Analysis comment

Austin gets owned after more ‘thuggish’ behaviour toward Rosen

Non-Jewish Tory-made peer’s vile behaviour toward Jewish national treasure continues – and gets the response it deserved

Intellectual giant Michael Rosen and the not-so-giant Ian Austin

Thuggish‘ Ian Austin has a record of vileness toward widely-loved Jewish author Michael Rosen, having launched a ‘full frontal assault’ on Rosen when the author was the guest of Parliament to talk about his family’s experiences in the Holocaust. Thatcher-fan Austin was outraged when Rosen pointed out that there was no special characteristic of British people that would have made them immune to fascism and nazism had circumstances been different.

Austin had to be stopped by the parliamentary committee chair before he would eventually shut his mouth and stop abusing the polite Rosen.

And now, with supporters of Israeli apartheid mounting a fresh assault on ‘national treasure’ Rosen, Austin had to stick his oar in too, attempting to mock Rosen for writing a book, in tribute to NHS staff, about his near-death from Covid. Perhaps this is what passes for wit in the vacuum of Austin’s intellect:

The right attacks Rosen because he has stood up for Jeremy Corbyn – and because he dared to object to the abuse of his work by thugs and trolls to attack the former Labour leader – but apparently in the tiny minds of the friends-of-apartheid this means even him almost dying and then talking and writing about the huge efforts of NHS workers to save his life and rehabilitate him is also somehow offensive.

However, as might have been predicted given the mismatch in humanity and likeability between Rosen and his attacker, it didn’t end well for Mr Thuggish – his tweet was massively ‘ratioed’, a huge marker of a deeply unpopular comment, with well over 1,600 comments attacking it and only a small number of ‘retweets’ or shares:

The ratio of Austin’s foul tweet at the time of writing

And those comments bit hard, with many pointing out Austin’s abysmal, Tory-friendly record – and Jewish commenters putting him well and truly back under the bridge where he belongs:

Jewish former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein on the ‘contemptible little man’
Jewish writer David Rosenberg on the ‘tedious, unpleasant and insignificant’ troll
Mark Mandelson pointed out how badly ratioed Austin was – and how poorly his comment performed compared to Rosen’s response

Others were no less withering – and often even more direct:

And dozens – and dozens – of respondents found that one particular word sprang to mind when they read Austin’s bile:

Austin’s long and sorry record also includes ill-fated attacks on others who are by far his superiors, including Jeremy Corbyn, Jewish MP Jon Trickett, Ian Lavery (coming close to being floored by the tough ex-miner) and Chris Williamson – and of course Skwawkbox – as well as trying desperately to deny he had been disciplined by the Labour party for his thuggish behaviour, when in fact he had been reprimanded by party whips for multiple abuses. And just last year he was forced to pay damages and make a humiliating apology to former Corbyn staffer Laura Murray for libelling her as – you’ve guessed it – antisemitic.

And of course, disgustingly, Austin chose to back the appalling Boris Johnson in the 2019 general election, helping to condemn hundreds of thousands to death through Johnson’s woeful response to the pandemic – and leaving millions in Tory-imposed, needless and counterproductive poverty, subsequently receiving the peerage he insists on including in his Twitter ‘handle’.

Happily, on this occasion he got his comeuppance in fine style – and Michael Rosen showed his little finger has more class.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

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


  1. Sadistic psychopaths just lurve being sadistic!

    PS Check out SteveH’s comments in the skwawkbox article from 2018 linked to in the second line of the above article, when he was posing as a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and defending him against attacks. And check out the article that ‘Rob’ links to by Paul Mason (who has since gone over to the other side!), which SH thanks him for, and says he’s bookmarked for future refernce (and which David McNiven then points out the obvious error in Mason’s thinking), and then there’s a couple more comments by SH down near the bottom of the page. Here’s the link:

  2. Dognonce
    That’s one for the collection
    Toffee you can fuck off I spotted it first

    1. You’re welcome, Dougal 👍😃
      *mutters expletives under breath*

      As for LORD austin…was he adopted? Why were we never told that (his birth parent[s] didn’t want him) ?? 🤔

      LORD austin must think himself a national treasure…one that should be buried, imo.

      The total thundercunt.

  3. Dear Skawkbox, Instead of reducing ourselves to the level of people like Ian Austin, by abusing him and swearing obscenely at him, as upholders of socialist values, we should be politely, firmly exposing him for what he is and does, thereby demonstrating that our values and behaviour are different from, and better than, his. If we think it’s unacceptable for him to abuse people, then it’s also unacceptable for us to abuse him or anyone else. Don’t abuse; Expose!

    1. Here we like to both expose AND abuse, in order to distance ourselves from the bored, middle class, virtue-signalling scum who have hijacked socialism/activism for their own ends. Just Stop Oil and nouveau-Communists, I’m looking at you.

      Put Austin in a cage with Lee Anderson. I’d pay good money to see that!

    2. It’s not abuse Mike, it’s just fact. Austin – like a bunch of other right-wing fascist Labour MPs who spear-headed the vicious smear campaign against JC – ARE total cunts, as are Blair and Mandelson who were undoubtedly the main organisers of the campaign/black op (along with MI5 scum), albeit keeping mainly in the background. But then we’ve known what Blair is since the invasion of Iraq – ie a lying, mass-murdering Nazi piece of shit.

      Talking of which, the Panorama hatchet job was straight out of the Nazi/Goebbels playbook. And that reminds me, I just happened to come across the following malevolent black propaganda piece by David Hirsh yesterday (in the Jewish Chronicle, would you believe) from December 2020 entitled: ‘Labour must expel likes of JVL – David Hirsh says the Labour Party must oppose those who fight for antisemitic politics – including Jewish members’. Here’s a clip from it:

      Viewed in this frame, the organisation Jewish Voice for Labour serves to kosherize Jeremy Corbyn’s antisemitic politics and to smear anyone who says they have experienced antisemitism in the Party. That is its function, that is why it exists. It is there to pretend that Labour Jews are split on the question of antisemitism.

      Last week, in an effort to help people boycott Israel, JVL advertised Chanukah candles made in China. ‘Jewish Voice for Forced Labour’ was the meme around social media.

      JVL has been an effective voice for antisemitic politics in Britain. If Labour is to save itself it will have to create a culture in which asaJews [‘as a Jew’] who fight for antisemitic politics are understood to be threatening not only to the Jewish community but also to Labour’s democratic heart, and to its hopes of creating a plausible alternative government.

      Antisemitic politics…. what a total (insert appropriate word).

      PS And check out Deborah Maccoby’s brilliant review of Hirsh’s book about (alleged) left antisemitism on Amazon, which has over three times the number of Likes (63) than any of the favourable 5-star reviews of the book.

      1. Just to remind you: Not only did the likes of Austin and John Mann and Ruth Smeeth and Margaret Hodge smear good, honest, principled, decent caring people like Jeremy as antisemites (and left-wing members as bullies and thugs and homophobes, and antisemites of course) and deceive millions of people so as to subvert democracy, but they ALSO caused concern and consternation amongst many British Jews in their quest to destroy Jeremy (and the left in general). Just about everyone on the left (and the right) knows all this Mike, so there is in fact nothing to expose to readers of skwawkbox, and just about everyone on the left would agree that only fascist cunts of the first order would – or could – do all of the above.

        But if you mean expose their lies and falsehoods and smears and faux outrage to the millions they duped and deceived and cheated, I entirely agree, and have been saying as much for the past three years or so – ie that we need to expose every single scumbag that participated in the A/S black op along with a wide selection of their lies and falsehoods, like THIS one, for example, by Marie van der Zyl, the president of the BoD, in which she says on an Israeli news station that Jeremy Corbyn is spending more and more time with terrorists:

        ‘Exposé: Who are the Board of Deputies of British Jews?’

        ……. this post is from August 2018 and it’s of Marie Sarah van der Zyl, the current and 48th President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. She’s being interviewed by i24News – a right wing Israeli news channel. In the interview, Van der Zyl claims, repeatedly, that Jeremy Corbyn had been “spending more and more time with terrorists and extremists” and “with people who threaten the security of Britain”.

      2. They are not cunts.

        Cunts are beautiful. They bring life and joy into the world. Austin is well beneath any term we can think of. Austin is described best by his name.

        Oh, and cunts have depth and desirability. Something Austin is found lacking.

        Rosen’s reply was pure class.

      3. Needless to say, a word can have TWO entirely different meanings. And I don’t think there are many people who actually refer to a woman’s vagina as a cunt, unless they’re being vulgar of course. And when someone refers to somebody as a cunt, they obviously do not have a woman’s vagina in mind.

    1. Ian Austin has no respect for himself or anybody else.
      He was the person who heckled Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons by telling him to ” shut up and sit down” when Jeremy as party leader was making an apology to parliament for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the deaths and devastation it caused.This was broadcast on live TV and I watched it. Austin really showed himself up for the repulsive loudmouth that he is.
      Austin could not even bring himself to show the smallest bit of respect to the families of the soldiers killed in Iraq who were present in the gallery for the otherwise subdued debate.
      Clearly dead British servicemen, their heartbroken families and a shamed parliament meant nothing to him. Therefore his continued nasty behaviour should surprise nobody. THe man is a total disgrace.

      1. He became a lot more priominent c.2016-2019 by making himself available to political TV programmes with a ‘Corbyn bashing’ agenda.

        He was on multiple shows that normally wouldn’t go near him seeking his ‘opinion’ with a bargepole. He’s no doubt done well from his behaviour though, like other Corbyn ‘hostiles’ Woodcock and Mann and all those in the PLP who quit. The system incl. media, is trulty rigged against reform.

        Anyone overtly against Corbyn got all the TV and radio time they needed back then during Corbyn’s stint as leader. Have you seen one Starmer critic given similar air time? Has Starmer faced one hostile interview?

  4. @Mike Hall.

    If (known arrogant prick with previous for ) austin went into a tirade against a harmless, frail old man in your local boozer, or on your local high street, would you allow him to continue unfettered so you could tell people about it?

    Or would you rather (verbally) attack the attacker, exposing his shithousery and your abject disgust that way?

    I’d made it quite obvious as to what option I’d take – so bollocks to any worthless moral high ground.

  5. Excellent and very enlightening article by Craig Murray about Imran Khan:

    Given the large population in the UK of Pakistani origin, the lack of serious media coverage of the overthrow and incarceration of Imran Khan, and the mass imprisonment of his supporters, is truly extraordinary. Imran Khan was last week sentenced to three years in prison – and a five year ban from politics – for alleged embezzlement of official gifts. This follows his removal as Prime Minister in a CIA engineered coup, and a vicious campaign of violence and imprisonment against Khan and his supporters. It is currently illegal in Pakistan to publish or broadcast about Khan…..

    1. And this:

      The following is an extract from an article on The Intercept entitled ‘The Dissident – Umar Khalid Challenged Modi’s Anti-Muslim Agenda. India Accused Him of Terrorism and Locked Him Up’, posted a couple of days ago and well worth taking the time to read:

      The Indian government’s determination to stamp out terrorism didn’t extend to Hindus, and by the early 2000s, Hindu extremist groups had been linked to numerous deadly attacks on Muslims, including the bombing of a train connecting India to Pakistan, a blast at Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, and another blast at a mosque near Mumbai at the end of Ramadan.

      The most notorious episode of Hindu terror in India’s recent history occurred under Modi’s watch in 2002, when he was chief minister of the state of Gujarat. After a train full of Hindu pilgrims caught fire, killing 59 people, Modi declared the incident a “terrorist attack” and had the charred bodies put on display at the state capital. According to Human Rights Watch, Hindu mobs immediately responded to the dog whistle with a frenzy of bloodletting that lasted three days and left at least 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, dead as police either stood by or participated in the violence. Despite accusations of complicity from several domestic and international human rights groups, Modi was reelected in a landslide victory later that year and became Gujarat’s longest-serving chief minister.

      In 2005, after an investigation by the Indian government concluded that the train fire was an accident, the U.S. State Department denied Modi a visa to speak at Madison Square Garden in New York under a law that prohibits the entry of foreigners who have committed “particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” The Obama administration lifted the ban after Modi became prime minister.

      As India’s top elected official, Modi has harnessed the country’s already rampant anti-Muslim bigotry and weaponized the law to reward his acolytes and punish his detractors……

      Modi really IS a little fucking Hitler piece of shit!

      1. And last but by no means least…. Caitlin Johnstone’s latest:

        The Illusory Truth Effect And The “Unprovoked” Invasion Of Ukraine

        Just repeatedly inserting the word “unprovoked” into Ukraine war commentary across the board causes people to assume it must have been launched without provocation, because the illusory truth effect can circumvent reason and logic to insert a narrative into the collective consciousness of our civilization.

        Repetition is of course a subtle form of brain-washing, and a widely used technique used by propagandists.

      2. Is that it steveH?

        You are hanging your hat on an evidence free nothingburger from nearly six years ago (November 2017) which has aged faster than a chocolate fireguard and melted twice as fast?


        When your supposed ‘state of the art’ critique provides no evidence of its wild rhetorical claims beyond the ‘I think this, but I need more evidence’ you are clearly confused as to who it is who is who is doing the ‘selection biased reporting’.

        Particularly when the ‘more evidence’ has been through the fanfare of the judicial process system to produce an outcome more in line with the analysis of Johnstone than this fellow court Jester of yours.

        Still, this is hardly surprising coming from someone who has signaled very clearly their disdain for the standards and principles of due process.

        Now we know why Kamikaze pilots wore helmets. In comparison to steveH, Wylie Coyote really is a genius.

      3. Dave – I’m simply pointing out that there are issues concerning her credibility. 😏

      4. No, I DON’T! Not the Caitlin Johnstone that the author of the piece depicts and speaks about, that is. As for what he says about her in respect of Russiagate (the following is from a Craig Murray article):

        ‘In the World of Truth and Fact, Russiagate is Dead. In the World of the Political Establishment, it is Still the New 42’

        In a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against Russia and against Wikileaks, and against inter alia Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and Julian Assange, for the first time the claims of collusion between Trump and Russia were subjected to actual scrutiny in a court of law. And Judge Koeltl concluded that, quite simply, the claims made as the basis of Russiagate are insufficient to even warrant a hearing.

        The judgement is 81 pages long, but if you want to understand the truth about the entire “Russiagate” spin it is well worth reading it in full.

        As for the subject matter of her piece, there are literally thousands of articles in which people such as Boris Johnson and Biden and Stoltenberg and dozens of others refer to the invasion as ‘unprovoked’. The following is the headline of an Independent article from Feb 24th last year:

        ‘World leaders condemn Russia’s ‘unprovoked’ invasion of Ukraine: ‘The world can and must stop Putin’

        And here are a few clips from it:

        Joe Biden said that Ukrainian “President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy reached out to me tonight and we just finished speaking. I condemned this unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russian military forces”.

        Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau also condemned the attack on Ukraine.

        “Canada condemns – in the strongest possible terms – Russia’s egregious attack on Ukraine. These unprovoked actions are a clear further violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and of Russia’s obligations under international law and the Charter of the UN,” he said.

        The US Department of State released a statement on early Thursday and said that secretary of state Antony Blinken and secretary of defence Lloyd J Austin III had spoken with the Nato secretary-general “to condemn Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified attack on Ukraine and discuss the alliance’s coordinated response.”

        On Twitter, the commission chief Ursula von der Leyen wrote: “In these dark hours, our thoughts are with Ukraine and the innocent women, men and children as they face this unprovoked attack and fear for their lives.”

        The reason they all kept endlessly repeating the ‘unprovoked’ line for months and months on end – and probably still ARE – is precisely because they all knew that HE – Putin – *WAS* provoked; provoked by the intention to intergrate Ukraine in to Nato, and provoked by the refusal of the US and its Nato allies to address Russia’s security concerns.

        There are undoubtedly many commentators who have said that Putin and Russia were provoked into taking mlitary action, but I just found this v long comprehensive article posted on March 22nd last year (you don’t have to read the whole thing) which lays it all out in detail:

        The US and NATO deviously used the population of Ukraine as expendable bait – like a doomed animal – staked out to entice and ensnare a higher value target that will attack it. The “Russian Bear” trap was carefully crafted, from the US and NATO facilitated coup of the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014 to the incessant overtures from NATO, encouraging Ukraine to join them.

        Like Ulysses and his ship in Homer’s classic – the Odyssey – NATO’s beckoning Song of the Sirens lured a naive, unsuspecting Ukraine to its doom, as it crashes into the rocky cliffs of reality – Russia’s attack and NATO’s duplicity. Russia is responsible for the devastating carnage in Ukraine, but the US and NATO are guilty of deliberately provoking it.

      5. I’ve read a few articles by Chris Hedges about the war in Ukraine during the past fifteen months or so, but I’ve not read this one before, from Feb 26 last year, entitled: ‘The Ukraine catastrophe and how we got here: Chronicle of a war foretold’.

        There was a near universal understanding among diplomats and political leaders at the time [after the collapse of the Soviet Union] that any attempt to expand NATO was foolish, an unwarranted provocation against Russia that would obliterate the ties and bonds that happily emerged at the end of the Cold War.

        How naive we were. The war industry did not intend to shrink its power or its profits…….

      6. SteveH said (in a reply to Dave): ‘I’m simply pointing out that there are issues concerning her credibility’.

        Could you elaborate and, as such, give some specific examples’

        Needless to say, coming from YOU of all people is more than a little ironic. My point being of course that you don’t have any credibility whatsoever in the eys of people who subscribe to skwawkbox, as I pointed out in effect in my initial post at the top of the comments.

        So anyway, given the CM article I quoted from regarding Russiagate, are there any issues regarding HIS credibility?

      7. And who is it that has “issues” with that credibility steveH?

        Those whose credibility is in negative number territory as their critique has collapsed completely leaving the subject of their critique and their argument – in this case Johnstone and her position on the matter – with more credibility having called the Russiagate bullshit for what anyone at the time could see that it was.

      8. He is the weak brick in the wall. Easily bought with baubles. Modi is a vainglorious individual. A repulsive person, I suspect a sadistic, deviant, lurks beneath the smiling, humble, facade.

  6. Is there a ‘special characteristic’ of Netenyahu’s gov’t in Israel that makes them drawn to Fascist policies and Nazism?

  7. Skwawkbox should highlight this longish Labour critique thread started by Professor Richard Murphy :

    He sums up everything perfectly imho.

    The fact conference voted for proportional representation and get the selfish Blairites are ignoring democracy is utterly outrageous. Moronic, anti-democratic Starmer should be shouted down at conference with chants of “change or go!” . If Labour members had anything about them Starmer and Reeves’ positions would be intolerable. We’ve done New Labour before, and had quite enough of that.

    1. You can imagine the gormless tw*ts now, standing there with their stupid placcards that say :

      “I’m voting Labour to unlock economic growth”

      What a load of bollox a centrist GE campaign will be. Literally no reason to vote for this version of Labour beyond the symbolic satisfaction of removing the Tories. And that may be enough for some simpletons.

      1. Gazillionaire Zac Goldsmith may vote Labour, praises Starmer :.

        And some dozy sods still think Starmer may have a secret plan to deliver socialism in power.

        Wouldn’t be surprised if Starmer’s first official visit is to Israel, to announce Britain supports Israel’s claim to territorial annexation ‘war gain’ from Syria, that is the Golan Heights, along with moving the British embassy to Jerusalem.

        UK Muslim Labour voters will have the right to feel more than a little cheated.

      2. Andy said: ‘And some dozy sods still think Starmer may have a secret plan to deliver socialism in power.’

        Oh, really, is that right. So where did you come across them, cos I’ve never come across any, ever. Not a single one. I wouldn’t have thought there are more than a handful of such poor deluded souls in the whole country, and yet you came across some of them somewhere, sometime. Hmm…..

      3. Allan Howard

        There are many in CLPs and party members keeping quiet in the hope that the current ‘out-Torying the Tories’ act of Starmer and Reeves is just that, an act; one aimed at tip-toeing into power by not scaring tory voters and the press. Twitter is full of people – or possibly Labour HQ managed bot accounts ?- posting about how the left MUST help Starmer win power first, for only then can folks judge whether they are really rightwingers, the implication being they aren’t really.

        Read Polly Toynbee or Martin Kettle’s output in the guardian, both believe Starmer will rapidly move left once in No.10 and do “far more” in power to tackle rising inequality than he and Reeves are currently letting on.

        We’re supposed to believe Starmer is this master of deceptions, tricking Tories in a ‘bait & switch’ exercise , like the one he pulled on mermbers by ripping up his 10 Pledges , kicking his “dear friend and collegue” Jeremy Corbyn out of the party, and turning to Blair and Mandelson for advice.

        I think we know exactly how he and Reeves will behave in power, they want to run things just like the Tories are doing, while expecting a different result.

  8. Every Labour MP and minister should be quizzed as to why, unlike with Russia, for Israel, invasion, dispossession and annexation do not lead to sanctions.

    British hypocrisy is off the f’ckin scale.

  9. Re: “unprovoked”
    We also have “illegal”.
    In international law, established by the General Assembly of the UN and ratified by the Security Council, the body set up to adjudicate on matters related to international law is The International Court of Justice.
    Some of the provisions of international law:
    * It is legal for a state to use military means to defend another state with which it has a mutual defence agreement and which has been attacked. (N.B. Russia signed such agreements with Lugansk and Donetsk 48 hours before taking any action against Ukraine, during which time Ukraine repeatedly shelled Donetsk city.)
    * Two of the provisions of international law are – the right to secure borders – the right to self-determination. (N.B. Twenty years ago a case was taken to the ICJ which established that the right to self-determination had priority over the right to secure borders – the Kosovo legislature had declared independence from Yugoslavia/Serbia and Y/S had sought a ruling from the court to declare this illegal – the court ruled that, given that Kosovo had an elected regional government, that government had the right to declare independence.) A similar case could be made regarding Lugansk and Donetsk, and the Kosovo precedent would imply that their declarations of independence were valid.)
    Of course given that Ukraine has never gone to the ICJ for a ruling, we can’t say that the declarations were legal or illegal.
    One has to conclude that the reason Ukraine did not seek a ruling is that it thought that the court would confirm the right of the two republics to declare independence.
    This means that “provoked/unprovoked” is irrelevant. It is simply a matter of legality under international law and it looks like there is a very strong probability that the ICJ would have to rule the Russian action to be legal.
    Meanwhile SH sits with his head firmly up his fundament churning out links in an attempt to “shoot the messenger” rather than address the argument. Ignore him.
    Here’s Bonhoeffer:
    “Against stupidity we have no defence. Neither protests nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticising them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous ……………….. for that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.” — Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    1. You may be aiming too high goldbach.

      The animated version is probably the more appropriate level for the vacuous one:

      1. On the basis of the available evidence on this thread so far It seems reasonable to surmise that, despite Lozansky’s long actual real world pedigree, the observation in this piece that…..

        “but in line with the disgraced “Russiagate” narrative”

        …..marks him out as having “question marks” against his “credibility” given how close this fits the position of Caitlin Johnstone in the evidence free subjective opinion of those on this forum suffering from acute, terminal and self-inflicted Bonhoeffer Syndrome.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: