Habitual cruelty: this is just the latest instance of the Tories persecuting people with long-term illnesses and disabilities.
My word – the Tories have been victimising people on the advice of an algorithm again. Haven’t we been here before?
YES, WE HAVE – former Education Secretary Gavin Williamson was pilloried two summers ago for using a computer-generated artificial intelligence program to steal high grades from state school pupils.
Now it seems people with disabilities are being targeted as benefit fraudsters by the DWP, based on an algorithm – and nothing else.
Is it the same algorithm, perhaps? The DWP isn’t telling – but may soon be forced into another potentially self-damaging revelation under threat of court action.
It doesn’t bode well for the AI that Sajid Javid is buying in for the NHS. But then, it’s a system from a company in which Javid himself owns shares (or share options – what’s the difference?).
What’s the betting that the Tory cheapskates have been using the same algorithm for all three?
The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP), together with campaign group Foxglove, is taking action against the DWP after concerns were raised by the charity Privacy International, which first found references in a DWP report to its use of “cutting-edge artificial intelligence to crack down on organised criminal gangs committing large-scale benefit fraud”.
“Organised criminal gangs”?
Disabled people… living in “fear of the brown envelope” showing their case was being investigated.
Campaigners say that once flagged, those being examined can face an invasive and humiliating investigation lasting up to a year.
A “huge percentage” of the group has been affected by the system.
“We’re tired of the fear of the brown envelope and tired of being repeatedly forced by DWP officials just to justify who we are,” said Rick Burgess of the GMCDP. “It’s time for the DWP to come clean about how this algorithm works and explain why so many disabled people are flagged for investigation. Disabled people need support – not being ground down by a brutal system that assumes we are fraudulent until proven innocent.”
The Guardian‘s article highlighted a 2019 UN report into the “digital welfare state” that said algorithms were “highly likely” to repeat biases reflected in existing data and make them even worse.
It added: “Inbuilt forms of discrimination can fatally undermine the right to social protection for key groups and individuals.”
The government has until Friday to respond to the legal letter but, again according to the article, “has so far rebuffed attempts to explain how the algorithm behind the system was compiled”.
They’re trying to come up with an excuse that will stand up to examination – and I don’t think they’re going to meet that Friday deadline!
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!
Keir Starmer: he has bankrupted Labour. Could Pamela Fitzpatrick’s lawsuit over false claims of anti-Semitism finally push him out the door?
Bad news for a Labour Party desperate to avoid any more large legal bills: Pamela Fitzpatrick is suing.
In respect of the Labour Party threat to auto exclude me from the party for giving an interview in 2020 to Socialist Appeal. I have now instructed Solicitors who have today written to the Labour party to put them on notice of potential legal proceedings.
You can understand her reasons. I mean, the hypocrisy of Keir Starmer is overwhelming.
What kind of party is he leading, where being interviewed by a left-wing magazine that was not blamed for anything at the time is worse than being the editor of a far-left magazine that would certainly be proscribed by Keir Starmer’s Labour, even though he himself is the editor in question.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Keir Starmer gets emailed an automatic exclusion letter for editing 'Socialist Alternatives' magazine, a front magazine for the International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency, beteeen 1986-88. pic.twitter.com/Ovs4d5BuQc
So, let me see if I've got this right, if you gave an interview to a socialist magazine years before it became "proscribed" by Labour you will be expelled from the Party – but its OK to have been a Tory MP for 22 years and become a Labour member? ………
Of course, it’s entirely possible for a lifelong Tory to have a Damascene conversion, see the light and switch to Labour – but in these days of entryism, it is very dangerous for socialists to accept such changes unquestioningly.
Starmer has gone the other way, of course. From editing a Marxist periodical, he is now, for all intents and purposes, a Tory himself.
His attitude to the manufactured ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis that was created with lies and is being perpetuated with lies is an indication of the kind of man he is. Let’s get back to Pamela Fitzpatrick for her opinion on that:
I am starting to wonder, given my line of work, as to whether the practice of introducing laws with retrospective effect, the presumption of guilt until proven innocent, the denial of appeal rights and lack of fair process is to be future Labour policy for our justice system.
Did you read all that, in Michell Laufer’s tweet? “As a Jewish member of the Labour Party whohas had to watch other Jewish members abused, suspended and expelled as antisemitism has been weaponised,” she asks of Starmer, “is he going to be honest about “the gerrymandering of party democracy, the silencing of members of criticise apartheid Israel, his fawning obedience to the Board of Deputies who do not represent the views of the majority of Jews in this country and the imposition of antisemitism training by the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement?”
Of course he isn’t.
He’ll have to be made to admit it all.
One organisation doing its best to raise awareness of the threat to Jewish people posed by Starmer and his racists is Jewish Voice for Labour, which has taken up the issue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also sending the facts to the Forde Inquiry (which is still apparently ongoing, as the report has not yet been published):
As @JVoiceLabour shows in their superb report, Starmer’s Labour discriminates against Jews because they r Jewish & left wing. Most, lifelong anti-racists, have been personally affected by the Holocaust but r now treated as pariahs by the reactionary party leadership. Indefensible https://t.co/GToIAoEO00
Supplementary Submission by JVL to the EHRC and the Forde Inquiry | Jewish Voice for Labour – https://t.co/qpk80ST5pp Since our first submission the situation has continued to deteriorate. @ukLabour disciplinary action is grossly disproportionately targetting and bullying Jews.
The latest submission – of August 24, three weeks since the previous one – states:
“We have become aware of seven new investigations of Jewish Party members. Notifications of new investigations and auto-exclusions are arriving on a daily basis.
“This means it would appear that over four times more Jewish than non-Jewish Labour Party members have faced actioned complaints of antisemitism. The disproportion is even greater in relation to JVL Committee members and officers. The staggering numbers suggest that these Jews are nearly three hundred times more likely to be investigated than non- Jewish Labour Party members. In all these cases the charges of so-called antisemitism are deeply offensive.
“There has been significant further evidence of our being treated harshly as Jews.
“Dozens of Jewish members are now being targeted by Labour as antisemites, for voicing an understanding of antisemitism that is a direct product of our Jewish political and personal heritage.
“The effect of rejecting or ignoring complaints made by JVL members of antisemitism; our experience of bullying and harassment; and the refusal to consult or involve JVL in, for instance, the EHRC required Action Plan; all show disdain for our status and roles as Jews.”
There is currently a campaign to raise awareness of the weaponisation of anti-Semitism against left-wing Labour Party members – and particularly left-wing Jewish party members, called #ItWasAScam. The position it takes is right, and it is this:
Calling out weaponisation of antisemitism against political enemies isn't 'problematic' it's the right thing to do. It's a scam, to discredit good people
Call out antisemitism *and* call out the scam without fear because it's an obstacle in the fight against antisemitism
And this is the reason Starmer will lose when Ms Fitzpatrick drags Labour to court.
He’ll put the party even further into debt.
And the problem isn’t anti-Semites; it’s him – and the entryists who are supporting him because they know falsely accusing Labour socialists (the people for whom the party was originally created) of a heinous offence will make the party unelectable, leaving the way clear for the Tory corruption that we have seen under Boris Johnson.
I think it’s just a matter of time until this particular house of cards comes crashing down around Starmer and his allies.
I’ve already got the popcorn on order and am now just awaiting the opportunity to use it.
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!
Travellers: this is a council-run traveller site, so it looks orderly enough. But a proposed law means that even here the police could confiscate travellers’ homes, if officers don’t like the look of them.
Roma (or Romani); travellers; gypsies; diddycai; tinkers if you like. There are plenty of words for these almost universally maligned people.
They have a bad reputation because some of them are trespassers who will camp on any land, whether it is privately-owned or common, some of them are dirty and will leave their campsites filthy with litter, and some of them are prone to criminal behaviour.
In 1930s Germany, Hitler ramped up already-existing anti-gypsy laws to establish the pre-supposition that they were a “nuisance”, that they were criminal by their nature (so it follows that the authorities were allowed to assume they were criminals without them actually having to commit a crime), and that they should be moved on from encampments that were considered to cause a disturbance to the rest of the German population (in Hitler’s Germany, they were moved on into concentration camps where they were murdered in a holocaust that was every bit as brutal as the attempted genocide of the Jews).
Boris Johnson has been stealing policies from Hitler, it seems. Just take a look at his plans for travellers, as written into the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that has just won its first major vote in the House of Commons. Here’s Ian Dunt to explain it to you:
Quick thread on an aspect of the policing bill which has been under-discussed: the provisions on trespass. This section targets Gypsies and Travellers.
Previously, police could take action against Gypsies and Travellers if they had done something wrong. They had to have "caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words".
And they do not need to have done anything at all. The police officer just needs to suspect that significant damage or disruption "is likely to be caused".
There. Police only need to assume that, because a traveller is there, they are likely to engage in criminal activity, and they can then treat that traveller as if they had been seen to commit such an act (even though they haven’t).
In other words: You do not actually need to have done anything. All that is required is that the police *suspect* you will do something.
It’s like “pre-crime”, as described in the movie Minority Report, which turns the law on its head, allowing people to be arrested on the basis of predictions that they will commit crime. In the film, these predictions were not necessarily accurate. In this law, there isn’t even a requirement to be.
So on the basis of a suspicion that a Gypsy or Traveller might in future insult someone, they can take away all their belongings.
To recap: on sight of a traveller, the police may confiscate everything they own. And what will happen to them then? An arrest for vagrancy?
Sure, they can challenge. They can get their day in court. But at that moment when the police officer arrives, they can take everything from them if they do not comply with their demand that they leave.
This bill is massive. Hundreds of pages. And everywhere you look you find draconian powers, handed to police, to do as they damn well please, targeting the most vulnerable and marginalised people in the country.
It sets innocent people up to be criminalised because of who they are, which is a well-recognised form of prejudice. Suppose Johnson targeted Jews. It would be an attack on these people because of who they are, not what they do. That is what we have here.
It isn’t quite racism, and it can’t be anti-Semitism, but the lesson of Hitler tells us it is just as bad.
Oh, and by the way, illegal traveller encampments could have been made a thing of the past if only local authorities had obeyed a 1968 law (the commenter below was adrift by a few years) that ordered them to provide standing sites for travellers to camp:
Back in the 1970's laws were passed where every council had to provide sites for travellers. This law was ignored by majority of Tory led councils – Petty Patel seems totally unaware of this law – the councils are the criminals for not providing the sites. https://t.co/gw6ImwL7Ly
The Caravan Sites Act of 1968 led to the creation of 400 sites, but was ignored by many local authorities. I recall Powys County Council dragging its heels over demands for such sites within the last 10 years.
By breaking the law, council leaders (many of whom, I have no doubt, are Conservatives) made it possible for the current Conservative government to create the current legislation that demands that they be treated as criminals for no reason at all.
The Bill is sponsored by Priti Patel, who is already running concentration camps for refugees from foreign countries.
Where do you think she’ll open her first concentration camp for travellers? And what will they do next?
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!
Rishi Sunak: he keeps interfering with the market, despite his party’s claim that it’s better to leave it alone. Is it because Tories love to torture people with disabilities?
Rishi Sunak isn’t making any sense at all.
He says his plan for an online sales tax is intended to push people back onto the High Street, to physically go out and buy products in order to save businesses that are in danger after the lockdown forced us to stay indoors.
We’ve been buying products online while Covid-19 remains a threat.
And we’ll go back to the High Street, but only once we are convinced the danger is over.
So if High Street shops are in danger, it’ll be because we can’t trust Sunak and his fellow Tories on when that’s likely to be.
Not only that, but in considering such a tax, Sunak is saying the UK is hostile to the new commerce that the Internet represents – as net-based firms still pay business rates and all the other taxes associated with sales.
That’s not good for any country’s economy in this day and age.
It simply doesn’t make sense.
But, considering the Conservatives’ well-known passion for cruelty, there is one reason for bringing in an online sales tax that does make sense: they’ve found out it’s another way they can attack people with disabilities.
People whose health conditions mean they can’t get out of the house have to use the Net to get their stuff, and many shops don’t have access for people with disabilities anyway – despite disability access laws having been enacted many years ago.
People with disabilities don’t have much cash to enjoy, either. They’re either on benefits or in low-waged employment.
So the logical reason for imposing an online sales tax is to push disabled people further into poverty – or to deprive them of goods that they should have the same opportunity to enjoy as the rest of us.
Tories have form in this regard; “Eat out to help out” was another attack on people with disabilities, as you can’t benefit from a discount on restaurant meals if you can’t actually leave home.
Underlying it all is yet another big lie:
Tories have supported, on the face of it, neoliberal ideology since Margaret Thatcher became their leader in the mid-1970s – and that means they support a laissez-faire attitude to the market.
This means they believe the market will automatically adjust to prevailing conditions in order to keep going.
So the proper government policy is non-interference.
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!
People with serious health conditions and disabilities who are registered with a GP surgery in Wales had a nasty surprise in the post.
The surgery sent them a letter saying if they caught the coronavirus, the best thing for them to do would be to reject treatment and wait for death – and it asked them to sign a form confirming it.
Llynfi Surgery, in Llynfi Road, Maesteg, sent the letter to patients with serious health conditions such as incurable cancer, motor neurone disease, and untreatable heart and lung conditions, on March 27.
It comes as further confirmation that people with disabilities will suffer adverse discrimination in the coronavirus crisis – that government guidance is to abandon them.
The letter states that people with these conditions are “unlikely to be offered hospital admission” if they become unwell with coronavirus and “certainly will not be offered a ventilator bed”.
It continued: “We would therefore like to complete a DNACPR form for you which we can share with the OOH [out of hours] GP services and which will mean that in the event of a sudden deterioration in your condition because of a Covid-19 infection or disease progression the emergency services will not be called and resuscitation attempts to restart your heart or breathing will not be attempted.”
Going on, it suggested that the “best option” for patients is to stay at home to be cared for by their family with “ongoing support from ourselves and community nursing services”.
It listed “benefits” to signing the DNACPR form:
“Your GP and more importantly your friends and family will know not to call 999”;
“Scarce ambulance resources can be targeted to the young and fit who have chance of surviving the infection”, and;
“The risk of transmitting the virus to friends, family and emergency responders from CPR (even chest compression alone) is very high. By having a DNACPR form in place you protect your family and emergency responders from this additional risk”.
The final line reads: “We will not abandon you but we need to be frank and realistic about what the next few months holds for all of us.”
Wales Online reported on this scandalous correspondence, saying that the local health board had contacted patients who were upset by the letter, to apologise and “answer any concerns”.
And both the Welsh Assembly member and MP have issued a joint statement saying this was “not a standard letter” and the board is working with the surgery “to offer compassionate and sound advice in the very best traditions of our health service”.
You’ll notice that there isn’t a single line in these comments that contradicts the suggestions in the letter.
If anything, it seems the authorities have simply been embarrassed that it has stated the facts about government guidance on long-term sick and disabled patients who contract the coronavirus in a blunt way.
The affair seems to be confirmation that the government is indeed using the coronavirus to cull “useless eaters”, in line with the eugenics beliefs of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, and the Nazi-style persecution of people with long-term health issues that has been carried out by successive Conservative governments over the last decade.
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!
Labour: is it becoming a party of intolerance and bigotry under the misguidance of those at the top.
This is ugly and Labour’s leadership candidates need to own it.
You will all be aware, already, of the illegal behaviour of Labour’s leadership in “tackling” (their word) anti-Semitism, whereby the party faked evidence to make it appear that I was an anti-Semite, broadcast the lies to the newspapers in order to induce people to believe them, and then used them as an excuse to expel me from the party.
I believe the current plan is to change the rules so even an accusation will be enough to justify expulsion.
Today, it seems at least one leadership candidate has announced that she is keen to spread the bigotry around, with a plan to expel people accused of being transphobic.
Wouldn’t it be better to talk to them instead? What happened to the art of discussion and explanation?
I have trans friends. I recently supported a person who – originally female – spent some time determined to become a man. Now she has had second thoughts and has decided not to go through with it, and that’s okay too. I supported her throughout, because that’s what friends do.
But I know that some people have a problem with that and I have talked some of them through. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of showing them a way of thinking that they haven’t considered before.
So when I saw on Facebook Rebecca Long-Bailey advocating the immediate expulsion of “transphobes” (I put the word in quotation marks because her interpretation of it and mine are likely to be very different), I couldn’t help but react with the “Ha ha” icon.
“What happened to the idea of Labour being inclusive?” I asked.
The initial response gave me a moment’s hope. James Waterhouse stated: “It should be mate. The amount of transphobia by some people whether members or supporters is depressing.”
But then the conversation went downhill:
Let’s have a look at this:
Lianne Powell: “I don’t think he’s being supportive considering he laughed at the post. Mike probably thinks we should be inclusive and allow transphobes to stay…”
According to whose definition are people to be tarred as “transphobes”, now? Is it to be on the same lines as Labour’s definition of “anti-Semite” – anybody who is accused of it?
That’s not acceptable and it isn’t inclusive. Hence my answer: “Don’t be silly, now.”
Lianne responded: “Says the person who thought it appropriate to laugh at this post…”
But it was appropriate. Labour’s record in dealing with anti-Semitism accusations is a disgrace, and now a leadership candidate is planning to eject anybody accused of something else? Ridiculous! Who will they be throwing out next – people with freckles?
I have to admit that my response – repeating “Don’t be silly, now,” wasn’t the best I could possibly have devised. I was disappointed that this person was so determined to see the matter in black and white, refusing to accept that it is possible for people to make mistakes and to learn from them. To be honest, I didn’t see the point in trying to reason with that kind of bigotry.
But worse was to follow:
In Lou Kilmartin we see a genuine, gold-plated bigot:
“What’s funny about the original post?”
I replied: “The idea that that is any way for an inclusive leadership candidate to behave.”
The response: “Seems pretty inclusive to me. No tolerance for intolerance is a pretty good jumping off point.”
No, it is not.
It is an opportunity for unscrupulous people to attack people they don’t like, tar them as something they aren’t, and ban them from a group – as we have seen with the anti-Semitism fiasco. The instant you start banning anyone for even questioning the wisdom of a course of action, you have left the progressive path and joined the fascists.
Who’s right?
I said: “Not at all. You don’t leap to expulsion. You discuss and you educate. This is just an attempt to find an excuse to purge the party of “people we don’t like”. Or didn’t you think of that?”
The response: “If you genuinely believe that the terf movement [it means Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminst] in the Labour Party is open to discussion or education, then you’re either incredibly naive or a flat out moron.”
Really? It seems to me that Lou Kilmartin is the one who isn’t open to discussion or education. But Lou Kilmartin does seem very keen, on the other hand, to engage in accusation and vilification. That encourages me to suggest that Lou Kilmartin is on the wrong side of this argument.
“Why do you expect trans people to constantly justify and debate our existence?”
I don’t. I never suggested that they should. And falsely attributing that attitude to me is a false argument.
“Would you be so accommodating to racist or homophobic factions within the party?”
I think readers of This Site know its author well enough to know that I would not – but nor would I be willing to accept someone else’s word on it. Who says they’re racist? Who says their homophobes. And why are they saying it?
Now look at this:
“Or DiDnT yOu ThInK oF tHaT?”
What is this? Was this person trying to belittle me with alternate caps? What’s that all about?
It seemed very silly to me, so I ignored it and focused on the accusation and vilification I noticed at the start of the comment:
“That is an intolerant attitude. Shame on you.”
No response to that, notice.
Then I added: “For the record, I have trans friends.” This is true, as I have explained above. I should admit that I wrote it to see how the bigot would respond.
I wasn’t disappointed: Ridicule. “i HaVe TrAnS fWeNdS”
The bigot was incapable of accepting the possibility and had to try to belittle me instead. What do you think of that?
Then Lianne re-entered the conversation. Clearly a follower, rather than a leader, this person had seized on Lou Kilmartin’s lead, and had also apparently done a minimal amount of research into me:
“Weren’t you accused of AS and suspended with the offer of being allowed back if you took the education course offered to you??? Bit rich to preach about education if that’s the case.”
It’s an interesting comment for what it omits. I was accused and suspended – on the basis of lies. I was offered “education” with the Jewish Labour Movement, that had secretly recorded another person at one of its courses, edited the recording to create a false impression, and handed it to the press and the Labour Party as proof of anti-Semitism. That is not education. It is despicable. And if Leanne wants to use that as justification for attacking me, then Leanne is on the side of the demons.
Still, Lou Kilmartin seemed pleased: “Lianne Powell Holy shit I love you.”
I made a brief response: “No – because the accusation was false and I have taken the Labour Party to court over it. Labour is expected to lose.”
Now look at this from Lou Kilmartin: “Mike Sivier you’re right on one count, I am intolerant to intolerance. Sounds like you’re a fucking gem all round. No room for bigots in the party.”
Looking at all of the above, is this person intolerant to intolerance? Or are we seeing intolerance to differing viewpoints? That’s just intolerance. I’m big enough to shrug off the flat-out insult – although anyone reduced to ad hominem insults automatically loses any argument; if that’s all they can say, then they don’t have anything to say. As for the last line, here’s my response:
“In that case I hope you are not a member. You seem intolerant of anybody who does not agree with anything you say. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the fascists.”
It is a fascist attitude to demand that other people agree with the pronouncements of a leader-figure, no matter how insane they are.
“That’s very rich coming from the guy suspended for accusations of antisemitism.” This person didn’t have anywhere to go. I had already pointed out that the accusations were false but, hey, let’s go back to that if it’s all we’ve got!
I figured it was time to point out the obvious: “Shocking behaviour by some people on this thread. Desperate to kick out people they don’t like. Try talking. It doesn’t cost anything.”
But I couldn’t resist responding to that last jab: “Did you not read my response to that? I think you did and I think you need to grow up.”
And what witty gem did Lou Kilmartin grace me with by way of reply? “Okay, boomer.”
Ageism.
It’s a response to people born in the baby boom of the 1940s and 1950s (I wasn’t): “Oh, you’re old and you don’t understand.”
So there you have it. This is the kind of Labour Party Rebecca Long-Bailey (and, presumably, the other leader candidates because none of them have distinguished themselves in these matters) wants to lead.
A party of intolerance, bigotry, liars, ageism, and fascism.
If you’re still a member of the Labour Party, is that the kind of organisation you want associated with you?
Because I don’t.
I’m staggered that a membership of half a million has allowed the situation to degenerate this far.
There is only one answer to the kind of attack I experienced on Facebook today.
Rejection. These people, along with everybody who agrees with them, can – and I don’t say this often – FUCK OFF.
Postscript: In a move typical of those exposed as bigots, those responsible for the disgraceful display chronicled above have removed it from Facebook. Draw your own conclusions.
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!
This didn’t happen: But you can bet the Tories would have wanted it.
“Basically now we are all buggered.
“No hope left for me as I’m disabled and they’ve messed me about so much already.
“I don’t see any compassion for people like myself and all the others like me out there – and to all the ones who have already taken their lives because of cuts cuts cuts cuts n more cuts.
“I’m so disappointed in people in general because of all the hatred towards different groups of people.
“And it’s now going to get worse. Thanks a bunch.”
Those aren’t my words; they were written by Mrs Mike, after the extent of Boris Johnson’s general election victory became clear.
I wonder how many of those who voted Tory because they really wanted Brexit stopped to think about the harm they were doing to their relatives on sickness and/or disability benefits, or to anybody else who is vulnerable because of the draconian Tory policies we’ve had to endure since 2010?
Did these people stop for a moment to think what the Tories will give us?
They won’t give us reform of the Department for Work and Pensions. Labour would have scrapped the DWP because the culture of persecution has now become so ingrained into it that the only responsible choice was to dissolve the entire department and replace it with a new Department of Social Security. That will not happen under the Conservatives and the culture of persecution will continue to kill people – your relatives, maybe.
They won’t reform the benefit system and scrap Universal Credit. UC has been a hugely-expensive ‘white elephant’ from the start – but it does exactly what the Conservatives want: It kills benefit claimants. With an 80-seat majority, Johnson will really put the screws on the poor and vulnerable. Mrs Mike was right and we can expect a bloodbath.
(But don’t expect the Tory-led mass media to report on it. Apparently there were huge demonstrations against the new Tory government in London over the weekend. Did you see it reported on the news? Neither did I. I did see a report on how Russian president Putin controls the news media so nothing is said against his government. That is what you’ll get from now on.)
They won’t reform the so-called “digital barrier” that obstructs people who have trouble coping with computers and the internet from claiming benefits. Telephone, face-to-face and outreach support cost money and might result in people actually being able to claim the benefits they deserve and no Tory MP wants that.
They won’t end the five-week wait for Universal Credit payments. This plunges people into crushing poverty which is exactly where the Tories want them.
They won’t reintroduce fortnightly payments, to help people manage their money. Tories want benefit claimants to be in a permanent state of panic, poverty and – ultimately – despair. Look at what Mrs Mike said, above. It’s working (and she’s not even on UC).
They won’t end the evil sanction regime. It is unfair and harsh for a reason – to harm poor people.
They won’t scrap the benefit cap. Tories are about denying money to the people who really need it.
They won’t end the two-child limit on benefits and scrap the so-called ‘rape clause’. Despite being described as “immoral and outrageous”, Tories love it because it humiliates women.
They won’t pay the child element of benefits to the primary carer, to ensure that women are no longer forced to stay in abusive relationships by the system. Tories like keeping women in abusive relationships.
They won’t end the Bedroom Tax and increase the Local Housing Allowance to protect people against the threat of eviction. Tories want to pitch poor people into the street. Their homes can then be redeveloped into high-cost dwellings for the very rich, “gentrifying” – and socially-cleansing – whole towns if they can.
They won’t end the “dehumanising” Work Capability Assessments and PIP Assessments. Tories love humiliating the poor and vulnerable, remember.
They won’t stop benefit assessments being contracted-out to private companies and ensure that all benefit assessments are carried out by government employees in future. Privatisation is a Tory mantra. While it encourages corruption, it also puts any harm caused to claimants at arms’-length from the Tory government itself.
They won’t increase Employment and Support Allowance for people in the Work-Related Activity Group. Tories are about putting people into poverty and debt, remember.
Oh, and they won’tput people right when they ask Labour MPs why they aren’t putting a stop to the hate-filled persecution that is on its way.
Labour can’t stop the coming Tory wall of hate. Your vote put a stop to that.
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!
Uncannily accurate: The Conservative government’s genuine policy towards PIP claimants may as well be as it appears in this cartoon from 2017.
A woman with an extremely rare disability was told she qualified for a bare minimum on the disability benefit PIP – until a newspaper put it under the spotlight.
The Department for Work and Pensions changed its tune sharpish when The Lincolnite took an interest in Chelsea Tyler’s story.
Ms Tyler, 22, has Glutaric Aciduria Type 2, which means she cannot wash, take medicine or even go out to the shops without the help of her partner and full-time carer Michael Mitchell.
She cannot eat normal food because the fats and proteins will clog up her system and potentially kill her. It also means that she could go into a coma if she does any kind of strenuous exercise.
Her condition has worsened. She was diagnosed with respiratory and heart failure, so she is now forced to rely on a wheelchair.
But after her assessment for Personal Independence Payment, she was told she could have only the standard rate of £58.70 per week for her daily living needs and did not need help with mobility.
She was told she would have to submit more evidence to have the decision overturned.
Then suddenly everything changed – after she shared her story with the news outlet.
The form letter she received almost defies belief – because of the straight-faced way it pretends that it isn’t a complete change of direction on the basis of no new evidence at all.
“I can still award you” is as in the initial letter, but suddenly Ms Tyler was being awarded “the enhanced rate of £87.65 a week to help with your daily living needs”.
And instead of being told, “At this time I can’t award you PIP for help with your mobility needs,” she was now told: “I can still” – still? – “award you the enhanced rate of £61.20 a week to help with your mobility needs.”
It’s a great result for Ms Tyler – but it proves beyond any doubt that the assessment process for PIP is a fiction; a fake; a mockery.
It seems – and forgive me if you’ve read this many times before – that people are awarded the benefit, not on the basis of their needs, but on whether civil servants working for the Conservative government think they can get away with cutting these claimants off.
Can anyone deny it?
And now the Conservatives – who enforce these bewildering, nonsense policies – are seeking re-election with promises of change. Based on what?
It seems clear there is no rationale for providing or denying benefits.
The aim is to harm people – without being seen to do so.
That will continue, as long as we have a Conservative government in the UK.
The general election is a desperately-needed chance to make a change. Let’s take it.
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!
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lowered himself to baiting his critics – trying to lure them into apparent displays of anti-Semitism – by paraphrasing Nazi tyrant Adolf Hitler in a comment on Twitter.
He stated, in a sabre-rattling speech aimed at Iran: “The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.”
The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.
As you can see from the response by Evolve Politics, Hitler said something almost identical in 1923: “The whole of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak.”
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism forbids people from stating the fact that Hitler said something almost identical in 1923:
“The whole of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak” – Hitler, 1923 Munich Speech https://t.co/EdZvPmPdp7
It is true that one of the examples of anti-Semitism listed with the IHRA working definition is “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.
For some, that would be enough. We know several right-wing Labour MPs who would scream “anti-Semitism” if anybody compared Netanyahu with Hitler.
However – and this is a biggie:
The working definition of anti-Semitism itself states that examples such as that listed above are “non-legally binding”, only “to guide IHRA in its work”, and are indications of what “might” be manifestations, “taking into account the overall context”.
So – as Martin Odoni clarifies in this Critique Archives article, “the notorious ‘examples’ in the IHRA definition… are not meant to be seen as cast-iron proof of anti-Semitic attitudes. They are merely meant to be seen as clues for ‘where to look’, as it were. Where these behaviours are seen, the person or people demonstrating them might be anti-Semitic in their intentions, and so it is advisable to investigate.”
So the IHRA accepts that drawing comparisons between contemporary Israeli policy and that of the Nazis may not be inherently anti-Semitic – and one occasion in which it most certainly would not is if the Israeli prime minister paraphrased the words of Hitler.
Furthermore, such behaviour encourages unfavourable analysis of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians – not direct comparisons with the Nazis’ persecution of European Jews, although it is clear that, as Hitler believed the Jews to be weak, Netanyahu applies the same description to Palestinians.
So, in context, there is nothing anti-Semitic about this tweet by Craig Murray, no matter how much the pro-Israeli-government lobby rages about it.
A genuine statement of fascist ideology from the apartheid state which categorises its own citizens and their rights and even internal movement by ethnicity, and inflicts constant terror on the "weak" Palestinians it displaced into large fenced and blockaded enclosures. https://t.co/xne1zqteQ6
This one, by John Clarke, is a valid expression of opinion:
Anyone who wonders why people criticise Israel should read THIS from the Israeli Prime Minister. He is referring to the murder of Palestinian women & children, the erasing of the very word Palestine & assuming “racial superiority” for his “race”. Not Good! https://t.co/zjkUn2b86G
Marcus Chown’s comment can’t be touched because not only is he absolutely right, but he actually places Netanyahu’s remarks in their correct context:
FFS. This could be Hitler talking about the master race. This is the kind of thinking that led to eugenics. Given the suffering of the Jews under the Nazis, the PM of Israel is the last person on Earth I would expect to be saying things like this. https://t.co/4AYBNINSC2
And Jill Segger teaches the lesson that Mr Netanyahu and all the supporters of his genocidal regime seem to have forgotten:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah. The rest is the explanation. Go and learn." — Hillel https://t.co/CBIfDH7F4s
We are told – constantly – that the Nazi persecution of the Jews is, indeed, hateful to the Jews.
But the leader of what he himself has described as the “nation-state of the Jewish people” has not only embraced the rhetoric that informed that persecution – he uses it to justify doing what is hateful to his own neighbours in Palestine.
And, to their eternal shame, our mainstream news media are spineless, supine and silent.
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!
National Alliance Neo-Nazi Rally, Union Station, Massachusetts Avenue, Washington DC, Saturday 24 August 2002 [Image: Flickr/ElvertBarnes].
Those who accused This Site of publishing hate material may be surprised to read that I am promoting awareness of the way those who are really responsible can be identified and shut down.
That’s their problem. They were wrong about me then, and they’re wrong now. They distract attention away from the real issue and have therefore helped online hate speech to thrive.
Charlottesville, and President Trump’s ill-advised remarks on what happened there, have brought the issue back into public view, and we should keep it there until it has been eliminated.
So let’s get wise and get active. The more we know about the way these creatures operate, the better-equipped we’ll be to stop them. Start here:
Anti-Semitic tweets were viewed ten billion times on twitter in 2016—that’s why the alt-right loves the internet.
2016 was one of the worst years for online hate speech, a year when neo-fascists overwhelmed the comments sections of many online forums. Members of the alt-right took popular platforms like Disqus, Facebook and Twitter by storm, flooding them with hateful posts. They attempted to reshape the debate on a wide range of issues including Brexit, Trump, immigration and Islam. What’s worse, in some ways they succeeded—and they’re not done yet.
Alt-right websites such as Infostormer, Daily Stormer (both currently inaccessible) and Breitbart have been instrumental in mobilizing right wing activists to popularise nationalistic hate speech online, and are quite open about their intentions to alter the status quo by passing off hate as acceptable.
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!
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:
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.
