Analysis

Jones gets thorough schooling from academics, activists, after attack on Walker

SKWAWKBOX (SW)By
160 Comments on Jones gets thorough schooling from academics, activists, after attack on Walker

‘Do your homework’, experts tell Jones in two open letters after his renewed smear against Black Jewish woman

Owen Jones, left (image by Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada, used with permission) and Jackie Walker (Wikimedia Commons)

Last week, left-wing Jews slammed ‘left’ journalist Owen Jones after he used a YouTube interview to revive the right’s old and completely confected smear against Black Jewish activist Jackie Walker, who was disgracefully treated by the Labour party and hounded by the racist, pro-Israel right.

Now, Jones – who sneeringly dismissed Walker’s comments, in a one-to-one discussion on Facebook, about her Jewish ancestors’ role in the fate of her Black ancestors as unfounded – has received a meticulously-sourced and deeply embarrassing schooling from four Jewish experts, including two professors, an author and at least three children of Holocaust survivors, in the history of Jewish slave-owners and financiers. And of course, the experts back Walker’s analysis and not Jones’s dismissal.

Two professors, one activist, three children of survivors

Professor Haim Bresheeth, a noted film-maker and academic and Professor Yosefa Loshitzky, both of SOAS and experts on antisemitism and the Holocaust, joined forces with author Mark Etkind to put Jones right in an emailed, if perhaps overly generous, letter also published on the Jewish Voice for Labour site:

Holocaust survivor descendants query your position on the Labour antisemitism crisis

Emailed to Owen Jones, 11th June 2024.

Dear Owen,

Thanks for the sterling work you’re doing informing many thousands of people about the horrors in Gaza. However, we do wish to raise a rather tricky issue from the Labour Party antisemitism crisis that began in 2016.

As descendants of Holocaust survivors we believe accusations of antisemitism are extremely serious and therefore should be made only when justified. Yet, in a recent Youtube interview with Curtis Daly, you appeared to suggest that the former Momentum vice-chair, Jackie Walker, has engaged in antisemitism:

‘There was a small number of people who engage in either antisemitism or antisemitic tropes who are not representative but who cause hurt to Jewish people …

“You had people who, for example, would spread the idea that there was a role of Jewish people in the slave trade historically and then they would claim: ‘Well I’m being witch-hunted over Palestine’. [But] you’re not talking about Palestine there, you’re talking about just a false narrative. There was no meaningful involvement by Jewish people in the slave trade historically…

“I’m not naming the person but that’s the point they made. They alluded to the involvement, and that is a false history which was actually promoted by Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam. The point I’m making is there were people who said things which was just completely false and caused hurt …”

Our concern here is that there’s no mention that Jackie Walker made her reference to the slave trade, not in any public article or speech, but in what has been described as ‘a private discussion with a Zionist friend’ on Facebook. To suggest that Ms. Walker was trying to ‘spread the idea’ that Jews played a role in the slave trade – let alone that she was trying to hurt anyone – seems unfounded, to us anyway?

Here’s a picture of that Facebook post from 2016:

Another concern of ours is that there’s no reference in your Youtube interview to Ms. Walker’s September 2016 explanation of her Facebook post where she said:

“Yes, I wrote “many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade”. These words, taken out of context in the way the media did, of course do not reflect my position. I was writing to someone who knew the context of my comments. Had he felt the need to pick me up on what I had written I would have rephrased – perhaps to “Jews (my ancestors too) were among those who financed the sugar and slave trade and at the particular time/in the particular area I’m talking about they played an important part.”

“The Facebook post taken by itself doesn’t, and can’t possibly reflect the complexity of Jewish history, of the history of Africa, the history of people of the African diaspora and the hundreds of years of the slave trade. The truth is while many peoples were involved in this pernicious trade it was the rulers of Christian Spain and Portugal that ordered the massacre and expulsion of thousands of Jews from the Iberian Peninsular who forced Jewish communities to seek refuge in the New World and the Caribbean. It was European and American Christian empires that overwhelmingly profited from the kidnap, enslavement and death of millions of Africans and I’m happy to make explicit and correct here any different impression my Facebook post gave.”

And further:

“If my historical understanding is shown to be wrong by future research I will of course adapt and change my views as necessary. For the record, my claim, as opposed to those made for me by the Jewish Chronicle, has never been that Jews played a disproportionate role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, merely that, as historians such as Arnold Wiznitzer noted, at a certain economic point, in specific regions where my ancestors lived, Jews played a dominant role “as financiers of the sugar industry, as brokers and exporters of sugar, and as suppliers of Negro slaves on credit, accepting payment of capital and interest in sugar.”

“No people are exempt from truth. No people are better, more moral than any other. None deserve higher protection from the eye of history. All of us are subjects, products of material historical development. As Kagan & Morgan point out, “Jews in the Atlantic constituted a stateless minority, a ‘nation within a nation,’ the counterpoint to imperial cultures of early modern Europe; and yet from the fifteenth century onwards, Jews were also key participants in the effort to expand European empires into the western hemisphere and the broader Atlantic world. In short, they were, as Jonathan Israel has noted, simultaneously agents and victims of empire.

“This was the point I was attempting to make on Facebook, in a comic-strip, abbreviated, inadequate, deficient sort of conversational way…”

Ms. Walker also said that any suggestions that she supported ‘the nonsense peddled by the Nation of Islam … are barely worth a response except to say the Nation of Islam is an antisemitic group which seeks to set Jewish and Black people against each other. Any examination of my work, my writing, my life, would make clear my opposition to this ideology.’

Please correct us if we’re missing something but, after reading the original post and this later response, we cannot see anything antisemitic in Ms. Walker’s statements.

One of us is a daughter of Jewish parents who escaped Poland at the start of the war. Another is the son of a father who survived the Lodz Ghetto as well as various concentration camps including Buchenwald. And another is the son of parents who survived both Polish ghettos and Auschwitz. Many of our relatives died in Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps and ghettos. We therefore take antisemitism very seriously. We believe it should neither be ignored when real, nor falsely applied when there is insufficient evidence – not least of all because any false accusations discredit attempts to discuss and counter real antisemitism.

We appreciate that going public about changing one’s mind is difficult for any public figure – especially when right-wing critics will use anything to denounce those of us on the left. But you have been impressively resilient in the face of the pro-Israel lobby and your original instincts on this issue were to defend Jackie Walker – apparently saying, in May 2016, that to call her antisemitic was ‘ludicrous’ and that her Labour Party suspension had ‘no justification’. If that’s the case, then returning to your original position should be relatively easy to justify.

We also appreciate you are extremely busy but we look forward to a response clarifying your views on this still current issue.

Thanks,

Haim Bresheeth
Mark Etkind
Yosefa Loshitzky

A whole library of ‘educate yourself’

Graham Bash, editor of Labour Briefing (and Jackie Walker’s partner), who has read extensively on the topic, hit Jones with a meticulously researched and sourced set of quotes from Jewish expert authors whose work all supports Walker’s conclusions and demolishes Jones’s posturing. Bash accuses Jones of laziness and tells him, “Do your homework!”

Do your homework!  An Open Letter to Owen Jones

Graham Bash, 15th June 2024.

Thank you, Owen, for putting us all right.

In your recent interview you said, in an obvious reference to Jackie Walker, that “there were people who spread the idea that there was a role of Jewish people in the slave trade historically … [T]hat is a false history.”

What a relief!

As a one-time comrade (and friend) I’m sure you remember I am Jewish. For many years I have been reading about Jewish involvement in the Atlantic slave trade – because I want to understand the diverse history of my people, in particular the ways it has intersected with other peoples. I have found some of the evidence disconcerting.

I’m sure from your comments that you too must have done a lot of research so please, could you share your sources?

I have only read about seven or eight books on this subject, mainly by Jewish authors. Most have come to a rather different, more nuanced, conclusion than you have.

Take for example, this from the website of the London Jewish Museum:

“Dutch Orthodox Rabbi Lody van de Kamp wrote a book about Dutch Jewish complicity in the transatlantic slave trade. He talks about the Jodensavanne (“Jewish Savannah”), an agricultural community with 40 Jewish-owned plantations with at least 5,000 enslaved people in a part of former Dutch Guyana.”

“Seymour Drescher, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh states that Dutch Jews may have accounted for the resale of at least 15,000 enslaved people on the Caribbean island of Curacao.”

“According to Drescher, there was a time when Jewish people controlled about 17 percent of the Caribbean trade in Dutch colonies. However, Jewish involvement in transatlantic slavery is not unique as wealthy merchants across Europe of different faiths all participated.”

Or this from the exhibition, of “Jews in the Caribbean: Four centuries of history in Suriname and Curacao” at Amsterdam’s Jewish Historical Museum.

This is referred to in Forward, a Jewish independent newspaper, as follows:

“Yet another wall text in the exhibit discusses the Suriname synagogue Beracha VeShalom in Jodensavanne (Jewish savannah). It notes that Jews were given special dispensation to work their slaves on Sunday instead of Saturday.”

“Dutch Jewish activity in the Caribbean, beginning with the arrival of Dutch traders in the 1500s, has been much discussed in scholarship, according to Robert Taber, an instructor of Latin American history at University of Florida.”

‘Slave ownership came with the territory – no major religious tradition had prohibitions on African slavery until around the 1770s. If a person lived in the Caribbean and had any amount of wealth at all, they would use it to rent or buy slaves.’ Taber says. ‘This was a constant across empires, across religions, and across races – as free blacks and people of colour also often owned slaves.’”

“’Scholars, therefore, don’t consider Dutch Jews’ ownership of and trading of slaves particularly scandalous or shocking, nor was it considered so at the time. ‘In some ways, this general acceptance of slavery at the time is horrifying, because it prompts some serious thinking about what we might do on a regular basis that is grossly exploitative,’ Taber says.”

Or this from Arnold Wiznitzer in his Jews in Colonial Brazil: Columbia University Press 1960

“It cannot be said that the Jews played a dominant role in Dutch Brazil as senhores de engenho {owners of sugar plantations}. Unquestionably, they played a more important part as financiers of the sugar industry, as brokers and exporters of sugar, as suppliers of Negro slaves on credit, accepting payment of capital and interest in sugar.” (p.70)

“If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed.

“[The Old Christians] began to resent Jewish competition in trade, at the auctions of sugar plantations, in the slave trade, and the like.” (p.72)

“The Jews played an increasingly important role in exporting and in the import of commodities vital for Brazil, functioning as moneylenders, purchasers of slaves, owners of engenhos {plantations}, tax farmers, financiers for sugar mill owners, and in other capacities.” (p.81)

“On January 10,1641, 66 Christian merchants residing in Dutch Brazil submitted to the government in Recife a report very hostile to the Jews. It stated that the country’s trade and brokerage were passing more and more into Jewish hands, and that almost the entire sugar trade was dominated by Jews; that the Jews were adept at laying their hands on all profitable transactions…” (p.83)

Many of the same issues are covered in the Wikipedia entry History of the Jews in Suriname

And there’s this from Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean by Edward Kritzler: Anchor Books 2008.

“So it was that in 1534, the same year Charles V sent Portuguese conversos to salvage Jamaica, Coelho [feudal lord of Brazil] brought over Portuguese conversos – foremen, mechanics and skilled workmen, principally from Sao Tome – to Brazil.”

“From the time of the Crusades, when the cane root was transplanted from Asia to the Mediterranean basin, ‘the making and selling of sugar was dominated by Jews’ ” (quoting from Jane S. Gerber, Jewish Society in Fez).

“The Jews’ role in the commercial process shows them to be neither better nor worse than others in an era when the morality of slavery was a non-issue.”

There is a footnote reference to Faber’s Jews, Slaves and the Slave Trade. It focuses on the British slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries which demonstrates “the minimal nature of Jews’ involvement in the subjugation of Africans in the Americas.”

And this from Jane Gerber’s The Jews Of The Caribbean: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilisation, 2014.

“[It] is not to suggest that slaves were not a key commodity in which the Sephardi community dealt [in Curacao in the 1650s], for clearly they were, but rather to ascertain whether the slave traffic was really the main reason for the emergence of an active Sephardi community on Curacao ….. [It] raises doubts as to how vital the slave trade actually was in the Jewish trade of the early period.” (p.39)

And Stanley Mirvis writes in The Jews of Eighteenth Century Jamaica: Yale University Press 2020:

“Caribbean Jews are overwhelmingly characterised… as traders and retailers – a community of merchants rather than planters. This chapter challenges that prevailing view by focusing on the lives of Jewish planters who were often one and the same or in collaboration with port-city merchants…..

During the late 17th century, Portuguese Jews built their own semi-autonomous plantation community on the Suriname River, Jodensavanne, where they cultivated sugar and other commodities through the use of thousands of African slaves. During the 18th century Jewish planters could be found throughout the Caribbean in Curacao, Aruba, St Eustatius, St Thomas, Nevis, St Kitts and Barbados.” (p.65)

“By the end of the 18th century, Jamaica had the most extensive concentration of Jewish planters in the Caribbean….Jamaica’s only rival was Suriname, where Portuguese Jews had a tradition of planting and slave ownership….. By the 1770s, Jews had largely abandoned their Surinamese plantations.” (p.67)

“Jewish planters were no exception to the rule that large-scale slave ownership and planting went hand-in-hand.” (p.83)

“By the eighteenth century, Jews already had a long history of slave ownership. But the Jewish slave owners of the colonial Americas – especially in plantation economies like Brazil, Jamaica, Barbados and Suriname – were forced to harmonise unprecedented industrial slavery with Jewish with Jewish cultural traditions that were at times somewhat incompatible.” (p.85)

“Despite some 20th century apologetic arguments claiming that Jews treated their slaves better than non-Jewish slave owners … Jewish slave owners are indistinguishable from their non-Jewish neighbours…. The clear conclusion is that as slave owners, Jews displayed no distinctiveness from their non-Jewish counterparts.” (p.86)

In the edited collection Religious Changes and Cultural Transformations in the Early Modern Western Sephardic Communities.  Jonathan Schorsch writes:

“We must start with the Portuguese excursions to the western coast of Africa in the fifteenth century. As recent research has shown, New Christians and Sephardim were intimately involved with this overseas expansion, the real beginning of the Atlantic mercantile and colonial system.

In short, we must reconsider the conclusion of the great historian Salo W. Baron. He wrote that ‘Neither the slave trade, therefore, nor slaveholding seems ever to have been so important a factor in Jewish economic life.’ While for Jewish history as a whole he is undoubtedly correct, for the early modern Atlantic world, over the course of two or three centuries several Jewish communities in the Americas depended on and participated actively in the general slave economy. Beyond economics, the presence of non-whites and slaves in a number of Sephardic communities was significant enough to influence communal legislation.”

(The essay is Chapter 21 “Revisiting Blackness, Slavery, and Jewishness in the Early Modern Sephardic Atlantic” pps.512-540)

Eli Faber’s Jews, Slaves and the Slave Trade, Setting The Record Straight, New York University Press, 1998 has a very different take.

It argues that Jews’ “participation in the slave trade and in the ownership of slaves was quite small. When compared with their non-Jewish contemporaries, their involvement was one that had little impact.”(p.1)

However, he also states “their contributions to the sugar industry were far more significant when it came to providing capital, exporting sugar, and advancing credit for slaves. As creditors, according to the historian of the Brazilian Jewish community [Wiznitzer}, ‘they dominated the slave trade.’” (p.17)

So there is a historical dispute, one recognised by Jackie Walker herself here.

Let me now put aside my Jewish and/or British irony. There is an important issue at stake – which is how we approach history.

It is hopeless to have an opinion on historical matters –“false narrative” and the like, without doing any proper research. We cannot just pick up pieces of history that suit our narrative. Rather we need the space to assess the historical record – and if our studies make us feel uncomfortable, so be it.

Owen, do your homework and have the humility to accept your mistakes, and in future please stop talking about matters you have no knowledge of.

It is lazy scholarship – and you can do better than this.

Jones, who turned repeatedly on then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and did much to reinforce and amplify both the ‘Labour antisemitism’ smear and the ‘second referendum’ push that helped sabotage the 2019 general election campaign, was contacted for comment but did not respond.

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.

160 comments

  2. Wasn’t it Jeremy Corbyn’s administration that subjected Jackie Walker to her ordeal and eventually expelled her from the Labour Party

    Reply

    1. At the time Corbyn expressed his concern that Jewish members of the
      Labour Party were being reported for anti-semitism and suggested
      that this might be because of “Jewish politics”. He was
      subsequently mis-quoted on this. Corbyn had been careful as to
      what he said because he was not supposed to interfere with disciplinary
      processes.

      This is completely different from what Owen has said – and then repeated
      which was to do some checking
      (1) on what Walker said in context.
      (2) on what scholars have said on the matter of those involved with the Slave Trade..

      PS I think Corbyn might now say something different having heard subsequent
      discussions and defence of Walker.

      Reply

      1. Why anyone bothers with Jones is beyond me. He proved his colours well and truly during the Corbyn takedown

    2. More selective disingenuous rewriting of the record to suit an alternative reality narrative Billy.

      The proper operation of due process systems – under which organisational disicipline and grievance procedures fall – quite rightly proceeds on the basis of a separation of powers. To have any efficacy at all any due process system requires that the Executive power has to be kept separate from the judicial power. That is the basic principle* of how it is set up in this Country at every level.

      Indeed, there was an enormous hue and cry on these very grounds at the time about any hint of the leader of the Party becoming involved in the actual disciplinary process.

      And, on the basis of your record, Billy, it is a more than reasonable supposition that somewhere in the BTL archives on this site you will be on record as making that very critique.

      *not that you would recognise the concept of a principle.

      Reply

    3. “Wasn’t it Jeremy Corbyn’s administration that subjected Jackie Walker to her ordeal and eventually expelled her from the Labour Party”

      Yes SteveH it was. It was a “a shameful passage in Labour history” and, as Sara commented on the wonderful JVL article quoted above, an

      “…orchestrated witch hunt (which) is politically motivated to remove Jeremy Corbyn and anyone that supports him from getting into power. All of the people being targeted are brilliant and good human beings. It’s a disgrace that this is happening.”

      It was only when Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit investigated 500 gigabytes of documents, emails, video and audio files from the Labour Party dating from 1998 to 2021 and produced THE LABOUR FILES (available online) that the vile racist, anti-socialist and anti-democratic objectives of the Starmer-centred Labour Right became clear and obvious to many outside the party.

      Now the hard-right zionist Starmer-supporting lunatics are running the asylum (but you know that!).

      https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/25/what-really-happened-during-labours-anti-semitism-crisis

      Reply

      1. And, apart from describing your confusing position, Billy, exactly what is that you found confusing?

    4. No, it was under right wing McNicols control, and the discredited “Labour” enforcers

      Reply

      3. All his allies. The list is pretty much alongside the same who threw the 2017 election, the culmination of which being Corbyn locked out of the UK in anticipation.

        Who could ever forget Kinnochio jnr’s little face when he heard the results?

        Your charlatans want my vote….heh

      4. “Who allowed McNicol to remain in office for so long?”

        Make your mind up Billy.

        Which is it; the Rules you quoted and hung your hat on where only the NEC/Conference have the right to remove the GS and not the leader of the Party or not?

        At present you are flip flopping about all over the place. Presumably depending on your mood at any one moment.

      6. Just to be clear, Billy: that was your succinct way of admitting you cannot come up with neither a coherent sensible answer nor with a grown up response?

        Yes? No?

      7. Dave – Not at all, I gave your rather confused comment the respect and response that I thought it warranted.

      8. “Who allowed McNicol to remain in office for so long?”

        Oh! Hang on. I know this one!

        According to you Billy it was the NEC – as per the Rules you quoted to us further down below on this thread.

      10. You quoted the rules for us Billy – which more than adequately answered your own original question.

        I’m merely agreeing with that particular interpretation of yours rather than any of the other contradictory answers you put forward.

        Want to try again?

  3. Indeed, there was an enormous hue and cry on these very grounds at the time about any hint of the leader of the Party becoming involved in the actual disciplinary process

    And, on the basis of your record, Billy, it is a more than reasonable supposition that somewhere in the BTL archives on this site you will be on record as making that very critique.

    But that was then…

    Reply

    1. “But that was then…”

      Which would make young Billy a Marxist – albeit of the Groucho variety;

      ‘If you don’t like my principles, I have some more.’

      Reply

      1. Well, as I’m constantly reminded, he voted for Corbyn TWICE, (whereas I didn’t, not being eligible).

        And ONLY voted keef because: “he was best of a bad bunch”.

        So bad, in fact, that he’s now more-or-less been granted papal infallibility by the capricious caprine corruptor.

      2. Toffee – “he was best of a bad bunch”.

        Did I ever actually write that, or is this ‘direct quote’ another example of your embellishments. Can you please provide a link to the comment where I wrote this phrase?

      3. Don’t you just love the smell of hypocrisy first thing in the morning.

        I would get off that high horse of yours Billy before you fall off.

        Someone like yourself who consistently misrepresents others by claiming they have said something they have not is the last person to be bellyaching and mardy arsing about this issue.

  4. In fact, Dave, I think it was wee gobshite kicked off an argument about the party leader getting involved when he blamed Corbyn for not getting shut of mcnicol.

    So tell us, wee gobshite… In your infinite wisdom, if there was nothing smarmer could have legally done to bin the KNOWN child sex offender, dewey – at ANY time instead of ALLOWING the vermin’s resignation and then putting the kybosh on any mention of the nonce –

    Then what could Corbyn have legally done to bin mcnicol?

    Oh, and don’t bother with your but the timeline nonce-excusing; dewey was KNOWN to be a nonce when he took the seat. It wasn’t dismissed. It was permitted to RESIGN from the party.

    Its quite simple, really.

    Keef deems child sex offences (and offenders) LESS serious than PERCEIVED antisemitism.

    Reply

    1. “Then what could Corbyn have legally done to bin mcnicol?”

      That’s easy, Corbyn could have ‘asked’ McNicol to resign and if he refused then he could have been removed from his post by Conference

      Reply

      3. and……merely being helpful Billy.

        Just like yourself.

  5. For heavens sake – who is “Billy”?

    But yes – the “Labour files” corrected most of the
    many many mis-quotations and misunderstandings and
    “out of contexts”.

    Reply

    1. HolbyFanMW,

      Just to be clear, in this context “Billy” is not a name it is a title. The shortened version of the term “Billy No Mates”. A more than suitable descriptive term for an aspiring wannabe troll who frequents this site in an attempt to emulate the old Perishers cartoon character ‘B.H (Calcutta) Failed’ and who claims to reside in a Caribbean bolthole.

      Hope that helps.

      Reply

    2. Spot on about The Labour Files HolbyFanMW
      ‘SteveH’, the resident pro-Sturmer entryist is ‘Billy’ as in the Keith Waterhouse 1959 novel “Billy Liar” (aka ‘wee gobshite’, thanks toffee).

      Reply

      1. Billy Liar works for me qwertboi. Reality is too complex for simple either/or constructions.

  6. Just came across this article in the Middle East Eye posted today:

    ‘Israeli army knew of Hamas’s plans on 7 October, report finds’

    Newly revealed document shows the army was even aware of the number of captives the Palestinian group planned to take

    The Israeli army and intelligence services had detailed knowledge of Hamas’s plan to attack Israel and take captives weeks before the 7 October attack, a newly surfaced document reveals.

    A report by Israel’s Kan News says the report, titled “Detailed End-to-End Raid Training”, was compiled by the Israeli army’s Gaza Division, distributed on 19 September 2023, and was known to top intelligence officials.

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-army-knew-hamas-plans-report-finds

    Near the end of the article it says the following:

    It is believed that flawed perceptions within Israel’s security establishment, as well as possible negligence by senior officials, were the main reasons why the Gaza Division’s warnings were not acted upon.

    MEE don’t specify who it’s believed by, and I can only assume that they are reluctant to state the obvious – ie that Netanyahu and his fascist buddies deliberately let the attack go ahead, and did so for a variety of obvious reasons.

    Reply

    1. I’m 99.99% certain I posted the folllowing on here months ago – ie a passage from a wikipedia entry entitled ‘Hamas-led attack on Israel’, under the sub-heading Israeli intelligence failure:

      According to The New York Times, Israeli officials had obtained detailed attack plans more than a year before the attack. The document described operational plans and targets, including the size and location of Israeli forces, and raised questions in Israel about how Hamas learned these details. The document provided a plan that included a large-scale rocket assault before an invasion, drones to knock out the surveillance cameras and automated guns that Israel has stationed along the border, and gunmen invading Israel, including with paragliders. The Times reported, “Hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision.” According to The Times, the document was widely circulated among Israeli military and intelligence leadership….

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel

      NB The MEE article says the Israeli army and intelligence services had detailed knowledge of Hamas’s plan to attack Israel ‘weeks before the attack’, and yet according to the NYT, ‘Israeli officials’ had obtained detailed attack plans more than a year before the attack. Confusing…..

      Reply

      4. You haven’t even done allan the courtesy of reading the first sentence of the post you’ve chosen to sneer at which reads as follows

        “I’m 99.99% certain I posted the folllowing on here months ago – ie a passage from a wikipedia entry entitled ‘Hamas-led attack on Israel’, under the sub-heading Israeli intelligence failure

        But have rather gone off into one and trawled through mold posts to find not just one, but two examples as some sort of one-upmanship. Even though Allan clearly states he’s certain he posted them MONTHS AGO.

        Anyone goes back through your posting history, and you cry about ” how sad they” are.

        Difference is, you give us reason to.

        For clarity, and for the THIRD time, Allan made himself clear at the very start of the post you failed to read.

        Failed. Again. Gobshite.

      5. Toffee – I don’t have one, I’m simply confirming that Allan’s recollection about his previous comments was correct. Is there a reason (beyond your obsessive behaviour) that you have a problem with that?

      6. Oh, DO pull the other one – there’s a handmade Italian shoe at the end of it, ffs.

        You trawled through Allan’s history to post not one, but TWO examples from 6 months ago – just to be helpful? 🤔

        Mighty white of ya, I must say. (If there was a modicum of truth in it). 🤥

        As you’re in such a helpful and compliant mood, how’s about you being an absolute darling, and sharing with me, the date of your sodding off to the Caribbean??

        It’ll give me a timeline to trawl through YOUR posting history – not to be helpful, but to prove beyond doubt you’re a lying hound.

      7. Toffee – Oh for goodness sake do grow up.

        Unlike you I didn’t need go trawling, I constructed a very simple search query in Google and it returned just 3 results (the 2 links that I’ve posted above and this page). The whole process of confirming Allan’s recollection for him was very, very easy and took me less than a minute.

        What have I said above that could possibly be interpreted as “sneering”.

      8. Billy, to quote – “Oh dear, how sad are you? That was nearly 6 months ago and a lot has changed since then.

        You should perhaps consider exercising some caution, your obsessive behaviour is very unlikely to be good for your mental health. ”

        Certainly, repetition can be somewhat problematic.

        However, at least Allan Howard’s repetition here is relevant and in context.

        Moreover, in terms of repetition, Allan has an extremely long way to go to get anywhere near the scoreline of repetition of someone whose only consistent response, when confronted with questions and issues they are cognitively incapable of facing, has to resort to invoking a hobgoblin.

        Clearly under the delusion that constantly chanting the incantation “Putin” to everything is some sort of magic spell that makes all those nasty awkward questions and issues disappear.

        Probably best if you stopped digging Billy.

      9. Dave – If you are going to quote me please have the courtesy to do it accurately.
        What I actually wrote was

        “Toffee – Oh dear, how sad are you? That was 6½yrs ago and a lot has changed for the better since then.
        You should perhaps consider exercising some caution, your obsessive behaviour is very unlikely to be good for your mental health. 😟”
        https://skwawkbox.org/2024/06/12/video-audience-laughs-at-starmer-as-he-answers-robot-question-like-a-robot/#comment-256032

        …..and unlike Toffee my intention was to be helpful, not part of some weirdly perverse and malicious obsession.

        “

      10. Do you think I fell to earth during the last rain shower?

        You did a search JUST to confirm Allan had indeed already posted what he said he was 99.99% certain he’d already posted? In full sincerity, rather than to have a dig?

        Oh, ok then. Careful not to drop those cuckoo eggs out of that nest at the end of your nose, or you’ll never become a real boy…🤥

      11. Toffee – “Do you think I fell to earth during the last rain shower?”
        Yes❗
        I thought that I had made it very clear on numerous occasions how gullible I think you are.

        “You did a search JUST to confirm Allan had indeed already posted what he said he was 99.99% certain he’d already posted? In full sincerity, rather than to have a dig?”
        Well yes it was, perhaps you should look to yourself for the reason you would think otherwise.

        “Oh, ok then. Careful not to drop those cuckoo eggs out of that nest at the end of your nose, or you’ll never become a real boy…”
        You could just admit that you were wrong 😏

      12. I said nowt, but I KNEW you’d try to pull that stunt. 6.5 years or 6 months ago – it makes no odds.

        You complain when it’s done to you.

        You try to kid on you’re only helping when you do it.

        “Helping out”someone you’ve previously sneered at and frequently accused of being obsessive -as you do with plenty of other posters here.

        And now, because Dave didn’t quote you verbatim that renders his entirely correct observation, invalid.

        It just doesn’t. You’ve failed. Again. Unlucky. Turn it in.

      13. Toffee – “And now, because Dave didn’t quote you verbatim that renders his entirely correct observation, invalid.”
        You can’t take away or invalidate something that never existed.

      14. Toffee – “Then what could Corbyn have legally done to bin mcnicol? “
        He could have ‘asked’ McNicol to resign and if he refused he could have had him removed at Conference.🤔

      16. While he could’ve done, it’s patently obvious Dave didn’t copy & paste your quote (for which you have been rightly ridiculed).

        But nevermind, his timeline got lost in translation, so therefore he forfeits the point he was making, doesn’t he?

        You piss-poor excuse for an imbecile.

      17. And, after a day or so, the very best you can come u with is: Corbyn could’ve ASKED mcnicol to resign ?

        Are you for f***ing real? You’re the one saying it was within Corbyn’s remit to SACK mcnicol ffs

        But there’s more effervescent sagacity: “He (Corbyn) could’ve had him (mcnicol) removed at conference”

        You’re the rulebook anorak. How the AF could Corbyn remove mcnicol at conference if he couldn’t do it off his own bat outside conference, and by your own boundless wisdom, would’ve ASKED for mcnicol’s resignation?

        Do tell, genius.

      18. Toffee – Oh dear, if only you knew what you were talking about. 😞

        Did you miss this “The S*n is claiming McNicol had a ‘visit’ from Corbyn this afternoon to tell him he was done. However, that’s more fake news.
        The SKWAWKBOX can reveal that the meeting took place on Tuesday – and McNicol was allowed to resign to save face.”
        https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/23/excl-mcnicol-resignation-drama-began-tuesday/
        ALSO
        The Rule Book makes it very clear that the GenSec can be dismissed by either Conference or the NEC
        Here is an extract from the Labour Party’s Rule Book
        Chapter 4, Clause 2,
        “4. Election of General Secretary
        A. The General Secretary shall be elected by Party conference on the recommendation of the NEC and shall be an ex-officio member of Party conference. S/he shall devote her or his whole time to the work of the Party and shall not be eligible to act as a parliamentary candidate. S/he shall remain in office so long as her/ his work gives satisfaction to the NEC and Party conference. Should a vacancy in the office occur, for whatever reason, between Party conferences, the NEC shall have full power to fill the vacancy subject to the approval of Party conference.”

        Have you ever considered doing a little research before opening your mouth?

      19. Oh, unlucky DICKHEAD because NOWHERE does the rule state that THE PARTY LEADER has the power to dismiss anyone, nor intervene in disciplinary process(es).

        Also, methinks you’re quoting the rulebook from 2020 – published after keef shithoused his way to the gig, aided and abetted by total gobshites such as yourself

        You really should think before opening that cave of yours.

        Ordinarily, I’d be pissing myself laughing at your total idiocy, but for you it’s oar for the course, you boring ineffective, inept gobshite.

        Now go away.

      25. What I think happened was Corbyn told mcnicol to do one, and mcnicol refused, telling Corbyn he’d spunk the party funds on a protracted legal case (a-la keef). So Corbyn sweetened the “departure” by putting the rodent up for a peerage.

        Now, had that actually been keef instead of Corbyn…he’d have given his lawyer mates the brief for a while then thrown his hand in, having paid mcnicol a hefty sum AND ennobling him in the process.

        Legal AND political AND strategical genius, is keef.

      26. And nowhere, Billy, in those 2018 Rules is there any singular rights or provision for a leader of the Party having the power, under those rules, to dismiss the General Secretary or ask the GS to resign. That power, under those rules, residing in both instances [dismissal AND request for resignation] with the National Executive Committee, not the Party Leader..

        Sorry! What was your point again?

        Ah yes:

        Verbatim quotes from not one but two separate posts at 10:50 pm 18/06/24:

        “He could have ‘asked’ McNicol to resign and if he refused he could have had him removed at Conference.”

        and this at 11:07 pm on 18/06/24:

        “That’s easy, Corbyn could have ‘asked’ McNicol to resign and if he refused then he could have been removed from his post by Conference.”

        And just to emphasis the point The relevant section of the Rules which you, Billy, have posted do not give the Leader of the Party either of those rights. They are, according to you, Billy, the purview of the NEC. The Party Leader has no singular role. No singular say under the Rules except in the capacity as a single vote as a member of the NEC.

      28. Toffee – “So tell us, wee gobshite… In your infinite wisdom, if there was nothing smarmer could have legally done to bin the KNOWN child sex offender, dewey – at ANY time instead of ALLOWING the vermin’s resignation and then putting the kybosh on any mention of the nonce –

        So bearing in mind the time-line of events what actions would you have taken and when?🤔

        Thomas Dewey (TD) was arrested on 29/04/2022 just 6 days before the election on 6/05/2022 and 24 days after the latest date that candidates could be changed in that election.
        The National Crime Agency who carried out the raid and arrest did not inform Hackney Council about TD’s arrest until 13/05/22 a week after the election and Hackney Council’s Chief Executive did not inform the Mayor Philip Glanville (PG) until a day later on 14/05/22.
        The Chief Executive of the Council officially informed the Labour Party on 16/05/22 10 days after the election took place.
        Given that to date there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the Labour Party knew anything about TD being arrested and bailed until at least a week after the election had taken place then any assertions that Labour allowing TD to stand in the election knowing that he was on bail for the possession of child porn appears to be nothing more than ill-informed hyperbole driven by factional prejudices rather than the known facts.
        Maybe an enquiry will reveal further details but until someone comes up with some credible evidence that presents a radically different time-line on who knew what and when then it looks like the Labour Party were never in a position to prevent anything to do with this and given their knowledge at the time acted appropriately throughout.

      29. Right, Billy. You’ve changed your mind vis a vis your earlier position.

      31. Dave – So what, I was resident in the UK at the time of writing, We didn’t emigrate until several years later.

      32. “Dave – Have I really?”

        Yes Billy. To one which broadly agrees with my post of 09:27 of 19/06/24 from your initial position outlined in your post of 03:49 am of 19/06/24…..

        https://skwawkbox.org/2024/06/17/jones-gets-thorough-schooling-from-academics-activists-after-attack-on-walker/#comment-256115

        …..arguing that it could only be done via the rules you quoted.

        You really do need to make up your mind rather than this constant chopping and changing.

      35. Toffee – “We only have your (worthless) word for that.”
        If that is what you think then that is your problem, not mine

        “That’s because you continue to refuse to provide the date when you buggered off – if you ever did.”
        WTF has that got to do with you? When was the last time I asked you about where you live. You’re weird.

        “Still gonna double down that you never said you ONLY voted keef because he was best of a bad bunch.”
        I haven’t said that, what I did say is
        “Did I ever actually write that, or is this ‘direct quote’ another example of your embellishments. Can you please provide a link to the comment where I wrote this phrase?”
        Which is quite radically different from your lies

        “I’ve already exposed your lies at least once and you’ve refused to go.”
        Have you really, where? All I can see is lies and innuendo. Where’s you evidence?

        “When I do it again, are you gonna piss off forever?”
        I’ve yet to see you do it once, but the answer to your question is NO, You’re delusional

        Or are you gonna be happy to have each and every post you make followed up by a link to me exposing your current claim about your reason for voting keef?
        It’s your time that you are wasting. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

        “Because if you refuse again, that’s what’s gonna happen, sunshine.
        Ooooo, a big tough wannabe bully. How sad is that?

      36. “Dave – Now you are just being silly.”

        Why? You very accurately quoted the Rules on the matter. Which suggests to any reasonable person on any reasonable reading that what was set out in those 2018 Rules was your position on the correct de jure due process procedures which should have applied.

        The fact that this contradicted your original position that the Party Leader somehow had the responsibility for keeping the GS in place and, by definition, the de jure due process rights which go with that responsibility to remove the GS very clearly indicates that you are flip flopping over the issue.

        Which is it Billy? Make your mind up. Did the Party Leader have this right as you originally and very clearly suggested he did he not because the Rules you quoted reserved that right for the NEC*(where the Party Leader only has a single vote)/Conference?

        To coin a phrase: Are your underpants up or down?*

        *Though, knowing you, Billy, they are probably at half mast.

      39. I’m not surprised you are struggling to arrive at a consistent and coherent position on the question Billy when you are all over the place.

        Though how you expect other people to understand your position when you don’t understand it yourself presents an interesting philosophical conundrum.

        Little wonder you are reduced to playground level emoji’s as a response.

        Have you ever tried mixing with some adults to learn how the grown up people do things?

      40. Dave – I gave your rather confused comment the respect and response that I thought it warranted.

      42. Dave – You’re the numpty who is getting all excited about my comment appearing in the wrong place.😏

      43. “Dave – I gave your rather confused comment the respect and response that I thought it warranted.”

        Whatever excuse helps you cope Billy.

        But tell us; in what way was it confused? Apart from detailing your own confused and inconsistent position on the matter?

      44. Is that your way of ‘gracefully’ conceding you were confused Billy?

      45. Dave – Unlike you, I’m not in the least bit confused.

      46. “Dave – Unlike you, I’m not in the least bit confused.”

        Right, Billy. As you say.

        That’s an interesting and novel re-interpretation of the concept given you set out a premise; subsequently contradicted that premise with actual evidence; and then decided to disagree with yourself on your original premise. Again, with evidence.

        Perhaps you should go and have a lie down.

  7. Christ Almighty…

    Just watching the CH4 debate.

    That winker (sic) thomas-simonds has just given us page 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the keefspiel almanac.

    “Because when he was DPP, keef prosecuted terrorists and smashed smuggling gangs etc”

    …and there’s still plenty of time for “his dad was a toolmaker” FCAUFS. 🤦

    Reply

  8. https://skwawkbox.org/2024/06/17/jones-gets-thorough-schooling-from-academics-activists-after-attack-on-walker/#comment-256114

    Ah, the well-worn, wee gobshite shithouse trick of wanting verbatim proof.

    Well you’ve said it. And I’ve used it on average at least once a fortnight since you’ve said it, without you once asking me to find a link to prove it.

    And now, because there’s a few years of distance, and knowing it’ll be difficult for me to prove, you’ve decided to question whether you actually said it. I won’t bother looking for it especially.

    You said it, and that’s the end of it. Perhaps one day I’ll find it in passing, just like your supposedly being “headhunted for three local schools”.

    The reason you refuse to divulge your departure date from the UK (IF you ever actually left)

    But when I DO find proof (And I SHALL one day) I expect you to bugger off into the ether, never to return here again.

    Reply

    2. Toffee, in a spirit of helpfulness:

      Two links, one in a separate post below:

      Firstly, and with thanks to another poster on this site who was most helpful in providing a link to a Skawkbox article from February 2018, this BTL comment from that article may be of interest to you – assuming of course that the claim made in that comment is a truthful one:

      https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/23/excl-mcnicol-resignation-drama-began-tuesday/#comment-57241

      ……continued……

      Reply

    3. ….continued…..

      This second link……

      https://www.unitetheunion.org/why-join/membership-types

      …..setting out the categories membership available in a specific trade union operating in the UK and Ireland.

      You may wish to note that there is no category of “International” member. i.e. residing outside the UK and Ireland.

      Hope this has been helpful.

      Reply

      2. What’s the problem Billy? I thought you were all in favour of helping people out?

  9. Antisemitism is not the only issue on which Own Jones is clueless….

    https://x.com/JohnJamesNI/status/1803372828311367684

    …..here’s Nadia Whittome – standing for what is, apparently, the Labour Party in the current yawnfest of an election – doing her bit to lose a sizable chunk of the majority section of voters.

    “self-id – no ifs, no buts”

    The question arises as to whether or not the economic implications of people self identifying as older than they are – I myself am looking forward to self-identifying as one hundred and twenty years of age – in order to become instant millionaires from decades of back pension have been considered or, for that matter, costed into the Manifesto.

    After all, what’s sauce for the goose!

    Why limit the self-id principle to only one feature? That would surely amount to age and a whole range of other discriminations? Besides which, it is reasonable to surmise that there will be individuals whose chronological age is quite high who, for whatever reason, wish to self-id as being of school age.

    “Ban on conversion therapy – no exemptions”

    Except, of course, the conversion therapy of turning same sex attracted people – mainly young people – into cash cows for big pharma and the big tech Transhuman cult.

    “Resist calls to exclude trans women from women’s spaces”

    Good luck harvesting votes with a policy forcing 51% of the population to have no safe spaces or privacy.

    “Fully demedicalise gender recognition”

    A discriminatory policy which fails miserably to take account of the rights of those who wish to self-identify as a different species (operating under the ‘Furries’ label). Or does that come next?

    If Ayan Rand were still around she would cheering from the rafters at such cult like addiction to the extreme right wing principle of the Sovereign Individual this represents.

    And, ‘no such thing as society, only the individual and the family’ Thatcher would be joining in the celebrations.

    ‘No pasaran’ has tuned into ‘No reciprocation’ as these clueless numpties like Nadia Whittome and Own Jones et al do all the heavy lifting for the extreme right in undermining class politics in favour of social atomisation and the cult of the individual.

    Reply

    1. Toffee – It’s not my problem that you can’t find the info to back up your ‘assertions’.
      Perhaps in time you’ll come to realise that what you seek is not there for you to find. Have fun😏

      Reply

      1. It won’t be my problem when once again you’re shown to have LIED to EVERYBODY.

        And when it happens again, if you still refuse to leave the site permanently, I guarantee you will NEVER post on here again without me posting a link to the proof I WILL find.

        Do you accept the terms – leave when proven, or have your lies follow every subsequent post – Or are you gonna just admit you said it and save me the legwork?

      2. Toffee – “It won’t be my problem when once again you’re shown to have LIED to EVERYBODY. “
        Really, where and when did I do that, do you have a link?

      3. Was meant to read: It won’t be my problem when once again you’re shown to have LIED to EVERYBODY.

        …Including yourself

        The terms stand. Your choice.

      4. Toffee – and the evidence that supports your lies, is where?

      5. Toffee – No it is simply a case of the hummingbirds really are more interesting than you.

      6. Oh, and I’ll remind you that this is the first time since you uttered those words (that are gonna come back to haunt you) that you’ve asked for proof, despite it being a good while back and me having mentioned it fuckteen times previously without question.

        Gonna furnish us with a reason why that might be, soft shite?

        (Everything you say WILL be used as evidence, so keep digging, genius)

        😁

  11. https://skwawkbox.org/2024/06/17/jones-gets-thorough-schooling-from-academics-activists-after-attack-on-walker/#comment-256142

    We only have your (worthless) word for that.

    That’s because you continue to refuse to provide the date when you buggered off – if you ever did.

    Still gonna double down that you never said you ONLY voted keef because he was best of a bad bunch.

    I’ve already exposed your lies at least once and you’ve refused to go.

    When I do it again, are you gonna piss off forever?

    Or are you gonna be happy to have each and every post you make followed up by a link to me exposing your current claim about your reason for voting keef?

    Because if you refuse again, that’s what’s gonna happen, sunshine.

    Reply

  12. Oh and wee gobshite….

    Guess what? Keef’s just said on CH4 news – once again – that he oversaw EACH AND EVERY prosecution in England and Wales.

    So, you were saying re: savile? Re: green Re: shafts? Re: bankers?

    Reply

  13. Wee gobshite…oh wee gob-shiiiiiiiiiiite?

    Do you accept the terms?

    Or are you gonna recant and save yerself a LOT of grief?

    Your move 😁

    Reply

    1. Toffee – “Guess what? Keef’s just said on CH4 news – once again – that he oversaw EACH AND EVERY prosecution in England and Wales. “
      No he hasn’t said that.
      What Keir ACTUALLY SAID was “……..running the Crown Prosecution Service and being responsible for every prosecution in England and Wales” which is different from what you have claimed and simply a matter of fact. It was part of his job description.
      Why do you keep doing this to yourself

      Reply

      1. Same difference.

        And did you hear his excuse for the 27% cut he made which caused fellow lawyers a whole shitload of grief and has contributed to bollocksing up the legal system in England & Wales?

        Something about how he’s now had the experience of imposing austerity and how he pledges to never do it again…

        And you voted for that best of a bad bunch.

        Now, do you accept the terms, or do you recant?

      2. Toffee – You do know that it is the government that sets the budget, don’t you???

    1. Toffee – This shrug neatly sums up my indifference towards you, and yes watching the hummingbirds is definitely more rewarding than reading your palpable nonsense.

      ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

      Reply

      1. Code for:

        Shite!! The toffee MUST have me bang to rights AGAIN by giving out far too many hints that he has accrued the evidence; I’d best use one of my over-abused shithouse tricks to pretend that I’m not really bothered, rather than demonstrate that not only have I been rumbled, but I haven’t even got the courage of my own convictions…I still hope he’s bluffing but can’t take the risk”

        What a slimy little nonce-excusing shitehawk you are.

        All TOO easy. Mwahahahaha

  16. Weasely screeching on newsnight just now saying: “it’s like handing an arsonist the matches and telling them to finish the job… when talking about the rags and the NHS.

    Hmmm…Why am I reminded of that Gary glitter song “Whatcha momma see, ya mamma don’t know”?? 😙🎶🤔😕

    Reply

    2. And another thing,

      Why does wee gobshite endorse screeching’s plans for more NHS privatisation? He wants YOU to vote for it.

      I think we should be told.

      Reply

  17. Well now!

    Keef on the latest toerag candidate to have net on the election date:

    ” It’s telling that (sunak) hasn’t dismissed this candidate; if it’d been one of MY candidates (for HE selects them), they’d have been out the door, and their feet wouldn’t have touched the ground.”

    Nah, block-headed, greasy one, what’s telling is that you consider child sexual offences and offenders less serious than gamblers.

    Reply

    1. qwertboi – Just another lost deposit to add to the many others on July 4th?

      Reply

      1. Thanks Billy. I was wondering why I keep receiving emails from the Junta grubbing for money.

      2. Labour received £4,383,400 in donations in the week from June 6 to June 12, while the Conservatives attracted only £292,500.

      4. Least they’ll put their money where their mouths are, wee gobshite.

        That’s something you haven’t got the stones to do, and as for keef, well he’ll put YOUR money where HIS mates pockets are mouth is (providing he’s had his tongue surgically removed from Benny’s anus)

        Now, you gonna put up, or shut up? The terms have been made clear. Your choice.

      5. Bastard phone keyboard, should’ve read like so:

        ….money where HIS mates pockets are mouth is (providing he’s had his tongue surgically removed from Benny’s anus)

        Still denying you voted keef because he was best of a bad bunch, wee div?

        Take the bet if you’re so certain.

      6. No, he’ll still win – just on reduced numbers…

        “THE latest opinion polls are showing that it is possible Rishi Sunak will lose his own parliamentary seat come July 4. The voters in Richmond, Yorkshire, may be as tired of the Tory Premier as the rest of the country.

        “Just as Liz Truss will be in the record books far into the future as Britain’s briefest-serving prime minister, so may Sunak be remembered as the first to lose his own constituency in a general election, going straight from Downing Street to the dole queue — or, in his case, a vast private fortune.

        “No such worries appear to afflict his presumed successor, Sir Keir Starmer, sitting atop a mountainous majority in his north London constituency and further buoyed by Labour’s national polling lead.

        “But they should. The voters in Holborn and St Pancras also have the chance to speak for the nation by rejecting a bankrupt and duplicitous leader.

        “Did Starmer represent the people of Camden, the borough his seat sits within, when he endorsed Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza, refused to call for a ceasefire until given permission to do so by Washington, and backs continued arms sales to the aggressor? Not likely.

        “Do they endorse his Islamophobic political positioning, his authoritarian indifference to civil liberties, his culling of any remotely progressive Labour candidate? We doubt it.

        “Now they have a unique opportunity to clip Starmer’s wings. The country may want, as much through weary resignation and anti-Tory sentiment as anything else, a Labour government. There is absolutely no indication that it wants a specifically Starmer-led one.

        “And Holborn and St Pancras has an outstanding alternative. It is Andrew Feinstein, an independent left candidate who has parliamentary experience from his service as an African National Congress MP in his native South Africa.

        Feinstein, the son of a Holocaust survivor, is well-placed to call out Starmer’s cynical abuse of anti-semitism as a political weapon against the left. He is one of many progressive Jewish men and women sanctioned by the Starmer apparatus…..

        keep reading – https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/all-power-andrew-feinstein-his-fight-unseat-starmer

      7. qwertboi – I wonder if Andrew Feinstein will fare any better than the Socialist Equality candidate who stood against Keir Starmer in 2019 managed to do.

      8. Well, that’s certainly one way of confirming what I said.

      12. “what did you say that was relevant”

        Same as what you said Billy.

        That the Red Tories were grubbing for money.

        Apparently, with some degree of success over one particular seven day period compared with their Blue Tory brothers.

        Perhaps you could tell us the comparative figures for other periods since this pseudo election was called Billy?

      13. Dave – “Perhaps you could tell us the comparative figures for other periods since this pseudo election was called “

        In the first week of the campaign the Labour Party raised £926,908 from donors, which was very substantially more than the £218,500 that the Labour Party managed to raise in the first week of the 2019 general election.
        Labour raised considerably more than the Conservatives during the first week, between May 30 and June 5, with the Tories raising only £574,918 – a very far cry from the £5.7m that the Tories managed to raise in the same period back in 2019. I hope you will find this useful.

      14. Dave – Here the list of political party donations for the 3rd week of the election campaign.

        Co-operative Party – £34,000
        Conservative Party – £375,000
        Green Party – £20,000
        Labour Party – £3,309,918 (over 80% of this weeks donations)
        Liberal Democrats – £193,945
        Reform UK – £99,000
        Workers Party of Britain – £12,000
        Total – £4,043,863

      15. Unfortunately, Billy, it is not useful because what you post is selective and not the whole story.

        Here’s a sample of three of many daily, and sometimes twice or more daily, emails I have been receiving:

        09:21 on 25/5/24:

        “We need you to understand the challenge we are facing.

        £34 million.

        If they’re going to reach election spending limits, that is what the Tories will spend by polling day. And we’ve got good reason to believe they’ll do it: it was the Tories themselves who recently changed the law to double election spending limits.

        To put it in perspective, £34 million could put digital ads attacking Labour in front of the entire voting population over 50 times.

        The impact? Labour loses votes. Crucial votes. It shouldn’t be like this, but they’re banking on their ability to outspend us to win.

        And they’re primed to do it. In 2023, they outraised us by £17 million.

        Now more than ever, we need you to help close the gap.”

        This at 19:43 on 31/05/24 explaining why I’ve been receiving daily begging emails for the best part of a month or more:

        “David, you’ve probably noticed that we’ve been sending more emails than usual since the general election was called.

        We know we’ve been asking a lot, and here’s the explanation why – donations via email have made up a huge 80% of our online donations in this campaign.

        To put it simply, if we didn’t ask, we just wouldn’t have the resources to win.”

        And then this desperate plea at 09:24 on 01/06/24:

        “David, we don’t want to worry you first thing in the morning, but we have no choice but to share this with you.

        We started the first week of our election campaign off strong with a huge surge of donations, and we are hugely grateful – but as we’ve entered the second week, they’ve slowed down significantly – take a look at this: election spending gap

        [Graph showing massive drop in fundraising donations between Wednesday 22/5/24 and Thursday 30/5/24] (The second week of the campaign)

        We expected our donations to slow, but it’s worse than we expected, and it’s making us uneasy at HQ.

        Resource allocation is a decision that we have to make on a day-by-day basis, and we make these decisions based on the number of generous donations we receive. Donations slowing down makes those decisions all the more difficult – we have to prioritise some constituencies over others.

        We can’t afford to slow down at this stage of the campaign. If you were waiting for a moment to donate to Labour, this is it.”

        And the emails keep coming. Which is hardly surprising.

        Because the point is that the donation figures you are quoting Billy are only part of the picture. A snapshot of a small period of time.

        As the emails I and many others are receiving note, fundraising is not limited to the period of an election campaign – it kicks off a lot earlier. Hence the pertinent observation that the Blue Tories raised £17 million more than the Red Tories in 2023.

        By their own admission in these example emails, Billy, the Red Tories started 2024 a total of £17 million behind the Blue Tories.

        Any half wit can pick and choose selective statistics to give a misleading impression the way you have in this case Billy.

      16. Dave – “Unfortunately, Billy, it is not useful because what you post is selective and not the whole story.”
        Given that the information I have given originated from the Electoral Commission and as we can clearly see it is precisely what you asked for “ Perhaps you could tell us the comparative figures for other periods since this pseudo election was called” I’m struggling to see what your manufactured problem is.🤔

        “Here’s a sample of three of many daily, and sometimes twice or more daily, emails I have been receiving”
        Shock and Horror, a political party is fund raising during an election campaign. 😲
        If you are upset by them then you do have the option to unsubscribe.

      17. A figure which equates to just under £12 per registered party member – including the 11,700 in arrears…….

      19. Once again deliberately missing the point Billy. And deliberately so.

        Crowing about the amount of money raised in a selective snapshot of just two weeks during an election campaign in order to claim the Red Tory’s are receiving more donations than the Blue Tory’s whilst ignoring the £17 million gap from 2023 which the Red Tory’s concede in their quoted email shots is deliberately misleading.

        Not to mention the second week which the quoted emails revealed a massive drop in donations.

        Both of which contradict – from the Labour Party itself in these emails – the selective figures you have chosen.

        But that is you all over Billy. Picking and choosing what data to use and what data to ignore to suit yourself and then desperately attempting to deflect when caught out.

        Meanwhile, here is the latest email sent out at 18:05 last night which tells us the Red Tory’s have realised they too are so uninspiring that the None Of The Above vote is going to be the headline figure. Consequently, they are trying to create a narrative that blames the Blue Tory’s for the record low turnout:

        “It’s starting, David. The Tories are changing their advertising strategy and Labour’s campaign is at risk.

        They’ve just launched a series of digital ads telling people the outcome of the election is already known – so they don’t have to bother to vote.

        This is desperate, cynical voter suppression and we cannot let the British people fall for it.

        We need you to ignore the polls. They are not gospel. Nothing is a done deal. And frankly, the headlines around some polls disguise a huge level of uncertainty, with loads of voters still undecided. Many of these contests are very tight.

        Change only happens when you vote for it isn’t just a slogan, it’s a fact.

        So, if the Tories succeed in convincing voters to stay at home or voting for any other party but Labour, because they think that Labour has already won, it increases the chances of their Tory candidate winning. And it decreases Labour’s chances of winning the general election.

        Don’t wish you could have done more. Make a £5 donation right now to help us correct the record and make sure voters know that change only happens if you vote for it.”

        ————————————————–

        A poll predicted landslide on recent figures of between 37% and 40% – compared to 42% for a narrow Labour loss in 2017 – is indicative not of positive support for the Labour Party under the Davos stooge Starmer but of a collapse of the Conservative vote and the total engineered absence by the UK political and media class of any choice outside a failed and collapsing status quo.

        And once the dust settles that high thirty/low forty per cent will plummet for Starmer’s Labour relatively quickly – just as it has for the Conservatives – as the reality sinks in throughout society that there is no fundamental difference between these two dead party’s walking.

        The consequences of which you (allegedly), unlike the rest of us, don’t have to suffer.

      20. Meanwhile, this just in at 09:16 this morning informing us that on the eve of the General Election announcement that the funding gap between the Blue and Red Tory’s was not £17 million but £19 million in favour of the Blue Tory’s:

        “David,

        This isn’t the news we were hoping to share today, but you need to know the latest Tory fundraising update.

        It has been reported that right before Rishi Sunak fired the starting gun for the general election, the Tories widened their fundraising lead over us by MORE THAN £19 MILLION.

        We’re working tirelessly to close this gap, but all indications are that the Tories are sitting on a massive campaign pot that they intend to spend in the final days of the campaign.

        The Tories are an election winning machine. They won’t just admit defeat. They will spend every last penny to buy five more years in power.

        In these final, critical days of the campaign, we can’t afford to be on the back foot.

        Right now, we need supporters like you to come through for our campaign and help close the gap with the Tories. Please chip in anything you can afford to spare so we have the resources to win this campaign and deliver change with a Labour government:

        CONTRIBUTE

        The country needs change with Labour – but change will only happen if people vote for it.

        With your support, we can make it happen.

        Thank you,

        UK Labour HQ”

        ————————————————————

        So, on the hand the Red Tory line is that the Blue Tory’s are conceding the poll figures of a Blue Tory collapse and a Red Tory landslide; but on the other hand the funding gap to be closed in the final week of the campaign is so huge that the Blue Tory’s could win.

        That LP legal bill debacle must be a lot larger than we are being told about.

      2. and? Billy.

        That misframing of the issue and context was even worse. Particularly when he not only failed to give respect and dignity to his own MP by effectively hanging Rosie Duffield* out to dry at the time and since but also in failing to recognise the reality that what passes for debate here is one sideadly toxic as a result of a well funded lobby group of bad faith actors kicking the arse of an issue; and intimidating and misrepresenting anyone who fails to agree with everything they claim and demand to the letter.

        There is plenty of available material to illustrate the point. This is as useful a starting place as any other (though it does fail to cover a number of key intimidatory features)

        https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/freedom-speech-debate-language-trans-differing-richard-dawkins-b1100729.html

        Starmer and the Labour Party are well out of their depth as well as out of touch on these matters.

      3. Meanwhile, here is Rosie Duffield’s take on the hapless Starmer’s Question Time response:

        https://x.com/RosieDuffield1/status/1803902264714604667

        “So from now on, I shall be submitting my every comment and thought (particularly those mainstream views which most people agree with) to the former Labour Prime Minister so that it may officially be de-toxified…”

        But don’t fret Rosie, given the authoritarian record of Herr Starmer and his Junta there is every possibility that everyone in the UK may have to submit their every comment and thought to the purity spiral police in the not too distant future.

      5. *Apologies: Originally Posted in the wrong place*

        Once again deliberately missing the point Billy. And deliberately so.

        Crowing about the amount of money raised in a selective snapshot of just two weeks during an election campaign in order to claim the Red Tory’s are receiving more donations than the Blue Tory’s whilst ignoring the £17 million gap from 2023 which the Red Tory’s concede in their quoted email shots is deliberately misleading.

        Not to mention the second week which the quoted emails revealed a massive drop in donations.

        Both of which contradict – from the Labour Party itself in these emails – the selective figures you have chosen.

        But that is you all over Billy. Picking and choosing what data to use and what data to ignore to suit yourself and then desperately attempting to deflect when caught out.

        Meanwhile, here is the latest email sent out at 18:05 last night which tells us the Red Tory’s have realised they too are so uninspiring that the None Of The Above vote is going to be the headline figure. Consequently, they are trying to create a narrative that blames the Blue Tory’s for the record low turnout:

        “It’s starting, David. The Tories are changing their advertising strategy and Labour’s campaign is at risk.

        They’ve just launched a series of digital ads telling people the outcome of the election is already known – so they don’t have to bother to vote.

        This is desperate, cynical voter suppression and we cannot let the British people fall for it.

        We need you to ignore the polls. They are not gospel. Nothing is a done deal. And frankly, the headlines around some polls disguise a huge level of uncertainty, with loads of voters still undecided. Many of these contests are very tight.

        Change only happens when you vote for it isn’t just a slogan, it’s a fact.

        So, if the Tories succeed in convincing voters to stay at home or voting for any other party but Labour, because they think that Labour has already won, it increases the chances of their Tory candidate winning. And it decreases Labour’s chances of winning the general election.

        Don’t wish you could have done more. Make a £5 donation right now to help us correct the record and make sure voters know that change only happens if you vote for it.”

        ————————————————–

        A poll predicted landslide on recent figures of between 37% and 40% – compared to 42% for a narrow Labour loss in 2017 – is indicative not of positive support for the Labour Party under the Davos stooge Starmer but of a collapse of the Conservative vote and the total engineered absence by the UK political and media class of any choice outside a failed and collapsing status quo.

        And once the dust settles that high thirty/low forty per cent will plummet for Starmer’s Labour relatively quickly – just as it has for the Conservatives – as the reality sinks in throughout society that there is no fundamental difference between these two dead party’s walking.

        The consequences of which you (allegedly), unlike the rest of us, don’t have to suffer.

      6. Not a big fan of Rowling, however, when someone is accurate about something it would be churlish not to acknowledge that:

        https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1804846509856334110

        Here’s the reaction from the mildest end of the spectrum by Melanie Reid at The Times:

        “Melanie Reid

        Monday June 24 2024, 12.01am BST, The Times

        J.K Rowling’s intervention in the general election campaign, just days before the election, struck the Labour Party with the precision of a laser-guided missile. Ooft. She doesn’t miss, does she? Sir Keir Starmer, much as I think he’s a decent man, had been guilty of embarrassing fence-sitting about the exclusive biological status of women, and she called him out.

        It brought those of us who agree with her up rather sharp. Now we’ve got to address the issue. No more drifting along complacently pretending all was well. But what are we to do, us open-minded, tolerant women who wish trans women well but equally seek to protect our hard-won rights?”

        And this is only one of a plethora of issues Starmer’s little junta needs to be seriously challenged and exposed on. From NHS privatisation to the primacy of the WEF Agenda over The National Interest.

      7. Meanwhile, here is the kind of effect that these LP Manifesto policies are having:

        https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-ive-left-the-labour-party/

        “The party has taken an inexplicable decision to treat women, who make up half the population, as less deserving of attention than the tiny proportion who are transgender. When journalists ask leading Labour figures to commit to supporting women’s rights, they all (with the possible and only occasional exception of Wes Streeting) start talking about what trans people want.

        Just under 100,000 people in England and Wales identify as a trans man or trans woman, according to the most recent census, compared to a population of around 30 million women and girls. Who could seriously believe that unreasonable and unscientific claims about “gender identity” are as urgent an issue as an epidemic of violence affecting millions of teenage girls and women? Yet we are told to form a very long queue while men who claim to be women dictate what Labour’s priorities should be.

        Fast forward a year or two into a Starmer administration and men will be able to find a compliant doctor, do nothing for two years and get a gender recognition certificate — and a new, falsified birth certificate. Parents, teachers and counsellors who don’t accept young people’s insistence that they need to “change sex” may be facing charges. Even I didn’t think Labour would remove the right of wives to get an annulment before their trans-identified husbands are issued with a GRC, but that seems to be the plan. What we won’t have is a much-needed clarification of the Equality Act to remove any doubt that “sex” means biological sex.

        No, middle-aged men who identify as women are not the most vulnerable and oppressed people in existence. No, they aren’t at higher risk of suicide or murder than anyone else. What they do have is access to leading Labour figures, including the party’s Women and Equalities team, that feminist organisations can only dream about…..

        …..I’ve had enough. When the suffragettes risked their lives to get the vote, they could never have imagined that a mainstream political party would one day solicit women’s votes while prioritising men’s demands so unashamedly. Labour’s embrace of gender ideology is a betrayal of more than a century of struggle by inspiring women, some of whom died for the cause. I can’t not vote in a general election, but that’s why I will spoil my ballot next week.”

        ———————————————————

        But, according to the Red Tory Official Narrative its the Blue Tory’s who are responsible for people deciding to either not vote of spoil their ballot paper.

    2. ‘Sir Keir Settlement-encouaraging Starmer. There is nothing about this man that is decent.

      Reply

  20. Fair enough, wee gobshite.

    You might want to read the comments section from this article

    https://skwawkbox.org/2020/11/26/corbyns-clps-open-letter-to-starmer-calls-out-his-broken-campaign-betrayals-and-challenges-him-to-change-course/#comments

    Not only did you say you were only voting keef because he was best of a bad bunch but there are even other posters (@PW) bearing witness to you DEFINITELY having said it..as well as a claim you said you might not even vote for keef!!!. 😱

    I’d LOVE to find THAT one!! And find it I SHALL. 👍😉

    So, you gonna admit you’re a lying little shitehawk, or will I be forced to remind you from here on in?

    Your choice…AGAIN. 😁

    (A pound gets you a pinch of pig shit that the gobshite sticks to his [toy] guns and doubles down he NEVER said anything of the sort, such is his total lack of self awareness and complete imbecility)

    FACE IT, OLLIES – YOU’VE BEEN COLLARED BANG TO RIGHTS YET AGAIN, YOU GODAWFUL LITTLE LIAR. 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥

    Reply

    1. 🎶Oh!
      It’s all gone quiet,
      All gone quiet,
      All gone quiet, over there      🎶

      No more futile denials

      No more default bingo card answers

      No more of those pitiful (wannabe) wisecracks.

      No more of those fuckwitted, infantile wingdings.

      Nope. He’s taken a powder.

      #prayforthegoats

      Reply

  21. https://skwawkbox.org/2024/06/17/jones-gets-thorough-schooling-from-academics-activists-after-attack-on-walker/#comment-256222

    I can tell you what Dave DIDN’T say. 😁

    SteveH26/11/2020 AT 2:32 PM
    PW – Of course I don’t deny it, I’m quite happy to repeat that Starmer wasn’t my ideal candidate but I still believe he remains the best of what was on offer

    Like when tonesays a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, keef agrees….but not when a woman says it.

    The same applies to you Ollie’s. When I say you say you voted keef because he was best of a bad bunch, you deny it. And then double/triple/quadruple down on it

    Whereas someone else says you said it, and you openly admit it.

    You know what you can do with the apology you haven’t deigned to offer out of common decency. .

    You’re a sad, attention-seeking LIAR who has freely confessed to winding people up on here because you find it exhilarating

    Reply

  22. Toffee – “The same applies to you Ollie’s. When I say you say you voted keef because he was best of a bad bunch, you deny it. And then double/triple/quadruple down on it “
    Thanks for acknowledging that in Nov20 I said to “PW – Of course I don’t deny it, I’m quite happy to repeat that Starmer wasn’t my ideal candidate but I still believe he remains the best of what was on offer and is doing a far better job than either of the other 2 could have done.” and that I didn’t say that he was the “best of a bad bunch” as you had claimed.
    …….. and yes I’m still quite happy to stand by what I said 3½yrs ago in Nov20 and I would now go further and say that he has proved to be far better than I expected and that I will be confidently voting for Labour on July 4th.

    Toffee you should watch the unedited version of what Keir actually said yesterday rather than relying on being spoon-fed a very ‘carefully’ edited short clip. Here is the full version from the BBC https://x.com/i/status/1803897178089230696

    As for what you said in your comment yesterday at 10:04pm “as well as a claim you said you might not even vote for keef!!!. 😱 “ when you finally manage to find the relevant comment I think you’ll find it is along the lines of me saying that I wouldn’t be casting my vote in the leadership election until the last minute because one never knows whether something might happen in the meantime to change ones mind.

    Unlike you I haven’t said anything that I need to apologise for

    Reply

    1. What the everlasting fuck has what keef said yesterday to do with anything I’ve just irrefutably proved, you total weirdo?

      The unedited, unadulterated, undisputable FACT is, you’ve been caught lying through your teeth.

      AGAIN

      You asked for proof. I provided it. You are a LIAR.

      Own it. End of discussion.

      Reply

      1. Toffee – “What the everlasting fuck has what keef said yesterday to do with anything”
        You’re the numpty that brought it up

        Did you actually bother to read my response to you before having yet another sad rant.
        All your childish bluster and histrionics won’t alter the facts. All you have proved to date is that I haven’t said that Keir was ‘the best of a bad bunch’.

      2. Except I have gobshite.

        AND it was corroborated.

        AND you admitted it.

        But you’re STILL denying it, like a toddler with a face full of ice cream denying they are the ice cream, except far from being cut, you’re being a total and utter prick about it

        But then again, you’d allow harm to children, so we can’t expect much else, really.

    1. Thank you for posting this❕ EVERYONE should watch, note and share it as widely as possible.
      Keith Starmer is a sordid character. DANGEROUS. Not to be trusted. That has always been clear, but some keep hoping that THEIR hope is reality. And horrifically ASSUME that despite Keith’s OBVIOUS dishonesty, because he has infiltrated the Labour Party, he shares Labour aims. They refuse to see, that he has his own aims and priorities, the polar opposite of ours
      🔵🟦🔵🟦🔵🟦

      Reply

      1. Bastani thinks keef has some sort of psycho/sociological problem…

        I wonder what Bastani’d make of the resident gobshite – on record as saying he only voted keef as best of a bad bunch yet here we are, four year (and more) later, with the gobshite having afforded the muculent one papal infallibility, having done so from nigh-on the day keef shithoused his way to the fuhrership.

        And all the whole going out of his way to brag that he voted Corbyn, not once – but TWICE.

        Nevermind what Bastani’d think. Freud’d have made a whole bleedin’ volume on the wee gobshite’s disorder.

  24. The consequences of which you (allegedly), unlike the rest of us, don’t have to suffer.

    Shouldn’t be permitted to inflict it upon us, neither.

    Reply

  25. Here’s another video about keef shithoused.

    Pay special heed about keef getting glowing reviews from a toerag minister for imposing austerity measures “enthusiastically, without pushbacks and ahead of schedule” (from around 3:00)

    https://youtu.be/jLRNowbgWa4?feature=shared

    That’s about the only consistency regarding the greasy one; vote keef = GET TORY

    Reply

  26. Also – and this laser-guided at you, wee gobshite – @5:58 keef reveals that:

    “At the end of my five-year tenure, there was the offer to continue”

    (Fook knows why – although implementing toerag cuts must’ve convinced the rags he was their man)

    But instead of prosecuting grant shafts on his last day – and by having done so took a small step towards salvaging a piss-poor legacy – keef resigned.

    Wouldn’t have been appropriate to have shat on your mates, would it keef?

    After all, your work still wasn’t done. The proper work was about to begin…

    Reply

Leave a Reply to steve hillingCancel reply

Discover more from SKWAWKBOX

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading