Board of Deputies and David Ward MP


By Jonathan Hoffman
February 21, 2013
Share

At the last Board of Deputies meeting I suggested that until the LibDems deal properly with David Ward MP, decent people should have nothing to do with the LibDems and should not vote for them. The next speaker was Jonathan Davies who is a Vice Chair of LibDem Friends of Israel. He accused me of being 'party political'.

Nothing is further from the truth.

I am on record as speaking out against antisemitic remarks from members of all three Parties.

Mr Davies' comment was a personal attack and as such I was entitled (Standing Order 24) to raise a Point of Order. But the President - completely incorrectly - refused to allow me to do this. I asked Mr Davies to apologise but he refused.

Mr Davies' attempt to belittle the gravity of the Ward comment by accusing me of making a 'party political' point speaks volumes about the failure of the LibDems to deal adequately with Ward's antisemitic comment.

COMMENTS

Jon.

Thu, 02/21/2013 - 12:50

Rate this:

0 points

Repost?


happygoldfish

Thu, 02/21/2013 - 13:03

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan Hoffman: I suggested that until the LibDems deal properly with David Ward MP, decent people should have nothing to do with the LibDems and should not vote for them. … Jonathan Davies … accused me of being 'party political'.

Mr Davies' comment was a personal attack and as such I was entitled (Standing Order 24) to raise a Point of Order.

jonanthan, why do you give yourself bad pr?

if you'd not mentioned it here, it would simply have been a technical point that took you by surprise, you raised it in the heat of the moment and without having had time to think about it, the chair ruled against you, big deal, everybody forgets it … but now it's set in stone, and you set it

(btw, you know i'll repost this advice if you delete it, so please don't)

yes, SO 24 certainly says that …

24. Points of Order
A Deputy shall be entitled to raise a Point of Order … to object to a personal attack upon the Deputy …

… but an attack relevant to what a speaker has just said is not a personal attack

"personal attack" is an attack on a speaker that is irrelevant to what he said

wikipedia (calls it "ad hominem", and) defines it as …

an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument

davies was saying that you had made a party-political point … if true, that is certainly relevant, and so is not a personal attack (entitling you to a reply), whether true or not

even if davies had said "you are always making party-political points against us", it is doubtful that that is legally a personal attack, since it is an allegation of conflict of interest, which is usually recognised as being relevant to what a speaker says anyway, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

Jonathan Hoffman: Mr Davies' attempt to belittle the gravity of the Ward comment by accusing me of making a 'party political' point …

davies was not attempting to belittle the gravity of the ward comment, he was attempting to belittle the gravity of the liberal democrats' reaction to the ward comment

it can be argued that your present allegation of a motive of belittling racism did not arise from his speech and thereby you made a personal attack on him

as to the substance of your original speech, encouraging "decent people" not to vote for the liberal democrats when there's an election next week and when their disciplinary procedures are still pending is quite obviously premature, and does legitimately raise a suspicion of party-political motive

happygoldfish

Thu, 02/21/2013 - 13:12

Rate this:

0 points
jonathan, can you please clarify …

do you delete your blogs, and all the comments on them, and then repost the blog but without the comments?

or does the jc webmaster do this, as a sledghammer move to crack the problem of some of the comments being personal attacks?


joemillis1959

Thu, 02/21/2013 - 13:23

Rate this:

0 points

This is all true, Goldfish, and a lot of people at the Plenary felt that the constant bids to raise Points of Order did Mr Hoffman a lot of harm.
Mr Davies did not accuse Mr Hoffman of being party political, he said the point he was making was party political. Huge difference. I believe that by posting this, Mr Hoffman has done himself a disservice.
Goldfish, if the moderator - let's assume there is one - wanted to remove comments (as has been done in the past) then he/she would do so without resorting to reposting.


Rich Armbach

Thu, 02/21/2013 - 13:49

Rate this:

0 points

Every time he wakes up his first thought is " what can I do today that will make me more ridiculous than I was perceived as being yesterday? "

What an embarrassment.

And as for personal attacks we are talking about the mother of personal attackers here. Spare us the sobs.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/21/2013 - 17:26

Rate this:

0 points

@happygoldfish 12:12

I did not delete the blog


Rich Armbach

Mon, 02/25/2013 - 15:01

Rate this:

0 points

If that is the case it would be very interesting indeed..


Rich Armbach

Mon, 02/25/2013 - 15:02

Rate this:

0 points

Chris Rennard rescues David Ward. Not that Ward cares.


suzanna

Mon, 02/25/2013 - 15:15

Rate this:

0 points

'or does the jc webmaster do this, as a sledghammer move to crack the problem of some of the comments being personal'

What? Jonathan Hoffman's entire raison d’être is to personally attack those he disagrees with. Have you ever read one of his posts / blogs?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.