?
Of course not. What a strange belief system you have.
You seem to want greater punishment than the law prescribes.-a That is a matter you should take up with your MP, who is one of the body that set those laws in the first place, and the only body that can change them.
If someone commits a serious crime against you and spends several
years in prison, do you then say he had "paid his debt" to you or to
society in general? Obviously Luciana Berger does not consider that
Joshua Bonehill-Paine has "paid his debt" to her, in the sense that
you won't persuade her that his crimes have been expunged and no
longer matter.
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a
fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no
patience with.
We've been through this before.-a The victims of crimes will always want
the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered
for whatever slight they have suffered.-a They are not reliable judges of what punishments fit what crimes.-a That is a matter for society in general.
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly have
reformed and changed his views, though without any support for that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed,
How about answering the question now please?
changed her views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought
home and could become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving advice
to politicians about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists. I hope
you will join the campaign to bring her home.
Her 'home' isn't in the UK.-a She is not a UK citizen.-a She has not been tried for any of her crimes.-a She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Furthermore, you seem to be drawing some sort of completely
unspecified distinction between seeking public office and wanting to
pursue any other avenue he may be good at.
What is so special about public office, especially if the people want
him after submitting to a democratic vote (which I guess you never
have)?
There is nothing special about public office
Then why should he not stand, and stand on whatever platform suits him best?-a If the public accept that he should represent them, why shouldn't he?
- Kemi reckons that local councillors merely look after the bins. Have
you ever stood for election? Are you quite good at looking after bin
collections in your local community? You too could become a bin-man.
I don't think that quite follows.
His claim that he has now repented of his sins after reading the
Bible in his second year in prison might convince the gullible but
is wholly unconvincing.
To you maybe.-a he now apparently conducts counter-extremism sessions
around the UK.-a Do you ignore all such evidence, or only when it
suits you?
Are you gullible enough to admire him for his saintly work?
Saintly work is good by definition.
Is there actually any evidence that he has converted any antisemites
and shown them the way, the truth and the life?-a Any thugs who are
willing to tell the Press that they have become his disciples?
I don't think he's ever claimed to be the Messiah.
Josef Goebbels, had he lived, might have claimed to be a reformed
character if it had given him immunity from being hanged as a war
criminal.
But Bonehill-Paine has served his sentence.-a He's not seeking any
immunity, so that's a rather silly point.
Yes, he's seeking a new and more profitable image for himself. He
nearly got away with it.
That's not immunity from being hanged, though, is it.
I don't usually approve of antisemite-hunters within the so called
Jewish Community but here they got him bang to rights. It's very easy
for you to forgive an antisemite. Fortunately you represent nobody
other than yourself and nobody would want you to help select
candidates for office.
He was tried, convicted and imprisoned.-a He served his time.-a Why do
think it right for him to be punished more than the law prescribes?
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it
is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support for
him.
That's not for you to decide, though.-a Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you
were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been seduced
by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe you'll be
very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a
fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no
patience with.
We've been through this before.-a The victims of crimes will always want
the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered
for whatever slight they have suffered.-a They are not reliable judges of what punishments fit what crimes.-a That is a matter for society in general.
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly have
reformed and changed his views, though without any support for that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed,
How about answering the question now please?
changed her views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought
home and could become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving advice
to politicians about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists. I hope
you will join the campaign to bring her home.
Her 'home' isn't in the UK.-a She is not a UK citizen.-a She has not been tried for any of her crimes.-a She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it
is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support for
him.
That's not for you to decide, though.-a Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you
were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been seduced
by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe you'll be
very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed, changed her
views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought home and could
become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving advice to politicians
about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists.
I must have missed reading which prison the former terrorist-supporting female has been incarcerated in, perhaps you could enlighten the group on that point.
If she in fact has not been imprisoned, but you regard her as now being a reformed character and ready to be rehabilitated into society by playing a useful role, I suggest you write to the appropriate minister pointing out that you have found a solution to the current prison crisis, using the
story of that person as a shining example of the effectiveness of that system.
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 18:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if
apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being >>>>>>>> elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is >>>>>>>> all just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics >>>>>>> are trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the >>>>>>> reputation of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted
antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the
basest instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged
invasion of migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the >>>>>>> alleged incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the >>>>>>> skills of any available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and >>>>>> instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally >>>>>> reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office?
That's a question you've studiously avoided answering.
I think you've studiously avoided reading my posts, then. Maybe you >>>>> should study harder.
The person in question has a history of extreme antisemitism and
harassment of Jewish people.
No-one is denying his history.-a You, however, seem to be denying the >>>> fact that he has served his sentence and thus, according to the
norms of society, has paid his debt.
Paid his debt?
To society, yes.-a Society prescribes the penalties for crimes in its
laws.-a Those are the punishments society deems appropriate.-a If
society meant the punishment to be greater, it would have prescribed
it to be so through its elected representatives.
Do you consider that he has, or not?
Of course not. What a strange belief system you have.
You seem to want greater punishment than the law prescribes.-a That is
a matter you should take up with your MP, who is one of the body that
set those laws in the first place, and the only body that can change
them.
If someone commits a serious crime against you and spends several
years in prison, do you then say he had "paid his debt" to you or to
society in general? Obviously Luciana Berger does not consider that
Joshua Bonehill-Paine has "paid his debt" to her, in the sense that
you won't persuade her that his crimes have been expunged and no
longer matter.
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a
fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have
no patience with.
We've been through this before.-a The victims of crimes will always
want the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and
quartered for whatever slight they have suffered.-a They are not
reliable judges of what punishments fit what crimes.-a That is a matter
for society in general.
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly
have reformed and changed his views, though without any support for
that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed,
How about answering the question now please?
changed her views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought
home and could become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving
advice to politicians about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists.
I hope you will join the campaign to bring her home.
Her 'home' isn't in the UK.-a She is not a UK citizen.-a She has not
been tried for any of her crimes.-a She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Furthermore, you seem to be drawing some sort of completely
unspecified distinction between seeking public office and wanting to
pursue any other avenue he may be good at.
What is so special about public office, especially if the people
want him after submitting to a democratic vote (which I guess you
never have)?
There is nothing special about public office
Then why should he not stand, and stand on whatever platform suits him
best?-a If the public accept that he should represent them, why
shouldn't he?
- Kemi reckons that local councillors merely look after the bins.
Have you ever stood for election? Are you quite good at looking after
bin collections in your local community? You too could become a bin-man.
I don't think that quite follows.
His claim that he has now repented of his sins after reading the
Bible in his second year in prison might convince the gullible but
is wholly unconvincing.
To you maybe.-a he now apparently conducts counter-extremism sessions >>>> around the UK.-a Do you ignore all such evidence, or only when it
suits you?
Are you gullible enough to admire him for his saintly work?
Saintly work is good by definition.
Is there actually any evidence that he has converted any antisemites
and shown them the way, the truth and the life?-a Any thugs who are
willing to tell the Press that they have become his disciples?
I don't think he's ever claimed to be the Messiah.
Josef Goebbels, had he lived, might have claimed to be a reformed
character if it had given him immunity from being hanged as a war
criminal.
But Bonehill-Paine has served his sentence.-a He's not seeking any
immunity, so that's a rather silly point.
Yes, he's seeking a new and more profitable image for himself. He
nearly got away with it.
That's not immunity from being hanged, though, is it.
I don't usually approve of antisemite-hunters within the so called
Jewish Community but here they got him bang to rights. It's very easy
for you to forgive an antisemite. Fortunately you represent nobody
other than yourself and nobody would want you to help select
candidates for office.
He was tried, convicted and imprisoned.-a He served his time.-a Why do
think it right for him to be punished more than the law prescribes?
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support
for him.
That's not for you to decide, though.-a Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you
were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe
you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
I would only add that your position on this seems very much at odds with that concerning the killers of PC Harper.-a There, you wanted his mother silenced, seemingly regarding her, with others of a similar mind, as a baying mob that should be ignored, and asserting that they should just
be freed early to get on with their lives.
What's the difference please?
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a >>>fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no >>>patience with.
We've been through this before.-a The victims of crimes will always want >>the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered >>for whatever slight they have suffered.-a They are not reliable judges of >>what punishments fit what crimes.-a That is a matter for society in >>general.
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The person in question has a history of extreme antisemitism and
harassment of Jewish people.
No-one is denying his history. You, however, seem to be denying the
fact that he has served his sentence and thus, according to the norms
of society, has paid his debt.
Paid his debt?
Do you consider that he has, or not?
Of course not. What a strange belief system you have. If someone commits
a serious crime against you and spends several years in prison, do you
then say he had "paid his debt" to you or to society in general?
Obviously Luciana Berger does not consider that Joshua Bonehill-Paine
has "paid his debt" to her, in the sense that you won't persuade her
that his crimes have been expunged and no longer matter.
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a
fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no patience with.
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly have
reformed and changed his views, though without any support for that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed, changed her views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought home and could
become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving advice to politicians
about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists. I hope you will join the campaign to bring her home.
Furthermore, you seem to be drawing some sort of completely
unspecified distinction between seeking public office and wanting to
pursue any other avenue he may be good at.
What is so special about public office, especially if the people want
him after submitting to a democratic vote (which I guess you never have)?
There is nothing special about public office - Kemi reckons that local councillors merely look after the bins. Have you ever stood for
election? Are you quite good at looking after bin collections in your
local community? You too could become a bin-man.
His claim that he has now repented of his sins after reading the
Bible in his second year in prison might convince the gullible but is
wholly unconvincing.
To you maybe. he now apparently conducts counter-extremism sessions
around the UK. Do you ignore all such evidence, or only when it suits
you?
Are you gullible enough to admire him for his saintly work? Is there
actually any evidence that he has converted any antisemites and shown
them the way, the truth and the life? Any thugs who are willing to tell
the Press that they have become his disciples?
Josef Goebbels, had he lived, might have claimed to be a reformed
character if it had given him immunity from being hanged as a war
criminal.
But Bonehill-Paine has served his sentence. He's not seeking any
immunity, so that's a rather silly point.
Yes, he's seeking a new and more profitable image for himself. He nearly
got away with it.
I don't usually approve of antisemite-hunters within the so called
Jewish Community but here they got him bang to rights.
It's very easy
for you to forgive an antisemite. Fortunately you represent nobody other
than yourself and nobody would want you to help select candidates for
office.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it
is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support for
him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you encouraging
her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you were decrying
what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been seduced
by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe you'll be
very happy there.
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 18:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:10, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2026 08:18 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
For much the same reason that certain other persons
may remain on the sex offenders register for life, even if
apparently
rehabilitated and otherwise at liberty.
Be clear on this: there is no legal bar to that gentleman being
elected to, and serving on, a local authority. This furore is all >>>>>>> just politics.
So it is nothing like the smear you just attempted. ;-)
It's "all just politics" of course. But you imply that politics
are trivial. Why would Kemi Badenoch put her reputation and the
reputation of the Tory Party on the line for this convicted
antisemite?
Probably because she is a fan of populism, of appealing to the
basest instincts of the masses, preaching against the alleged
invasion of migrants, the alleged increase in violent crime, the
alleged incompetence of our police. And she wants to harness the
skills of any available populists.
Were she just a populist she would have followed the rabid mob and
instantly dismissed him rather than giving this allegedly totally
reformed character a chance.
Why should he have been excluded from seeking public office?
That's a question you've studiously avoided answering.
I think you've studiously avoided reading my posts, then. Maybe you
should study harder.
The person in question has a history of extreme antisemitism and
harassment of Jewish people.
No-one is denying his history. You, however, seem to be denying the
fact that he has served his sentence and thus, according to the norms
of society, has paid his debt.
Paid his debt?
To society, yes. Society prescribes the penalties for crimes in its
laws. Those are the punishments society deems appropriate. If society
meant the punishment to be greater, it would have prescribed it to be so through its elected representatives.
Do you consider that he has, or not?
Of course not. What a strange belief system you have.
You seem to want greater punishment than the law prescribes. That is a matter you should take up with your MP, who is one of the body that set
those laws in the first place, and the only body that can change them.
If someone commits a serious crime against you and spends several
years in prison, do you then say he had "paid his debt" to you or to
society in general? Obviously Luciana Berger does not consider that
Joshua Bonehill-Paine has "paid his debt" to her, in the sense that
you won't persuade her that his crimes have been expunged and no
longer matter.
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a
fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no
patience with.
We've been through this before. The victims of crimes will always want
the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered
for whatever slight they have suffered. They are not reliable judges of
what punishments fit what crimes. That is a matter for society in general.
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly have
reformed and changed his views, though without any support for that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed,
How about answering the question now please?
changed her views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought
home and could become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving advice
to politicians about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists. I hope
you will join the campaign to bring her home.
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not been
tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Furthermore, you seem to be drawing some sort of completely
unspecified distinction between seeking public office and wanting to
pursue any other avenue he may be good at.
What is so special about public office, especially if the people want
him after submitting to a democratic vote (which I guess you never
have)?
There is nothing special about public office
Then why should he not stand, and stand on whatever platform suits him
best? If the public accept that he should represent them, why shouldn't
he?
- Kemi reckons that local councillors merely look after the bins. Have
you ever stood for election? Are you quite good at looking after bin
collections in your local community? You too could become a bin-man.
I don't think that quite follows.
His claim that he has now repented of his sins after reading the
Bible in his second year in prison might convince the gullible but
is wholly unconvincing.
To you maybe. he now apparently conducts counter-extremism sessions
around the UK. Do you ignore all such evidence, or only when it
suits you?
Are you gullible enough to admire him for his saintly work?
Saintly work is good by definition.
Is there actually any evidence that he has converted any antisemites
and shown them the way, the truth and the life? Any thugs who are
willing to tell the Press that they have become his disciples?
I don't think he's ever claimed to be the Messiah.
Josef Goebbels, had he lived, might have claimed to be a reformed
character if it had given him immunity from being hanged as a war
criminal.
But Bonehill-Paine has served his sentence. He's not seeking any
immunity, so that's a rather silly point.
Yes, he's seeking a new and more profitable image for himself. He
nearly got away with it.
That's not immunity from being hanged, though, is it.
I don't usually approve of antisemite-hunters within the so called
Jewish Community but here they got him bang to rights. It's very easy
for you to forgive an antisemite. Fortunately you represent nobody
other than yourself and nobody would want you to help select
candidates for office.
He was tried, convicted and imprisoned. He served his time. Why do
think it right for him to be punished more than the law prescribes?
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it
is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support for
him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you
were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been seduced
by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe you'll be
very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere. None should be followed. And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not
been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it
is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support
for him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you
were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe
you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere. None should be followed. And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame
in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior
people in her party, you must tell the world that she has now changed
her views, seen the error of her ways, is potentially a new Winston Churchill.
On 09/08/2026 09:42, Norman Wells wrote:
I would only add that your position on this seems very much at odds
with that concerning the killers of PC Harper. There, you wanted his
mother silenced, seemingly regarding her, with others of a similar
mind, as a baying mob that should be ignored, and asserting that they
should just be freed early to get on with their lives.
What's the difference please?
There is every possible difference.
Nobody is saying that the killers of PC Harper have reformed, changed
their ways, become potential candidates for elected office.
The mother of PC Harper is understandably aggrieved that these two accomplices to the manslaughter of her son might be let out of prison
early and seemingly wants to change whatever rules need to be changed in order to ensure they aren't released early. Although she is entitled to
her point of view and her grief, there is no good reason why the press
should give her views prominence. You could round up hundreds of parents
of victims and make similar points about making criminals serve their
full time in prison. Just to embarrass the Justice Secretary and Home Secretary.
Do you still see no difference please?
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr0odFi9o8U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is
a fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims
have no patience with.
We've been through this before.-a The victims of crimes will always
want the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and
quartered for whatever slight they have suffered.-a They are not
reliable judges of what punishments fit what crimes.-a That is a
matter for society in general.
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying
your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have
served their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would
pretty well render them all unemployable.
[snip]
Wikipedia says "Bonehill-Paine's online activity led to criminal charges being brought against him for harassment, antisemitic commentary".
I have tried before to understand what antisemitism is without a lot of success but think I have been told in here antisemitism is not a crime,
nor is antichristianism, antimethodism, antibatpistism, antimormonism
and antiislamism (and perhaps others) so how can he have been convicted
of "antisemitic commentary"?
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK.-a She is not a UK citizen.-a She has not
been tried for any of her crimes.-a She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can
ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support
for him.
That's not for you to decide, though.-a Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you
were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe
you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame
in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support
drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior
people in her party, you must tell the world that she has now changed
her views, seen the error of her ways, is potentially a new Winston
Churchill.
Again... it's easier than answering or addressing the question, isn't it?
No shame in that, I suppose.
On 06/08/2026 09:12, The Todal wrote:
A satirist can present extreme views and then claim it was an
exaggeration for comic effect, like when Norman says that shoplifters
should be systematically punished with tasering.
It wasn't satire, but a very sensible proposal, against which I have
heard no cogent argument.
Give it some proper thought.
On 08/08/2026 11:28 PM, The Todal wrote:
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been seduced
by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe you'll be
very happy there.
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying
your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well render them all unemployable.
Wikipedia says "Bonehill-Paine's online activity led to criminal charges being brought against him for harassment, antisemitic commentary".
I have tried before to understand what antisemitism is without a lot of success but think I have been told in here antisemitism is not a crime,
nor is antichristianism, antimethodism, antibatpistism, antimormonism and antiislamism (and perhaps others) so how can he have been convicted of "antisemitic commentary"?
On 09/08/2026 11:30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying
your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record
may continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment
opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have
served their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would
pretty well render them all unemployable.
I think you have a strangely binary approach to this topic of how
society should treat ex-convicts, ie either
a) Forgive them for whatever crimes they have committed, allow them to
have all the rights and privileges and status of people who have never
been in prison, forget that they have ever broken the law, or
b) Treat them as pariahs.
But there are of course other options, eg to give them every
encouragement to rebuild their careers but not employ a fraudster as a bookkeeper or accountant in case he might fall into his old ways and embezzle lots of dosh and hide it in offshore accounts.
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying
your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment >>opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served >>their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>render them all unemployable.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of
which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly
less well-known is this: "Never fall for the fallacy of the excluded
middle!"
Do you think that possibly there might be a middle ground in-between
"treat all ex-convicts guilty of hate crimes as unblemished angelic >innocents" and "shun them all from the whole of society entirely"?
Maybe something like "it is unwise, as the leader of a national party,
to recommend them for political office"?
Wikipedia says "Bonehill-Paine's online activity led to criminal charges >>being brought against him for harassment, antisemitic commentary".
I have tried before to understand what antisemitism is without a lot of >>success but think I have been told in here antisemitism is not a crime,
nor is antichristianism, antimethodism, antibatpistism, antimormonism and >>antiislamism (and perhaps others) so how can he have been convicted of >>"antisemitic commentary"?
In the same way that owning a baseball bat with a nail in it is not
a crime, but hitting somebody over the head with it probably is.
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a
fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have
no patience with.
We've been through this before.-a The victims of crimes will always
want the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and
quartered for whatever slight they have suffered.-a They are not
reliable judges of what punishments fit what crimes.-a That is a matter
for society in general.
Moreover, you are denying the possibility that he could possibly
have reformed and changed his views, though without any support for
that.
Do you deny that possibility, or not?
Either. Why should I care about his current belief system? I think he
has adapted his views in order to improve his career prospects.
Many people do that. The underlying prejudices will of course remain.
I think it far more likely that Shamima Begum has reformed,
changed her views, ceased from admiring ISIS, could now be brought
home and could become a useful member of the Tory Party, giving
advice to politicians about how to de-radicalise Islamic terrorists.
I hope you will join the campaign to bring her home.
Her 'home' isn't in the UK.-a She is not a UK citizen.-a She has not
been tried for any of her crimes.-a She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support
for him.
That's not for you to decide, though.-a Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you
were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe
you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame
in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior
people in her party,
On 09/08/2026 09:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe
you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
I would only add that your position on this seems very much at odds
with that concerning the killers of PC Harper.-a There, you wanted his
mother silenced, seemingly regarding her, with others of a similar
mind, as a baying mob that should be ignored, and asserting that they
should just be freed early to get on with their lives.
What's the difference please?
There is every possible difference.
Nobody is saying that the killers of PC Harper have reformed, changed
their ways, become potential candidates for elected office.
The mother of PC Harper is understandably aggrieved that these two accomplices to the manslaughter of her son
might be let out of prison
early and seemingly wants to change whatever rules need to be changed in order to ensure they aren't released early. Although she is entitled to
her point of view and her grief, there is no good reason why the press should give her views prominence.
You could round up hundreds of parents
of victims and make similar points about making criminals serve their
full time in prison. Just to embarrass the Justice Secretary and Home Secretary.
Do you still see no difference please?
FWIW, I was surprised to see that the recent funeral director case had
five whole days devoted to victim impact statements.
Mond you, I was even more surprised by the twenty year sentence. I was expecting a maximum of five.
On 09/08/2026 11:30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr0odFi9o8U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a >>>>>fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no >>>>>patience with.
We've been through this before.-a The victims of crimes will always want >>>>the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered >>>>for whatever slight they have suffered.-a They are not reliable judges of >>>>what punishments fit what crimes.-a That is a matter for society in >>>>general.
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying >>your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment >>opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served >>their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>render them all unemployable.
I think you have a strangely binary approach to this topic of how society >should treat ex-convicts, ie either
a) Forgive them for whatever crimes they have committed, allow them to
have all the rights and privileges and status of people who have never
been in prison, forget that they have ever broken the law, or
b) Treat them as pariahs.
But there are of course other options, eg to give them every encouragement >to rebuild their careers but not employ a fraudster as a bookkeeper or >accountant in case he might fall into his old ways and embezzle lots of
dosh and hide it in offshore accounts.
And as we know, Tommy Robinson has a past history of serious criminal >activity and has spent some time in gaol. If you choose to be one of his >loyal followers, maybe you should read up on his past history and decide
if you admire his character, attitudes and values.
[snip]
Wikipedia says "Bonehill-Paine's online activity led to criminal charges >>being brought against him for harassment, antisemitic commentary".
I have tried before to understand what antisemitism is without a lot of >>success but think I have been told in here antisemitism is not a crime, >>nor is antichristianism, antimethodism, antibatpistism, antimormonism and >>antiislamism (and perhaps others) so how can he have been convicted of >>"antisemitic commentary"?
It is disappointing that you don't understand what antisemitism is.
Perhaps that is in part due to your reluctance to use all the resources
that are available on the internet.
You could try, just once, to look at this BBC report from 2016: >https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38242100
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
On 09/08/2026 11:30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is
a fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims
have no patience with.
We've been through this before. The victims of crimes will always
want the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and
quartered for whatever slight they have suffered. They are not
reliable judges of what punishments fit what crimes. That is a
matter for society in general.
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying
your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record
may continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment
opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have
served their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would
pretty well render them all unemployable.
I think you have a strangely binary approach to this topic of how
society should treat ex-convicts, ie either
a) Forgive them for whatever crimes they have committed, allow them to
have all the rights and privileges and status of people who have never
been in prison, forget that they have ever broken the law, or
b) Treat them as pariahs.
But there are of course other options, eg to give them every
encouragement to rebuild their careers but not employ a fraudster as a bookkeeper or accountant in case he might fall into his old ways and
embezzle lots of dosh and hide it in offshore accounts.
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not
been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can
ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle
amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support >>>>>>> for him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you >>>>>> were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe
you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere. None should be followed. And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame
in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support >>> drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior
people in her party, you must tell the world that she has now changed
her views, seen the error of her ways, is potentially a new Winston
Churchill.
Again... it's easier than answering or addressing the question, isn't it?
Did you have a question? I must have missed it.
No shame in that, I suppose.
A really good debating tactic is to keep accusing others of not
answering the question and ignoring whatever points they are making. No
shame in that, I suppose.
On 09/08/2026 11:55, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:28 PM, The Todal wrote:
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been seduced
by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe you'll be
very happy there.
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
Are you baying right now? Maybe you need to apply a Bayesian approach.
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:That's evasion. Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK.-a She is not a UK citizen.-a She has not >>>>> been tried for any of her crimes.-a She has served no time for them. >>>>> But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can
ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle
amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where it ceases to apply?
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
On 09/08/2026 10:49, The Todal wrote:
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no
shame in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her
support drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other
senior people in her party,
That's just wishful, hopeful, desperate thinking on your part.
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not
been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them.
But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can
ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle
amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where it ceases to apply?
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
Did you have a question? I must have missed it.Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support >>>>>>>> for him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you >>>>>>> were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe >>>>>> you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere. None should be followed. And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame >>>> in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support >>>> drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior
people in her party, you must tell the world that she has now changed
her views, seen the error of her ways, is potentially a new Winston
Churchill.
Again... it's easier than answering or addressing the question, isn't it? >>
How on Earth did you miss it? It wasn't my question, but I saw it. it went:
"Anyway, why are you encouraging [Kemi Badenoch] to be populist, ie
follow the baying mob, when you were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?".
No shame in that, I suppose.
A really good debating tactic is to keep accusing others of not
answering the question and ignoring whatever points they are making. No
shame in that, I suppose.
But there (above) is a question you didn't answer. I believe that I am
the first to point that out, and I have only done it once (plus this recapitulation as to what the question was).
On 09/08/2026 12:09, JNugent wrote:
FWIW, I was surprised to see that the recent funeral director case had
five whole days devoted to victim impact statements.
Mond you, I was even more surprised by the twenty year sentence. I was
expecting a maximum of five.
This was a punishment for the very modern unwritten crime of being hurty which counts at the moment as being about the most serious thing you can
do.
Of course, he was acting fraudulently, not fulfilling contracts etc, and that's criminal and requires punishment under the law.
However, looked at more sensibly, he physically hurt no-one.-a The bodies
he had didn't care.-a They were probably better looked after under him
than either being buried or burnt in the fireplace which is what the relatives would have done with them.-a They were not delayed in their journeys to heaven or hell or nowhere.
His crime existed entirely between the ears of the relatives who saw themselves, really for no reason, as victims when they weren't, and
played the victim card to its fullest extent.-a Had they not known about
the bodies, they would have gone about their daily lives as happy as
they ever were, and they would undoubtedly have been better off if they
had.
In a way, they created their victimhood and hysteria themselves.
On 09/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe
you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I
applaud Kemi for not doing so.
I would only add that your position on this seems very much at odds
with that concerning the killers of PC Harper.-a There, you wanted his
mother silenced, seemingly regarding her, with others of a similar
mind, as a baying mob that should be ignored, and asserting that they
should just be freed early to get on with their lives.
What's the difference please?
There is every possible difference.
I disagree.
Nobody is saying that the killers of PC Harper have reformed, changed
their ways, become potential candidates for elected office.
Even more reason why they should not be released early then.
The mother of PC Harper is understandably aggrieved that these two
accomplices to the manslaughter of her son
Don't try to minimise it.-a They were found guilty of his actual manslaughter.
might be let out of prison early and seemingly wants to change
whatever rules need to be changed in order to ensure they aren't
released early. Although she is entitled to her point of view and her
grief, there is no good reason why the press should give her views
prominence.
Judging by the public interest in this matter, I'd say there is every
reason for the press to be involved.
You could round up hundreds of parents of victims and make similar
points about making criminals serve their full time in prison. Just to
embarrass the Justice Secretary and Home Secretary.
Do you still see no difference please?
Not at all.-a In the one case you want 'the mob' silenced because you disagree with it, in the other you applaud it and the action that resulted.
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr6vjFj7feU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 11:30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr0odFi9o8U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a >>>>>> fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no >>>>>> patience with.
We've been through this before. The victims of crimes will always want >>>>> the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered >>>>> for whatever slight they have suffered. They are not reliable judges of >>>>> what punishments fit what crimes. That is a matter for society in
general.
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying
your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>> continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment
opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served >>> their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>> render them all unemployable.
I think you have a strangely binary approach to this topic of how society
should treat ex-convicts, ie either
a) Forgive them for whatever crimes they have committed, allow them to
have all the rights and privileges and status of people who have never
been in prison, forget that they have ever broken the law, or
b) Treat them as pariahs.
But there are of course other options, eg to give them every encouragement >> to rebuild their careers but not employ a fraudster as a bookkeeper or
accountant in case he might fall into his old ways and embezzle lots of
dosh and hide it in offshore accounts.
And as we know, Tommy Robinson has a past history of serious criminal
activity and has spent some time in gaol. If you choose to be one of his
loyal followers, maybe you should read up on his past history and decide
if you admire his character, attitudes and values.
But it's not my place to judge ex-cons, the law has done that and they
have served their time.
[snip]
Wikipedia says "Bonehill-Paine's online activity led to criminal charges >>> being brought against him for harassment, antisemitic commentary".
I have tried before to understand what antisemitism is without a lot of
success but think I have been told in here antisemitism is not a crime,
nor is antichristianism, antimethodism, antibatpistism, antimormonism and >>> antiislamism (and perhaps others) so how can he have been convicted of
"antisemitic commentary"?
It is disappointing that you don't understand what antisemitism is.
I have been through the IHRA definition several times but my understanding
is that antisemitism is not a crime, is that incorrect? I'm pretty sure it was said in this group, although that doesn't make it definitive.
Perhaps that is in part due to your reluctance to use all the resources
that are available on the internet.
You could try, just once, to look at this BBC report from 2016:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38242100
That says "A man has been found guilty of the racially-aggravated
harassment of an MP after sending anti-Semitic rants." So he wasn't found guilty of antisemitism but racially-aggravated harassment. On that basis a person making/sending anti-Christian rants might be found guilty of, what, religiously-aggravated harassment?
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of Israel, including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour Party. But being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of what they were accused of.
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not >>>>>> been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them. >>>>>> But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can
ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle
amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where
it ceases to apply?
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
On 9 Aug 2026 at 15:29:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not >>>>>> been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them. >>>>>> But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can
ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle
amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where it
ceases to apply?
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
Did you have a question? I must have missed it.Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>>>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support >>>>>>>>> for him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you >>>>>>>> were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe >>>>>>> you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere. None should be followed. And I >>>>>> applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame >>>>> in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support >>>>> drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior >>>>> people in her party, you must tell the world that she has now changed >>>>> her views, seen the error of her ways, is potentially a new Winston
Churchill.
Again... it's easier than answering or addressing the question, isn't it? >>>
How on Earth did you miss it? It wasn't my question, but I saw it. it went: >>
"Anyway, why are you encouraging [Kemi Badenoch] to be populist, ie
follow the baying mob, when you were decrying what you regarded as her
popularism earlier?".
No shame in that, I suppose.
A really good debating tactic is to keep accusing others of not
answering the question and ignoring whatever points they are making. No
shame in that, I suppose.
But there (above) is a question you didn't answer. I believe that I am
the first to point that out, and I have only done it once (plus this
recapitulation as to what the question was).
That was not a question. It was a rhetorical description of the answer he had already given.
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK.-a She is not a UK citizen.-a She has not >>>>>>> been tried for any of her crimes.-a She has served no time for them. >>>>>>> But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can >>>>> ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle
amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where
it ceases to apply?
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would >>>> feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local (smoky) pub).
Ask someone who *did* employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Did you have a question? I must have missed it.
How on Earth did you miss it? It wasn't my question, but I saw it. it went:
"Anyway, why are you encouraging [Kemi Badenoch] to be populist, ie
follow the baying mob, when you were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?".
On 09/08/2026 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of Israel,
including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if
fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour
Party. But
being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of what they were
accused of.
Mere literary licence and you respond - sorry to have to say - with pedantry.
Ms Berger was certainly not in any way *supported" by certain posters here.
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would >>>> feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local (smoky) pub).
Perhaps that is in part due to your reluctance to use all the resources >>>that are available on the internet.
You could try, just once, to look at this BBC report from 2016: >>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38242100
That says "A man has been found guilty of the racially-aggravated >>harassment of an MP after sending anti-Semitic rants." So he wasn't found >>guilty of antisemitism but racially-aggravated harassment. On that basis a >>person making/sending anti-Christian rants might be found guilty of, what, >>religiously-aggravated harassment?
Of course. Not that it very often happens in this country. If ever.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to me, >>never was and never would be (we never trusted anyone to babysit - we >>valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local >>(smoky) pub).
Ask someone who did employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
Or ask someone who is willing to debate issues rather than evade
questions. On the pretext that issues are "not relevant to you".
For example, how can you possibly understand antisemitism given that you
are (presumably) not Jewish? How could you possibly sympathise with
refugees being threatened and beaten up by Tommy Robinson supporters,
given that you personally have never been a refugee and have never been >tempted to escape from your country.
On 09/08/2026 in message <slrn117grd7.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying >>>your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>>continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment >>>opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served >>>their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>>render them all unemployable.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of
which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly >>less well-known is this: "Never fall for the fallacy of the excluded >>middle!"
Do you think that possibly there might be a middle ground in-between
"treat all ex-convicts guilty of hate crimes as unblemished angelic >>innocents" and "shun them all from the whole of society entirely"?
Maybe something like "it is unwise, as the leader of a national party,
to recommend them for political office"?
I think you may be taking a binary approach here. There are two stages surely? If you have done your time you have paid your debt, however, that doesn't necessarily make you the sort of person I would want to employ (would that be legal?) or go to the pub with.
On 09/08/2026 13:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49, The Todal wrote:
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no
shame in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As
her support drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from
other senior people in her party,
That's just wishful, hopeful, desperate thinking on your part.
Kemi has been lacklustre throughout her time as leader, and now she's another Keir Starmer, waiting for her party to find a new and more
popular leader.-a It doesn't take a political genius to say that she
won't be leading her party into the next general election.
Desperate? Why would I feel desperate?
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <slrn117grd7.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying >>>>your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>>>continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment >>>>opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served >>>>
their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>>>render them all unemployable.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of
which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly >>>less well-known is this: "Never fall for the fallacy of the excluded >>>middle!"
Do you think that possibly there might be a middle ground in-between >>>"treat all ex-convicts guilty of hate crimes as unblemished angelic >>>innocents" and "shun them all from the whole of society entirely"?
Maybe something like "it is unwise, as the leader of a national party,
to recommend them for political office"?
I think you may be taking a binary approach here. There are two stages >>surely? If you have done your time you have paid your debt, however, that >>doesn't necessarily make you the sort of person I would want to employ >>(would that be legal?) or go to the pub with.
You seem to have accidentally written a response to your own post
rather than to mine.
On 09/08/2026 12:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:09, JNugent wrote:
FWIW, I was surprised to see that the recent funeral director case
had five whole days devoted to victim impact statements.
Mond you, I was even more surprised by the twenty year sentence. I
was expecting a maximum of five.
This was a punishment for the very modern unwritten crime of being
hurty which counts at the moment as being about the most serious thing
you can do.
Of course, he was acting fraudulently, not fulfilling contracts etc,
and that's criminal and requires punishment under the law.
However, looked at more sensibly, he physically hurt no-one.-a The
bodies he had didn't care.-a They were probably better looked after
under him than either being buried or burnt in the fireplace which is
what the relatives would have done with them.-a They were not delayed
in their journeys to heaven or hell or nowhere.
His crime existed entirely between the ears of the relatives who saw
themselves, really for no reason, as victims when they weren't, and
played the victim card to its fullest extent.-a Had they not known
about the bodies, they would have gone about their daily lives as
happy as they ever were, and they would undoubtedly have been better
off if they had.
In a way, they created their victimhood and hysteria themselves.
I now wonder whether tasering or some form of electro-convulsive therapy would make you into a more humane and empathetic human being.
Perhaps you lack the imagination to understand how you might feel if
your old mum, whom you loved very much and cared for in her old age, was discovered on a shelf in a funeral home mouldering away in a sack when
you thought you had cremated her a couple of years earlier.
What to do
then? Have another funeral service? Or just put the remains in your
wheely bin?
On 09/08/2026 13:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been
seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe >>>>>> you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere.-a None should be followed.-a And I >>>>> applaud Kemi for not doing so.
I would only add that your position on this seems very much at odds
with that concerning the killers of PC Harper.-a There, you wanted
his mother silenced, seemingly regarding her, with others of a
similar mind, as a baying mob that should be ignored, and asserting
that they should just be freed early to get on with their lives.
What's the difference please?
There is every possible difference.
I disagree.
Nobody is saying that the killers of PC Harper have reformed, changed
their ways, become potential candidates for elected office.
Even more reason why they should not be released early then.
The mother of PC Harper is understandably aggrieved that these two
accomplices to the manslaughter of her son
Don't try to minimise it.-a They were found guilty of his actual
manslaughter.
might be let out of prison early and seemingly wants to change
whatever rules need to be changed in order to ensure they aren't
released early. Although she is entitled to her point of view and her
grief, there is no good reason why the press should give her views
prominence.
Judging by the public interest in this matter, I'd say there is every
reason for the press to be involved.
You could round up hundreds of parents of victims and make similar
points about making criminals serve their full time in prison. Just
to embarrass the Justice Secretary and Home Secretary.
Do you still see no difference please?
Not at all.-a In the one case you want 'the mob' silenced because you
disagree with it, in the other you applaud it and the action that
resulted.
I don't want anyone to be "silenced". I merely want our Press to show
both sides of an argument and not to give disproportionate coverage to
the views of one mother.
I don't "applaud" anyone or any mob. I point out that Kemi Badenoch made
a major gaffe and has made a fool of herself and damaged the reputation
of her party. And if you still claim that Jews are a "mob" and/or that
they have been "baying", then I think you do sound antisemitic. Perhaps
a spell in prison and a careful study of your bible might improve you,
but I suspect your underlying prejudices might still remain.
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndrr61Fm3o8U5@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to me, >>> never was and never would be (we never trusted anyone to babysit - we
valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local
(smoky) pub).
Ask someone who did employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
Or ask someone who is willing to debate issues rather than evade
questions. On the pretext that issues are "not relevant to you".
For example, how can you possibly understand antisemitism given that you
are (presumably) not Jewish? How could you possibly sympathise with
refugees being threatened and beaten up by Tommy Robinson supporters,
given that you personally have never been a refugee and have never been
tempted to escape from your country.
Is there really a rise in antisemitism?
Israel can't displace 750,000 Palestinians, shoot children for throwing stones, blow new born babies and children to pieces because there might be
a terrorist near them, restrict supplies of food and other necessaries to Gaza, steal land in the West Bank etc. etc. and be regarded as a decent civilised nation.
Spending the Hasbara fund on trying to persuade the world it is a decent civilised nation doesn't work with 21st century communications, it has to
try and BECOME a decent civilised nation.
There are cries of antisemitism in many countries, presumably driven by
the Israel lobby but it is not antisemitism it is anti-Israelism because
of Israel's despicable behaviour.
The cure is entirely in Israel's hands.
On 09/08/2026 05:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 15:29:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not >>>>>>> been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them. >>>>>>> But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be
reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and
convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can >>>>> ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle
amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where it >>> ceases to apply?
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would >>>> feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
Did you have a question? I must have missed it.Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>>>>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support >>>>>>>>>> for him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you
encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you >>>>>>>>> were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been >>>>>>>> seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe >>>>>>>> you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere. None should be followed. And I >>>>>>> applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame >>>>>> in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support >>>>>> drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior >>>>>> people in her party, you must tell the world that she has now changed >>>>>> her views, seen the error of her ways, is potentially a new Winston >>>>>> Churchill.
Again... it's easier than answering or addressing the question, isn't it? >>>>
How on Earth did you miss it? It wasn't my question, but I saw it. it went: >>>
"Anyway, why are you encouraging [Kemi Badenoch] to be populist, ie
follow the baying mob, when you were decrying what you regarded as her
popularism earlier?".
No shame in that, I suppose.
A really good debating tactic is to keep accusing others of not
answering the question and ignoring whatever points they are making. No >>>> shame in that, I suppose.
But there (above) is a question you didn't answer. I believe that I am
the first to point that out, and I have only done it once (plus this
recapitulation as to what the question was).
That was not a question. It was a rhetorical description of the answer he had
already given.
:-)
Are you SERIOUSLY tring to claim that a sentence which began "Anyway,
why are you encouraging..." and ended "what you regarded as her
popularism earlier?"...
...was not a question? LOL!
We obviously have very different ideas as to English usage, grammar,
syntax and parts of speech.
On 09/08/2026 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of Israel,
including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if
fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour Party. But >> being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of what they were
accused of.
Mere literary licence and you respond - sorry to have to say - with
pedantry.
Ms Berger was certainly not in any way *supported" by certain posters here.
On 09/08/2026 17:55, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of Israel,
including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if
fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour
Party. But
being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of what they were >>> accused of.
Mere literary licence and you respond - sorry to have to say - with
pedantry.
Ms Berger was certainly not in any way *supported" by certain posters here. >>
You seem to have an oddly binary approach to these matters, namely:
a) Approve of everything Luciana has done or said or written, unconditionally, or
b) Condemn her for everything she has done or said or written.
On 9 Aug 2026 at 19:15:22 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndrr61Fm3o8U5@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to me, >>>>never was and never would be (we never trusted anyone to babysit - we >>>>valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local >>>>(smoky) pub).
Ask someone who did employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
Or ask someone who is willing to debate issues rather than evade >>>questions. On the pretext that issues are "not relevant to you".
For example, how can you possibly understand antisemitism given that you >>>are (presumably) not Jewish? How could you possibly sympathise with >>>refugees being threatened and beaten up by Tommy Robinson supporters, >>>given that you personally have never been a refugee and have never been >>>tempted to escape from your country.
Is there really a rise in antisemitism?
Israel can't displace 750,000 Palestinians, shoot children for throwing >>stones, blow new born babies and children to pieces because there might be >>a terrorist near them, restrict supplies of food and other necessaries to >>Gaza, steal land in the West Bank etc. etc. and be regarded as a decent >>civilised nation.
Spending the Hasbara fund on trying to persuade the world it is a decent >>civilised nation doesn't work with 21st century communications, it has to >>try and BECOME a decent civilised nation.
There are cries of antisemitism in many countries, presumably driven by
the Israel lobby but it is not antisemitism it is anti-Israelism because
of Israel's despicable behaviour.
The cure is entirely in Israel's hands.
I am not sure that Israel is any worse than the genocidal previous
goverment
of Rwanda, or the current rebels in Sudan. Or indeed the Serbs in the last >century. They are, however, much better armed.
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndrr61Fm3o8U5@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to me, >>>never was and never would be (we never trusted anyone to babysit - we >>>valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local >>>(smoky) pub).
Ask someone who did employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
Or ask someone who is willing to debate issues rather than evade >>questions. On the pretext that issues are "not relevant to you".
For example, how can you possibly understand antisemitism given that you >>are (presumably) not Jewish? How could you possibly sympathise with >>refugees being threatened and beaten up by Tommy Robinson supporters, >>given that you personally have never been a refugee and have never been >>tempted to escape from your country.
Is there really a rise in antisemitism?
Israel can't displace 750,000 Palestinians, shoot children for throwing stones, blow new born babies and children to pieces because there might be
a terrorist near them, restrict supplies of food and other necessaries to Gaza, steal land in the West Bank etc. etc. and be regarded as a decent civilised nation.
Spending the Hasbara fund on trying to persuade the world it is a decent civilised nation doesn't work with 21st century communications, it has to try and BECOME a decent civilised nation.
There are cries of antisemitism in many countries, presumably driven by
the Israel lobby but it is not antisemitism it is anti-Israelism because
of Israel's despicable behaviour.
The cure is entirely in Israel's hands.
On 09/08/2026 in message <slrn117hkq3.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <slrn117grd7.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying >>>>>your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>>>>continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment >>>>>opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served >>>>>
their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>>>>render them all unemployable.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of >>>>which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly >>>>less well-known is this: "Never fall for the fallacy of the excluded >>>>middle!"
Do you think that possibly there might be a middle ground in-between >>>>"treat all ex-convicts guilty of hate crimes as unblemished angelic >>>>innocents" and "shun them all from the whole of society entirely"?
Maybe something like "it is unwise, as the leader of a national party, >>>>to recommend them for political office"?
I think you may be taking a binary approach here. There are two stages >>>surely? If you have done your time you have paid your debt, however, that >>>doesn't necessarily make you the sort of person I would want to employ >>>(would that be legal?) or go to the pub with.
You seem to have accidentally written a response to your own post
rather than to mine.
No, it's a response to you line starting "Do you think that possibly
there might be a middle ground in-between...".
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <slrn117hkq3.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message >>>><slrn117grd7.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying >>>>>>your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record >>>>>>may
continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment >>>>>>opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have >>>>>>served
their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty >>>>>>well
render them all unemployable.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of >>>>>which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly >>>>>less well-known is this: "Never fall for the fallacy of the excluded >>>>>middle!"
Do you think that possibly there might be a middle ground in-between >>>>>"treat all ex-convicts guilty of hate crimes as unblemished angelic >>>>>innocents" and "shun them all from the whole of society entirely"?
Maybe something like "it is unwise, as the leader of a national party, >>>>>to recommend them for political office"?
I think you may be taking a binary approach here. There are two stages >>>>surely? If you have done your time you have paid your debt, however, >>>>that
doesn't necessarily make you the sort of person I would want to employ >>>>(would that be legal?) or go to the pub with.
You seem to have accidentally written a response to your own post
rather than to mine.
No, it's a response to you line starting "Do you think that possibly
there might be a middle ground in-between...".
You thought a suitable response to me pointing out that there are
more than two possibilities is to suggest that I am "taking a
binary approach"? Please, explain to me how that works.
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndrr61Fm3o8U5@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to me, >>>>never was and never would be (we never trusted anyone to babysit - we >>>>valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local >>>>(smoky) pub).
Ask someone who did employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
Or ask someone who is willing to debate issues rather than evade >>>questions. On the pretext that issues are "not relevant to you".
For example, how can you possibly understand antisemitism given that you >>>are (presumably) not Jewish? How could you possibly sympathise with >>>refugees being threatened and beaten up by Tommy Robinson supporters, >>>given that you personally have never been a refugee and have never been >>>tempted to escape from your country.
Is there really a rise in antisemitism?
Yes.
Israel can't displace 750,000 Palestinians, shoot children for throwing >>stones, blow new born babies and children to pieces because there might be >>a terrorist near them, restrict supplies of food and other necessaries to >>Gaza, steal land in the West Bank etc. etc. and be regarded as a decent >>civilised nation.
Spending the Hasbara fund on trying to persuade the world it is a decent >>civilised nation doesn't work with 21st century communications, it has to >>try and BECOME a decent civilised nation.
There are cries of antisemitism in many countries, presumably driven by
the Israel lobby but it is not antisemitism it is anti-Israelism because
of Israel's despicable behaviour.
The cure is entirely in Israel's hands.
What you just posted is antisemitic, so I guess that's a visible rise
right there.
Yes, Israel is responsible for the increasingly negative view towards
Israel. If people go on big marches protesting against the genocide in
Gaza, or boycott Israeli goods, etc, then that is Israel's fault and
it is not, generally, antisemitism.
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to
Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions
of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what
Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because
of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
On 09/08/2026 in message <slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to
Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions
of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what
Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because
of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get confused.
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions of >>>Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what
Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because
of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his
cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get
confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out
statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions of >>>>Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because >>>>of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his
cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get
confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out
statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti semitism
is) is anti semitic.
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not >>>>>>>> been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them. >>>>>>>> But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be >>>>>>> reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and >>>>>> convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can >>>>>> ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle >>>>>> amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where
it ceases to apply?
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you
would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>> would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to
me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit
- we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the
local (smoky) pub).
Ask someone who *did* employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
Or ask someone who is willing to debate issues rather than evade
questions. On the pretext that issues are "not relevant to you".
For example, how can you possibly understand antisemitism given that you
are (presumably) not Jewish?
How could you possibly sympathise with
refugees being threatened and beaten up by Tommy Robinson supporters,
given that you personally have never been a refugee and have never been tempted to escape from your country.
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Did you have a question? I must have missed it.
How on Earth did you miss it? It wasn't my question, but I saw it. it
went:
"Anyway, why are you encouraging [Kemi Badenoch] to be populist, ie
follow the baying mob, when you were decrying what you regarded as her
popularism earlier?".
I'm not encouraging Kemi Badenoch to be populist. I have not spoken to
her or corresponded with her. Find one of her Tory colleagues or her
personal friends and ask them, that's your best bet.
On 09/08/2026 17:55, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of Israel,
including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if
fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour
Party. But being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of
what they were accused of.
Mere literary licence and you respond - sorry to have to say - with
pedantry.
Ms Berger was certainly not in any way *supported" by certain posters
here.
You seem to have an oddly binary approach to these matters, namely:
a) Approve of everything Luciana has done or said or written, unconditionally, or
b) Condemn her for everything she has done or said or written.
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you
would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>> would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to
me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit
- we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the
local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
On 9 Aug 2026 at 18:04:19 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 15:29:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
[re: Shemima Begum]:
Her 'home' isn't in the UK. She is not a UK citizen. She has not >>>>>>>> been tried for any of her crimes. She has served no time for them. >>>>>>>> But this isn't a discussion about her.
Yes, it now is. It's a discussion about whether criminals can be >>>>>>> reformed and become useful members of society. Did you miss that?
So is it your view that no criminal who has been caught, tried and >>>>>> convicted and has served whatever sentence the court has imposed can >>>>>> ever be regarded as reformed?
A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful, though perhaps a liitle >>>>>> amplification if the answer is a "No" would be even more helpful.
No. Straight no.
Was that helpful?
How about the amplification as to how far your "No" extends and where it >>>> ceases to apply?
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you would >>>>> feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>> would be very helpful.
Nobody can "exclude" poor Joshua from standing for election, but it >>>>>>>>>>> is a major gaffe for any reputable party leader to voice support >>>>>>>>>>> for him.
That's not for you to decide, though. Anyway, why are you >>>>>>>>>> encouraging her to be populist, ie follow the baying mob, when you >>>>>>>>>> were decrying what you regarded as her popularism earlier?
If you regard Jews as a baying mob, maybe you've actually been >>>>>>>>> seduced by Bonehill-Paine into the antisemite community, and maybe >>>>>>>>> you'll be very happy there.
There are baying mobs everywhere. None should be followed. And I >>>>>>>> applaud Kemi for not doing so.
You may find that you are the only person applauding. There is no shame >>>>>>> in being part of a minority. You must stick to your guns. As her support
drains away and she faces new leadership challenges from other senior >>>>>>> people in her party, you must tell the world that she has now changed >>>>>>> her views, seen the error of her ways, is potentially a new Winston >>>>>>> Churchill.
Again... it's easier than answering or addressing the question, isn't it?
Did you have a question? I must have missed it.
How on Earth did you miss it? It wasn't my question, but I saw it. it went:
"Anyway, why are you encouraging [Kemi Badenoch] to be populist, ie
follow the baying mob, when you were decrying what you regarded as her >>>> popularism earlier?".
No shame in that, I suppose.
A really good debating tactic is to keep accusing others of not
answering the question and ignoring whatever points they are making. No >>>>> shame in that, I suppose.
But there (above) is a question you didn't answer. I believe that I am >>>> the first to point that out, and I have only done it once (plus this
recapitulation as to what the question was).
That was not a question. It was a rhetorical description of the answer he had
already given.
:-)
Are you SERIOUSLY tring to claim that a sentence which began "Anyway,
why are you encouraging..." and ended "what you regarded as her
popularism earlier?"...
...was not a question? LOL!
We obviously have very different ideas as to English usage, grammar,
syntax and parts of speech.
It obviously had the grammatical form of a question.
But you were asking him
to repeat what he had just said, with a load of tendentious value judgements about his answer tacked on. HTH
On 9 Aug 2026 at 17:55:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of Israel,
including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if
fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour Party. But >>> being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of what they were >>> accused of.
Mere literary licence and you respond - sorry to have to say - with
pedantry.
Ms Berger was certainly not in any way *supported" by certain posters here.
Well absolutely not. I thought, and still think, her behaviour was despicable.
But really what does that have to do with supporting her right not be harassed by a virulent antisemite?
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndrr61Fm3o8U5@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant
to me,
never was and never would be (we never trusted anyone to babysit - we >>>>> valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the local >>>>> (smoky) pub).
Ask someone who did employ a babysitter. That's your best bet.
Or ask someone who is willing to debate issues rather than evade
questions. On the pretext that issues are "not relevant to you".
For example, how can you possibly understand antisemitism given that
you
are (presumably) not Jewish? How could you possibly sympathise with
refugees being threatened and beaten up by Tommy Robinson supporters,
given that you personally have never been a refugee and have never been >>>> tempted to escape from your country.
Is there really a rise in antisemitism?
Yes.
Israel can't displace 750,000 Palestinians, shoot children for throwing
stones, blow new born babies and children to pieces because there
might be
a terrorist near them, restrict supplies of food and other
necessaries to
Gaza, steal land in the West Bank etc. etc. and be regarded as a decent
civilised nation.
Spending the Hasbara fund on trying to persuade the world it is a
decent
civilised nation doesn't work with 21st century communications, it
has to
try and BECOME a decent civilised nation.
There are cries of antisemitism in many countries, presumably driven by
the Israel lobby but it is not antisemitism it is anti-Israelism because >>> of Israel's despicable behaviour.
The cure is entirely in Israel's hands.
What you just posted is antisemitic, so I guess that's a visible rise
right there.
An interesting opinion but nonsense, it is valid criticism of Israel.
Yes, Israel is responsible for the increasingly negative view towards
Israel. If people go on big marches protesting against the genocide in
Gaza, or boycott Israeli goods, etc, then that is Israel's fault and
it is not, generally, antisemitism.
Indeed, glad we agree on that.
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to
Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is
anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions
of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what
Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because
of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his
cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get confused.
On 2026-08-10, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions >>>>>of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>>Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" >>>>>because of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his
cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get
confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out
statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti semitism
is) is anti semitic.
Is it? How do you figure?
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions
of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because
of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his >>cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>confused.
Israel has never been a state with citizens of only one religion.
Since its foundation, it has had numerous Arab citizens (maybe some of
them didn't want to be, but that's beside the point).
On 9 Aug 2026 at 13:05:11 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr6vjFj7feU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote: >>
On 09/08/2026 11:30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr0odFi9o8U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a >>>>>>> fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no >>>>>>> patience with.
We've been through this before. The victims of crimes will always want >>>>>> the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered >>>>>> for whatever slight they have suffered. They are not reliable judges of
what punishments fit what crimes. That is a matter for society in >>>>>> general.
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying >>>> your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>>> continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment
opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served >>>> their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>>> render them all unemployable.
I think you have a strangely binary approach to this topic of how society >>> should treat ex-convicts, ie either
a) Forgive them for whatever crimes they have committed, allow them to
have all the rights and privileges and status of people who have never
been in prison, forget that they have ever broken the law, or
b) Treat them as pariahs.
But there are of course other options, eg to give them every encouragement >>> to rebuild their careers but not employ a fraudster as a bookkeeper or
accountant in case he might fall into his old ways and embezzle lots of
dosh and hide it in offshore accounts.
And as we know, Tommy Robinson has a past history of serious criminal
activity and has spent some time in gaol. If you choose to be one of his >>> loyal followers, maybe you should read up on his past history and decide >>> if you admire his character, attitudes and values.
But it's not my place to judge ex-cons, the law has done that and they
have served their time.
[snip]
Wikipedia says "Bonehill-Paine's online activity led to criminal charges >>>> being brought against him for harassment, antisemitic commentary".
I have tried before to understand what antisemitism is without a lot of >>>> success but think I have been told in here antisemitism is not a crime, >>>> nor is antichristianism, antimethodism, antibatpistism, antimormonism and >>>> antiislamism (and perhaps others) so how can he have been convicted of >>>> "antisemitic commentary"?
It is disappointing that you don't understand what antisemitism is.
I have been through the IHRA definition several times but my understanding >> is that antisemitism is not a crime, is that incorrect? I'm pretty sure it >> was said in this group, although that doesn't make it definitive.
Perhaps that is in part due to your reluctance to use all the resources
that are available on the internet.
You could try, just once, to look at this BBC report from 2016:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38242100
That says "A man has been found guilty of the racially-aggravated
harassment of an MP after sending anti-Semitic rants." So he wasn't found
guilty of antisemitism but racially-aggravated harassment. On that basis a >> person making/sending anti-Christian rants might be found guilty of, what, >> religiously-aggravated harassment?
Of course. Not that it very often happens in this country. If ever.
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you
would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>>> would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to
me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit
- we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the
local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to
find evidence to support their objections.
On 09/08/2026 17:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 13:05:11 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr6vjFj7feU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 11:30, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message <ndr0odFi9o8U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 23:28, The Todal wrote:
On 08/08/2026 21:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2026 19:11, The Todal wrote:
The notion that a crook pays his debt by spending time in prison is a >>>>>>>> fiction that crooks and their friends like to cite but victims have no
patience with.
We've been through this before. The victims of crimes will always want
the perpetrators to be locked up forever or hanged, drawn and quartered
for whatever slight they have suffered. They are not reliable judges of
what punishments fit what crimes. That is a matter for society in >>>>>>> general.
AI says "serving your sentence is generally considered a way of paying >>>>> your debt to society. However, the implications of a criminal record may >>>>> continue to affect various aspects of life, such as employment
opportunities."
That as always been my understanding, do you think people who have served
their time should be treated as pariahs for ever? That would pretty well >>>>> render them all unemployable.
I think you have a strangely binary approach to this topic of how society >>>> should treat ex-convicts, ie either
a) Forgive them for whatever crimes they have committed, allow them to >>>> have all the rights and privileges and status of people who have never >>>> been in prison, forget that they have ever broken the law, or
b) Treat them as pariahs.
But there are of course other options, eg to give them every encouragement >>>> to rebuild their careers but not employ a fraudster as a bookkeeper or >>>> accountant in case he might fall into his old ways and embezzle lots of >>>> dosh and hide it in offshore accounts.
And as we know, Tommy Robinson has a past history of serious criminal
activity and has spent some time in gaol. If you choose to be one of his >>>> loyal followers, maybe you should read up on his past history and decide >>>> if you admire his character, attitudes and values.
But it's not my place to judge ex-cons, the law has done that and they
have served their time.
[snip]
Wikipedia says "Bonehill-Paine's online activity led to criminal charges >>>>> being brought against him for harassment, antisemitic commentary".
I have tried before to understand what antisemitism is without a lot of >>>>> success but think I have been told in here antisemitism is not a crime, >>>>> nor is antichristianism, antimethodism, antibatpistism, antimormonism and
antiislamism (and perhaps others) so how can he have been convicted of >>>>> "antisemitic commentary"?
It is disappointing that you don't understand what antisemitism is.
I have been through the IHRA definition several times but my understanding >>> is that antisemitism is not a crime, is that incorrect? I'm pretty sure it >>> was said in this group, although that doesn't make it definitive.
Perhaps that is in part due to your reluctance to use all the resources >>>> that are available on the internet.
You could try, just once, to look at this BBC report from 2016:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38242100
That says "A man has been found guilty of the racially-aggravated
harassment of an MP after sending anti-Semitic rants." So he wasn't found >>> guilty of antisemitism but racially-aggravated harassment. On that basis a >>> person making/sending anti-Christian rants might be found guilty of, what, >>> religiously-aggravated harassment?
Of course. Not that it very often happens in this country. If ever.
35% of 7% of 8,500 hate crimes in Scotland were against Catholics: https://www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crimes-recorded-police-scotland-2024-25/
On 10/08/2026 in message <ndtq2lF1cr5U5@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to
Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is
anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions
of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what
Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because >>>> of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his
cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get
confused.
Israel has never been a state with citizens of only one religion.
Since its foundation, it has had numerous Arab citizens (maybe some of
them didn't want to be, but that's beside the point).
Will you tell Netanyahu or shall I?
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you >>>>>>> would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>>>> would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to
me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit >>>> - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the
local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to
find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children without
the need to prove your own suitability?
On 10/08/2026 02:19 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/08/2026 in message <ndtq2lF1cr5U5@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions >>>>>of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>>Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" because >>>>>of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered >>>>antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his >>>>cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state >>>>which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>confused.
Israel has never been a state with citizens of only one religion.
Since its foundation, it has had numerous Arab citizens (maybe some of >>>them didn't want to be, but that's beside the point).
Will you tell Netanyahu or shall I?
You were the only one who didn't know (from what I can see)!
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you >>>>>>>> would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>>>>> would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to >>>>> me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit >>>>> - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the >>>>> local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to
find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children without
the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
On 10/08/2026 in message <nduk1hF5g0vU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 02:19 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/08/2026 in message <ndtq2lF1cr5U5@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>> Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>> anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions >>>>>> of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>>> Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game"
because
of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his >>>>> cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state >>>>> which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>> confused.
Israel has never been a state with citizens of only one religion.
Since its foundation, it has had numerous Arab citizens (maybe some of >>>> them didn't want to be, but that's beside the point).
Will you tell Netanyahu or shall I?
You were the only one who didn't know (from what I can see)!
My understanding is that 30% of Israelis are non-Jewish, straight from Netanyahu's mouth, does that sound right to you?
As I said up thread: "One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu
and members of his cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the
only) Jewish state which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get confused."
That, to me, is the problem.
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:55:16 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>> Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>> anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions >>>>>> of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>>> Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game"
because of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his >>>>> cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state >>>>> which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>> confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out
statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti semitism
is) is anti semitic.
Is it? How do you figure?
It's what I have been told in more than one online forum, when I have ventured to check that my definition is what others are working too.
A more cynical person might suggest that is precisely what some people
would prefer avoided.
On 09/08/2026 08:25 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 17:55:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of Israel, >>>> including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if
fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour
Party. But
being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of what they
were
accused of.
Mere literary licence and you respond - sorry to have to say - with
pedantry.
Ms Berger was certainly not in any way *supported" by certain posters
here.
Well absolutely not. I thought, and still think, her behaviour was
despicable.
What did she do other than express her own opinions?
But really what does that have to do with supporting her right not be
harassed by a virulent antisemite?
I am not suggesting anything that she ought to have done, ought not to
have done or ought yet to do.
The discussion is about the behaviour of those abusing her (in various
ways, it seems).
On 10/08/2026 13:59, Jethro wrote:walker-for-leaked-antisemitism-comments
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:55:16 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:Jackie Walker was expelled from the Labour Party for allegedly bringing
On 2026-08-10, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire >>>>>>> to Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel",
that is anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, >>>>>>> the actions of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not
responsible for what Israel does, and to say they are, or that
they are "fair game" because of the actions of Israel, is
anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of
his cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish >>>>>> state which implies that it comprises only Jews. People
understandably get confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out
statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti
semitism is) is anti semitic.
Is it? How do you figure?
It's what I have been told in more than one online forum, when I have
ventured to check that my definition is what others are working too.
A more cynical person might suggest that is precisely what some people
would prefer avoided.
it into disrepute. She was accused of antisemitism on spurious grounds,
but was not expelled specifically for antisemitism. I totally support
her. As you will see, she said she had not seen a definition of
antisemitism that she found satisfactory and that was then claimed to be
an antisemitic remark.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/labour-expels-jackie-
quote
She was expelled for rCLprejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour
against the partyrCY.
Walker was suspended more than two years ago after comments made at an antisemitism training session, where she criticised Holocaust Memorial
Day for only commemorating Jewish victims.
After participants said the event does in fact commemorate other
genocides, Walker said that was not how she viewed it. rCLIn practice,
itrCOs not actually circulated and advertised as such,rCY she said. rCLI was looking for information and I still havenrCOt heard a definition of antisemitism that I can work with.rCY
unquote
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEhpHTkaok
On 10/08/2026 08:39 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/08/2026 in message <nduk1hF5g0vU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 02:19 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/08/2026 in message <ndtq2lF1cr5U5@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>>>Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>>>anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions >>>>>>>of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>>>>Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" >>>>>>>because
of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered >>>>>>antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his >>>>>>cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state >>>>>>which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>>>confused.
Israel has never been a state with citizens of only one religion.
Since its foundation, it has had numerous Arab citizens (maybe some of >>>>>them didn't want to be, but that's beside the point).
Will you tell Netanyahu or shall I?
You were the only one who didn't know (from what I can see)!
My understanding is that 30% of Israelis are non-Jewish, straight from >>Netanyahu's mouth, does that sound right to you?
It could be. I expect his civil servants would provide a correct number in >his briefing pack.
As I said up thread: "One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu >>and members of his cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the
only) Jewish state which implies that it comprises only Jews. People >>understandably get confused."
That, to me, is the problem.
It isn't confusing at all. Is there a state anywhere in the world where
the whole population are adherents of one religion?
On 10/08/2026 13:59, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:55:16 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>>> Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>>> anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions >>>>>>> of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>>>> Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game"
because of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his >>>>>> cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state >>>>>> which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>>> confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out
statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti semitism >>>> is) is anti semitic.
Is it? How do you figure?
It's what I have been told in more than one online forum, when I have
ventured to check that my definition is what others are working too.
A more cynical person might suggest that is precisely what some people
would prefer avoided.
Jackie Walker was expelled from the Labour Party for allegedly bringing
it into disrepute. She was accused of antisemitism on spurious grounds,
but was not expelled specifically for antisemitism. I totally support
her. As you will see, she said she had not seen a definition of
antisemitism that she found satisfactory and that was then claimed to be
an antisemitic remark.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/labour-expels-jackie- walker-for-leaked-antisemitism-comments
quote
She was expelled for rCLprejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the partyrCY.
Walker was suspended more than two years ago after comments made at an antisemitism training session, where she criticised Holocaust Memorial
Day for only commemorating Jewish victims.
After participants said the event does in fact commemorate other
genocides, Walker said that was not how she viewed it. rCLIn practice, itrCOs not actually circulated and advertised as such,rCY she said. rCLI was looking for information and I still havenrCOt heard a definition of antisemitism that I can work with.rCY
unquote
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEhpHTkaok
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to >>>>> me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit >>>>> - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the >>>>> local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to
find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children without
the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
On 8/10/26 21:26, The Todal wrote:
On 10/08/2026 13:59, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:55:16 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>>>> Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>>>> anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the
actions
of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for >>>>>>>> what
Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" >>>>>>>> because of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of >>>>>>> his
cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish >>>>>>> state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>>>> confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out >>>>>> statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti
semitism
is) is anti semitic.
Is it? How do you figure?
It's what I have been told in more than one online forum, when I have
ventured to check that my definition is what others are working too.
A more cynical person might suggest that is precisely what some people
would prefer avoided.
Jackie Walker was expelled from the Labour Party for allegedly
bringing it into disrepute. She was accused of antisemitism on
spurious grounds, but was not expelled specifically for antisemitism.
I totally support her. As you will see, she said she had not seen a
definition of antisemitism that she found satisfactory and that was
then claimed to be an antisemitic remark.
While I agree that Walker was treated badly, there is a feeling that she
was hoist by her own petard. She promoted the idea that only the victim
can understand racial discrimination, the victim defines the crime.
the victim states it is racism, it is racism. So when Jews complained
about her, she was defenceless, Jews said she was racist, so she was.
I understand why Walker was tempted to define racism this way, given
decades of the police and such like dismissing racism as insignificant,
but we still need some balance, some moderation. We need some metric to
be able to compare the experience of a different person with our own. If
we don't victimhood will be weaponised.
IIRC you made a related statement a few days ago. Only a Jew can
understand antisemitism.
damage done by antisemitism to the damage done by other forms of racism
and ultimately the damage done by other crimes to "non-victim" groups.
Diane Abbott was 100% right in what she said about the racism suffered
by blacks. It wasn't clumsily put, that is just tactic used by people to minimise the importance of what she said without addressing the issues
head on. If Diane said it was clumsy or a mistake, she only did so to
avoid punishment.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/labour-expels-jackie-
walker-for-leaked-antisemitism-comments
quote
She was expelled for rCLprejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour
against the partyrCY.
Walker was suspended more than two years ago after comments made at an
antisemitism training session, where she criticised Holocaust Memorial
Day for only commemorating Jewish victims.
After participants said the event does in fact commemorate other
genocides, Walker said that was not how she viewed it. rCLIn practice,
itrCOs not actually circulated and advertised as such,rCY she said. rCLI was
looking for information and I still havenrCOt heard a definition of
antisemitism that I can work with.rCY
unquote
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEhpHTkaok
IIRC you made a related statement a few days ago. Only a Jew can
understand antisemitism. This is unsatisfactory, we need to compare the damage done by antisemitism to the damage done by other forms of racism
and ultimately the damage done by other crimes to "non-victim" groups.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:08:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:
IIRC you made a related statement a few days ago. Only a Jew can
understand antisemitism. This is unsatisfactory, we need to compare the
damage done by antisemitism to the damage done by other forms of racism
and ultimately the damage done by other crimes to "non-victim" groups.
IMHO a lot of the problem stems from the rather obviously political
attempt to crowbar the idea that a religion somehow defines a race. Which
is a total and utter crock. And should have been laughed out of court at
the first suggestion.
As far as I am concerned, a "Jew" is someone who adheres - by their own volition - to whatever the accepted canon of Judiasm may be. Now that may
not chime with some other peoples ideas. But it would be a boring world
if we all agreed.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of her views.
She has said, repeatedly, that she is half Jewish (father was Jewish,
that doesn't give her full Jewish status), that her views both as a
person with Jewish heritage and as a black woman are disregarded and disrespected, and that the antisemite-hunters are politically motivated.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:08:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:
IIRC you made a related statement a few days ago. Only a Jew can
understand antisemitism. This is unsatisfactory, we need to compare the
damage done by antisemitism to the damage done by other forms of racism
and ultimately the damage done by other crimes to "non-victim" groups.
IMHO a lot of the problem stems from the rather obviously political
attempt to crowbar the idea that a religion somehow defines a race. Which
is a total and utter crock. And should have been laughed out of court at
the first suggestion.
As far as I am concerned, a "Jew" is someone who adheres - by their own volition - to whatever the accepted canon of Judiasm may be. Now that may not chime with some other peoples ideas. But it would be a boring world
if we all agreed.
On 10/08/2026 12:10, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 08:25 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 17:55:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:55:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
snip
Ooh... I can remember that sort of view (albeit in terms) being
expressed here, not as long ago as all that. With Ms Berger being
represented as partt of the mob.
You can remember that too, can't you?
That is of course a complete fabrication. Various supporters of
Israel,
including Ms Berger, may have been accused of waging a systematic, if >>>>> fraudulent, political campaign against the leaders of the Labour
Party. But
being a "baying mob" is a completely false description of what they
were
accused of.
Mere literary licence and you respond - sorry to have to say - with
pedantry.
Ms Berger was certainly not in any way *supported" by certain
posters here.
Well absolutely not. I thought, and still think, her behaviour was
despicable.
What did she do other than express her own opinions?
As an elected Labour MP, she claimed that the Labour Party was riddled
with antisemitism and did her best to dissuade the public from voting
Labour. However, the only people who were prosecuted for antisemitic
abuse directed at her were not Labour Party members and her allegations
about Party members were wholly without foundation.
When her constituency party began the process of de-selecting her (justifiably, because of her behaviour) the Party leadership including Corbyn instructed the constituency party not to de-select her. She was ungrateful, and the kind gesture did not appease her and she flounced
off to a phoney new party, never to return until welcomed back by Starmer.
But the fact remains that she was harassed and threatened and
intimidated by vile antisemites including Bonehill-Paine. She is
absolutely right to condemn Kemi Badenoch for her foolish decision to
welcome him into the circle of trust.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/aug/10/labour-peer-luciana-berger-urges-badenoch-reverse-decision-advisory-role-ex-neo-nazi-joshua-bonehill-paine
rCLBadenoch makes one passing reference to the rCyvictimsrCO,rCY Berger wrote.
rCLThere were many. And I was one of them. Did Badenoch read the judgerCOs sentencing remarks? In court we heard the victim impact statements from people unable to testify, whose lives he had destroyed.
rCLHis appointment as an adviser to the Conservative partyrCOs culture and integration commission could conceivably bring him to Westminster. Can I expect to come face to face with him on the parliamentary estate?
rCLItrCOs still not too late for Badenoch to listen to victims and reverse her decision.rCY
But really what does that have to do with supporting her right not be
harassed by a virulent antisemite?
I am not suggesting anything that she ought to have done, ought not to
have done or ought yet to do.
The discussion is about the behaviour of those abusing her (in various
ways, it seems).
I think by supporting Bonehill-Paine, you're effectively abusing Luciana Berger.
On 10/08/2026 13:59, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:55:16 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>>> Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>>> anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the actions >>>>>>> of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for what >>>>>>> Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game"
because of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of his >>>>>> cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish state >>>>>> which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>>> confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out
statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti semitism >>>> is) is anti semitic.
Is it? How do you figure?
It's what I have been told in more than one online forum, when I have
ventured to check that my definition is what others are working too.
A more cynical person might suggest that is precisely what some people
would prefer avoided.
Jackie Walker was expelled from the Labour Party for allegedly bringing
it into disrepute. She was accused of antisemitism on spurious grounds,
but was not expelled specifically for antisemitism. I totally support
her. As you will see, she said she had not seen a definition of
antisemitism that she found satisfactory and that was then claimed to be
an antisemitic remark.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/labour-expels-jackie-walker-for-leaked-antisemitism-comments
quote
She was expelled for rCLprejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour
against the partyrCY.
Walker was suspended more than two years ago after comments made at an antisemitism training session, where she criticised Holocaust Memorial
Day for only commemorating Jewish victims.
After participants said the event does in fact commemorate other
genocides, Walker said that was not how she viewed it. rCLIn practice,
itrCOs not actually circulated and advertised as such,rCY she said. rCLI was looking for information and I still havenrCOt heard a definition of antisemitism that I can work with.rCY
unquote
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEhpHTkaok
On 10 Aug 2026 at 19:37:42 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you >>>>>>>>> would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>>>>>> would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need.
That's evasion.
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to >>>>>> me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit >>>>>> - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the >>>>>> local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to
find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children without >>> the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after
children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
There are; but they are entirely reactive (to complaints), not pro-active. We would need a lot of social workers to screen every parent.
On 10/08/2026 09:33 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Aug 2026 at 19:37:42 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
That's evasion.Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you >>>>>>>>>> would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no" >>>>>>>>>> would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need. >>>>>>>
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to >>>>>>> me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit >>>>>>> - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the >>>>>>> local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to >>>>> find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children without >>>> the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after
children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
There are; but they are entirely reactive (to complaints), not pro-active. We
would need a lot of social workers to screen every parent.
But...should we... even if we could?
[Let me add, though, that a social worker of some description came to
visit us not long after the birth of our first born. I had been told by
a friend who was already a parent that this would happen and what the
purpose of it was.
I was horrified by the thought that "the state" could casually wield
such powers, the more so when "the state" persistently fails to protect children living in chaotic households, whose deaths at the hands of a
mother and/or a "boyfriend" are reported with such alarming regularity.
As it happens though, the social worker took a look at the packed bookshelves, the jazz LP collection, the baby equipment we had already
bought our son's bedroom and announced "You obviously don't have any
social problems".
I am sure that what she meant by "social problems" was that we were
within the category "normal and responsible parents" who would take
every care of our son through to adulthood (and we did).
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>>>> Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>>>> anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the
actins of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible >>>>>>>> for what Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair >>>>>>>> game "because of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of >>>>>>> his cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish >>>>>>> state which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably >>>>>>> get confused.
Israel has never been a state with citizens of only one religion.
Since its foundation, it has had numerous Arab citizens (maybe
some of them didn't want to be, but that's beside the point).
Will you tell Netanyahu or shall I?
You were the only one who didn't know (from what I can see)!
My understanding is that 30% of Israelis are non-Jewish, straight from
Netanyahu's mouth, does that sound right to you?
It could be. I expect his civil servants would provide a correct
number in his briefing pack.
As I said up thread: "One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu >>> and members of his cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the
only) Jewish state which implies that it comprises only Jews. People
understandably get confused."
That, to me, is the problem.
It isn't confusing at all. Is there a state anywhere in the world
where the whole population are adherents of one religion?
I have no idea if there are any single religion states.
However, it is not difficult to imagine a good average person riding on
the Clapham Omnibus believing that if Netanyahu says Israel is a Jewish
state that it comprises entirely followers of the Jewish religion.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an
entirely different matter.
On 10/08/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to >>>>>> me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to
babysit
- we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the >>>>>> local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to
find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children without >>> the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after
children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
There are, but (for some reason [1]) they only apply to adoption and fostering.
[1] Actually, practicality and likely outcry (if it applied to natural
child rearing). And the need for the species to reproduce itself. The
only way would be state child rearing as described in Huxley's "Brave
New World".
On 10/08/2026 09:26 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 10/08/2026 13:59, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:55:16 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:55:09 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 in message
<slrn117hu5p.2jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
If people attack random Jewish people in the street, or set fire to >>>>>>>> Jewish ambulances or synagogues, that is not "anti-Israel", that is >>>>>>>> anti-semitism. Yes, underlying it is of course, in part, the
actions
of Israel, but in general Jewish people are not responsible for >>>>>>>> what
Israel does, and to say they are, or that they are "fair game" >>>>>>>> because of the actions of Israel, is anti-semitic.
Correct, conflating Israelis and Jews seems to be considered
antisemitic.
One of the major problems is people like Netanyahu and members of >>>>>>> his
cabinet pointing out that Israel is a (in fact the only) Jewish >>>>>>> state
which implies that it comprises only Jews. People understandably get >>>>>>> confused.
It does rather appear to me that the government of Israel puts out >>>>>> statements that are, er, anti-semitic. But that's well above my
paygrade.
Apparently, not knowing what "anti semitism" is (whatever anti
semitism
is) is anti semitic.
Is it? How do you figure?
It's what I have been told in more than one online forum, when I have
ventured to check that my definition is what others are working too.
A more cynical person might suggest that is precisely what some people
would prefer avoided.
Jackie Walker was expelled from the Labour Party for allegedly bringing
it into disrepute. She was accused of antisemitism on spurious grounds,
but was not expelled specifically for antisemitism. I totally support
her. As you will see, she said she had not seen a definition of
antisemitism that she found satisfactory and that was then claimed to be
an antisemitic remark.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/labour-expels-jackie-
walker-for-leaked-antisemitism-comments
quote
She was expelled for rCLprejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour
against the partyrCY.
Walker was suspended more than two years ago after comments made at an
antisemitism training session, where she criticised Holocaust Memorial
Day for only commemorating Jewish victims.
Genuine question (to which I currently do not know the answer): Who organises said "Holocaust Memorial Day"?
After participants said the event does in fact commemorate other
genocides, Walker said that was not how she viewed it. rCLIn practice,
itrCOs not actually circulated and advertised as such,rCY she said. rCLI was >> looking for information and I still havenrCOt heard a definition of
antisemitism that I can work with.rCY
unquote
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEhpHTkaok
On 10/08/2026 09:40 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think by supporting Bonehill-Paine, you're effectively abusing Luciana
Berger.
I support his *rights* as a human being. AAMOF, I would have thought
*you* would too. You're noticeable more supportive of those convicted of
the manslaughter of a police officer.
Perhaps it would all be different if he'd only dragged a police officer
to his death strapped behind a speeding car?
On 11/08/2026 10:08, Pancho wrote:
IIRC you made a related statement a few days ago. Only a Jew can
understand antisemitism.
I didn't say that at all. I was making a point about Mr Nugent's
attitudes which were, if I don't use babysitters I don't need to have an opinion about whether paedophiles can be reformed in gaol and then be babysitters.
So, to take that argument further, it might be said that if
you aren't Jewish you don't have the right to discuss antisemitism.
Obviously I don't believe that. In fact, the so-called Jewish Community
has a wide range of opinions about what is or isn't antisemitism and
what Zionism means and whether slavish loyalty to Israel is required
from all British Jews.
This is unsatisfactory, we need to compare the
damage done by antisemitism to the damage done by other forms of
racism and ultimately the damage done by other crimes to "non-victim"
groups.
Diane Abbott was 100% right in what she said about the racism suffered
by blacks. It wasn't clumsily put, that is just tactic used by people
to minimise the importance of what she said without addressing the
issues head on. If Diane said it was clumsy or a mistake, she only did
so to avoid punishment.
Yes, Diane was right, but some Jews took offence because they look for a
way of discrediting a left wing politician and critic of Israel.
On 11/08/2026 11:43, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:08:29 +0100, Pancho wrote:I would certainly disagree with your proposed definition.
IIRC you made a related statement a few days ago. Only a Jew can
understand antisemitism. This is unsatisfactory, we need to compare
the damage done by antisemitism to the damage done by other forms of
racism and ultimately the damage done by other crimes to "non-victim"
groups.
IMHO a lot of the problem stems from the rather obviously political
attempt to crowbar the idea that a religion somehow defines a race.
Which is a total and utter crock. And should have been laughed out of
court at the first suggestion.
As far as I am concerned, a "Jew" is someone who adheres - by their own
volition - to whatever the accepted canon of Judiasm may be. Now that
may not chime with some other peoples ideas. But it would be a boring
world if we all agreed.
In Nazi Germany, Jews wanted to be patriotic Germans and to support
their government. Many were willing to discard any of the Jewish beliefs
and traditions and garments. But it was deemed a crime to conceal your
Jewish parentage and heritage. To the Nazis, it was race not religion.
And it is largely out of respect to the victims of the holocaust that
most Jews do not regard Judaism as a fashion choice, an option which can
be discarded in favour of whatever spiritual beliefs are popular.
Whether or not they are atheists, whether or not they agree with the
bigots on the Board of Deputies, they will say they are Jews.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:45:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/08/2026 09:33 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Aug 2026 at 19:37:42 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 05:49 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/08/2026 15:29, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 12:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
That's evasion.Is it your view that when Rolf Harris had served his sentence you >>>>>>>>>>> would
feel able to employ him as your babysitter? A straight "yes" or "no"
would be very helpful.
I have never employed a babtsitter. I have never had the need. >>>>>>>>
No it isn't. It's the truth.
Answer the question. We are discussing the principle,
not your personal domestic circumstances. You know that.
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to >>>>>>>> me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to babysit >>>>>>>> - we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the >>>>>>>> local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to >>>>>> find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children without >>>>> the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after >>>> children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
There are; but they are entirely reactive (to complaints), not pro-active. We
would need a lot of social workers to screen every parent.
But...should we... even if we could?
[Let me add, though, that a social worker of some description came to
visit us not long after the birth of our first born. I had been told by
a friend who was already a parent that this would happen and what the
purpose of it was.
I was horrified by the thought that "the state" could casually wield
such powers, the more so when "the state" persistently fails to protect
children living in chaotic households, whose deaths at the hands of a
mother and/or a "boyfriend" are reported with such alarming regularity.
As it happens though, the social worker took a look at the packed
bookshelves, the jazz LP collection, the baby equipment we had already
bought our son's bedroom and announced "You obviously don't have any
social problems".
I am sure that what she meant by "social problems" was that we were
within the category "normal and responsible parents" who would take
every care of our son through to adulthood (and we did).
Are you thinking of the Health Visitor? Their role is slightly similar to that
of a social worker.
Are *all* Jews right-wing and so for you, beyond the pale?
How about Manny Shinwell? Was he right-wing? George Brown? Ed Miliband?
On 11/08/2026 16:35, JNugent wrote:
Jackie Walker was expelled from the Labour Party for allegedly bringing
it into disrepute. She was accused of antisemitism on spurious grounds,
but was not expelled specifically for antisemitism. I totally support
her. As you will see, she said she had not seen a definition of
antisemitism that she found satisfactory and that was then claimed to be >>> an antisemitic remark.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/labour-expels-jackie- walker-for-leaked-antisemitism-comments
quote
She was expelled for rCLprejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour
against the partyrCY.
Walker was suspended more than two years ago after comments made at an
antisemitism training session, where she criticised Holocaust Memorial
Day for only commemorating Jewish victims.
Genuine question (to which I currently do not know the answer): Who
organises said "Holocaust Memorial Day"?
https://hmd.org.uk/
quote
Holocaust Memorial Day Trust (HMDT) is the charity established by the UK Government to promote and support Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) in the UK.
Holocaust Memorial Day is a national day that takes place on 27 January.
We commemorate the six million Jewish men, women and children murdered
during the Holocaust, and the millions more murdered under Nazi
persecution. Prejudice still continues today within our communities and across the UK.
We also learn and commemorate where persecution led in
Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.
unquote
Jackie Walker was told off and accused of antisemitism for daring to
suggest that the day was mainly to commemorate the Jewish victims of the Nazis. I think she was right.
That is the main purpose. We see plenty of
documentaries about the Nazi persecution of the Jews.
Do we ever see documentaries about Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia or Darfur? Or, dare I say, Gaza?
After participants said the event does in fact commemorate other
genocides, Walker said that was not how she viewed it. rCLIn practice,
itrCOs not actually circulated and advertised as such,rCY she said. rCLI was
looking for information and I still havenrCOt heard a definition of
antisemitism that I can work with.rCY
unquote
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEhpHTkaok
On 11/08/2026 16:33, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 09:40 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think by supporting Bonehill-Paine, you're effectively abusing Luciana >>> Berger.
I support his *rights* as a human being. AAMOF, I would have thought
*you* would too. You're noticeable more supportive of those convicted
of the manslaughter of a police officer.
Perhaps it would all be different if he'd only dragged a police
officer to his death strapped behind a speeding car?
You have misunderstood. I will try to help you.
I, too, support Bonehill-Paine's rights as a human being but those
rights do not automatically make him a good choice as a councillor or as
an advisor to the Tory Party. As his victims would no doubt attest.
I am not supportive of those convicted of the manslaughter of a police officer. I am critical of the process by which the officer's mother
generates a campaign that puts pressure on our government to change the sensible policies it has put into place to relieve pressure on the
prison service. The craven submission of our Prime Minister to tabloid pressure.I don't care whether Cole and Bowers are released early. No
doubt they don't deserve early release and the only purpose in releasing
them early is to free up a couple of prison places. If they are released early, you might say they have served their time, done their porridge,
paid their debt. Would you also say that they should now be on a
shortlist for Tory Party candidates? Is that the logic of your position?
On 11/08/2026 16:33, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 09:40 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think by supporting Bonehill-Paine, you're effectively abusing Luciana >>> Berger.
I support his *rights* as a human being. AAMOF, I would have thought
*you* would too. You're noticeable more supportive of those convicted
of the manslaughter of a police officer.
Perhaps it would all be different if he'd only dragged a police
officer to his death strapped behind a speeding car?
You have misunderstood. I will try to help you.
I, too, support Bonehill-Paine's rights as a human being but those
rights do not automatically make him a good choice as a councillor or as
an advisor to the Tory Party. As his victims would no doubt attest.
I am not supportive of those convicted of the manslaughter of a police officer. I am critical of the process by which the officer's mother generates a campaign that puts pressure on our government to change the sensible policies it has put into place to relieve pressure on the
prison service. The craven submission of our Prime Minister to tabloid pressure.I don't care whether Cole and Bowers are released early. No
doubt they don't deserve early release and the only purpose in releasing them early is to free up a couple of prison places. If they are released early, you might say they have served their time, done their porridge,
paid their debt. Would you also say that they should now be on a
shortlist for Tory Party candidates? Is that the logic of your position?
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:45:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[Let me add, though, that a social worker of some description came to
visit us not long after the birth of our first born. I had been told by
a friend who was already a parent that this would happen and what the
purpose of it was.
I was horrified by the thought that "the state" could casually wield
such powers, the more so when "the state" persistently fails to protect
children living in chaotic households, whose deaths at the hands of a
mother and/or a "boyfriend" are reported with such alarming regularity.
As it happens though, the social worker took a look at the packed
bookshelves, the jazz LP collection, the baby equipment we had already
bought our son's bedroom and announced "You obviously don't have any
social problems".
I am sure that what she meant by "social problems" was that we were
within the category "normal and responsible parents" who would take
every care of our son through to adulthood (and we did).
Are you thinking of the Health Visitor? Their role is slightly similar
to that of a social worker.
On 11/08/2026 17:13, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:33, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 09:40 PM, The Todal wrote:
I think by supporting Bonehill-Paine, you're effectively abusing Luciana >>>> Berger.
I support his *rights* as a human being. AAMOF, I would have thought
*you* would too. You're noticeable more supportive of those convicted
of the manslaughter of a police officer.
Perhaps it would all be different if he'd only dragged a police
officer to his death strapped behind a speeding car?
You have misunderstood. I will try to help you.
I, too, support Bonehill-Paine's rights as a human being but those
rights do not automatically make him a good choice as a councillor or as
an advisor to the Tory Party. As his victims would no doubt attest.
But they are matters for the Conservative Party and the electorate, not you.
I am not supportive of those convicted of the manslaughter of a police
officer. I am critical of the process by which the officer's mother
generates a campaign that puts pressure on our government to change the
sensible policies it has put into place to relieve pressure on the
prison service. The craven submission of our Prime Minister to tabloid
pressure.I don't care whether Cole and Bowers are released early. No
doubt they don't deserve early release and the only purpose in releasing
them early is to free up a couple of prison places. If they are released
early, you might say they have served their time, done their porridge,
paid their debt. Would you also say that they should now be on a
shortlist for Tory Party candidates? Is that the logic of your position?
The question is why they should be prevented from doing so if the party
and the electorate want them.
However, it is not difficult to imagine a good average person riding on
the Clapham Omnibus believing that if Netanyahu says Israel is a Jewish >>state that it comprises entirely followers of the Jewish religion.
Possibly.
But they would be 100% wrong, wouldn't they?
And I can confidently put it that way because you too now know that Israel >has many Arab citizens.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2 graduate
in English.
On 11/08/2026 17:05, JNugent wrote:
Are *all* Jews right-wing and so for you, beyond the pale?
Obviously not. Was that a serious question? It wasn't a sensible one.
How about Manny Shinwell? Was he right-wing? George Brown? Ed Miliband?
Gerald Kaufman was especially admirable and was hectored and harassed by
the self-appointed representatives of the Jewish Community.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 17:56:14 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 17:13, The Todal wrote:
I am not supportive of those convicted of the manslaughter of a police
officer. I am critical of the process by which the officer's mother
generates a campaign that puts pressure on our government to change the
sensible policies it has put into place to relieve pressure on the
prison service. The craven submission of our Prime Minister to tabloid
pressure.I don't care whether Cole and Bowers are released early. No
doubt they don't deserve early release and the only purpose in releasing >>> them early is to free up a couple of prison places. If they are released >>> early, you might say they have served their time, done their porridge,
paid their debt. Would you also say that they should now be on a
shortlist for Tory Party candidates? Is that the logic of your position?
The question is why they should be prevented from doing so if the party
and the electorate want them.
I don't think a political party should be *prevented* from fielding one of PC Harper's killers as a candidate (after they are released, obviously). But it would be in poor taste and would offend a goodly fraction of the electorate, even if 40 percent of them voted for him. Same applies to the currently-discussed candidate; though I don't doubt that a significant portion
of the electorate would welcome him with open arms.
On 11/08/2026 in message <ne0usgFgmeeU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
However, it is not difficult to imagine a good average person riding on
the Clapham Omnibus believing that if Netanyahu says Israel is a Jewish
state that it comprises entirely followers of the Jewish religion.
Possibly.
But they would be 100% wrong, wouldn't they?
And I can confidently put it that way because you too now know that
Israel has many Arab citizens.
I have known that for some time, the Hasbara budget funds a lot of posts
on Facebook quoting Netanyahu on the subject.
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in fact it
is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an
entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2
graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
On 2026-08-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:45:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[Let me add, though, that a social worker of some description came to
visit us not long after the birth of our first born. I had been told by
a friend who was already a parent that this would happen and what the
purpose of it was.
I was horrified by the thought that "the state" could casually wield
such powers, the more so when "the state" persistently fails to protect
children living in chaotic households, whose deaths at the hands of a
mother and/or a "boyfriend" are reported with such alarming regularity.
As it happens though, the social worker took a look at the packed
bookshelves, the jazz LP collection, the baby equipment we had already
bought our son's bedroom and announced "You obviously don't have any
social problems".
I am sure that what she meant by "social problems" was that we were
within the category "normal and responsible parents" who would take
every care of our son through to adulthood (and we did).
Are you thinking of the Health Visitor? Their role is slightly similar
to that of a social worker.
I can confirm that Health Visitors are fairly ubiquitous when your child
is very young (<1 year) but their appearances drop off precipitously
after a while.
There are also appointments you are supposed to take your child to at Childrens' Centres for the very early years. I don't know what happens
if you don't take your child to those. I suspect nothing, unless some
other reason for concern arises.
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in fact it
is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>>>entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2
graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
On 11/08/2026 05:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 17:05, JNugent wrote:
Are *all* Jews right-wing and so for you, beyond the pale?
Obviously not. Was that a serious question? It wasn't a sensible one.
It was both serious and sensible.
You had written:
"...some Jews took offence because they look for a way of discrediting a left wing politician...".
Why would they take that line?
How about Manny Shinwell? Was he right-wing? George Brown? Ed Miliband?
Gerald Kaufman was especially admirable and was hectored and harassed by
the self-appointed representatives of the Jewish Community.
Not knowing anything about any such case, I cannot help but wonder what
form the hectoring and harrassment took. Was it just a robust
disagreement with some action of a Labour governemnt?
On 11/08/2026 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 17:56:14 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 17:13, The Todal wrote:
I am not supportive of those convicted of the manslaughter of a police >>>> officer. I am critical of the process by which the officer's mother
generates a campaign that puts pressure on our government to change the >>>> sensible policies it has put into place to relieve pressure on the
prison service. The craven submission of our Prime Minister to tabloid >>>> pressure.I don't care whether Cole and Bowers are released early. No
doubt they don't deserve early release and the only purpose in
releasing
them early is to free up a couple of prison places. If they are
released
early, you might say they have served their time, done their porridge, >>>> paid their debt. Would you also say that they should now be on a
shortlist for Tory Party candidates? Is that the logic of your
position?
The question is why they should be prevented from doing so if the party
and the electorate want them.
I don't think a political party should be *prevented* from fielding
one of PC
Harper's killers as a candidate (after they are released, obviously).
But it
would be in poor taste and would offend a goodly fraction of the
electorate,
even if 40 percent of them voted for him. Same applies to the
currently-discussed candidate; though I don't doubt that a significant
portion
of the electorate would welcome him with open arms.
Do you mean-a Count Binface?
On 11/08/2026 17:59, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 05:39 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 17:05, JNugent wrote:
Are *all* Jews right-wing and so for you, beyond the pale?
Obviously not. Was that a serious question? It wasn't a sensible one.
It was both serious and sensible.
You had written:
"...some Jews took offence because they look for a way of discrediting
a left wing politician...".
Why would they take that line?
Because "some" jews are both Tory supporters and Israel supporters?
Let's not be tempted to generalise. Fortunately there are also many
thousands of left-wing and Palestinian supporting Jews. It's just that
our Press never asks them to express their opinions, or be quoted in
press reports. The Press would have us believe that the authoritative
voice of British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
see eg https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/hundreds-of-british-jews-sign-letter-criticising-board-of-deputies-gaza-response/
quote
Hundreds of British Jews sign letter criticising Board of DeputiesrCO Gaza response
Hundreds of British Jews have signed an angry open letter criticising
the Board of DeputiesrCO leadership for its one-sided reaction to the violence in Gaza, with Liberal Judaism even questioning the BoardrCOs credibility.
Within six hours of it being posted online, more than 530 had signed the letter from British Jewish group Yachad, saying the Board had rCLdeeply misrepresentedrCY their views on the killing of scores of protesters.
How about Manny Shinwell? Was he right-wing? George Brown? Ed Miliband?
Gerald Kaufman was especially admirable and was hectored and harassed by >>> the self-appointed representatives of the Jewish Community.
Not knowing anything about any such case, I cannot help but wonder
what form the hectoring and harrassment took. Was it just a robust
disagreement with some action of a Labour governemnt?
The right-wing Jews inevitably accused him of being a traitor and a self-hating Jew. However he wasn't particularly left wing, and opposed
the Labour Party's drift to the left. On one occasion he blundered by claiming that "Jewish money" caused the UK to have a bias in favour of Israel.
https://www.thejc.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-hopes-sir-gerald-kaufman-will-say-sorry-for-jewish-money-comment-kg6xmn3e
quote
Labour leaders have told Jewish groups that they hope Sir Gerald Kaufman
will apologise for his controversial rCLJewish moneyrCY comments.
In a letter to the Board of Deputies, Community Security Trust and
Jewish Leadership Council, LabourrCOs chief whip, Rosie Winterton, said
she and Jeremy Corbyn wanted Sir Gerald to say sorry.
Speaking at a Palestine Return Centre event in Parliament a fortnight
ago, Sir Gerald was recorded by blogger David Collier saying that the
British government had become more pro-Israel in recent years.
He said: rCLItrCOs Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party rCo as in the general election in May rCo support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives.rCY
Sir Gerald, Father of the House of Commons, then told the audience of 45 people that the Israeli government had made up the recent spate of
violent attacks in order to allow it to rCLexecute PalestiniansrCY.
Last week Mr Corbyn responded to Jewish groups urging him to take disciplinary action by saying his MPrCOs comments were rCLcompletely unacceptable and deeply regrettable. Such remarks are damaging to
community relations, and also do nothing to benefit the Palestinian causerCY.
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in fact it >>> is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an
entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2
graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of that?
On 12/08/2026 08:52 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that >>>>knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in fact it >>>>is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>>>>>entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2 >>>>>graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of >>that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom you >have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is >(hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between (a) >being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli citizen
and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel) and (b) being >an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail being Jewish)?
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative
voice of British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
On 11/08/2026 in message <ne0usgFgmeeU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
However, it is not difficult to imagine a good average person riding on
the Clapham Omnibus believing that if Netanyahu says Israel is a Jewish
state that it comprises entirely followers of the Jewish religion.
Possibly.
But they would be 100% wrong, wouldn't they?
And I can confidently put it that way because you too now know that
Israel has many Arab citizens.
I have known that for some time, the Hasbara budget funds a lot of posts
on Facebook quoting Netanyahu on the subject.
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in fact it
is the state of Israel.
On 12/08/2026 08:52 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in
fact it
is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>>>>> entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2
graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of
that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom
you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is (hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between
(a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel) and
(b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail being Jewish)?
On 11/08/2026 11:39 AM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't relevant to >>>>>>> me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to
babysit
- we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or the >>>>>>> local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to >>>>> find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children
without
the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after
children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
There are, but (for some reason [1]) they only apply to adoption and
fostering.
[1] Actually, practicality and likely outcry (if it applied to natural
child rearing). And the need for the species to reproduce itself. The
only way would be state child rearing as described in Huxley's "Brave
New World".
I expect that some people would prefer that.
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in
fact it is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>>>>>> entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2
graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of
that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom
you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is
(hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she
is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between
(a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel)
and (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail
being Jewish)?
I asked if an English degree was relevant to differentiating between
Jews and Israelis.
Yes, there are many people who don't know the difference between
Israelis and Jews and so conflate the two, and it is contributed to by statements from Netanyahu as I have pointed out. I have no idea how to
tell anybody's religion because I was brought up to believe it is a
private matter that is not usually discussed publicly so would never
dream of asking.
I think your attempt at a definition is unhelpful in distinguishing
between the two because it refers to "being Jewish" but does not explain
what that means of course. Do you know the difference?
On 11/08/2026 16:54, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:39 AM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2026 07:05 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2026 06:27 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/08/2026 18:00, JNugent wrote:
The principle cannot be put to the test because it isn't
relevant to
me, never was and never would be (we never trusted *anyone* to >>>>>>>> babysit
- we valued things other than the ability to go to the cinema or >>>>>>>> the
local (smoky) pub).
Why should anyone trust you to "babysit" your own children?
They can object if they like. I can't stop them. They can even try to >>>>>> find evidence to support their objections.
Yet you expect(ed) to be allowed to look after your own children
without
the need to prove your own suitability?
To whom?
Is there some legal authority whose task is judging who may look after >>>> children (even their own)?
In come cases, I'll allow, perhaps there should be.
There are, but (for some reason [1]) they only apply to adoption and
fostering.
[1] Actually, practicality and likely outcry (if it applied to natural
child rearing). And the need for the species to reproduce itself. The
only way would be state child rearing as described in Huxley's "Brave
New World".
I expect that some people would prefer that.
All that free love, and drugs (Soma). What's not to like? Provided
you're not too low in the hierarchy (say beta or gamma).
On 12/08/2026 11:54, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 08:52 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in
fact it
is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>>>>>> entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2
graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of
that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom
you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is
(hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she
is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between
(a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel)
and (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail
being Jewish)?
Would it be bad for someone to do a survey of avowed Jews and determine
which actions of the UDF in Gaza and the West Bank they approve of? And
then publicise their replies (identified if they are rabbis)?
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I have
done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that it
had a significant number of members. If your organisation of atheists
had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
Or, maybe, you should just join a synagogue? What makes you think that
most of the members are not atheists?
On 12/08/2026 03:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that >>>>>>knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in >>>>>>fact it is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>>>>>>>entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2 >>>>>>>graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of >>>>that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom
you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is >>>(hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she >>>is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between >>>(a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli >>>citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel)
and (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail
being Jewish)?
I asked if an English degree was relevant to differentiating between
Jews and Israelis.
No, you didn't.
You asked (and this is verbatim): "Is he/she able to differentiate between >Jews and Israelis?"
That cannot be interpreted as a question as to whether an English degree
is relevant to anything at all.
Yes, there are many people who don't know the difference between
Israelis and Jews and so conflate the two, and it is contributed to by >>statements from Netanyahu as I have pointed out. I have no idea how to
tell anybody's religion because I was brought up to believe it is a
private matter that is not usually discussed publicly so would never
dream of asking.
I think your attempt at a definition is unhelpful in distinguishing
between the two because it refers to "being Jewish" but does not explain >>what that means of course. Do you know the difference?
Of course I do. If you doubt that, perhaps you would care to re-read my
last post before this one (it's all still there above ^).
But I'm surprised that you don't (or at least, that you say you don't). It >is not rocket surgery.
On 12/08/2026 05:22 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/08/2026 11:54, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 08:52 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in
fact it
is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco is an >>>>>>>> entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2
graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of
that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom
you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is
(hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she
is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between
(a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel)
and (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail
being Jewish)?
Would it be bad for someone to do a survey of avowed Jews and determine
which actions of the UDF in Gaza and the West Bank they approve of? And
then publicise their replies (identified if they are rabbis)?
It would come at a financial cost. And it isn't really clear what
legitimate use the information would be to anyone, even if collected and collated correctly.
But it's easy to envisage one or two criminal / terrorist uses.
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in waging
war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything
to do with the Board of Deputies. And no intelligent politician should accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of Deputies.
Or, maybe, you should just join a synagogue? What makes you think that
most of the members are not atheists?
You think most members of a synagogue may be atheists? A bizarre theory
but I neither know nor care. And it is fatuous to say that if you
disagree with the policies and public statements of an organisation you should join that organisation and rise through the ranks and take it
over. Or alternatively keep silent.
The "Ten Pledges" which the Board of Deputies insisted that the Labour leadership sign up to, were a blatant attempt to exclude any left wing
or pro-Palestinian Jews from any influence, and Starmer and his rivals
for leadership hastily agreed with all the pledges.
The pledges can be seen here.
https://tinyurl.com/525y2sn3
The Board is blatantly pro-Israel and does not tolerate dissent among
Board members. Those Deputies who disagreed with the official line were punished. So much for your brilliant suggestion that you might stand for election as a Deputy and exercise some influence.
https://www.ft.com/content/6a506d98-40a0-48e7-8e98-2882beb30914
https://bod.org.uk/bod-news/statement-on-constitutional-committee-investigation/
JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 03:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that >>>>>>> knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in >>>>>>> fact it is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco >>>>>>>>> is an entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2 >>>>>>>> graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of >>>>> that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom
you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is >>>> (hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she >>>> is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between >>>> (a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel)
and (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail
being Jewish)?
I asked if an English degree was relevant to differentiating between
Jews and Israelis.
No, you didn't.
You asked (and this is verbatim): "Is he/she able to differentiate
between Jews and Israelis?"
That cannot be interpreted as a question as to whether an English
degree is relevant to anything at all.
It certainly is if you put it in context instead of treating it as a one
off comment.
Yes, there are many people who don't know the difference between
Israelis and Jews and so conflate the two, and it is contributed to by
statements from Netanyahu as I have pointed out. I have no idea how to
tell anybody's religion because I was brought up to believe it is a
private matter that is not usually discussed publicly so would never
dream of asking.
I think your attempt at a definition is unhelpful in distinguishing
between the two because it refers to "being Jewish" but does not explain >>> what that means of course. Do you know the difference?
Of course I do. If you doubt that, perhaps you would care to re-read
my last post before this one (it's all still there above ^).
But I'm surprised that you don't (or at least, that you say you
don't). It is not rocket surgery.
You said:
"As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between
((a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel) and
(b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail being Jewish)?"
Which part of that describes what being Jewish is?
On 12/08/2026 18:18, JNugent wrote:[in response to:]
On 12/08/2026 05:22 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/08/2026 11:54, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 08:52 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
[and in response to:]The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that >>>>>>> knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in >>>>>>> fact it is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco >>>>>>>>> is an entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2 >>>>>>>> graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of >>>>> that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom
you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is >>>> (hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she >>>> is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between >>>> (a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel)
and (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail
being Jewish)?
Would it be bad for someone to do a survey of avowed Jews and determine
which actions of the UDF in Gaza and the West Bank they approve of? And
then publicise their replies (identified if they are rabbis)?
It would come at a financial cost. And it isn't really clear what
legitimate use the information would be to anyone, even if collected
and collated correctly.
We could make a distinction between "good Jews" and "bad Jews", and only listen to the former.
But it's easy to envisage one or two criminal / terrorist uses.
You seen to be giving terrorism a good name.
Who are the terrorists? The IDF? The Israeli government?
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in waging
war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which
pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything
to do with the Board of Deputies.-a And no intelligent politician should
accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of Deputies.
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
A Jew is someone who practises - or otherwise adheres to or was born into - Judaism.
It's so similar in principle to the questions "What is a Catholic?" or
"What is a Sikh?" (etc) that one marvels that you felt a need to ask it.
On 13/08/2026 08:38 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 03:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that >>>>>>>>knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in >>>>>>>>fact it is the state of Israel.
People in here may know better but the till operator in Tesco >>>>>>>>>>is an entirely different matter.
Don't worry about the cashier in Tesco. I know one who is a 2:2 >>>>>>>>>graduate in English.
Is he/she able to differentiate between Jews and Israelis?
Have you got a 2:2 (or better) in English?
You've lost me. In the context of the thread what is the relevance of >>>>>>that?
You effectively impugned the intelligence of an honours graduate whom >>>>>you have never met and of whom you know nothing other than that she is >>>>>(hopefully, temporarily) employed as a Tesco cashier.
As a result, I was wondering whether you are better qualified than she >>>>>is.
As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between >>>>>(a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli >>>>>citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel) >>>>>and (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail >>>>>being Jewish)?
I asked if an English degree was relevant to differentiating between >>>>Jews and Israelis.
No, you didn't.
You asked (and this is verbatim): "Is he/she able to differentiate >>>between Jews and Israelis?"
That cannot be interpreted as a question as to whether an English
degree is relevant to anything at all.
It certainly is if you put it in context instead of treating it as a one >>off comment.
Not in the slightest. There is nothing in the context to even suggest that.
You didn't ask whether her degree helps her in distinguishing "Jewish"
from "Israeli" (which, of course, it does not necessarily do).
If you really want the answer to a particular question, my advice is that >you should make sure you ask that particular question and not a different >one.
Yes, there are many people who don't know the difference between >>>>Israelis and Jews and so conflate the two, and it is contributed to by >>>>statements from Netanyahu as I have pointed out. I have no idea how to >>>>tell anybody's religion because I was brought up to believe it is a >>>>private matter that is not usually discussed publicly so would never >>>>dream of asking.
I think your attempt at a definition is unhelpful in distinguishing >>>>between the two because it refers to "being Jewish" but does not explain >>>>what that means of course. Do you know the difference?
Of course I do. If you doubt that, perhaps you would care to re-read
my last post before this one (it's all still there above ^).
But I'm surprised that you don't (or at least, that you say you
don't). It is not rocket surgery.
You said:
"As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between >>((a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli >>citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel) and >>(b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail being >>Jewish)?"
Which part of that describes what being Jewish is?
You had not asked that.
You had asked what the difference between a Jew and an Israeli citizen is.
A Jew is someone who practises - or otherwise adheres to or was born into
- Judaism.
It's so similar in principle to the questions "What is a Catholic?" or
"What is a Sikh?" (etc) that one marvels that you felt a need to ask it.
To repeat, though: being Jewish is not a necessary condition for being a >citizen of Israel.
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in waging
war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which
pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything >>> to do with the Board of Deputies. And no intelligent politician should
accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of Deputies.
"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide
and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily "left wing"?
Is it a characteristic of Tories to think only of their own
self-interest, their own comfort, their own profits?
On 13/08/2026 11:17, JNugent wrote:
A Jew is someone who practises - or otherwise adheres to or was born
into - Judaism.
It's so similar in principle to the questions "What is a Catholic?" or
"What is a Sikh?" (etc) that one marvels that you felt a need to ask it.
Well, the Israeli Law of Return uses:
"a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to
Judaism and who is not a member of another religion"
So could cover generations of non-religious women.
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in waging >>>> war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that >>>>> it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which >>>> pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have
anything
to do with the Board of Deputies.-a And no intelligent politician should >>>> accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of Deputies.
"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide
and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily "left
wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And you
are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are unintelligent and unenlightened.
from the left. The Guardian's letter pages and BTL commentaries, for instance, are full of it (Iand as many might see it, full of something else).
Is it a characteristic of Tories to think only of their own
self-interest, their own comfort, their own profits?
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
Ukraine? The constant support for Israel over the years when that state
was being regularly, frequently and unjustifiably being bombarded from neighbouring territories with so many civilian deaths? Military
assistance in the former Yugoslavia? And there was the little matter of
the UK Parliament - with a significant Conservative majority - doing
what was necessary to settle a little local European difficulty btween
1939 and 1945.
On 13/08/2026 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in
waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I >>>>>> have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that >>>>>> it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which >>>>> pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate influence >>>>> over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
anything to do with the Board of Deputies. And no intelligent politician >>>>> should accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of Deputies. >>>>
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide
and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily "left >>> wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And
you are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are
unintelligent and unenlightened.
No, I asked a very straightforward question. Your answer implies to me
that you don't care about the victims of genocide and that you now
resent being labelled as unintelligent and unenlightened, even though
those are your words, not mine.
Don't you have any pride in your opinions? Are you ashamed of them?
That isn't all that rare a viewpoint
from the left. The Guardian's letter pages and BTL commentaries, for
instance, are full of it (Iand as many might see it, full of something
else).
You hope that by labelling those who disagree with you as Guardian
readers, the world will see that you are right and your opponents are
wrong.
I think you need to understand that in this day and age, most people
don't read newspapers unless they are over 50 years old. The Guardian is struggling to find readers and donors, and rightly so because it is no
longer capable of setting the agenda and offering any leadership.
Is it a characteristic of Tories to think only of their own
self-interest, their own comfort, their own profits?
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
Well, that's an answer at any rate. What's the opposite, though?
Remember The United Kingdom's support for
Ukraine? The constant support for Israel over the years when that
state was being regularly, frequently and unjustifiably being
bombarded from neighbouring territories with so many civilian deaths?
Military assistance in the former Yugoslavia? And there was the little
matter of the UK Parliament - with a significant Conservative majority
- doing what was necessary to settle a little local European
difficulty btween 1939 and 1945.
The support for Ukraine and for Israel is cross-party support and the
Labour Party is equally enthusiastic about providing that support. You mention Yugoslavia - would that be the NATO bombing in 1999 when Tony
Blair (Labour) was PM?
I think you'll find that support for our war effort in WW2 was also cross-party.
Neville Chamberlain, the appeaser, was a Tory.
On 13/08/2026 02:40 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:17, JNugent wrote:
A Jew is someone who practises - or otherwise adheres to or was born
into - Judaism.
It's so similar in principle to the questions "What is a Catholic?" or
"What is a Sikh?" (etc) that one marvels that you felt a need to ask it.
Well, the Israeli Law of Return uses:
"a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to
Judaism and who is not a member of another religion"
Nevertheless, there are about two million Arab citizens in Israel.
So could cover generations of non-religious women.
Elsewhere in the recent part of the thread, I *did* say that being a Jew
is not a necessary condition for Israeli citizenship. There are around
two million Arab citizens of Israel for a start.
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 03:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I asked if an English degree was relevant to differentiating between >>>>> Jews and Israelis.
No, you didn't.
You asked (and this is verbatim): "Is he/she able to differentiate
between Jews and Israelis?"
That cannot be interpreted as a question as to whether an English
degree is relevant to anything at all.
It certainly is if you put it in context instead of treating it as a one >>> off comment.
Not in the slightest. There is nothing in the context to even suggest
that.
You didn't ask whether her degree helps her in distinguishing "Jewish"
from "Israeli" (which, of course, it does not necessarily do).
If you really want the answer to a particular question, my advice is
that you should make sure you ask that particular question and not a
different one.
I don't know your background but it is critical to understanding English
that you are able to put things into context, words have different
spelling, different pronunciation and different meanings depending on context, you need to look at the flow of the thread, I can't help you
any more with that.
Yes, there are many people who don't know the difference between
Israelis and Jews and so conflate the two, and it is contributed to by >>>>> statements from Netanyahu as I have pointed out. I have no idea how to >>>>> tell anybody's religion because I was brought up to believe it is a
private matter that is not usually discussed publicly so would never >>>>> dream of asking.
I think your attempt at a definition is unhelpful in distinguishing
between the two because it refers to "being Jewish" but does not
explain what that means of course. Do you know the difference?
Of course I do. If you doubt that, perhaps you would care to re-read
my last post before this one (it's all still there above ^).
But I'm surprised that you don't (or at least, that you say you
don't). It is not rocket surgery.
You said:
"As it happens, is there anyone who doesn't know the difference between
((a) being Jewish (which does not necessarily entail being an Israeli
citizen and does not require the person ever to have been to Israel) and >>> (b) being an Israeli citizen (which does not necessarily entail being
Jewish)?"
Which part of that describes what being Jewish is?
You had not asked that.
You had asked what the difference between a Jew and an Israeli citizen
is.
A Jew is someone who practises - or otherwise adheres to or was born
into - Judaism.
It's so similar in principle to the questions "What is a Catholic?" or
"What is a Sikh?" (etc) that one marvels that you felt a need to ask it.
To repeat, though: being Jewish is not a necessary condition for being
a citizen of Israel.
I know, I have made clear I understand that up thread.
Again you have lost the context, I said:
"The point I am making is that it will lead to people without that
knowledge blaming Jews for the slaughter of Palestinians when in fact it
is the state of Israel."
I haven't asked "what the difference between a Jew and an Israeli
citizen is", somewhere up thread I talked about conflating the two so I clearly understand the difference, the point I have been making remains
the same as I have set out again for you.
You have now set out what you think a Jew is which seems to make sense although sometimes it is described as a race rather than, or as well as,
a religion, sometimes it seem to depend on what particular hat Netanyahu
is wearing.
On 13/08/2026 03:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of >>>>>>>> British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done >>>>>>> anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in
waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I >>>>>>> have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a >>>>>>> representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that >>>>>>> it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
which
pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate influence >>>>>> over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have
anything to do with the Board of Deputies.-a And no intelligent
politician
should accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of Deputies. >>>>>
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide
and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily
"left
wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And
you are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are
unintelligent and unenlightened.
No, I asked a very straightforward question. Your answer implies to me
that you don't care about the victims of genocide and that you now
resent being labelled as unintelligent and unenlightened, even though
those are your words, not mine.
They were YOUR words, and certainly not mine except when quoting what
you had said.
You said (inter alia): "No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have
anything to do with the Board of Deputies"
Certainly not.
Don't you have any pride in your opinions? Are you ashamed of them?
That isn't all that rare a viewpoint
from the left. The Guardian's letter pages and BTL commentaries, for
instance, are full of it (Iand as many might see it, full of something
else).
You hope that by labelling those who disagree with you as Guardian
readers, the world will see that you are right and your opponents are
wrong.
I am pointing out how the left try to conduct arguments by means of ad-
hom attacks on opponents. It is a constant means of attack. And you are doing it now, in this thread.
I think you need to understand that in this day and age, most people
don't read newspapers unless they are over 50 years old. The Guardian is
struggling to find readers and donors, and rightly so because it is no
longer capable of setting the agenda and offering any leadership.
I didn't say that every lefty reads the Guardian. Neither is that a necessary implication of what I did say. I also added that it was a "for instance".
FWIW, I read the Graun everyday, online.
Did you not read the next paragraph?
Is it a characteristic of Tories to think only of their own
self-interest, their own comfort, their own profits?
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
Well, that's an answer at any rate. What's the opposite, though?
Remember The United Kingdom's support for
Ukraine? The constant support for Israel over the years when that
state was being regularly, frequently and unjustifiably being
bombarded from neighbouring territories with so many civilian deaths?
Military assistance in the former Yugoslavia? And there was the little
matter of the UK Parliament - with a significant Conservative majority
- doing what was necessary to settle a little local European
difficulty btween 1939 and 1945.
The support for Ukraine and for Israel is cross-party support and the
Labour Party is equally enthusiastic about providing that support. You
mention Yugoslavia - would that be the NATO bombing in 1999 when Tony
Blair (Labour) was PM?
The RAF wasn't bombing indiscriminately. A significant part of the
military action was taken to protect the Moslem population from those
who wanted to either annihilate them or at a minimum, expel them. You
cannot have forgotten that, surely?
I think you'll find that support for our war effort in WW2 was also
cross-party.
The Conservatives had the majority. The war would have been avoided if
that had been their choice.
Neville Chamberlain, the appeaser, was a Tory.
I suggest you read an unbiased historical re-consideration of the period 1933-1939. Chamberlain certainly tried to at least delay (if not avoid)
a war for which the UK was signally ill-equipped.
But all of this is somewhat beside the point, arising out of another unjustified ad-hom, this time against the whole Conservative Party.
On 13/08/2026 03:30 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:40 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:17, JNugent wrote:
-a Well, the Israeli Law of Return uses:
A Jew is someone who practises - or otherwise adheres to or was born
into - Judaism.
It's so similar in principle to the questions "What is a Catholic?" or >>>> "What is a Sikh?" (etc) that one marvels that you felt a need to ask it. >>
"a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to
Judaism and who is not a member of another religion"
Nevertheless, there are about two million Arab citizens in Israel.
-a So could cover generations of non-religious women.
Elsewhere in the recent part of the thread, I *did* say that being a Jew
is not a necessary condition for Israeli citizenship. There are around
two million Arab citizens of Israel for a start.
On 13/08/2026 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 03:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of >>>>>>>>> British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done >>>>>>>> anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in >>>>>>> waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I >>>>>>>> have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a >>>>>>>> representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided >>>>>>>> that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of >>>>>>>> atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>> which
pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate
influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have
anything to do with the Board of Deputies.-a And no intelligent >>>>>>> politician
should accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of
Deputies.
"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide
and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily
"left
wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And
you are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are
unintelligent and unenlightened.
No, I asked a very straightforward question. Your answer implies to me
that you don't care about the victims of genocide and that you now
resent being labelled as unintelligent and unenlightened, even though
those are your words, not mine.
They were YOUR words, and certainly not mine except when quoting what
you had said.
I didn't use the words unintelligent and unenlightened. You did. You misquoted my words. Don't do that.
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in waging
war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which pretends to be truly democratic.
It wields disproportionate influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything
to do with the Board of Deputies.
And no intelligent politician should
accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of Deputies.
Or, maybe, you should just join a synagogue? What makes you think that
most of the members are not atheists?
You think most members of a synagogue may be atheists? A bizarre theory
but I neither know nor care. And it is fatuous to say that if you > disagree with the policies and public statements of an organisation you
should join that organisation and rise through the ranks and take it
over. Or alternatively keep silent.
The "Ten Pledges" which the Board of Deputies insisted that the Labour leadership sign up to, were a blatant attempt to exclude any left wing
or pro-Palestinian Jews from any influence, and Starmer and his rivals
for leadership hastily agreed with all the pledges.
The pledges can be seen here.
https://tinyurl.com/525y2sn3
The Board is blatantly pro-Israel and does not tolerate dissent among
Board members.
Those Deputies who disagreed with the official line were
punished. So much for your brilliant suggestion that you might stand for election as a Deputy and exercise some influence.
https://www.ft.com/content/6a506d98-40a0-48e7-8e98-2882beb30914
https://bod.org.uk/bod-news/statement-on-constitutional-committee- investigation/
On 13/08/2026 16:51, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 03:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of >>>>>>>>>> British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done >>>>>>>>> anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in >>>>>>>> waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I >>>>>>>>> have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a >>>>>>>>> representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided >>>>>>>>> that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of >>>>>>>>> atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>>> which
pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate
influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have >>>>>>>> anything to do with the Board of Deputies.-a And no intelligent >>>>>>>> politician
should accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of
Deputies.
"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide >>>>>> and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily >>>>>> "left
wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And
you are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are >>>>> unintelligent and unenlightened.
No, I asked a very straightforward question. Your answer implies to me >>>> that you don't care about the victims of genocide and that you now
resent being labelled as unintelligent and unenlightened, even though
those are your words, not mine.
They were YOUR words, and certainly not mine except when quoting what
you had said.
I didn't use the words unintelligent and unenlightened. You did. You
misquoted my words. Don't do that.
Just to clarify, you said:
" No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything to do with the
Board of Deputies. "
Do you want to recant or qualify that in some way?
If not, you have a problem, because earlier in this thread you linked to
the BOD website, which brings you within the category of people you
complain about. :)
My point is not really to nitpick, but I think you should try to avoid
such generalisations, which are bound to be inaccurate.
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which
pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in
waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
Yes, of course, you could take the time to form a Jewish organisation
that represents your views. If, as you contend, lots of Jews agree with
you, then you'll have started a movement, not just a small organisation.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which
pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
Is it reactionary? It depends on your point of view. From your position
on the political spectrum, most people presumably appear reactionary.
They must be stupid or unenlightened.
It wields disproportionate influence over our politicians. No
intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything to do with the Board
of Deputies.
So, anyone who has anything to do with the BOD is either stupid, or unenlightened. And, the final arbiter of that is Todal. No right of
appeal etc. A striking example of enlightenment.
Out of interest, which of those categories do you place Vivian Wineman in?
And no intelligent politician should accept advice, still less
demands, from the Board of Deputies.
You're not offering an alternative.
Or, maybe, you should just join a synagogue? What makes you think
that most of the members are not atheists?
You think most members of a synagogue may be atheists? A bizarre
theory but I neither know nor care. And it is fatuous to say that if
you > disagree with the policies and public statements of an
organisation you
should join that organisation and rise through the ranks and take it
over. Or alternatively keep silent.
You shouldn't keep silent. That's my point. But, if you choose to,
please, please don't complain.
The "Ten Pledges" which the Board of Deputies insisted that the Labour
leadership sign up to, were a blatant attempt to exclude any left wing
or pro-Palestinian Jews from any influence, and Starmer and his rivals
for leadership hastily agreed with all the pledges.
The pledges can be seen here.
https://tinyurl.com/525y2sn3
Now I'm intrigued. Do you think, for example, that Labour should provide
a platform for bigotry?
The Board is blatantly pro-Israel and does not tolerate dissent among
Board members.
What makes you think that Board members are not allowed to dissent?
Those Deputies who disagreed with the official line were punished. So
much for your brilliant suggestion that you might stand for election
as a Deputy and exercise some influence.
https://www.ft.com/content/6a506d98-40a0-48e7-8e98-2882beb30914
https://bod.org.uk/bod-news/statement-on-constitutional-committee-
investigation/
Those deputies are clearly allowed to have dissenting views, and to air them.
The issue was:
"... the letter, which created the misleading impression that this was
an official document of the Board as a whole."
No doubt, when you have set up your rival organisation, you'll complain
if 10% of the membership band together and send out press releases purporting to represent the entire organisation.
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which
pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is
democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect
representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this country are
pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which >>>> pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is
democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect
representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this country are >>> pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork and not
any reputable polling. I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10
people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
On 13/08/2026 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 03:30 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:40 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:17, JNugent wrote:
A Jew is someone who practises - or otherwise adheres to or was born >>>>> into - Judaism.
It's so similar in principle to the questions "What is a Catholic?" or >>>>> "What is a Sikh?" (etc) that one marvels that you felt a need to
ask it.
Well, the Israeli Law of Return uses:
"a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to
Judaism and who is not a member of another religion"
Nevertheless, there are about two million Arab citizens in Israel.
So could cover generations of non-religious women.
Elsewhere in the recent part of the thread, I *did* say that being a Jew >>> is not a necessary condition for Israeli citizenship. There are around
two million Arab citizens of Israel for a start.
What do you mean by 'Arab'? Does it necessarily exclude 'Jewish'?
On 13/08/2026 18:10, GB wrote:
On 13/08/2026 16:51, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 03:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of >>>>>>>>>>> British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done >>>>>>>>>> anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in >>>>>>>>> waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see >>>>>>>>>> what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a >>>>>>>>>> representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews,
provided that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of >>>>>>>>>> atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli
organisation which
pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate
influence
over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have >>>>>>>>> anything to do with the Board of Deputies. And no intelligent >>>>>>>>> politician
should accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of
Deputies.
"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into >>>>>>>> account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide >>>>>>> and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights,
necessarily "left
wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And >>>>>> you are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are >>>>>> unintelligent and unenlightened.
No, I asked a very straightforward question. Your answer implies to me >>>>> that you don't care about the victims of genocide and that you now
resent being labelled as unintelligent and unenlightened, even though >>>>> those are your words, not mine.
They were YOUR words, and certainly not mine except when quoting
what you had said.
I didn't use the words unintelligent and unenlightened. You did. You
misquoted my words. Don't do that.
Just to clarify, you said:
" No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything to do with the
Board of Deputies. "
Do you want to recant or qualify that in some way?
No. Do you want to recant or qualify anything you have said?
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation which >>>>> pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is
democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect
representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this country are >>>> pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork and not
any reputable polling. I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10
people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence,
the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed
is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting
the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed.
I'm satisfied with my generalisations and I don't really mind if you
find them inaccurate.-a Feel free to offer up your own generalisations, perhaps about how the IDF always tries its hardest to avoid civilian casualties or the BoD conscientiously tries to represent all shades of Jewish opinion.
On 13/08/2026 17:47, GB wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of
British Jews is the Board of Deputies.
You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done
anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in
waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
Yes, of course, you could take the time to form a Jewish organisation
that represents your views. If, as you contend, lots of Jews agree
with you, then you'll have started a movement, not just a small
organisation.
No, I am not interested in forming a new Jewish organisation. I'm
already part of several thriving Jewish organisations that achieve very little publicity in the mainstream press. And if you want to encourage
me to become a director of publicity in those organisations, I leave
that to others who have greater relevant skills.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I
have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a
representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided that
it had a significant number of members. If your organisation of
atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation
which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is
democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect
representatives.
You're welcome to your opinion.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this country
are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
You're welcome to your guesswork, which of course merely tells us how efficient the BoD is at presenting its biased view of Israel, achieving maximum publicity in the popular press, doing its bit to increase antisemitism. By convincing the nation that 9 out of 10 Jews are pro- Israel, it causes decent people to assume Jews approve of the genocide
in Gaza. And you do your own bit to encourage that false belief. And the result is that Jews get attacked in the street because ordinary Jews pay
the price for Israel's genocidal actions and the public support given to Israel.
Is it reactionary? It depends on your point of view. From your
position on the political spectrum, most people presumably appear
reactionary. They must be stupid or unenlightened.
Oh, sure. If 9 out of 10 Jews approve of the IDF's genocide, it must be
true that 9 our of 10 can be described as stupid or unenlightened. It's
a pity that you defame Jews and perhaps feel proud of yourself for doing
so.
It wields disproportionate influence over our politicians. No
intelligent, enlightened Jew will have anything to do with the Board
of Deputies.
So, anyone who has anything to do with the BOD is either stupid, or
unenlightened. And, the final arbiter of that is Todal. No right of
appeal etc. A striking example of enlightenment.
I assume you offer a pretentious "right of appeal" for all your own opinions, and it remains only for you to offer a link to your appeals
policy for the group to read and study.
Out of interest, which of those categories do you place Vivian Wineman
in?
A person of no interest to me.
And no intelligent politician should accept advice, still less
demands, from the Board of Deputies.
You're not offering an alternative.
I don't have to. There are various good alternatives already. You've probably forgotten about them.-a They don't interest you. Maybe you
should join them and publicise them more. Better than pretending that
the BoD is the legitimate and authentic voice of British Jews.
https://jewishvoiceforliberation.org.uk/
https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
https://yachad.org.uk/
https://jewishnetworkforpalestine.uk/
Or, maybe, you should just join a synagogue? What makes you think
that most of the members are not atheists?
You think most members of a synagogue may be atheists? A bizarre
theory but I neither know nor care. And it is fatuous to say that if
you > disagree with the policies and public statements of an
organisation you
should join that organisation and rise through the ranks and take it
over. Or alternatively keep silent.
You shouldn't keep silent. That's my point. But, if you choose to,
please, please don't complain.
I think what you're saying is, I should set up my own organisation or
keep silent. The flaw here is that you seem convinced that no other organisation currently exists and that it must be up to me, personally,
to create one.
The "Ten Pledges" which the Board of Deputies insisted that the
Labour leadership sign up to, were a blatant attempt to exclude any
left wing or pro-Palestinian Jews from any influence, and Starmer and
his rivals for leadership hastily agreed with all the pledges.
The pledges can be seen here.
https://tinyurl.com/525y2sn3
Now I'm intrigued. Do you think, for example, that Labour should
provide a platform for bigotry?
You perhaps approve of the pledges, which means you haven't really given them sufficient thought.
The gist of the pledges is, the Labour Party must ignore any advice or training offered by Jewish Labour groups that are not The Jewish Labour Movement. And if any Labour Party member speaks up for anyone who has
been suspended by the Party, they too must be suspended or expelled.
The Board is blatantly pro-Israel and does not tolerate dissent among
Board members.
What makes you think that Board members are not allowed to dissent?
Self evident, given that they get a public rebuke for doing so.
Those Deputies who disagreed with the official line were punished. So
much for your brilliant suggestion that you might stand for election
as a Deputy and exercise some influence.
https://www.ft.com/content/6a506d98-40a0-48e7-8e98-2882beb30914
https://bod.org.uk/bod-news/statement-on-constitutional-committee-
investigation/
Those deputies are clearly allowed to have dissenting views, and to
air them.
The issue was:
"... the letter, which created the misleading impression that this was
an official document of the Board as a whole."
No doubt, when you have set up your rival organisation, you'll
complain if 10% of the membership band together and send out press
releases purporting to represent the entire organisation.
No doubt when you've thought a bit more about some of these issues you
will reconsider some of your prejudices.
On 13/08/2026 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 03:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of >>>>>>>>> British Jews is the Board of Deputies.You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done >>>>>>>> anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in >>>>>>> waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I >>>>>>>> have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a >>>>>>>> representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided >>>>>>>> that it had a significant number of members. If your organisation >>>>>>>> of atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate >>>>>>> influence over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have
anything to do with the Board of Deputies. And no intelligent
politician should accept advice, still less demands, from the Board of >>>>>>> Deputies.
"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide
and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily
"left wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And
you are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are
unintelligent and unenlightened.
No, I asked a very straightforward question. Your answer implies to me
that you don't care about the victims of genocide and that you now
resent being labelled as unintelligent and unenlightened, even though
those are your words, not mine.
They were YOUR words, and certainly not mine except when quoting what
you had said.
I didn't use the words unintelligent and unenlightened. You did. You misquoted my words. Don't do that.
And you evaded the question. Have another go. You can read my question.
Don't impose your clumsy interpretation. If you don't think that those
who care about genocide and mass violations of human rights are
*necessarily* left wing, and if you believe that some of them are
perhaps right wing, then have the courage to say so. And to cite
accurate examples.
Because your examples are fatuous. After all, we didn't go to war with Hitler's Germany to oppose genocide and to support human rights. If you
read up on the history you will learn that we, the UK, were trying to
defend our vested interests, our empire, our colonies, and to prevent
Germany from taking what was ours.
You said (inter alia): "No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have
anything to do with the Board of Deputies"
Don't you have any pride in your opinions? Are you ashamed of them?
Certainly not.
Then maybe have the courage to state what your opinions are - apart from
any opinions about paedophiles babysitting children because, you claim,
that is too far outside your area of expertise.
That isn't all that rare a viewpoint
from the left. The Guardian's letter pages and BTL commentaries, for
instance, are full of it (Iand as many might see it, full of something >>>> else).
You hope that by labelling those who disagree with you as Guardian
readers, the world will see that you are right and your opponents are
wrong.
I am pointing out how the left try to conduct arguments by means of
ad- hom attacks on opponents. It is a constant means of attack. And
you are doing it now, in this thread.
That is in your imagination. "Are they necessarily left wing?" has been mutilated by your imagination into "You are unintelligent because of
your opinions".
I think you need to understand that in this day and age, most people
don't read newspapers unless they are over 50 years old. The Guardian is >>> struggling to find readers and donors, and rightly so because it is no
longer capable of setting the agenda and offering any leadership.
I didn't say that every lefty reads the Guardian. Neither is that a
necessary implication of what I did say. I also added that it was a
"for instance".
FWIW, I read the Graun everyday, online.
I read the Daily Mail most days, online. And the paper version every Saturday.
Is it a characteristic of Tories to think only of their own
self-interest, their own comfort, their own profits?
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
Well, that's an answer at any rate. What's the opposite, though?
Did you not read the next paragraph?
Your next paragraph wandered off the topic. Now try to offer a better
answer. Are there right-wing Tories who speak up for refugees and
victims of torture? Are there right-wing Tories who see benefit
claimants as anything other than a drain on the public purse and, specifically, a drain on their own wallet?
Remember The United Kingdom's support for
Ukraine? The constant support for Israel over the years when that
state was being regularly, frequently and unjustifiably being
bombarded from neighbouring territories with so many civilian deaths?
Military assistance in the former Yugoslavia? And there was the little >>>> matter of the UK Parliament - with a significant Conservative majority >>>> - doing what was necessary to settle a little local European
difficulty btween 1939 and 1945.
The support for Ukraine and for Israel is cross-party support and the
Labour Party is equally enthusiastic about providing that support. You
mention Yugoslavia - would that be the NATO bombing in 1999 when Tony
Blair (Labour) was PM?
The RAF wasn't bombing indiscriminately. A significant part of the
military action was taken to protect the Moslem population from those
who wanted to either annihilate them or at a minimum, expel them. You
cannot have forgotten that, surely?
The relevance is far from clear. Are you implying that support for
oppressed Muslims is aligned with being right wing or left wing? How can
that possibly be accurate?
I think you'll find that support for our war effort in WW2 was also
cross-party.
The Conservatives had the majority. The war would have been avoided if
that had been their choice.
And we all remember the Daily Mail headlines of the time. Applauding the "birth of Germany as a nation" and proclaiming "Hurrah for the
Blackshirts". Welcoming the result of the March 1933 election in Germany
in an editorial the Daily Mail wrote that if Hitler used his majority rCLprudently and peacefully, no one here will shed any tears for the disappearance of German democracyrCY. After the June 1934 rCLNight of the Long KnivesrCY in which Hitler murdered more than 100 political opponents, the Daily Mail report began: rCLHerr Adolf Hitler, the German Chancellor,
has saved his countryrCY.
We might very conveniently pretend that the Daily Mail does not speak
for Tory readers or represent their views.
If you really want an example of a Tory who was on the right side of
history when it came to the Spanish Civil War, you could cite Edward
Heath who bravely went to Spain and spoke out against fascist Franco.
But you don't admire Heath. Do you?
Neville Chamberlain, the appeaser, was a Tory.
I suggest you read an unbiased historical re-consideration of the
period 1933-1939. Chamberlain certainly tried to at least delay (if
not avoid) a war for which the UK was signally ill-equipped.
So actually WW2 is absolutely irrelevant to any discussion about whether people who care about the victims of genocide and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily are "left wing".
But all of this is somewhat beside the point, arising out of anotherYou use the term "ad-hom" in a way which shows that you don't know the meaning of the term. Never use popular jargon without making sure you
unjustified ad-hom, this time against the whole Conservative Party.
are using it correctly.
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation
which
pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is
democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect
representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this
country are
pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork and not
any reputable polling.-a I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10
people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence,
the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed
is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting
the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed.
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (Please
correct me if I am wrong on that!)
minority of Jews in this country. So, clearly, his views on virtually anything to do with Israel are unlikely to be represented by the BOD.
Supporting the country, or even supporting the present government, does
not mean agreeing with everything that government does. Many Jews in
this country (as well as in Israel) disagree with some/many of the
present government's policies.
On 13/08/2026 04:51 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 03:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 02:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 12/08/2026 15:14, GB wrote:
On 12/08/2026 09:41, The Todal wrote:
The Press would have us believe that the authoritative voice of >>>>>>>>>> British Jews is the Board of Deputies.You keep complaining about this, but I don't think you have done >>>>>>>>> anything to correct it?
You mean, in the same way that I can correct Trump's blunders in >>>>>>>> waging war against Iran?
You think I have that sort of power?
That's a reasonable response.
The Board of Deputies is quite a catholic organisation (see what I >>>>>>>>> have done there?) and I am pretty sure that they would include a >>>>>>>>> representative from an organisation of atheistic Jews, provided >>>>>>>>> that it had a significant number of members. If your organisation >>>>>>>>> of atheists had 1600+ members, you could elect 5 Deputies.
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic. It wields disproportionate >>>>>>>> influence over our politicians. No intelligent, enlightened Jew >>>>>>>> will have
anything to do with the Board of Deputies.-a And no intelligent >>>>>>>> politician should accept advice, still less demands, from the >>>>>>>> Board of
Deputies.
"intelligent, enlightened Jew"
Especially when the use of the word "reactionary" is taken into
account, isn't that just another way of saying "left-wing Jew"?
Serious question: are people who care about the victims of genocide >>>>>> and/or the victims of mass violations of human rights, necessarily >>>>>> "left wing"?
In this context, it is pretty clear who supports what and whom. And
you are effectively claiming that those who don't agree with you are >>>>> unintelligent and unenlightened.
No, I asked a very straightforward question. Your answer implies to me >>>> that you don't care about the victims of genocide and that you now
resent being labelled as unintelligent and unenlightened, even though
those are your words, not mine.
They were YOUR words, and certainly not mine except when quoting what
you had said.
I didn't use the words unintelligent and unenlightened. You did. You
misquoted my words. Don't do that.
In a sense, that is true, but you qualified the words "unintelligent"
and "unenlightened" by negating them, hence: "No intelligent,
enlightened Jew will have anything to do with the Board of Deputies".
You can say anything you like about it, but that is the same as saying
"Only an unintelligent, unenlightened Jew will have anything to do with
the Board of Deputies".
And you evaded the question. Have another go. You can read my question.
Don't impose your clumsy interpretation. If you don't think that those
who care about genocide and mass violations of human rights are
*necessarily* left wing, and if you believe that some of them are
perhaps right wing, then have the courage to say so. And to cite
accurate examples.
Because your examples are fatuous. After all, we didn't go to war with
Hitler's Germany to oppose genocide and to support human rights. If you
read up on the history you will learn that we, the UK, were trying to
defend our vested interests, our empire, our colonies, and to prevent
Germany from taking what was ours.
What that has to do with Jews and Israelis, whether enlighytened and intelligent or otherwise, is not the slightest bit clear.
It is not up to me to adjudicate what is or is not a war-crime and what
You said (inter alia): "No intelligent, enlightened Jew will have
anything to do with the Board of Deputies"
Don't you have any pride in your opinions? Are you ashamed of them?
Certainly not.
Then maybe have the courage to state what your opinions are - apart from
any opinions about paedophiles babysitting children because, you claim,
that is too far outside your area of expertise.
is or is not a genocide.
I'll make one exception to that, though. Certain groups of people have
been attempting a genocide against Jewish people in Israel ever since
the later 1940s, more or less without a stop.
They made a spectacular addition to their efforts in October 2023 and
many people still seem surprised that Israel responded to that.
You are pretending that that is not a regular means of attack by "theThat isn't all that rare a viewpoint
from the left. The Guardian's letter pages and BTL commentaries, for >>>>> instance, are full of it (Iand as many might see it, full of something >>>>> else).
You hope that by labelling those who disagree with you as Guardian
readers, the world will see that you are right and your opponents are
wrong.
I am pointing out how the left try to conduct arguments by means of
ad- hom attacks on opponents. It is a constant means of attack. And
you are doing it now, in this thread.
That is in your imagination. "Are they necessarily left wing?" has been
mutilated by your imagination into "You are unintelligent because of
your opinions".
left" upon the the-a right and the non-political.
I think you need to understand that in this day and age, most people
don't read newspapers unless they are over 50 years old. The
Guardian is
struggling to find readers and donors, and rightly so because it is no >>>> longer capable of setting the agenda and offering any leadership.
I didn't say that every lefty reads the Guardian. Neither is that a
necessary implication of what I did say. I also added that it was a
"for instance".
FWIW, I read the Graun everyday, online.
I read the Daily Mail most days, online. And the paper version every
Saturday.
Good for you. Saturday is the day we pay for it in actual money. One of
us for the puzzles and one for the TV guide.
Is it a characteristic of Tories to think only of their own
self-interest, their own comfort, their own profits?
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
Well, that's an answer at any rate. What's the opposite, though?
Did you not read the next paragraph?
Your next paragraph wandered off the topic. Now try to offer a better
answer. Are there right-wing Tories who speak up for refugees and
victims of torture? Are there right-wing Tories who see benefit
claimants as anything other than a drain on the public purse and,
specifically, a drain on their own wallet?
Claiming "I am a refugee and/or victim of torture" doesn't prove a
thing, especially not for someone in France.
And we all remember the Daily Mail headlines of the time. Applauding the
"birth of Germany as a nation" and proclaiming "Hurrah for the
Blackshirts". Welcoming the result of the March 1933 election in Germany
in an editorial the Daily Mail wrote that if Hitler used his majority
rCLprudently and peacefully, no one here will shed any tears for the
disappearance of German democracyrCY. After the June 1934 rCLNight of the
Long KnivesrCY in which Hitler murdered more than 100 political opponents, >> the Daily Mail report began: rCLHerr Adolf Hitler, the German Chancellor,
has saved his countryrCY.
Oh dear. You ARE confused.
1933 was a long time before the outbreak of WW2.
And in the few years immediately following 1933, the German government
did a lot to admire.
It was only from about 1938 that it all started to go another way.
But you won't accept that.
You mean, surely, he didn't listen to people who share your opinion of
We might very conveniently pretend that the Daily Mail does not speak
for Tory readers or represent their views.
Are you ]familiar with the concept of past, present and future tenses?
One starts to suspect not, since you appear to believe that WW2 started
in 1933.
He was OK at first. But too wedded to his own ideas about Europe instead
If you really want an example of a Tory who was on the right side of
history when it came to the Spanish Civil War, you could cite Edward
Heath who bravely went to Spain and spoke out against fascist Franco.
But you don't admire Heath. Do you?
of listening to his party and more importantly, to the British people.
On 14/08/2026 14:28, GB wrote:
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is >>>>>> democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect
representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this
country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork and not >>>> any reputable polling. I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10
people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United Kingdom, >>>> of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence,
the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed
is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting
the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed.
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (Please
correct me if I am wrong on that!)
You are wrong on that.
It is frequently asserted by supporters of Israel's behaviour that their opponents want Israel to be destroyed, abolished, exterminated. It is a
way of conflating Hamas with Hitler.
On 15/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/08/2026 14:28, GB wrote:
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
So what ARE the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Supreme leader of Iran, etc?The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is >>>>>>> democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect >>>>>>> representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this
country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork and >>>>> not
any reputable polling.-a I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10
people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United Kingdom, >>>>> of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence,
the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed
is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting
the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed.
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (Please
correct me if I am wrong on that!)
You are wrong on that.
It is frequently asserted by supporters of Israel's behaviour that their
opponents want Israel to be destroyed, abolished, exterminated. It is a
way of conflating Hamas with Hitler.
To live in peace with Israel?
On 15/08/2026 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/08/2026 14:28, GB wrote:So what ARE the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Supreme leader of Iran,
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is >>>>>>>> democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect >>>>>>>> representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this
country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork
and not
any reputable polling.-a I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10 >>>>>> people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United
Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence, >>>>> the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed
is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting >>>>> the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed.
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (Please
correct me if I am wrong on that!)
You are wrong on that.
It is frequently asserted by supporters of Israel's behaviour that their >>> opponents want Israel to be destroyed, abolished, exterminated. It is a
way of conflating Hamas with Hitler.
etc?
To live in peace with Israel?
Whatever they might say, in their propaganda, about wanting to destroy Israel, they don't actually see that as achievable.
On 15/08/2026 17:48, The Todal wrote:
On 15/08/2026 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/08/2026 14:28, GB wrote:So what ARE the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Supreme leader of Iran,
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (PleaseThe Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than
simply is
democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect >>>>>>>>> representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this >>>>>>>>> country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the >>>>>>>> government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports >>>>>>>> the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork >>>>>>> and not
any reputable polling.-a I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10 >>>>>>> people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United
Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence, >>>>>> the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed >>>>>> is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting >>>>>> the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed. >>>>>
correct me if I am wrong on that!)
You are wrong on that.
It is frequently asserted by supporters of Israel's behaviour that
their
opponents want Israel to be destroyed, abolished, exterminated. It is a >>>> way of conflating Hamas with Hitler.
etc?
To live in peace with Israel?
Whatever they might say, in their propaganda, about wanting to destroy
Israel, they don't actually see that as achievable.
I'm very much afraid that they do, but not using conventional weapons. That's why they want to go nuclear.
Iran is 75 times the size of Israel in land area. Its population density
is far, far lower. Iran can survive a nuclear exchange far better than Israel.
Israel would probably not let it get to that stage, which is why the situation is so dangerous.
On 15/08/2026 18:04, GB wrote:
On 15/08/2026 17:48, The Todal wrote:
On 15/08/2026 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/08/2026 14:28, GB wrote:So what ARE the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Supreme leader of Iran,
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (Please >>>>>> correct me if I am wrong on that!)The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than
simply is
democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect >>>>>>>>>> representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this >>>>>>>>>> country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the >>>>>>>>> government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports >>>>>>>>> the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork >>>>>>>> and not
any reputable polling. I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10 >>>>>>>> people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United
Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence, >>>>>>> the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed >>>>>>> is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting >>>>>>> the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed. >>>>>>
You are wrong on that.
It is frequently asserted by supporters of Israel's behaviour that
their
opponents want Israel to be destroyed, abolished, exterminated. It is a >>>>> way of conflating Hamas with Hitler.
etc?
To live in peace with Israel?
Whatever they might say, in their propaganda, about wanting to destroy
Israel, they don't actually see that as achievable.
I'm very much afraid that they do, but not using conventional weapons.
That's why they want to go nuclear.
Iran is 75 times the size of Israel in land area. Its population density
is far, far lower. Iran can survive a nuclear exchange far better than
Israel.
Israel would probably not let it get to that stage, which is why the
situation is so dangerous.
I don't believe any nation can survive a nuclear exchange. Wildfires in
the current drought are bad enough and in some countries impose an intolerable burden on the emergency services.
I think unfortunately Donald Trump is the one person in the world most
likely to order the firing of nuclear missiles. He is frustrated that he hasn't "won" the war against Iran and he will be keen to prove that
America is still the strongest nation and he as President is all-powerful.
On 15/08/2026 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/08/2026 14:28, GB wrote:So what ARE the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Supreme leader of Iran,
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli organisation >>>>>>>>> which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than simply is >>>>>>>> democratic? It has member organisations that democratically elect >>>>>>>> representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this
country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the
government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports
the existence of Israel", and these are very different things.
But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork
and not
any reputable polling. I would "guess" that more than 9 out of 10 >>>>>> people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the United
Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting evidence, >>>>> the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel destroyed
is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British Jews supporting >>>>> the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely suspect figure indeed.
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (Please
correct me if I am wrong on that!)
You are wrong on that.
It is frequently asserted by supporters of Israel's behaviour that their >>> opponents want Israel to be destroyed, abolished, exterminated. It is a
way of conflating Hamas with Hitler.
etc?
To live in peace with Israel?
Whatever they might say, in their propaganda, about wanting to destroy Israel, they don't actually see that as achievable.
And I don't know anyone who belongs to those organisations and as I have
made clear, I support the existence of Israel as do most Jews and most people. There probably are some devout orthodox Jews who oppose zionism
and oppose the existence of Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism
"There are a number of Haredi groups which not only oppose Zionism, but
also do not recognize the State of Israel."
When the right-wing lobby - the Board of Deputies, the Campaign Against Semitism, the Friends of Israel - claim that critics of Israel's
genocide are antisemites and Nazis, they are actually doing the same as Putin. He claimed that he had to invade Ukraine because Ukrainians are
Nazis. He wanted to invoke the great sacrifice of Russian soldiers and civilians during WW2, to encourage patriotism and hatred of Ukraine.
It's dishonest.
You're learning a lot today, aren't you? Maybe if you could overcome
your reluctance to follow hyperlinks you'd learn even more.
On 15 Aug 2026 at 21:10:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/08/2026 18:04, GB wrote:
On 15/08/2026 17:48, The Todal wrote:I don't believe any nation can survive a nuclear exchange. Wildfires in
On 15/08/2026 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:Whatever they might say, in their propaganda, about wanting to
On 14/08/2026 14:28, GB wrote:So what ARE the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Supreme leader of
On 13/08/2026 22:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 20:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:42, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies is a reactionary, pro-Israeli
organisation which pretends to be truly democratic.
In what way does it pretend to be democratic, rather than >>>>>>>>>>> simply is democratic? It has member organisations that
democratically elect representatives.
It is pro-Israel, but I would guess 9 out of 10 Jews in this >>>>>>>>>>> country are pro-Israel. That's democracy for you, eh?
I think Todal means "pro-Israel" in the sense of "supports the >>>>>>>>>> government of Israel" and you mean it in the sense of "supports >>>>>>>>>> the existence of Israel", and these are very different things. >>>>>>>But presumably both interpretations are based on GB's guesswork >>>>>>>>> and not any reputable polling. I would "guess" that more than 9 >>>>>>>>> out of 10 people in the UK are in favour of the existence of the >>>>>>>>> United Kingdom,
of the Houses of Parliament, of deep pan pizza.
Well that was kind've my point, yes. Without any supporting
evidence,
the claim that 9/10 British Jews don't want to see Israel
destroyed is nevertheless entirely believable. But 9/10 British >>>>>>>> Jews supporting the actions of Israel in Gaza is an extremely
suspect figure indeed.
I support the existence of Israel, whereas Todal does not. (Please >>>>>>> correct me if I am wrong on that!)
You are wrong on that.
It is frequently asserted by supporters of Israel's behaviour that >>>>>> their opponents want Israel to be destroyed, abolished,
exterminated. It is a way of conflating Hamas with Hitler.
Iran,
etc?
To live in peace with Israel?
destroy Israel, they don't actually see that as achievable.
I'm very much afraid that they do, but not using conventional weapons.
That's why they want to go nuclear.
Iran is 75 times the size of Israel in land area. Its population
density is far, far lower. Iran can survive a nuclear exchange far
better than Israel.
Israel would probably not let it get to that stage, which is why the
situation is so dangerous.
the current drought are bad enough and in some countries impose an
intolerable burden on the emergency services.
I think unfortunately Donald Trump is the one person in the world most
likely to order the firing of nuclear missiles. He is frustrated that
he hasn't "won" the war against Iran and he will be keen to prove that
America is still the strongest nation and he as President is
all-powerful.
I think Iran has long been resigned to not having nuclear weapons, and
indeed was allowing international inspections to prevent this until
Trump and Netanyahu repudiated the agreement to do so with Iran, as an
act of economic warfare against Iran. It is fairly obvious that they
only further purified their Uranium and encouraged their proxy militia
in a misjudged bargaining attempt to feed their people by negotiating a reduction in sanctions. So Trump and Netanyahu are at least partially responsible for precipitating the Hamas October '23 attack.
If you add that Netanyahu (and presumably the CIA) knew about the Hamas attack in advance then both Netanyahu and pals and the US bear an even
more heavy responsibility for allowin the attack. Presumably to
reinforce Netanyahu's repuation as saviour afterwards. To be fair,
perhaps they did not imagine how successful it would be.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:13:04 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,859 |