advertisement


The tw*t in the hat

russel said:
I think anyone who could answer the question would do so Jon, instead of resorting to straw man, AUP breach ad home attack’s. Would you answer the question as it was posed or withdraw your comment.
Click to expand...

For clarity, I was not suggesting that you, russel, yourself are or have ever been an anti-semite or posted anything that could be deemed to be anti-semitic in nature.

You do, if I may say so, appear to harbour some considerably antipathy towards the state of Israel, as is apparent from many of the posts I have read of yours over the years on the various middle east based threads which have appeared on here from time to time. It therefore does not entirely surprise me that your question suggests some insensitivity to the offence that many of us take from George Galloway's remarks.
 
JonR said:
I think the answer should be obvious to anyone who's not an anti-semite, russel.
Click to expand...
It’s not obvious to me. Does that make me antisemitic?

It’s perhaps context sensitive, and hence more likely to be AS, coming from him. But as a raw statement, I’m not sure it would fit the definition of AS as, for example, adopted by the Labour Party. Would it?
 
Defo context sensitive and he knew what he was doing, just like that little cat annoying twat that out a picture of a monkey up.

There is defo a direct relationship between being a knobhead and a Twitter user.

I still think he will sue and win though. Not sure a court can really take the context into account.
 
JonR said:
For clarity, I was not suggesting that you, russel, yourself are or have ever been an anti-semite or posted anything that could be deemed to be anti-semitic in nature.

You do, if I may say so, appear to harbour some considerably antipathy towards the state of Israel, as is apparent from many of the posts I have read of yours over the years on the various middle east based threads which have appeared on here from time to time. It therefore does not entirely surprise me that your question suggests some insensitivity to the offence that many of us take from George Galloway's remarks.
Click to expand...


I understand why Jewish people are supportive of Israel, you probably have friends and family there and being Jewish you could go and live there. However I am not Jewish, have no friends or family there and would find it as a non Jew impossible to go and live and work there, in addition there are numerous laws that mean that the non Jewish citizens of Israel are subject to discrimination and the non Jewish people in areas controlled by Israel are treated appallingly. Numerous Israeli mps frequently say things that would be utterly unacceptable in most western countries if they were said about Jews, in addition there is on record an official from the Israeli embassy talking about “taking down” a serving British official. So just as I can see why you are comfortable with Israel you must see why non Jews have no reason to be.
 
Of all the Jewish people I know, there isn't a single one who is supportive of Israel's policies towards Palestine and Palestinians, let alone comfortable. But no doubt many are. Being Jewish often doesn't have a whole lot to do with Israel, let alone Spurs and Arsenal.

As to the tw*t in the head tweet needing a context - Spurs isn't an Israeli team so the club is unlikely to drape a trophy in colours, winning the cup wasn't the work of Israel's foreign agents but paid professionals, the majority of its supporters aren't Jewish, and the ones who are Jewish may themselves have no connection with Israel. I'd have thought that context is so obvious it doesn't need stating. Indeed, when Liverpool and Tottenham condemned the tweet they found no reason to spell it out.

Of course it would fall under the IHRA definition. Anti-semitism usually does. Try this one - because spurs / fans would put an Israeli flag on it wouldn’t they… ffs. In supporting a British club as British citizens their allegiance is to Israel. That really isn't hard to spot.

Further, Galloway isn't wading in on the British clubs who are supported in Israel, by Israel, and whose flags are flown within Israel - it's highly selective. It's a tweet that would appeal to the ignorant. It's complicated a bit, but not much, by the history of anti-semitic abuse directed towards Spurs in the 70s no doubt and the way that Spurs appropriated symbols from that to demonstrate pride in their fans, and their geography. Presumably that's parallel to the use of the 'N' word in the States, all the way back to the use of the word 'Protestants' in the church. If and when Spurs fans wave Israel flags, it is no doubt because it has the star of David on it to be waved in the face of the 'Y' word. But I've never seen one when I've seen Spurs play and you'd struggle to find a photo of one on google images I imagine, unless it was flown by an Ajax fan vs Spurs.

As to tw*t winning a court case, given the history of that radio station's troubles with the regulators given tw*t's previous comments, I'm sure they'd consulted their lawyers long before his latest round of tw*ttery. He knew exactly what he was doing as I'm sure do many who are posting in a hifi shop about AS.
 
zarniwoop said:
The even bigger tw*t in the hat...

Click to expand...
I'm refusing to watch that. My telly wouldn't last 30 seconds before a size 11 foot shaped hole appeared in it. Also, being a mere 46" it's not big enough to show the sheer amount of cüntishness on display.
 
maxflinn said:
It's the same chat show as before. What difference will it make that it's put out via a Russian-owned network rather than via TalkRadio?
Click to expand...
I'm asking myself: if Talk Radio dropped the show, for reasons we all understand, why would RT pick it up, knowing those reasons? The answer I'm giving myself is 'in order to make mischief on the West'.
 
Ah, all is right with the world again, Galloway’s pay cheque once again comes from a tyrant or dictatorship!
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I'm asking myself: if Talk Radio dropped the show, for reasons we all understand
Click to expand...
I don't think it's right to suggest everyone understands theses reasons. At least, not in the same way, if that's what you're suggesting.

For instance I probably understand in a different way to how you do, though I won't know that for sure unless you tell me your understanding of why Talk Radio dropped the show.

Did you know that Palestinian flags are banned from Celtic home matches?

Are Israeli flags banned from Spurs home ground?

Did the BBC fire Alan Sugar from the Apprentice show after certain tweets he made?

Perhaps these questions will lead to you understanding the way I do, if you don't already.

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
why would RT pick it up, knowing those reasons?
Click to expand...
We don't know what RT's reasoning is re Galloway's sacking/tweet. At least I don't.

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
The answer I'm giving myself is 'in order to make mischief on the West'.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?
 
Why anybody would give Galloway airtime is beyond me. He's a liability wherever he goes because he's an unprincipled loose cannon. He's a sort of 'Boris Johnson on Steroids' who deliberately courts controversy, adjusts his pronouncements according to his audence etc.
Far, far better people than him have been confined to the dustbin of broadcasting history for far less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top