Showing posts with label John Mann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Mann. Show all posts

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

Applause in the HoC

I watched Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons this afternoon.

No, not the emergency debate  secured by Corbyn .....
 “calling for a new War Powers Act that would require Parliament to be consulted on military intervention”.
As it happens, I did watch that one (which seemed to be eating into the time allocated for the following one) while waiting for the advertised business, the debate about antisemitism. (Click to view the whole thing)

Many of the most significant speeches are on Youtube already, and Guido has some of them on his site, where I notice the comments are disabled. That’s unusual for Guido. I wonder why. No I don’t.



Apparently Jeremy Corbyn was “Chuntering" during the speeches (before he left the chamber)

....but  warned he won’t take part…


Luciana Berger got a round of applause, and


So did Ruth Smeeth. The antisemitic comments she read out were not quite as amusing as Richard Dawkins's....


John Mann was terrific, and



Ian Austin was impressive.

The BBC has reported it here:
“The Labour leader, who was present in the chamber for much of the debate, is due to hold talks next week with leading Jewish groups amid criticism of his handling of anti-Semitism cases.”
They describe it in a 'glass half full' way, whereas sone of us might have put it another way “The Labour leader, who was absent from the chamber for much of the debate.."

The News Channel was much more interested in the previous business as was Corbyn.
The leader of the opposition looked even more reptilian than normal during Andrew Gwynn’s statement, but he slunk off in the middle of the debate, missing the most impassioned contributions. 

Monday, 26 March 2018

Enough is enough

I’ve been back and forth and in and out  all day, so my TV/radio time was minimal, but here’s what I did catch.

Victoria Derbyshire managed to squeeze an interview with John Mann MP between various other topics. For balance, she read out emails and statements defending Jeremy Corbyn and quoted his now infamous remark: 
“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organizations.”
Surely Victoria Derbyshire is not so stupid that she thinks that exonerates Jeremy from antisemitism? It has quite the opposite effect, silly. Don’t you see? He equates Israel with Islamic State. Get it?

Next I caught Martin Bashir discussing the matter with … I think it was Joanna Gosling. He had brought a lot of statistics with him about the stark rise in antisemitic incidents, not just in the UK but in the US and Europe. They spoke for some time, puzzling over the possible cause of this. Baffled and flummoxed, they decided it’s something to do with global economic instability and / or societal insecurity.

I waited for The Daily Politics. 
Simon Johnson, Chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council spoke (on a screen) and one of the most unrepresentative specimens of Jewish opinion imaginable (bar Naomi Idrissi Wimborne) sat next to Jo Coburn in the studio. Yes, it was Jenny Manson, co-chair of Jewish Voice of Labour.

Her contribution diminished and derailed the whole debate - not that it was a debate in any real sense. In her mind, a way of establishing her credentials was to keep reminding us that she was speaking as a Jew. So out of touch with reality is this individual that she is unaware that the  term ‘asaJew’ will have the opposite effect to the one intended.

As I said in an earlier post - denying that there is antisemitism in: a.) the mural; b.) The Labour Party; c.) Jackie Walker; d.) Jeremy Corbyn’s bones …… is useless. The train has already left that station.

Even Jeremy Corbyn has admitted some of it and what’s more he has apologised, if not for the antisemitism itself, then at least for the hurt, which is weaselly, but it does rather negate Jewish Voice for labour’s point. If there is a point. Incidentally, she doesn’t wish to harm any Israeli Jews, just to end the occupation. 
" AsaJew I know Jeremy doesn't have a racist bone in his body"

Why couldn’t they have found someone from the actual Labour Party to defend Jeremy - if sanity is relative - someone sane. Then the item might have been worth watching.

Wednesday, 3 January 2018

A challenge to the BBC from John Mann MP


This in intriguing:


As I can't find any new reports about this I'm guessing it's one of Mr Mann's constituents.

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

Out of this world

It’s not you, it’s me. No; that’s the wrong way round. It is you, I’m pretty sure.

Me = out of kilter with you.
You = politicians, the media, the world, the universe and everything.  

I used to think it was just me, but oddly enough I keep coming across people who suspect the News is being beamed in from a parallel, extra terrestrial BBC, possibly staffed by shape shifting lizards. Sky News is coming at us from beyond the actual sky. It follows that the mysterious, abstract concept formerly known as cyber space is really outer space and the print media is collated by evil men from Mars.  
We can tell that evil, shape-shifting forces have taken charge, and we are wondering why hardly anybody has noticed up till now. In fact it’s almost official; we’re being fed iffy stuff by aliens.

 I’m writing this from a padded cell in David Icke’s personal dungeon.

*************

Brexit V Remain.

I heard this programme on BBC World service. “The Inquiry. Is Brexit inevitable?” The title suggests we were in for an objective analysis. An ‘inquiry’ sounds objective, no?

This episode was about the legal and constitutional implications of Brexit. Of course it had a palpable pro EU agenda.  “Brexiteers are regretting it”  “People are changing their minds” and so on. That’s par for the course with the lizards, but I’m citing it here specifically to illustrate how the BBC perceives Brexit voters.
“Our next expert witness is John Harris. He’s been travelling round the country for ‘Anywhere but Westminster’, a project run by the Guardian Newspaper” 
announced the presenter, Maria Margaronis, in a quavery voice.
“He’s found deeply wounded communities”  
You’ll guess what’s coming. 

Although full of nostalgia for the days when south Wales was a working-class area with a thriving mining industry and a sense of community, John Harris portrays the present day inhabitants as an unemployed, drug-addled underclass with racist tendencies and no hope. Through no fault of their own, it must be stressed. He’s not blaming them at all. He’s blaming the establishment for ignoring them for too long, and he warns that if the establishment  continues to ignore them it will result in the rise of UKIP “or something worse”. 
The have-nots railing against the ‘haves’. The disenfranchised expressing their anger at the political establishment. According to John Harris, these are the Brexiteers, while the Remainers are university lecturers -  pro-immigration, open minded and well-healed, but selfish.  

Melanie Phillips, on the other hand, has the definition I much prefer. (£)  
“Remainers swallowed their dislike of the EU because they didn’t think Britain could overturn the status quo and survive.”

See? That is a much more nuanced characterisation of the Remainers. Yes, indeed they probably were frightened by the scaremongering and did not wish to risk upsetting the applecart, despite the potential instability of the EU ‘going forward’ and a small matter of sacrificing our sovereignty.
  “Those who voted Brexit did so because the continued loss of national self-government was so intolerable it made the undoubted risks of leaving the EU worth taking.”

See what I mean? She gives both groups credit for their ambivalence and their nuanced appraisal of what was at stake. We’re not all selfish thickos.

*************

Aliens are in charge. Part two. Back-stabbing.

The BBC has attached a meme to Michael Gove. The “Backstabber” meme.
Jo Coburn said: 
“ Michael Gove is a backstabber, as you know”. 
According to the media Michael Gove is officially a backstabber.  The well-known backstabber.


Did you hear  Sarah Montague and guests discussing unsurprising things that (surprisingly) surprise people? For example, the referendum. A yes or no affair; yet neither David Cameron nor Boris Johnson were prepared for the outcome. They were taken by surprise. 

Let’s face it, neither Boris nor David Cameron really needed to chicken out, did they?
Hadn’t it crossed their minds that one of just two outcomes would automatically follow a ‘binary’ choice?  Heads or tails. One or t’other. In or out -  no mister in between.
What is going on? Alien forces are at it again.

Even if that mischief-making knife-related meme wasn’t wholly responsible for Theresa May’s decision to sack Michael Gove, it has served to justify it.

Michael Gove was regarded by many of his colleagues as the kind of reformer that Theresa May should have promoted rather than ditched, and her inability to recognise that looks short-sighted and vindictive, like cutting off one’s nose to spite the whole country’s face.

“There was neither sense nor generosity in the PM’s brutality to Michael Gove. He had patently acted like a lunatic over the leadership campaign, behaving neither rationally nor honourably, but all that is over now. But it is still quite extraordinary that Mrs May has not taken on board that Mr Gove was pretty well the one reformer in government.”

Still, does Melanie McDonagh actually know how Michael Gove, or for that matter Boris Johnson, ‘behaved’ over the leadership campaign, or is she just going with the flow?  Was she there at the time?
Describing Mr. Backstabber’s Gove’s behaviour as “neither rational nor honourable” suggests she’s taking the easy route and accepting a meme that is so entrenched that no-one has the strength to argue with it. 
  She says:
“He was shaping up to be a genuinely reformist Justice Secretary, having identified right at the start that prison was for people who had been failed by, among other things, the education system; it was in a way where his previous department left off. His Christian feel for rehabilitating the sinner was patently the driving force behind his programme of reforms. Rehabilitation is one of those things everyone talks about but he, remarkably and in a way his predecessors had not, started to engage with, though God knows, cuts fell disproportionately on prisons. 
His programme for giving governors greater autonomy was an interesting take on the same principle in schools; ‘academy prisons’, you might say, though the title was ‘reform prisons’. If you want to know why Mrs May should have left him well alone, read the account of Michael Gove’s address to the Howard League for Penal Reform.”


Libby Purves writes:(£) “Our squalid prisons needed the zeal of Gove
” My awareness of Liz Truss, the Norfolk MP and former Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) minister, has been pretty much confined to her eerily intense conference speeches about “opening up new pork markets in Beijing” and cheese imports being a disgrace. Now, as she takes over as justice minister, I hunger for reassurance that in her new job she will recognise a real disgrace when she sees one: our overcrowded, drug-poisoned, often squalid and educationally under-resourced prisons. She has a tough act to follow: when her predecessor Michael Gove was removed from education for undue abrasiveness, he…”

That’s the free part of the online Times. I have the hard copy, but I haven’t time to type it in here.

Theresa May has decided to appoint Liz Truss and we are left wondering ...why and what for? 
Here’s another piece, this time by Charles Falconer, even.  (£)
“The new prime minister’s reshuffle could not have revealed more clearly her indifference to the rule of law. In any government the lord chancellor has a duty to ensure that judges are properly protected from political attack and are able to act independently — and that the government itself always acts in accordance with the law. 
The lord chancellor has to be someone with the weight and stature to stand up to the prime minister or the home secretary when, for instance, they want to compromise on complying with the law in an attempt to placate the public. Or when…”
That’s the free bit, but you get the gist. Our prisons are in crisis. Violence, drugs and radical Islam rule the roost. Swapping Liz Truss for Michael Gove seems truly senseless and irresponsible.  It’s nearly as mad as appointing an accountant to head Culture, Media and Sport. 

I see I’m contradicting my theory here, as Melanie McDonagh, Libby Purves and Charlie Falconer are part of the media rather than men from Mars. There must be blips in the system.

*******

Aliens part 3.
Stabbing and car-ramming.

Wasn’t it odd that Jon Donnison happened to be in Nice at the time of the “Lorry Attack”? As the BBC reporter with the biggest obsession about Israel and the Palestinians, he was uniquely placed to inform viewers that car-ramming is not a new phenomenon. The difference is that when they occur in Europe, they’re called ‘terrorism’, but of course when the victims are Israelis car-rammings and stabbings are seen as militancy and acts of resistance. 
I know I’m not the first to point that out and I probably won’t be the last. 

As soon as we heard that 84 people had been killed in Nice, we were swiftly reminded that Muslims were victims too. 
We were told that the perpetrator (the driver, not the lorry itself) had mental health issues. 
The security services are looking into any possible connection between this man and Islamic State. 
It’s immaterial to me whether they find links or not. If Islamic State claimed him as their soldier, that’s enough for me. Soldiers of Allah, “structured in a quasi-military fashion” rather like the Salvation Army.

While they’re at it, Islamic State may as well claim ownership of every violent crime that takes place anywhere; then all murderers get to claim an ideological motive, Islamic State continues wreaking terror without lifting a finger, and the alien commentators get more blame to share out. Everyone’s a winner.

Panels of extra-terrestrial experts could appear on Sunday Morning Live and explain that what happened in Nice is our own fault because we make Muslims feel alienated and disaffected.  They even looked as though they’d just landed from Mars and they didn’t fool anyone.


***********

Talking of stabbings and vehicular rammings, I read a transcript of a recent question session in parliament (Foreign and Commonwealth office) which took place on or around the previous government’s final day. 
As a kind of tribute to Jo Cox, who apparently had a passion for Palestinians, Tobias Ellwood MP asked  a question about the continued demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities. Aliens were evidently controlling this session, because the speakers gave little indication of why seemingly random demolitions might take place.  For sheer devilment perhaps. File it under “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians.”
Then Eric Pickles said : 
There is, however, the other side of the coin, with 36 Israelis, along with four foreign nationals, murdered this year. Instead of condemning the murders, the Palestinian Authority glorified them.” 
Which was duly acknowledged by Mr Ellwood: 
“My right hon. Friend makes the important point that the actions of the Palestinians do not go unnoticed, and we require the leadership of President Abbas to make it clear that those actions must be condemned.”
But Sarah Champion (Rotherham) piped up with her concerns about Palestinian children being detained in Israeli prisons. I’m tempted to ask whether she showed as much concern for the children in her constituency who suffered sexual abuse under her watch, but I won’t in case it sounds bitter and twisted.
Beam me up.

*******

I saw Jan Ravens (off Dead Ringers) on TV the other day. They were perched under an awning on College Green chatting during a brief lull in the political revelations. She was asked how her Theresa May voice was coming along.

She demonstrated how, in order to produce the Theresa May voice, the muscles in the lower part of the face must be clenched rigid. Theresa May’s voice has a jangly timbre to it and her enunciation is stiff and posh. 

Have you noticed, Theresa May often does that Gordon Brown ‘jaw’ thing - a kind of grimace. You’d almost forgotten about that, hadn’t you? 



Daniel Finkelstein mentioned something recently that I swear I’d been thinking as well.
The BBC has a whole department dedicated to proper pronunciation, and it should  issue instructions on the correct pronunciation of Theresa.  Not Teraysa, not Tereessssa, but plain “Te - ree - za”.

Jon Culshaw hasn’t yet mastered his Jeremy Corbyn. Wind players have to control their breathing when playing, to keep phrases intact. Most of us do so naturally when speaking. 
Not Jeremy Corbyn. He takes tiny breaths, mid-flow,  like a small child whose vocabulary can’t keep pace with his thoughts.  Jon Culshaw needs to incorporate his mid-flow intakes of breath into his monotonous drone or he won’t get very far with his Corbyn impression.  

In order to get into character properly, he should cock his head slightly to the left, and the script should include repetitive socialist wish-lists that all start with the same few words, and he must finish every statement with a slight smirk (and he should never leave the stage)

*********


This is the one I wanted to write about yesterday, but I didn’t have time. It’s Mark Mardell introducing Naz Shah and that pesky "anti-semetic" incident. 
Naz Shah might well have made amends, apologised and genuinely built up a good relationship with the local Jewish  community. I’m not criticising that at all. But how could someone who’s bright enough to get herself elected as an M.P. not know that antisemitism was ‘racist’. 

The mind truly boggles. She now needs to question the racism that emanates from her constituents as well as her own racism, otherwise it’s all a bit hollow. She sounds fairly intelligent one minute and laughably, mind-blowingly stupid the next.  Is she .......from a parallel universe?



********

I also watched the Home Affairs Committee enquiry into antisemitism. Unfortunately it took place on a day when other matters were occupying the most perky members of the committee, so hardly anyone was present. 

Poor old David Winnick seems to think Israel should be grateful for his half-baked support and he assumes his criticism will be regarded as that of a friend. Some friend. 

John Mann was a witness. He is a strong character and his high profile campaign against antisemitism is of immense value, especially as he is not a Jew.  However, he is much more positive about Shami Chakrabarti’s review than anyone else seems to be, which seems a bit strange. ‘To boldly go where no Mann has gone before’ comes to mind, I don’t quite know why. 


Sunday, 3 July 2016

Miscellaneous observations

There’s a bit of a ‘grateful for small mercies’ flavour to some of the responses to Shami’s antisemitism report. John Mann and Jonathan Arkush both seemed reasonably satisfied with it. 
We’ll have to see how Keith Vaz and his merry men handle it tomorrow.


Incidentally, Ed Stourton began the interview by mentioning the death of Elie Wiesel.
The BBC’s obit was respectful, but the early morning reports of his death on radio 4 bulletins - not so much. For some reason they shoehorned something about Wiesel’s critics (who doubted the enormity of the Holocaust) into the report  Work experience guys on night duty I suspect.

*******
Did you read Fraser Nelson’s review of Andrew Marr’s interview with Andrea Leadsom? 
He called it a ‘scratchy job interview” (I wonder if Speccie writers make up their own headlines) I didn’t think it was scratchy at all - at least any scratchiness came from the direction of the interviewer rather than the interviewee. 

This business of trying to destroy ‘Leave’ people by bashing them over the head with a wet Nigel Farage is beginning to grate. The media has managed to toxify Nigel Farage so that letting slip the merest whiff of agreement with anything he’s ever said or done is to commit virtual suicide by association. The very mention of “That Poster” is enough to trigger sufficient unsafety to reach outer space. My god. It’s almost like “Settlements” 
Mention “Settlements” and you’re finished.  Poleaxed by misdirected outrage.

*******
My constituency MP, minister for DEFRA, has come out in favour of Michael Gove. Good for him. 
The media has been really mean to Gove, amplifying the back-stabbing label for all it’s worth. I actually believe his version of how events panned out with Boris.  As Gove says, Boris could have stood if he really wanted to. The downside of it all is that it reveals a lack of judgment on Gove’s part - or at least a prolonged case of hope triumphing over experience.

I think the media despises honesty whenever they suspect an MP is suffering from it. They want their MPs to be back-stabbing, ruthless and robotic. I don’t know why. That’s my honest opinion and, for now, I’m sticking to it.

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Hitler was a Zionist

Today the BBC finds itself in the most unusual situation it has ever been catapulted into. It has been propelled onstage, in front of an expectant audience, but doesn’t know what for. Rabbit in headlights. 

If there was one occasion for popcorn, this is it. It’s an explosion in slow motion.  

Well, it started rumbling quietly last night when “Two Jewish Peers” were dragged on to Newsnight to discuss Naz Shah and antisemitism in the Labour party, and to ensure that ‘legitimate criticism of Israel’ continues to be ‘nothing to do with antisemitism’.

Lord Levy is already tainted by association (with Tony Blair) so anything he says will be filed under Mandy Rice Davies. Rabbi Julia Neuburger was assertive, but Evan helped the item to come and go with little impact.

This morning the Today programme continued the theme, carefully separating “opposition to Israel’s policies” from “antisemitism”. 
Two other Left-leaning Jews, David Baddiel and Rabbi Laura Janner- Klausner were interviewed on the topic. 
David Baddiel is too much of a luvvie to queer his pitch by saying anything pro Israel, so his variation on the theme: “It’s not antisemitic to criticise the policies of Israeli’s current government” went even further. He has decided that you can even be anti-Zionist  without being antisemitic. How silly is that?  (Very)

Laura J-K is a friend of Naz Shah (an actual friend, not one of your Corby-style  “friends”) and she gave her the benefit of the doubt, accepted her apology and welcomed her promise to ‘learn more.‘ 

By the Daily Politics things had started to hot up. Ken Livingstone appeared, and so did John Mann. 
We were starting to see footage of a confrontation. A heated confrontation. Ken Livingstone with a small a rucksack on his back and a large mobile at his ear, hurrying up a flight of stairs, hotly pursued by John Mann and someone from the media wielding a bloody great camera.

John Mann was calling Ken a Nazi apologist, and telling him to read Mein Kampf. Ken has never seen any sign of antisemitism in the Labour party, but he said that Hitler was a Zionist before he went a bit mad and decided to slaughter six million Jews. (As you do when you go a bit mad) (He should know)

As the day wore on there were more interviews with Ken and Anita McVeigh, Jonathan Sacerdoti and a rather irritable Ben Brown, and an impassioned Owen Jones, who said Ken should be chucked out of the party. He reiterated that we must be careful not to confuse hatred of Jews with opposition to Israel. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought being anti-Zionist was pretty antisemitic, since Zionism only means that Jews should have their own state much like every other group/race/culture/ethnicity. If you think not, you’re very likely a racist. 

It always baffles me that no sooner had we, as a society all but rejected religiosity - at least the crippling, repressive inhuman manifestation of it - than we indulgently accepted the one religion that most embodies all the negative aspects of what we’ve just divested ourselves from. Then we not only overlooked its blatantly obvious shortcomings, but accepted its religiously-based claims to holy lands and holy places, whilst rejecting and condemning similar claims made by religious Jews.  And the irony of that is compounded by the fact that historical evidence bears out the claims of the latter rather than the former.

There’s something bigger than an elephant in this room. It’s the antisemitism within Islam, which is at the heart of the Israel Palestine conflict, and in the hearts of Muslim MPs like Naz Shah and Muslim sycophants like GG. 




The BBC has never seen any sign of it, clearly.

I am quite keen on the idea that Naz Shah takes up John Mann’s suggestion, that she goes to Israel and learns something about the ‘other side.’ 
It would be a good idea if every single one of those CAABU-funded propaganda tours that have seduced so many of our MPs were compulsorily matched with an educational tour organised by their political counterparts in Israel, particularly if it included a compulsory presentation by PMW. 

As the story rumbles on, this will be stale. We’ll just have to wait and see how it pans out. 

Monday, 14 March 2016

No place for antisemitism


'Second of kind'
Oh look, an impartial article about an Israeli on the BBC News website! 

Of course I didn’t come here to write about impartial articles. I came here to write about Andrew Neil’s interview with John Mann on the Sunday Politics.
(Tony Greenstein calls him a right-wing Zionist MP) if you want a little chuckle.)

Having been trailed at the beginning of the programme the item itself was a bit of an anti-climax. Andrew Neil didn’t really probe. He hardly ever probes these days. 
We wanted to hear not just that Jeremy Corbyn is not an antisemite - everyone seems to say that - but we wanted someone to clarify the relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Even if Jeremy Corbyn isn’t an anti-semite, he’s most certainly anti-Israel.

Andrew Neil did bring up the complaints that the labour party was trying to ‘subsume’ their enquiry into antisemitism by lumping it in with other enquiries, such as the one about bullying, but when John Mann says Jeremy is not an antisemite, and will have no truck with anti-semitism, won’t the labour Party have to justify their unapologetic anti-Zionism by providing us with some clear-cut definitions and guidelines for we of limited intelligence re. what constitutes one and not the other?

Hands up who thinks Andrew Neil is getting feeble these days. 


“It has no place in our society” There. Done.




It does make you think. How can someone who has just welcomed unlimited potential antisemites into her country go about stamping it out? 

I can’t see anything about this conference on the BBC. Maybe they’ll get round to reporting it eventually.