Labour RIGHT blocks Pittsburgh antisemitism motion


The Labour right has been at the forefront of attacks on the left and Jeremy Corbyn in all senses since Corbyn’s election as Labour leader – and the recent claims of widespread antisemitism in the Labour Party have been no different in that regard.

However, as on so many occasions, the virtue signalled by the right is barely even skin-deep.

Stockton-on-Tees left-winger Steve Cooke found exactly this when his local branches rejected an emergency motion of solidarity on the Pittsburgh synagogue attack to condemn antisemitism and express solidarity with Jewish people – because of opposition from Labour right-wingers.

The proposed motion read:

We condemn the terrorist attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, which killed 11 people and injured several others on 27 October 2018.

We note that the alleged perpetrator of this heinous act is reported to have had a long history of antisemitic views and held a deep hatred for Jewish people.

We believe that these murders tragically demonstrate the dangers posed by the growth in antisemitic sentiments and hate speech internationally, which has arisen in a political climate where governments and opportunist politicians have encouraged the scapegoating of minorities.

This trend has been reflected in the growth in antisemitic conspiracy theories and a rise in antisemitic incidents and racist hate crime more generally in the UK, as shown in recent reports from the Community Security Trust, Tell MAMA (‘Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks’) and the Home Office.

We resolve:

 To stand in solidarity with the Jewish community around the world and send our
condolences to all those affected by the tragic events in Pittsburgh.
 To recognise that antisemitism exists in society and affirm our belief that such prejudice must be confronted and eradicated wherever it arises.
 To call on the Labour Party to lead the way in opposing antisemitism and fighting racism in all its forms.
 To support political education about antisemitism so that its history, causes, manifestations and effects are better understood in the party and members are confident to challenge it.
 To publish this motion as a statement via our social media outlets.

In a Facebook post on the vote, Cooke said:

I am aghast to report that an emergency motion on the Pittsburgh Synagogue attack which I took to my Labour Party branch meeting last night was voted down…

The three Norton (North, South and West) branches hold a joint monthly meeting, with the option to break out into separate groups should a branch-level vote be required on motions. I am secretary of the Norton West branch as well as political education officer for Stockton North CLP and a member of its executive committee.

I imagined that the emergency motion I had drafted to condemn the Pittsburgh murders, criticise antisemitic hate speech and present the Labour Party as leading the way in opposing such prejudices would be approved without controversy.

I had received positive feedback when I shared the draft motion on social media earlier in the day and a number of Labour comrades asked me if they could use it in their own branches and CLPs. I also sent the motion to my trade union branch executive colleagues with a view to Unite the union’s Teesside Local Government branch bringing it to Stockton North CLP later in the month and all of those colleagues confirmed their support for the motion. The Norton Labour joint branches meeting was poorly attended on the night, but we had a decent discussion about the Labour Party’s policy on fracking and various other local issues.

When we got to the emergency motion, however, it was soon apparent that there would be resistance to the whole idea with the chair of the meeting… Arguments made against the motion included that it should say we were against all racism not just antisemitism. I pointed out that the motion clearly expressed concern about “racist hate crime more generally”, criticised governments and opportunist politicians for the “scapegoating of minorities”, cited Tell Mama UK, the Islamophobia monitoring organisation, and it affirmed our commitment to “fighting racism in all its forms”.

It was said that all the focus was on “antisemitism this, antisemitism that”, while other types of racism never even got a mention. I pointed out that I had presented a motion about Islamophobia and anti-migrant racism to the CLP in July and then our women’s officer Barbara Campbell and myself had organised a counterprotest against a far-right group (mainly members of Anne Marie Waters’ For Britain party) that marched in Stockton town centre later that month.

They wanted references to antisemitism removed from the Pittsburgh motion, but no demands had been made to make the aforementioned Islamophobia and anti-migrant racism motion more generic or to erase all mention of those specific types of racism when it was debated and then unanimously supported at July’s CLP meeting.

Comrade [X] said that the person alleged to be responsible for the Pittsburgh murders was a far-right activist, a Nazi, which was the very opposite of what the Labour Party stood for. Yes, I responded, that’s why the motion condemns what he did, describes his long held antisemitic views and states the party’s opposition to such bigotry. I said that I would be happy to add “far-right, neo-Nazi activities” to the motion’s clause noting that “the alleged perpetrator of this heinous act is reported to have had a long history of antisemitic views and held a deep hatred for Jewish people”, but the comrades weren’t prepared to accept that proposal either…

The comrade accused me of trying to bring the party into disrepute by associating us with antisemitism. It felt dreadful to be accused of this simply for proposing a motion that, in fact, would have strongly disassociated us from any form of hatred towards Jewish people and which would have shown how clear we were about confronting the evil of antisemitism…

Cooke goes on to describe the angry reaction of some members and the defeat of the motion, before noting:

I would add that the conflict over this issue does not follow the left-versus-right stereotypes presented in the media. Barbara Campbell and myself are easily the most leftwing members active in our branch (I was a member of Left Unity prior to joining Labour in 2016 and we’re both People’s Assembly activists) and we supported the motion.

It was the longer-established, Corbyn-sceptic members who opposed the motion… The pro-Corbyn left members mostly supported the proposal and the more ‘centrist’ establishment, mainly councillors, voted against.

The full motion can be read here.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

How different a picture this paints to the portray in the mainstream media and the claims of the right of the party.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Damage is done. I saw an Indy headline that said something like “Labour blocks Pittsburgh anti Semitism motion.

    1. They’re also disappearing posts that refer to this article by Skwawkbox. Seems that the wrong kind of Cooke quote for their tastes…

      1. Wonderful thing copy and paste ;-0 can keep posting all day long on Indy till they get fed up deleting

    2. Indeed, that’s all that’s being spread around, and blaming Corbyn of course. Even supposed “journalists” , who clearly didn’t bother to read the post, or purposely misrepresent. Great juicy story for them. What a mess as usual, Labour can’t seem to do anything right. So why was it rejected? Who went to the media about it? Could it not have been sorted out before that? Shoot ourselves in the foot always. People are stupid.

  2. I am not sophisticated enough to understand the various meanings implied here.
    Can anyone explain in simple language why this motion was vote down?

  3. The anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that is alleged to have driven the Pittsburgh shooter is pushed on Twitter and elsewhere by right wing brexiteers and TORIES but has there been any mention of that?! No.

    1. I’m really not surprised by this at all. It is scandalous that the antics of the Israelis, the right wing of Labour, the media and the conservatives are all conspiring to make mischief with this topic but are, at the same time, literally risking the lives of Jews in this country, Europe and America. Scandalous.

      1. Good point pim.

        I can think of few things more guaranteed to inflame antagonism between jew and gentile in the UK than this ludicrous smear against Corbyn which no one is really buying.

        The more it is seen to fail, the harder the Lobby double-down on it.

        Isn’t that the definition of madness? Repeating a failed action in the hope of a different outcome?

        Not if you’re Mark Regev, it isn’t!

        What a twat!

  4. It is clear here, if proof was ever needed, that the right of the party have adopted a “scorched earth”policy with respect to the future prospect of a Corbyn, or broad left government.
    It would be interesting to see whose interests they really represent.

    1. I am very surprised that the fact that the Israeli government’s chief English language spin doctor was made ambassador to London after JC’s election as party leader, has not received greater attention., because it was after that, that the vicious attacks on the party began.

  5. Two thoughts :

    Firstly – this illustrates how the ‘antisemitism’ scam has contaminated and confused the reality and thinking about it.

    Secondly – perhaps (and I’m not claiming any special local insight), this isn’t something to be framed in left/right terms. Perhaps it’s that old problem that has always been around in LP meetings : sheer dozy inability to engage the brain rather than the knee. I’ve often noted that I’ve never seen antisemitism in the Party – but I have seen sublime ignorance about Palestine and the nature of what’s going on.

  6. Very frustating when people who don’t fully grasp an issue will never the less vote against a motion that is clearly in solidarity with a community that has suffered such violence

  7. There’s little to be interpreted here.They simply don’t want us to be seen to be showing solidarity with the suffering of Jews whether historical or not, it doesn’t fit their false claim undermining agenda. This is just more evidence of how unscrupulous they are.

  8. i would have thought that actually it would have been standard for followers of JLM and Blairites to oppose the motion because it contextualises anti-semitism along with Islamophobia. Anti-semtitism is touted as absolutely exclusive above all racisms and the Holocaust above all other genocides. Even to validate the concept of Islamophobia let alone include it in a global of anti-semitism could lead to questioning of the imperviousness of the public to the country by country ruinations of Western foreign policy for which the protection of Israel doubles as the protection of western control of the region and its resources as a whole.

  9. “a global discussion of anti-semitism”. discussion missed out, sorry.

  10. Isn’t this just a straight forward case of the right doing what they did knowing that it would be reported by the MSM as left members opposing the motion on such grounds, or at the very least giving THAT impression to their readers – ie a stitch-up.

  11. The coverage here, and the BTL comments, are extraordinary: here we have a clear-cut case of a motion denouncing antisemitism being voted down on entirely spurious grounds.

    Straight facts:

    1/ The outrage was clearly an act of antisemitism: even those who have previously claimed antisemitism is no longer an issue, must surely acknowledge that;
    2/ The mover of the resolution was a long-established left-winger, as was the seconder;
    3/ The arguments used by the people who, shamefully, opposed this motion, are exactly those used by this blog, many BTL commenters, “Jewish Voice For Labour”, etc … ie that antiseitism is not a serious issue, either within the Labour Party or within society in general.

    You people need (and by that I mean those who run and agree with this website) to get real, get honest and , educate yourselves on antisemitism. And if you mean what you say in the ATL post, then at least, belatedly, admit that the Party does, indeed, have an AS problem.

    1. Labour’s “AS problem” is being systematically blown out of all proportion by Israel’s embassy-supported activist groups, as Al Jazeera’s “The Lobby” makes crystal clear in its four parts. Their purpose is equally clear.


      Anyone failing to acknowledge that is complicit in or a dupe of this century’s “Great Game.”

    2. Jim, as usual you need to get a grip. The article doesn’t say the voting down of the motion was correct – the opposite, in fact. Labour has a problem with antisemitism inasmuch as *any* antisemitism is a problem (and this blog has never denied it exists) – but the idea that it’s on the *left* of the party is, at least on the evidence in this case, absolutely spurious, since the right voted it down.

      1. Like – and I‘m wondering how it might be possible for a person to “agree with this website”; is there something I am supposed to have signed?

    3. Yes Jim, the Labour Party DOES have an ‘anti-semitism’ problem, or to be specific, the Left of the LP, one which has been engineered and orchestrated by the Blairites, the Israeli Lobby, and the MSM. And the vast majority of claims of anti-semitism against LP members and politicians are false, phoney and fabricated, and all for the obvious reason – ie to sabotage JC’s chances of winning a General Election and forming a government.

      The irony is that this SB article addresses a perfect example of the Dirty Tricks Brigade doing precisely THAT and, as such, ‘transforming’ an uncontroversial motion expressing sympathy and support for the Jewish community in Pittsburgh and beyond, into making it look like the motion was opposed by anti-semites on the grounds that it mentioned the words anti-semitism too much. And what with their form, it MUST have been left-wing Corbyn supporters of course.

      AND despite THAT, you are telling people on Skwawkbox to get real! Hows about YOU get real Jim!!.

  12. Leaving aside the undoubted merits of the motion and the natural wish to express solidarity – was it wise to submit it to a poorly attended meeting with a right wing chair – giving the right and the MSM yet another opportunity to attack us with a simple omission of fact on a known-toxic subject.

    “Barbara Campbell and myself are easily the most left wing members active in our branch” seems to suggest that, as left wing members, they might have anticipated such a result and avoided the own goal.

    Spreading word of the fail in a long FB post that many won’t even finish reading just publicises and leaves it open to further misrepresentation.

    I accept that it’s easy to criticise with hindsight and that I’m a grumpy old man who’s made next to no contribution himself – I just think we need to try harder to anticipate how the right will respond to what we say and do.
    Maybe we need a strategy hot line.

    1. as left wing members, they might have anticipated such a result and avoided the own goal.

      Maybe they did but unfortunately they didn’t think it through far enough and never anticipated the possibility that it could (with the complicity of MSM) backfire on them.

    2. I have to say that the FB post seems to me to have been staggeringly naive, given the current and continuing smear campaign.

      1. Why is that Paulo?

        The reality is that NO-ONE could have forseen such an uncontroversial motion being used and manipulated to further the agenda of the smearers, and anyone who says so – as in several of the posts above – are being totally disingenuous. And despicably so, blaming the victims in effect.

        As I have said repeatedly during the past few months, using the very thing that led to the Holocaust as a weapon to smear and demonise your political opponents is totally disgusting, as is creating worry and alarm amongst many in the Jewish community as a consequence, BUT using the murder of eleven jewish people to further that agenda really IS a new low. But of course the smearers – the black propagandists and their minions – don’t give a damn about anti-semitism in reality, except in so far as they can use it for their own ends.

      2. With you all the way Alan – all of your comments here on this thread – just referring to the lack of reflection before posting the debacle on the dreaded FB

      3. Oops, Alan, with you all the way on your comments above, but as to “the whole thread” as it appears below? No – I’m on the road and posting hastily – well beyond my ken.

  13. Steve, I meant ‘might have’ in the sense of ‘could have/should have’ rather than ‘maybe they did’ (anticipate).

    As in, ‘I might have phrased that better…’ 🙂

  14. @Allan Howard – No-one could have foreseen? Really?

    The SKWAWKBOX posted months ago about Blairites holding seminars on how to make use of administrative advantage to win against a left wing majority.
    Did that escape your notice?

    It’s not “disingenuous, despicable and victim blaming” to ask that we try to work smarter.

    1. David: Yes, of course, it was so glaringly obvious to anyone what they would do. YOU are just being doubly disingenuous, and not for the first time. As for citing a “poorly attended meeting with a right wing chair” as a reason to have NOT submitted such a motion AND forseen what would happen if you DID, in the first place you would have to have figured out – ie thought of the possiblity – that anyone WOULD object to such an uncontroversial motion, and THEN figured out what the objections would BE to such an uncontroversial motion, and no-one but no-one could have forseen that it would be objected to on the spurious grounds that it WAS….. except for YOU of course, and one or two other people who have commented on this page. And HOW would you – ie the person submitting the motion – know in advance that the meeting would be poorly attended, OR that THAT would be a factor even if you DID know?

      And you know as well as I do that the deviousness and underhandedness of the machinators – the Psychopaths – is completely alien to Empaths (or to just about ANYONE who is NOT a Psychopath), and it is impossible, as such, for them to anticipate what the Psychopaths may or may not do. But according to YOU – and one or two others – Ken Livingstone should have forseen what would happen if he did the radio interview and NOT have done it as such, and Pete Willsman should have forseen that somone would record what he was planning to say at a private meeting and, as such, not expressed how he felt about the bogus accusations of anti-semitism that had been made against decent, caring people, and Jackie Walker should have forseen……..

      I could go on!

      NB And according to you, the CLPs that were suspended a couple of years or so ago should have forseen what would happen and, as such, NOT held the meetings which led to the fake accusations. Yes, of course David! I mean it should have been glaringly obvious to left members of Wallasey CLP that right-wing members would days later claim/allege that homophobic comments were made at the meeting (directed at Angela Eagle, even though she wasn’t at the meeting). Yes, yes, yes, David, of course.

      1. Oh fuck, not that it matters, but my tiny comment above refers to David and his concise summary about being a bit “smarter”, not anything else in this (passionate) thread

  15. I knew to expect another 3000 word novella.
    You got one thing right – you do go on.
    That was as far as I skimmed.
    I suspect I’m not alone in that – your interminably, repetitively insistent Skripal ‘theories’ seem to have tapered off somewhat – reality hurt some did it?

    1. Is THAT really the best you could come up with, and SO quickly as well! Do you constantly monitor the Comments? How about an intelligent and honest response to my post, instead of the dismissive and derisive put-down that you DID – which was exactly the type of response a propagandist would have given – instead of addressing the points I made, no doubt because you couldn’t, because you have no legitimate argument to counter them.

      And what was ALSO disingenuous about your earlier post was that you put it all down to the MSM just “simply” having to omit to mention that those who objected to the motion on the grounds that they DID were on the Right, but conveniently omitted to mention that no-one could have forseen that anyone would have any reason to object to it.

      The following is from Steve Cooke’s facebook post (related in full in the above article):

      I had received positive feedback when I shared the draft motion on social media earlier in the day and a number of Labour comrades asked me if they could use it in their own branches and CLPs. I also sent the motion to my trade union branch executive colleagues with a view to Unite the union’s Teesside Local Government branch bringing it to Stockton North CLP later in the month and all of those colleagues confirmed their support for the motion.


      So ALL these people saw it prior to the meeting, but not ONE of them happened to figure out and anticipate what could possibly happen to transform it into another ‘anti-semitic’ smear of the Left. I wonder why that is!

      Get real David.

      PS Oh right, and according to YOU, Kelvin Hopkins SHOULDN’T have accepted the invitation to speak at the University of Essex, because he should have forseen the possibility that THREE years later the person who invited him would claim that he held her tightly and rubbed his crotch against her when saying goodbye in the car park, and that he shouldn’t have invited members of the Labour group to visit Westminster Palace, because he should have forseen what would happen! I mean it was oh-so obvious such a thing would happen, and KH obviously wasn’t thinking straight, was he David? (here’s a link to the statement KH made on the day the story broke for anyone who hasn’t yet read it, and happens to be still following this thread).


      Your disingenuousness is so disingenuous David it’s a joke. But you’d make a good black propagandist!

  16. You should try Twitter. The discipline of restricted characters concentrates the mind wonderfully.
    I’m serious.

    Oh, yes… notifications not monitoring. I have a life.

    1. I couldn’t help but notice that you STILL avoided responding to the points I made. I wonder why!

      Your tactic of belittling and derision is so transparent and glaringly obvious it’s pathetic beyond words:

      ‘ATTACK THE PERSON – ad hominem – You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
      Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.’


  17. “No-one could have foreseen” = unproven and unprovable assertion.
    “Anyone who disagrees is a despicably disingenuous victim blamer” = ad hominem attack, dickhead.
    That’s how you do “concise” – you should try it sometime.

    1. I’ve just caught-up with your ‘entertaining exchange’. Thanks for the masterclass on how to deal with hollow and unnecessarily confrontational rants. 🙂

    2. I thought that despite the obvious provocation from Allan you remained remarkably calm and measured throughout. You should be giving yourself a pat on the back.

      Don’t apologise, be proud. You said what has remained unsaid for far too long.

  18. Oh dear – I could have been less confrontational but three nights of worrying pain (now resolved) and no sleep made me short-tempered.
    OK, more short-tempered than usual.

    Sorry Allan, sorry everybody 🙂

    1. Oh you’re such a fake David, and isn’t it odd how your sidekick just happened to catch up! Funny how one or the other of you just happens to catch up when the other one is embroiled in a debate with me.

      How about you address the points I made in an honest and intelligent manner, instead of getting your sidekick to help get you out of a fix.

      I spent around eight years countering the anti-speed camera propagandists from Safe Speed so-called and the pompous-sounding Association of British Drivers etc, so I’m fully aware of all the tricks of the trade guys.

      1. More ad hominem attacks Allan? After an apology?

        Even though our opinions sometimes differ we still share the same enemy and follow the same SKWAWKBOX.
        I’ll try to be less confrontational if you’ll do the same.

        SteveH is nobody’s sidekick though and you should at least apologise for that.

  19. In response to the examples I gave to prove my point, you said:

    “No-one could have foreseen” = unproven and unprovable assertion.

    Yes, in theory it’s unprovable, but THAT of course is precisely why I gave a number of examples showing that people DIDN’T forsee what the smearers would do, and I could give dozens more examples, but that might very well amount to several hundred words, and I wouldn’t want to tax your brain too much by doing so.

    I’m not sure if the following analogy works (to make my point), but I’ll try it anyway. Many years ago I used to often play chess with the father of my girlfriend at the time, and he ALWAYS beat me, every single time. Now THAT has nothing to do with being devious, but he was undoubtedly much cleverer than me. But what we are discussing here ISN’T the difference between one group of people being much MORE devious than another group of people, but one group of people – ie the smearers – being very devious, and the OTHER group – ie the group the smearers are set on smearing – NOT being devious at all. And it is for THAT reason that it’s as good as impossible for the non-devious people to forsee or anticipate what the highly devious people will do – ie what they may or may not do.

    Psychopaths/Sociopaths are inherently devious – and deceitful and duplicitous and manipulative as well – whereas the Empaths – like Jeremy Corbyn and the vast majority on the Left are NOT, and are in fact the polar opposite – ie honest and caring and trustworthy and trusting – and it’s precisely because they ARE, that the Psychopaths can – and DO – run rings round them.

    Wasn’t there a tweet or something a few months ago by one of their number – the Psychopaths that is – which more-or-less said that the ‘anti-semitism’ thing is designed to sabotage JC’s leadership of the LP, or words to that effect.

    Yes, the devious and duplicitous manipulators are everywhere, including the Comments section of Skwawkbox.

  20. Allan, given that the ‘psychopathic, devious and duplicitous manipulators’ (ignoring your last ‘comments’ jibe) have ruled over the ’empaths’ for millennia – and given that we’d like to change that in the NEAR future – are we not permitted to at least try to out-think and outmanoeuvre them to achieve our goal?

    Rather than wait for the whole ’empath’ world finally to see through their lies despite the machinations of the MSM on the psychopaths’ behalf – or for so many millions of us to become unemployed that violent revolution is our only choice – might it not be reasonable, even preferable – to blunt their advantage whenever possible?

    Given that they’ve proved beyond doubt that they WILL NOT STOP until they own everything and we’re reduced to forelock-tugging serfs – are you really suggesting we must fight them with both arms tied behind our backs?
    Argue against that and I’m done with you.

    1. Did I say anywhere that we shouldn’t try to out-think them or outmanoeuvre them? No, of course I didn’t, and YOU know it. What I said was that it is as good as impossible for non-devious minds to forsee and anticipate what highly devious minds may or may not do. It is practically impossible, in general, to forsee how, and in what way, they will ‘transform’ any particular event or statement or whatever into a smear.

      Anyway, given that what we are discussing here are the machinations of the Smearers to smear and demonise their political opponents, just how exactly are we going to blunt their edge, as you put it, whenever possible, when THEY own and/or control the MSM. I mean how could Ken have outmanoeuvred them, or Kelvin Hopkins outmanoeuvred them, or Jackie Walker – and scores of others who have been falsely accused of this or that – have outmanoeuvred them? Could you give me an example or two?

      And it isn’t a case of waiting for the whole Empath world to see through their lies, as you put it, as if to say that everyone apart from the Psychopaths are Empaths. There are the ‘comfortably numb’, for example, to quote PF, and there are go-getters, and others who have been damaged by events in their life, and others who are self-centered, and not a little apathy out there as well of course. But as for seeing through their lies – and their deceit and duplicity etc – I have little doubt that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people – and possibly millions – have been awakened to the black propaganda lies of the so-called ruling class precisely because of their smearing and demonisation of someone like Jeremy Corbyn. And it is down to those of us who DO know what they are doing, to expose their lies and smears and distortions and fabrications to as many of those who have been duped and deceived as we possibly can, which DOESN’T have to amount to EVERYONE of course, but more than enough to get JC elected and start transforming society. THAT is the only possible way to do it – ie expose the Facists for what they are by exposing their lies with the truth.

      Anyway, here’s some light relief for anyone who’s been wading through all of this, er, dispute:

  21. As for my ‘Skripal theories’ David, they “tapered off”, as you put it, because I’d said everything I wanted to say on the matter, and the conclusions I came to remain exactly the same – ie it was all staged (and concocted and contrived by the same people in effect who lied us into the invasion of Iraq which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children and the wholesale destruction of a country, not to mention the tens of thousands of British and US military personnel who were killed or maimed or suffered PTSD as a consequence of those massive Big Lies, and ditto Libya, albeit without the accompanying deaths etc of military personnel, and much the same applies to Syria of course).

    The Psychopaths are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people – men, woman and children – during the past hundred years or so alone, and it means – or meant – absolutely nothing to them – ie those living (Bush and Blair et al), and those who are deceased (Hitler and Stalin et al). Just as they are responsible for hundreds of millions living in dire poverty in shanty towns and slums etc, and for the rape and pillaging and pollution and poisoning of the planet we live on.

  22. Meanwhile – The Tories are defending the indefensible (again).

    Whilst I feel sure that we can all wholeheartedly agree with the statement

    “Unfortunately, he belongs to a party which has never been big on thinking or principle.”. (who would have thought that some Tories have a degree of self awareness)

    I am equally sure that most will profoundly disagree with the rest of the article.


  23. ‘Conservative Woman’? Yuk, that’s the sickest fetish ever 🙂

    “Sadly, Sir Roger [Scrote] is an utter villain to the progressive Left [or to anyone with half an ethic]. Any who stray from progressive orthodoxy are to be hounded until they recant and apologise. It is highly doubtful that Sir Roger will apologise for saying what he thinks is true.” [viz. everyone but the white Christian English upper class is inferior and the country would be much nicer if they’d just go away, die somewhere and stop spoiling the view.]

    Sadly, Sir Scrote was born too late to be a real Nazi but don’t hold that against him – he’s doing his best.

    On the brighter side, like most Tories, he’s very old and we’ll soon have the pleasure of ignoring his obituary.

  24. Ah Stockton-on-Tees my home town, I was born there and lived there until I was 21, the widest High Street in the country with the Town Hall and the Shambles in the middle,

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: