Is Nick Clegg cracking up?


By Jonathan Hoffman
December 27, 2010
Share

COMMENTS

Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 13:26

Rate this:

0 points

If cracked, he could become 'scrambled Clegg"


Yoni1

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 14:46

Rate this:

1 point

The whole lot of them are cracked, always have been. Clegg is a joke in a grey suit, 0.0001% less of a useless nerd than either of the Millipedes. Cable has always been a total idiot, and I can't imagine why people have been falling for his serious expression and believing that there is any substance there whatsoever.


Armchair Quarterback

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 14:50

Rate this:

-3 points

Talking to yourself again Jonathan ? You do know what they say about THAT don't you ?


Armchair Quarterback

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 15:10

Rate this:

-3 points

And don't try telling us it's only so you can be guaranteed an intelligent conversation because we just WON'T believe it


Joe Millis

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 15:30

Rate this:

-3 points

Groan...Did you get that from a Christmas Cracker, Jonathan?


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 15:30

Rate this:

3 points

because we just WON'T believe it

You hear that Jonathan? Weelchair and Quarterbrain won't believe you!


Armchair Quarterback

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:02

Rate this:

-3 points

Well Jonathan may have his disabilities , I hear that his foot isen't everything it used to be but I never heard about his hearing problems before


Yoni1

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:18

Rate this:

3 points

I have yet to see a Christmas cracker that is not twice as intelligent as Millis and Quarterbrain put together.


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:23

Rate this:

3 points

I have an example there, Yoni:
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2003-19.html

The story is at the end of the page...


MatthewHarris

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:26

Rate this:

-2 points

My only comment is to say if you're interested, regarding that photo: the reason Nick Clegg's face looks like that is because there'd just been a painful electronic feedback noise on the earpiece that he was wearing for an interview, as reported when the picture first appeared. Typical of the Mail to use that photo in the context of this story, without making that clear. That's why I read The Times...


Yoni1

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:27

Rate this:

2 points

Yes, Millis et al would do the human gene pool a huge favour by jumping off a cliff. The increase in average intelligence would be easily measurable.


Yoni1

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:30

Rate this:

2 points

"Typical of the Mail to use that photo in the context of this story, without making that clear"

Awww, diddums, are we offended by an inaccuracy? What about the non-stop lies dripping from the mouths of Clegg, Cable, Hughes, Tonge et al - is diddums not offended by those?


Advis3r

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:35

Rate this:

1 point

Once again the disingenuous duo have nothing constructive to contribute to the debate and so viciously attack Mr Hoffman instead. At least we are in doubt as to the level of their IQ.


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:38

Rate this:

1 point

The photo is of little importance, Matthew, and no one in his own mind can believe the two are related.


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:41

Rate this:

1 point

Nice to see you back, btw, Matthew. Did you start the expulsion procedure for Tonge, since last time?


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 16:43

Rate this:

1 point

At least we are in doubt as to the level of their IQ.

Not me!


Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 21:12

Rate this:

1 point

No TSpam ... I mean Joe ... I don't celebrate Christmas, I am Jewish


amber

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 01:21

Rate this:

1 point

armchair, your pathetic and vacuous ad hom attacks show two things:
1' You have nothing to say.
2. Jonathan has got it right.


Armchair Quarterback

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 09:34

Rate this:

-1 points

Amby where and when did you learn the expression " ad hom " and what does it mean ?


Armchair Quarterback

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 09:54

Rate this:

-1 points

This is Amby's chance to show off so don't anyone go and spoil it ok ?


MatthewHarris

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 15:13

Rate this:

-1 points

A Happy New Year to you all. I've already explained why I think that seeking to expel anybody would be counter-productive. I have this eccentric tendency not to deliberately do things that I consider to be counter-productive, so no, I haven't started expulsion proceedings.


MatthewHarris

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 15:22

Rate this:

-1 points

As for Yoni1 calling me diddums...I used to call people that when I was about eleven. Yoni1 reminds me of the very entertaining episode of Just William that was on BBC1 earlier today. I wonder if he will invite us all to his barmitzvah in a couple of years? If you'll excuse me, Yoni1 and I are now off to the woods to play Cowboys and Indians with toy wooden swords.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 15:24

Rate this:

1 point

Matthew - what do you think about McHugo taking part in a conference organised by an outfit that is illegal in Israel because it is affiliated to Hamas?

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/12/2703.htm

http://www.prc.org.uk/newsite/en/about-prc/119-the-new-of-our-center/770...

What are you going to do about it?

Nothing - like for Tonge?


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 15:25

Rate this:

1 point

And you still have not answered this:

"Please cite a link to support your contention that "before the General Election you were predicting that the Lib Dems would stop any Coalition Government from doing exactly what it is now doing on universal jurisdiction" "


MatthewHarris

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 16:55

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan, the thing you say I haven't "answered" - I have answered it to my satisfaction, at least once. Even if I have not answered it to your satisfaction, you might as well stop repeating the 'question', as I am not going to say anything in response to it that I have not said already. This is not Newsnight. You are not Jeremy Paxman. I am not accountable to you for what I choose to say.

Regarding John McHugo's participation in that conference; I note that you neglect to mention that Labour's Andy Slaughter MP is also participating - as usual, you single out the Liberal Democrats for special treatment. So the Lib Dems are represented at this conference by John McHugo, a guy who (like me) is nothing more (nor less) than a grassroots party member, and who is certainly not an MP, while Labour is represented by its Shadow Justice Manager, representing its front bench in the House of Commons - and you think that Mr McHugo's presence is what should worry people?!

As for what I shall 'do' about it, what I shall do about it (given that Mr McHugo has broken no laws in this country) is argue against Mr McHugo's views to prevent them becoming party policy. In other words, persuade the majority of party colleagues (e.g. at Party Conference) to vote against Mr McHugo's views, so that they are defeated. It's called democracy, Jonathan.


Yoni1

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 17:22

Rate this:

0 points

"I am not accountable to you for what I choose to say"

If you want to become an MP - heavens help us all - then you have to get used to the idea that you are accountable to the electorate. I know this is a difficult concept for someone laughingly known as a 'Lib' 'Dem' to grasp.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 17:51

Rate this:

0 points

Matthew, MPs are accountable and to say "I have answered it to my satisfaction" is a complete dishonest abdication. You were asked:

"Please cite a link to support your contention that "before the General Election you were predicting that the Lib Dems would stop any Coalition Government from doing exactly what it is now doing on universal jurisdiction" "

and you responded by citing my CiFWatch article:
http://cifwatch.com/2010/05/01/the-nightmare-shidduch/

which clearly is NOT about the LDs in coalition but about the LDs, period.

The honest thing would be to admit your claim was wrong. You are just digging yourself deeper in.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 17:57

Rate this:

0 points

I am aware that Slaughter is participating. I endorsed the Conservatives precisely because of nonsense like this from Labour.

But you are LibDem which is why I did not mention Slaughter. You cannot do anything about Labour but you should be able to do something about antisemitism within the LibDems. I hope you will be going to this Conference to challenge McHugo? And why have we not seen you at a single one of the demos against the Ahava boycotters?


Watchful Iris (not verified)

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 18:13

Rate this:

-1 points

Yeah, you could make a fool out of yourself right along side Yonathan like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBH6XONDpes&feature=player_embedded


MatthewHarris

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:09

Rate this:

0 points

How does shouting at anti-Zionist extremists outside Ahava convince a single person to be more pro-Israeli? The debate is happening in the middle ground, among people whose views on Israel are not yet fully formed - those are the people we need to reach out to. The anti-Ahava anti-Zionists' minds (such as they are) are already made up - there is nothing to be achieved by standing in the street arguing with them.

There is, however, a lot to be achieved by putting pro-Israeli arguments in front of the largest possible audiences, to counter anti-Israeli arguments. One pro-Israeli letter in The Guardian is worth a thousand shouting matches outside Ahava, as it will influence the thinking of tens of thousands of Guardian readers - who is influenced by a shouting match with a bunch of anti-Zionists in the street?


MatthewHarris

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:12

Rate this:

0 points

Which is not to say that there is not also a place for street demonstrations, including counter-demonstrations outside Ahava.

Re:- the conference to be addressed by John McHugo. Jonathan, please message me personally with the details and I shall consider going. Is it an event at which I would actually be able to speak? Will anyone be there whose mind is not already made up? Is it an opportunity actually to influence anybody's views?


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:20

Rate this:

0 points

Precisely. The point of the Ahava demos is to speak to 'neutral' passers-by as an antidote to the poison from the haters. And to give them leaflets telling the truth as an antidote to the lies from the haters.

You should be there.

http://www.prc.org.uk/newsite/en/about-prc/119-the-new-of-our-center/770...

Here is the Conference. It is at SOAS so of course there will be people there - possibly and importantly students - to influence. Again - you should be there.


MatthewHarris

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:26

Rate this:

0 points

I agree with Jonathan that MPs are accountable to their electorate. I am, however, not an MP (only one thing went wrong on my campaign in Hendon: two other candidates got more votes than I did, so one of them was declared elected. Had that one thing not gone wrong, I would now be Hendon's MP).

I am allowed to make assertions on a blog, and then explain what I mean by them, without being pedantically and repetitively grilled as to whether or not what I said was accurate in the opinion of one person.

But here goes one more time: nobody can deny that the pre-election blogosphere was full of right-wingers saying that if the Lib Dems were in a position of influence after the election, it would be bad news from a pro-Israeli perspective.

And now, contrary to the warnings of those right-wing doom-mongers, we have a Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister strongly supporting the Coalition Government's legislation to clarify the law on universal jurisdiction. To me, this appears to be good news - do people not agree?


jose (not verified)

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:33

Rate this:

0 points

Well, these right-wingers ignore one thing: that FO does not really changes with governments.
The problem is that UK policy doesn't change and that it is still hopelessly biased against Israel.


Joe Millis

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:43

Rate this:

0 points

Sorry, Jonathan, but those demos do not really help. How many passers by have you persuaded to buy Ahava goods?


MatthewHarris

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:53

Rate this:

0 points

Ah, but are the Ahava demos about persuading people to buy Ahava goods? All those people pass by and are handed a virulently anti-Israel leafet - so the point of Jonathan's counter-demonstration is to hand those passers by a leaflet that gives a pro-Israeli point of view, so that they hear a pro-Israeli argument, as well as an anti-Israeli argument. If people then go and buy Ahava goods, then so much the better, but I'm assuming that most of the passers by were never planning to visit or boycott that shop anyway - they were just passing by.

Jonathan, I can't commit to attend every event that everybody suggests that I go to, but I shall book to attend that SOAS event and will seek, when there, to put questions from the floor, etc. Thank you for the suggestion.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 19:57

Rate this:

0 points

@Matthew: So the LibDem peers will support it, then?

@Millis formerly known as TSpam: You have no right to have your opinion taken seriously, since you do not come to the demos.

However we have persuaded many people to buy and our leaflets and conversations' have educated thousands of passers-by in the truth.


Yoni1

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 20:00

Rate this:

0 points

"who is influenced by a shouting match with a bunch of anti-Zionists in the street?"

They are antisemites, dear. There is no such thing as "anti-Zionists". You would hope that a potential MP might display a slightly sharper brain, but then look at the morons we've had in parliament for years ...


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 20:00

Rate this:

0 points

Yes the point of the counter-demo is to pitch to passers-by as an antidote to the hate pitch.

Some go in to buy, but that is not the main point. In fact, so unpopular are the haters that the shop does better on demo days than non-demo days.

We also try to encourage people to shop at other shops in Monmouth St since the presence of the haters deters shoppers from the street.

See Richard Millett's blog for more details.


MatthewHarris

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 20:01

Rate this:

0 points

I am confident that it will get through the House of Lords with the support of Lib Dem Ministers in the Coalition Government. I am sure that some Lib Dem peers will oppose it, but hopefully they will become fewer when they learn more about what the proposed change actually means. I imagine that some peers from outside the Lib Dems will oppose it as well. But I am sure it will get through, and that is what matters.


MatthewHarris

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 20:03

Rate this:

0 points

Oh, and while some anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, not all are. I again urge you to read Anthony Julius' excellent history of English anti-Semitism, Trials of the Diaspora.


Yvetta

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 20:11

Rate this:

0 points

Wake up and smell the coffee, Matthew. Most anti-Zionists are antisemites.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 20:14

Rate this:

0 points

Yvetta is right. You must read the EUMC Definition of antisemitism Matthew. You should have cited it in your letter. To deny the Jews a state is antisemitic.


Joe Millis

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 22:01

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan Hoffman, I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I do not go to some demos because walking up and down and shouting at SWPers, Stoppers, Islamists and apologists for religious hatred and bigotry is a waste of time and shoe leather.
I go to demos when I think it will serve a purpose, such as the pro-Israel Trafalgar Square demos and even the JFS protest at the time of Lebanon 2. I say even because I thought it was silly have that demo in JFS rather than in the centre of town.


Joe Millis

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 22:08

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan Hoffman, the EUMC's working definition actually doesn't mention Israel.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

With regard to Israel, the European Forum on Anti-Semitism explains:

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Note 1. This is not part of the working definition but is added as an explanation.
2. "could include" -- Could is conditional. It doesn't say, for instance, "does include" only "could".
Note also the last point about holding Jews collectively responsible etc etc. If Israel calls itself the national homeland of the Jewish people, this does create a problem regarding collective responsibility.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 22:20

Rate this:

0 points

Of course the EUMC Definition includes Israel.

http://www.fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition...

The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.
Working definition: ``Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non­Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.''

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for ``why things go wrong.'' It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the
power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish
conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single
Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non­Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish
people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War
II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self­determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other
democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property---such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries---are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 22:24

Rate this:

0 points

Mr Revisionist Mellis aka T-Spam, do not tell me that the word "could" is conditional: conditional on what?

It is unambiguously clear from the context, and the number of mentions of Israel, that "could" means "includes at least these specific manifestations but also includes more [unspecified] manifestations"


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 22:25

Rate this:

0 points

Millis I mean


Joe Millis

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 22:41

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan Hoffman, it's could, not is or does, which are conditional on nothing. "Could" denotes to have a possibility. Not even a probability, but a possibility, conditional on other circumstances.
I'll give you a for instance.
It would be anti-Semitic to say that "Israel is a war-mongering country because it is run by Jews for Jews".
It is not anti-Semitic to say that "Israelis are warmongers". Anti-Israel? Absolutely without any doubt and very offensive, too. Anti-Zionist? Quite so. But anti-Semitic? Nope.
You showed it yourself regarding the working definition. No mention of Israel. Israel is mentioned only in the clarification. And if you go to the European Forum on Anti-Semitism's website, it is absolutely and unambiguously clear that the working definition, which is as accurate as it is brief (and its brevity serves only to add to its clarity) makes no mention of Israel. A give-away is that the working definition is in bold. The explanations and clarifications are not. And they look like afterthoughts.


Joe Millis

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 22:42

Rate this:

-1 points

And I still think you are confusing me with someone else.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS