Jump to content


Full Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


peterms last won the day on March 20

peterms had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,044 Excellent

About peterms

  • Rank
    Player Manager

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,574 profile views
  1. I think back to when I was 15, and persuaded my parents to buy the Guardian for me. It felt like an escape route into a different world. Different to my tedious, suburban, culturally bereft, lower middle class existence. Intellectually open, inviting different perspectives, curious, challenging. Utterly different to the Daily Mail that my parents read. How tragically they have betrayed that legacy, with their compliance with D notices, their closeness with the intelligence services, their cowardly attacks on Assange, their falling in line with today's and every day's decreed attack on Corbyn, their pro-Israeli position. I feel betrayed. It has become the Daily Mail, with better cookery writers.
  2. peterms

    U.S. Politics

    This clip illustrates one aspect of his oddness. On being told that several members of her family were murdered by Isis, he doesn't seem able to offer a human response or display empathy. He is bored. Lack of interest and engagement is written all over his stupid orange face. He is only half listening. But the cameras are rolling, and some response is required. He asks where they are. (Did he hear her say they were killed?) Does he mean where are they buried, she wonders? And answers accordingly. Will he help? He says they will look into it "very strongly", whatever that means. A dismissive signal that the audience is at an end. If he was some guy living next door, you might wonder whether you should ask Social Services to check if he was ok. Because he's clearly not.
  3. The article has now been changed. They have removed all the stuff about antisemitism, which previously took up about half the piece. Perhaps they've actually read what she said, and realised she was referring to abuse from remainers about Brexit. But the article is still tagged "antisemitism". The usual practice when an article has been amended is to mention at the bottom that it was corrected, and say why. That hasn't been done here.
  4. The account I saw was that they circulated the draft letter (don't know where), invited people to be co-signatories, then approached those who replied to confirm they were actually Jewish, removing those who weren't or who didn't respond. A better process would have been to approach individually people they actually wanted to be signatories. I haven't seen anything about some of the signatories being dead. If there were, then the question is who was responding, using their name, and why. The false representation would lie there, unless you're suggesting that the organisers falsified signatories, which would be a strange and very easily detected thing to do. It's sloppy process.
  5. The letter majored on Williamson and also referred to the Labour leadership and the issue more broadly. The signatories included one non-Jew, apparently removed from the list and added back in error, and a couple who appended the names of organisations they are members of but don't represent. The process for checking signatories looks sloppy. A better way of dealing with it, especially since it was removed pending investigation, would have been to reinstate the letter once the linked list had been corrected. But of course the BoD's problem was about such a letter being published at all, and it seems the Guardian have gone along with that.
  6. peterms

    U.S. Politics

    This is interesting as an insight into what's going on. There's a couple of bloggers/journos who are out to get Ilhan Omar because she supports BDS. They see themselves as acting in the interests of "the global Jewish community", which will come as a surprise to many Jews. They are propagating a new "birther" story, also involving Kenya as it happens, something about her being married to her brother and possibly making her ineligible for citizenship. Trump has picked up on this, and now retails it in his usual manner. Notice how he says that it is a fact that she was married to her brother, and repeats the assertion twice within seconds, while saying he knows nothing about it and frames the exchange as the reporter asking him about it, before saying that he's sure somebody will be looking at it. So he gives a strong dog whistle, lays out a serious accusation, simultaneously gives himself space to claim he didn't do so, and invites people to investigate further - an investigation which would require her proving a negative, while suggestions and hints will go on for years. It's actually quite skilled. Repellent, amoral, utterly dishonest, fascist agitation, but skilled.
  7. When she and I played our kids, two a side, she was striker. I was defence and DM, I would take the ball off the brats and pass it upfield to her, where she scored, again and again. It's lucky we weren't playing the offside rule. We still taunt them with their drubbing, years later. They still resent it.
  8. There's some interesting censorship happening at the moment. First we had a letter to the Guardian from many Jewish people, supporting Corbyn on the antisemitism issue. It was published briefly, then removed following an approach from the Board of Deputies. Then we had the decision not to publish Steve Bell's recent cartoons, sending up Watson and others in relation to the AS issue and their recent comments. Now we have the New Satesman removing a blog by Simon Wren-Lewis for reasons which have not afaik been made public.

  • Create New...