Nick Clegg's Pesach message

Sickening hypocrisy

Pesach is about 'Freedom' - and Israel represents the ultimate freedom for Jews.

And what did Nick Clegg want to do when Israel moved to defend itself from terror in December 2008?

He wanted to deny the Jewish State the means to defend itself..

Utter hypocrisy......

Well at least for once he can't be accused of opportunism because there aren't any council or mayoral elections in the foreseeable future. oh, hold on.

Redoubtable Dick your point is well taken.

In fact 2012 is set for an election frenzy. Some are to be looked forward to more than others.

Actually if you follow the blog spots you will see there is never even the width of a cigarette paper between Frontline Jonny and Redoubtable Dick.

Trust me on this one, I know about cigarette papers.

Talk about intertwined fates.

lol

Is richmillet talking about Jonathan or Matthew?

What I just can't get my head around about Jonathan is that he tells you a lie and then kindly provides you a link to somewhere that illuminates the lie. He then edits his blog to erase the lie. It's such bizarre behaviour.

The man is ill.

The man is ill.

You'd be challenged for repetition if you were on "Just a Minute" - Goldie G. Tobin

Time to apologize to Sheikh Raed Salah.

Almost a year on, all four charges against Salah, supporting his deportation, have been thrown out by the vice-president of the Upper Immigration Tribunal. In his ruling, Mr Justice Ockelton said May was misled and "under a misapprehension as to the facts".

And we all know who misled, repeated and passed on dodgy facts.

..... and we all know which Israel-bashing academic the Judge relied on as an 'expert witness':

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/the-cold-war-on-the-truth-0

That wasn't much of an apology. I have seen Hoff do much better apologies than that. Even if he has deleted the blog wherein it is contained.

Salima no apology required - this from the judgement:

The appellant is clearly aware of the blood libel against Jews. If his intention had been to draw an analogy between events of the Spanish Inquisition and actions of the Israeli state he could have said so in clearer terms that did not require over ten paragraphs of explanation for his true meaning to be made clear. If he had meant to refer to Christians using the blood of others to make bread, which he seems to consider less offensive than referring to Jews doing so, then he could have inserted the word “Christian” into the text of his the sermon as he does in paragraph 175 of his explanation. Allusion to historical examples of children being killed in religious conflict does not require reference to their blood being used to make “holy bread”. The truth of the matter is that the conjunction of the concepts of ‘children’s blood’ and ‘holy bread’ is bound to be seen as a reference to the blood libel unless it is immediately and comprehensively explained to be something else altogether.

Sheikh Raed Salah is an anti-Semitic scum bag - Britain can keep him as far as we are concerned and good riddance.