Jo Bamford of Wrightbus: what did he do to deserve government funding apart from be the son of a friend of Boris Johnson?
This is from a while ago but let’s put it up so we can keep an eye on it:
The son of a Tory donor who hosted Boris Johnson’s wedding party was handed an £11.2million UK Government grant to build hydrogen buses.
Jo Bamford’s Wrightbus was given the cash to pioneer the “green” fuel cell vehicles in March 2021.
He is the son of JCB founder Lord Bamford, who hosted Johnson’s lavish wedding party on his grand Cotswolds estate. The then-Prime Minister and his wife Carrie partied with family and friends at 18th-century Daylesford House after officially tying the knot in 2021 during the coronavirus pandemic.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
There was something fractious in the air on the BBC’s Politics Live TV show.
Panellists Kit Malthouse, Jim McMahan, Jacqui Smith and (especially?) Isabel Oakeshott went at each other, hammer and tongs (or the genteel BBC equivalent) on subjects ranging from Rishi Sunak’s new ‘Windsor Framework’ for Northern Ireland, migrant Channel crossings, the salad shortage and – ironically – standards of behaviour in public life:
The words were strong but if you watch the video clip through, you’ll actually hear some worthwhile comments on the issues of the day.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was interviewed by Jo Coburn on the BBC’s Politics Live immediately after Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng gave his contentless speech to the Conservative Party Conference – and she wasn’t in a mood to deal with his waffle.
So get your favourite beverage ready – alcoholic or not – and whenever you hear Coburn making a snarky response to Philp’s ramblings, give it one or two fingers (whichever you think it deserves.
If you’re on something alcoholic and you aren’t three sheets to the wind by the end of the interview, you’re doing it wrong.
Philp had already been hammered by Martin Lewis on ITV’s Good Morning Britain. I supply a clip below:
If you’re still fit to do so, feel free to play the drinking game with this one, too – using Mr Lewis’s responses to Philp as the trigger for a finger or two.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Jo Bird: Bigoted witch-hunters in the Labour Party have finally succeeded in their campaign to have her kicked out of the party under false pretences – and just in time to influence her demand for enforcement action against the newspaper that smeared her (and me).
The Labour Party has expelled Cllr Jo Bird – and while she says she is delighted to be out of its “hostile environment”, the timing is extremely suspicious.
Cllr Bird was originally suspended by the Labour Party – for just nine days – after making a self-deprecating remark that their should be “Jew process” when considering allegations of anti-Semitism against party members.
She was suspended again when she was running for election to Labour’s ruling body, the NEC, early last year.
Much was made of this at the time, including by the Jewish Chronicle. Ms Bird complained to press regulator IPSO about inaccuracies in its article, and the eventual finding came back in her favour.
The decision is one of more than 30 IPSO decisions and court libel verdicts against that newspaper. Ms Bird and a group of other people – including This Writer – have formally requested that IPSO launch a “standards investigation” examining whether measures should be taken to compel the Jewish Chronicle to conform to the Editors’ Code, rather than publishing falsehoods.
IPSO;s board is now set to discuss the matter on December 8. It is against this background that Labour has, finally, expelled Cllr Bird – retrospectively, for actions involving proscribed organisations that were considered entirely respectable at the time she was involved with them:
I'm delighted the Labour Party expelled me today. I'm free from fear about speaking and meeting with other people. I continue to work for people of Bromborough as your local Councillor. FOR THE MANY, not the few. This racist Labour Party is dying as a vehicle for social justice pic.twitter.com/faOeaAx0bB
The expulsion is the usual nonsense from Labour’s leadership – which, let’s not forget, is riddled with racism, of which this is just another example.
The party claims to oppose discrimination against Jews, yet here it is, discriminating against a Jewish member over something she could not have known would ever be considered unacceptable.
And the expulsion has happened in advance of the IPSO meeting on December 8, meaning board members may form a false impression that the principle figure responsible for the request against the Jewish Chronicle is an anti-Semite.
As it is, the board seems to be in opposition to any enforcement action against that rag, despite its long history of what could at best be described as inaccuracies.
See this article by Brian Cathcart for Byline Times for the details.
Apparently the “toughest regulator in the Western world” is so toothless that it meekly hopes a bit of training for the JC‘s editor, Stephen Pollard, will fix the problem.
Now Labour’s racist leadership has given this toothless regulator an opportunity to avoid doing its job, on a false pretext that the request comes from a dodgy source.
Let’s remember that, by publishing a stream of articles containing falsehoods about Labour members who have been accused of anti-Semitism, the JC has been helping Labour to expel innocent party members under false pretences.
Labour has an interest in defeating Ms Bird’s (and my) demand for a standards investigation into this unethical rag.
In other words: it’s corruption. The Tories don’t have a monopoly on foul play, you know.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Raducanu: she won the US Open so the racists in UK politics are happy to let this Romanian-heritage teenager be British. What would they have called her if she had lost?
The BBC really is contemptible these days.
Its daily Politics Live programme has just taken time out to criticise Diane Abbott for making a perfectly reasonable point.
After Emma Raducanu won the US Open Ladies Singles tennis final, Nigel Farage was among the many who praised her up.
But arch Brexiter Farage, while campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union, had previously stated that he would not want a Romanian living next door to him.
Ms Raducanu’s heritage is Romanian.
So Ms Abbott was absolutely right to make this point:
Extraordinary hypocrisy from @Nigel_Farage After her triumph at the US Open, he is keen to praise Romanian heritage tennis star @EmmaRaducanu But not so long ago he was saying he wouldn’t want a Romanian family to move in next to him pic.twitter.com/oQBNd1To2r
Led by host Jo Coburn, guests united to say that Farage’s words were in the past and that it is wrong to use a sporting even to score political points.
So it’s fine for politicians like Boris Johnson (and, indeed, Farage) to make hay when sportspeople representing the UK do well – no matter that they personally have expressed racist views that constitute abuse against individuals among those sportspeople in the past?
I don’t think so!
The whole disgrace was encapsulated in a tweet before Ms Raducanu’s victory (that I didn’t save, sadly).
It said that, depending on the result, the Daily Mail would tell us whether she was British or not.
And it’s a good point.
Would these creepy politicians be quite so keen to let bygones be bygones if Ms Raducanu had not won?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Jo Bird: her complaint against the Jewish Chronicle over inaccuracies in its report about her was upheld; now she, I, and seven other victims of its falsehoods are demanding an investigation into whether the paper’s editorial standards have fallen to an unacceptable level.
In case you’ve been living under a rock since the weekend, the newspaper regulator IPSO has made yet another ruling against the Jewish Chronicle for failures in its journalism.
The right-wing rag was found to have wrongly reported that Ms Bird, a Labour councillor in the Wirral, had been suspended for a third time in late 2020.
Details are below, including her own statement on the ruling which points out that the JC crucially failed to mention the fact that she is Jewish in its account of alleged anti-Semitism by her – thereby omitting crucial context.
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn #IStandWithCraigMurray (@leftworks1) July 29, 2021
As you can see from the last paragraph of her statement, Ms Bird demanded a formal Standards Investigation by IPSO into the JC.
This means that IPSO would consider whether the number and regularity of Editor’s Code breaches means that the JC‘s editorial standards have fallen to an unacceptable level. If it were to find against the newspaper, then penalties – and measures to improve it – may be demanded.
Where do I fit in to this?
I’m glad you asked.
Back in 2018, the JC was one of a handful of newspapers that re-published a false claim from The Sunday Times that I was a Holocaust denier. There was no truth in the allegation, which was derived from documents leaked by the Labour Party, which was investigating me at the time; investigators had ignored their own regulations on fairness in order to fabricate the claims.
The JC had not attempted to verify any of the claims against me before it published them. I complained to IPSO and my complaint was upheld (although you wouldn’t know it from the surly line of clarification that was added to the story, to the effect that I had said the claim was false. The Sunday Times was subsequently forced to publish a lengthy clarification in which it admitted that there was no truth at all to its claim about me).
After Ms Bird’s victory was announced, I was contacted by friends acting on her behalf, to ask if I would be willing to sign a letter calling on IPSO to conduct the Standards Investigation that she had already demanded, in my capacity as another victim of false reporting.
I was happy to do so.
And that is the reason my name is attached to the following letter:
Dear Lord Faulks,
We welcome IPSO’s agreement to consider Jo Bird’s proposal for a Standards Investigation into the Jewish Chronicle and we urge you to launch such an investigation without delay. With 28 recorded breaches of the Editors’ Code and four libel defeats in just three years, it is clear that the paper’s editorial standards are shockingly low and IPSO’s actions to date have made no difference.
We have all either seen our complaints to IPSO about the Jewish Chronicle’s bad journalism upheld or secured admissions of libel from the paper. Unless standards there improve there will be more victims, while readers will continue to be misled.
IPSO’s regulations say a Standards Investigation can take place where there is evidence of ‘serious and systemic breaches of the code’. The seriousness of the breaches by the Jewish Chronicle is attested to in IPSO’s own rulings while the sheer number of breaches and libel defeats – taking place at a small publication that appears only weekly – proves the problem is systemic.
We would be grateful if you would circulate this letter to all IPSO board members and to senior management.
Yours,
Jo Bird
John Davies
Ibrahim Hewitt, Interpal
Jenny Lennox
Kal Ross
Mike Sivier
Thomas Suárez
Marc Wadsworth
Audrey White
Now we must wait for a response from IPSO, due by August 12, and then for its findings – if an investigation is launched.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Boris Johnson: Look at the body language – on a day when he should have been showing abject contrition, he came out with language that poses a violent threat to people who oppose him. He is as much a danger to the people as he is to democracy.
If anybody in Parliament is a “traitor” – to the law, to Parliament, to the people of the United Kingdom – he is Boris Johnson.
As I write this, I’m listening to Jess Phillips asking an urgent question about the language our excuse for a prime minister used in yesterday’s (September 25) “toxic” debate – she says his words were “workshopped”; devised to create a divisive reaction and to cause as much offence as possible.
In his attempt to defend himself after the Supreme Court ruled his attempt to prorogue Parliament was unlawful – meaning he wasted 10 days of Parliamentary debating time – Mr Johnson used what many consider to be shocking language.
He seems to have made it clear, following words by Attorney-General Geoffrey Cox, that the attempted prorogation was about Brexit, as the debate seems to have revolved entirely around it.
He poured scorn on the legislation Parliament passed to prevent him from pushing a “no deal” Brexit on a nation that does not want it – describing it as a “surrender” act, a “capitulation” act, or a “humiliation” act.
Labour MP Paula Sheriff pointed out that Mr Johnson had chosen language that is used by people who send death threats to MPs.
She said: “We should not resort to using offensive, dangerous or inflammatory language for legislation that we do not like, and we stand here under the shield of our departed friend with many of us in this place subject to death threats and abuse every single day.
“They often quote his words ‘Surrender Act’, ‘betrayal’, ‘traitor’ and I for one am sick of it.
“We must moderate our language, and it has to come from the prime minister first.”
And how did Boris Johnson respond to that? “I’ve never heard such humbug in all my life.”
Sickening.
And he tried to co-opt the memory of murdered MP Jo Cox, killed by a far-right activist during the EU referendum campaign, by saying the best way to honour her memory was to “get Brexit done”.
Ms Cox was a Remainer!
Her husband Brendan, asked to comment, said the debate had descended into a “bear pit of polarisation” and MPs had fallen into a “vicious cycle where language gets more extreme, the response gets more extreme and it all gets hyped up.
“It has real-world consequences… It creates an atmosphere where I think violence and attacks are more likely than they would have been.”
In short: It seems clear that Boris Johnson is encouraging violence against MPs who disagree with him; that he wants them to fear for their lives.
That’s what Ms Sheriff believes – as evidenced by an interview with Victoria Derbyshire:
You can bet that people in the country have received that message.
If this leads to tragic results, we should all know where to lay the blame.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Jo Johnson has announced he is to stand down as a member of Parliament in what can only be seen as an attack on his brother Boris’s premiership.
In a tweet he said he had been “torn between family loyalty and the national interest” – implying that he does not consider his brother’s behaviour since becoming prime minister to have been in the interest of the nation.
It’s been an honour to represent Orpington for 9 years & to serve as a minister under three PMs. In recent weeks I’ve been torn between family loyalty and the national interest – it’s an unresolvable tension & time for others to take on my roles as MP & Minister. #overandout
At the time of writing it is not clear whether Jo Johnson is leaving the government immediately or at the next general election – whenever that may be.
He has been attending cabinet meetings as universities minister, and was promoted despite having voted to remain in the European Union and being much more pro-European than his brother.
The ramifications of this may shake the Tories even more than BoJob’s removal of the Tory whip from 21 MPs on Wednesday evening.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
JK Rowling is a terrific author of fiction. As a political commentator, however, she leaves a great deal to be desired.
She recently weighed in on the Labour anti-Semitism row, throwing her weight behind those who want us to think Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite and the Labour Party institutionally racist, supporting a thread by a person going by the pseudonym “Nuddering Nudnik”.
She should have known better. The mere fact that this person was posting under a pen-name should have indicated that they have something to hide.
Of course, if a gentile had tried to explain the faults in Nuddering’s argument to Ms Rowling, she might have found them easy to dismiss.
We are fortunate, therefore, that Ben Goran – a British Jew – stepped up and provided a wealth of evidence to show what’s really going on.
I reproduce both threads below. See who you believe. Here’s Jo and ‘Nuddering’:
This thread is the perfect litmus test. If you can read it without empathy for the writer’s pain and fear; if you immediately assume an agenda; if, above all, your response to the distress of a British Jew is to shrug and talk about the Israeli government, then you test positive. https://t.co/9WvsxXm1b3
Towards the end of the news summary i hear that @The_TUC President Mark Serwotka has made a speech at the TUC conference in which he described how Labour's antisemitism crisis has been invented by Israel.
I actually heard about that last night but had managed to forget it.
Countless cries in person, via social media, the press, TV etc from prominent Jewish people – this week it was the turn of the admirable @TracyAnnO – have made plain the human cost of all this. We've made no secret of the hurt, the pain, the distress & anxiety we are suffering.
And yet Mark Serwotka and the rest carry on. They double down. They intensify the rhetoric, they increase the pressure on a tiny and absolutely beleaguered minority group.
Normal standards of decent behaviour would mean the following:
4. Group B then describes the behaviour that caused the upset. 5. Group A says "we get that. We won't do it again as you are not our enemy & we have no reason to want to hurt you". 6. Group B thanks Group A for their empathy & understanding.
Mark Serwotka, Jeremy Corbyn & the others don't want me to be standing in my kitchen having a normal experience of domestic life. They want me to be reminded of my crime of being – just like at least 90% of us – a Zionist Jew. They want me to suffer. Why else would they persist?
We – and they – now know the following: 1. Over 85% of Jews believe Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite 2. Less than 10% of Jews would now consider voting Labour 3. 40% of UK Jews would consider leaving the country if Corbyn became PM.
2/ It's 1995. I'm in the Territorial Army. We have to fill out forms during basic training. It asks where you're born. Word spreads. Later my Corporal makes constant jokes about 'my big nose'. I'm quietly disgusted but not shocked. Racism in the British Army? It's almost SOP.
4/ Angered by its humiliation, Israel decides to punish Gazans for voting for Hamas. It does this three times: Operation Cast Lead (2008–09), Operation Pillar of Defense (2012), & Operation Protective Edge (2014). Each time thousands of Gazans are killed, unable to find shelter.
6/ A number of Jewish academic and religious figures like @normfinkelstein condemn the wars. They are either roundly criticised or ignored. I condemn the wars anonymously on a blog, not wanting to be traduced for supporting Hamas, a body part created by Israel to split the PLO.
8/ It's 2015. I turn on my radio. Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party. At conference he mentions justice for Palestine. Recognising the State of Palestine is now official position of a major UK political party for the first time. I feel …
10/ It's 2016. There's a referendum on Brexit. British media is saturated with racist dog whistles by right wing Europhobes. The BBC continually platforms a man who makes the referendum about blaming the EU for immigrants. Britain votes Leave. Corbyn is blamed, not David Cameron.
12/ It's 2018. There's a local election. Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are accused of being antisemitic shortly after the party achieves positive results. Voters appear not to feel the party & its leadership are a threat, rather the opposite. The Govt is in continual crisis.
13/ They are joined by three leading Jewish publications, zionist Rabbis, and even the Prime Minister of Israel. We are told 85% of British Jews think Labour is institutionally antisemitic. No other verifiable evidence is offered to support these claims. 40% will leave UK. Same.
15/ Labour adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It modifies some of the examples. The Home Affairs select committee did the same. Labour is accused of acting in bad faith and defending the ability to be antisemitic. Labour MPs say even adoption of IHRA makes no difference.
17/ At an NEC meeting on the IHRA, protestors outside shout 'fascist' and wave the Israeli flag. I'm confused. I thought this wasn't about Israel (or Palestinians). But the media tell me it is b/c if you're anti-zionist then you negate Jewish right to SD, which is antisemitic.
19/ Across media 'The Jewish Community' is presented as a monolith with one opinion. It is zionist. It is anti-Corbyn, and it is anti-Labour. We are told it faces an existential threat. Corbyn is compared to an anti-immigrant neo-fascist.
19/ 2018 Chuka Umunna says Labour is institutionally racist, immediately contradicting 2016 Chuka Umunna. The hyperbolic row is amplified by a bankrupt corporate media requiring 'scandal' for clicks. The most incompetent British Govt in memory spends a summer free from scrutiny.
21/ Joan Ryan and others lose CLP votes of confidence. This is denounced as bullying and targeting Jewish MPs. None of the MPs are Jewish. A Thomas The Tank Engine card is sent to an MP with 'choo choo'. It means deselection. We're told it references the gestapo cattle trucks.
22/ There's a steady stream of anecdotal evidence of Jews suffering from anti-semitism. No-one denies that it exists in the UK and in every party. Yet John Humphreys tells the Conservative Party At Radio that "Corbyn is the problem". Data doesn't matter. Facts are flexible.
@jk_rowling if someone faces bullying, prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, and harm for the fact of being Jewish, that is antisemitism. If someone faces criticism and condemnation for the fact of being zionist that is a matter of ideological contestation. The end.
See, one of the problems with “Nuddering”‘s story is in his dialogue between Group A and Group B. It’s fine up to the point where Group B “describes the behaviour that caused the upset.”
The next part – “Group A says “we get that. We won’t do it again as you are not our enemy & we have no reason to want to hurt you” – would be justified only if Group B had been the subject of unfair and unjustified treatment by Group A. And that’s not what is happening here.
Group B – Jewish people, or at least those claiming to represent them – have not been attacked by Group A – those people in the Labour Party, including Jeremy Corbyn, accused of anti-Semitism in the mass media. Don’t try to get past that point by saying there are anti-Semites in the Labour Party, just as there are in many other organisations; we all know this. But we’re discussing institutional anti-Semitism here, and the claims against Mr Corbyn.
As Mr Goran points out, the claims against Labour are politically-motivated, to prevent criticism of the Israeli government – not the Jewish people, culture, or religion, but the government of a foreign nation. This criticism has been prompted by the activities of the Israeli government and has been made using language that may not be described as anti-Semitic – unless the person doing so is unafraid of ridicule.
British Jews, knowing this, have no reason to fear the Labour Party or its leader. Unfortunately, many of them appear to have been misled by politicians and media organisations in which they have placed their trust.
But this has been explained before.
So we come back to the dialogue, and the moment when the next part becomes: Group A says, “We did not intend to cause you distress and, as we can demonstrate, you are not the subject of our criticism. Our facts are correct and we do have a point. We would appreciate your help to put an end to the injustice that we see.”
That is what has actually happened, and the next part is deeply unfortunate. It seems Group B then says, “What you have said causes me distress. Please don’t do that.”
What this means is that Group B – or those who have set themselves up as representatives of Group B, like “Nuddering” – is trying to claim victimhood, using this as cover to deny criticism of the genuine Israeli atrocities listed by Mr Goran, and to prevent criticism of the Conservative government by keeping the focus on faked failings of the Labour Party.
There comes a point when one is forced to conclude that Group B is distressed because Group B wants to be distressed; because being distressed – or at least showing it – is seen as a way for Group B to get what it wants. For that reason, I don’t think Group B really represents British Jews at all.
That is how it works. But I reckon anybody reading this already knows.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
