Verbal

He's clearly principled, however misguided those principles might be. What he lacks is judgment - a disastrous weakness in political leadership.

Quite. It's newsworthy in good measure because Jew-hating shouldn't exist in Labour at all. Dimwitted Corbynistas have now taken to quoting research that shows that anti-Semitism is no stronger on the Left than on the Right. That's actually a damning conclusion for a faction of the party that has stood on an anti-racist platform. So why does it exist? One problem is virtue signalling, which is endemic among Corbynistas. The rush to ally with any anti-Western, anti-capitalist figure leads someetimes into trouble. The arch virtue signaller Corbyn himself is a repeat offender with this. He wrote a letter of support to a vicar who then argued that Israel was behind 9/11. He was 'delighted' when an Islamist cleric won an appeal to travel to the UK - a man who said that Jews kill Christian children to drink their blood. And he donated to a group called Deir Yassin Remembered, a perfectly good cause in itself (google it), except that its leading figure, Paul Elsen, is a Holocaust denier. Then there was the mural... Overlaid with this is what you might call the Virtue Delusion, which is the belief that as my intentions are pure I can do no wrong. (Actually Corbyn shares this delusion with Blair). This ends up being straightforward denial. So whenever anyone highlights anti-Semitic behaviour in the Labour party, there's a Corbynista rush to claim it's all smears and lies. The collateral damage of this is to those Jewish Labour party activists and members who are consequently accused of manipulating a media witch hunt (itself a trope in Jew-hating rhetoric). Then there's the problem of local political alliances. Local Labour parties in certain parts of Britain have close relations with communities among whom Jew hating is of epidemic proportions, and Jew hating becomes a sort of infectious disease. This is essentially what happened with Naz Shah. You get so used to Jew-hating rhetoric in everyday conversation that it's so easy to blurt out repeats of it in public. (I don't believe that Naz Shah is an anti-Semite by inclination.) Then there's the "anti-Semitism is not anti-Zionism" argument, the basic logic of which might look sound, but it's an awful mess (this post would be too long to explain why). Under this heading is the preposterous Ken Livingstone argument about Hitler being a Zionist, and any number of Corbynistas inadvertently targeting Jews on the grounds that their fighting the good fight. And finally there's just good old-fashioned Jew-hating for its own sake, which, inside the Labour party or out, really is depressing. There are hundreds of examples of this in Corbyn-era Labour, and they're detailed at length - and with copious corroborating evidence - in Dave Rich's excellent book, 'The Left's Jewish Problem'.

Oh yes, whataboutery - the great intellectual peak of political argument. What in your paranoid worldview counts as an argument that Jew hating in the Labour party must be stamped out?

RIP Lounge. 27.3.17

Yes, you should hang on, because there's an awfully long drop from that high horse you're on. Jess Phillips is not Jewish. I know who Duckhunter meant but I'm not going to give you her name because you'll just find some other pathetic excuse to abuse her. Those Jews, eh? What shall we do with them? You do understand that there was an unprecedented protest outside Parliament of leading British Jewish groups - including the Jewish Labour movement (founded 1903). Because if you don't get it, Corbyn himself is certainly getting the message, and has apologised for the regular doses of Jew-hating abuse emerging from some pockets of the Labour party. He and the Labour leadership were ashamed that it had come to this. That's because the protesters were real people, with a real grievance. Dismissing them as part of a plot to discredit Corbyn is a bit whiffy in the circumstances, don't you think? I bet they were all bankers...and you know what that means. Oh, and Jess Philips actually does have something to say about that, and depressingly it applies to your post (and to the cult-crazed fanboy and whoever the **** the other one is with his unhinged "so what if Corbyn believes Jews control the world") https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/776325544547876864?lang=en

No, not 'whatever people say.' It's when people say, as one prize fool did on here: 'Even if Corbyn believes in the theory that some Jewish bankers are controlling everything or whatever, that doesn’t make him antisemitic.' That - as bonkers and ignorant as it is - is to repeat and defend one of the most classic forms of Jew hatred. McCathyism, on the other hand (since you evidently have no clue), was the paranoid victimisation of supposed enemies of the state - many, incidentally, Jewish. Aside from your evident paranoia, this is pure victim-blaming. Even your idol has apologised and admitted that the party has a problem with Jew hating. And you would be right. This fu ckwit also babbles on about the disproven and discredited conspiracy theories associated with Seth Rich and Pizzagate. The former has caused immense distress to Rich's family (remember a similar consequence with Lee Rigby's family?), and the latter got someone killed (at the hands of a lunatic who actually believed Pizzagate to be true). It's mad - real 'no blood Bazza' mad.

Which of course is the classic anti-Semitic trope. Do you honestly not know that?

A rare example of self-awareness that you accept that Corbynism is a religion. Carry on with the bowing and scraping.

Jesus H Christ. How much lower are you prepared to stoop in defence of your idol? And yet he's now been reported to the NEC for bringing the Labour party into disrepute. Think about that for a second. And he's been caught out not just once but twice in the last ten days. I used to think he wasn't personally a Jew hater. My view now is that he's not a Jew hater in the sense that he doesn't support Brexit.

Jew haters: tolerated. Remainers: sacked.

FFS. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1."

It's almost as if you're accusing others of trivialising things. What's your position on the most important issue of all - Corbyn's hat?

Well this is obviously disappointing for the jihadist betting wing on here. Looks like buck tooth tim could win. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/22/brexit-britain-norway-theresa-may-transition-deal

To the hive mind that's exactly how it appears. Outside of your Jonestown world, though, Corbyn is the drag anchor of real progress. Still, at least you'll get to celebrate another plucky defeat at the next general election to the most incompetent, horrific Tory government of modern times.

Calling Corbyn an orator is a bit like calling Pellegrino a brilliant manager. He's a dour, rather ill-tempered West-hating, dictator-loving grouch with the charisma of a brick. You've gone beyond the call of duty sticking it out as long as you have as a card-carrying member. If you're not Momentum, you're not only not welcome, you're, in their charming terms, a 'class enemy'. They have the same attitude with the media: Corbyn's inner gang absolutely despise Channel 4 News, the Guardian and the New Statesman, all of whom have been 'banned' from contact with his Jezness, while he's happy to talk to Russia Today, Sky and the Canary/Squawkbox idiocracy. Their venom is reserved especially for the Guardian - the paper that exposed the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers, brought Snowden's revelations to light, and now Cambridge Analytica. Get out while you still can.

So the Brexit Jihadi backlash is ON. A puddle-worthy trawler full of creatures past their sell-by date - plus some dead fish - rocked the very foundations of the Houses of Parliament. All Remoaners should sit up and take notice. This is going to be easier than we thought.

It used to be said that you couldn't tell the difference between Blair's and Bush's view of the world. Now it's impossible to distinguish Corbyn's and Trump's tepid mollifying of Putin and the criminal gang running his rogue state. http://time.com/5207310/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-arms-race/

You may have got this all wrong Shylock. JJ could be a closet remoaner, celebrating what all the commentators are calling Brexit In Name Only (BINO). The real Jihadists are screaming and hurling faeces - or is that fish? - into the Thames outside Parliament. As mature grown-ups with an intelligent argument are wont to do.

That hole Jezza keeps digging is getting awfully big. Now he's saying it's vital Russia is sent a sample of the nerve agent as soon as possible so that they can say 'categorically' whether it was them or not. You can imagine the conversation in Kremlin Towers: 'Whoopsie, that death chemical really was ours after all! Sorry, Brits!!' I bet May can't believe her luck.

Yes, May scored a cheap political point. She revealed to Corbyn only secret-level information made available to all privy councillors, rather than top-secret information made available to foreign leaders. She did this to lead Corbyn into the most obvious of traps - make the case look less convincing so that he would launch a self-immolating virtue signal about lack of evidence that it was the Russian state and that we should all just get along and talk to one another. It was an act of the lowest politics on May's part; like Brexit, she played an issue of huge national importance for political positioning within her own party. That Corbyn fell for it hook, line and sinker speaks volumes about his hopeless inadequacy as a political leader.

Indeed - very good. But there's surely some mistake. The link says it was made by the BBC, but aren't they just a British version of Russia Today, and therefore incapable of anything like the well researched and well resourced journalism on display here?

While Corbynistas, spoonfed ******** by the Canary and Squawkbox, debate the incredibly important issue of whether Newsnight crushed the blacks on their idol's hat, here's an excellent interview by Newsnight's Emily Maitlis, with some truly alarming implications.

It's just the Corbynista scream teens - a really silly attempt at distraction. If they were even halfway sensible, they'd be defending Corbyn's essentially sensible argument that it probably was the Russian state but that we should wait for the hard and confirmed evidence. Corbyn himself screwed it up by offering other theories - eg the Russian mafia. But his cretinous acolytes have outdone him by 'putting their money' (although that apparently means no money at all) on, to them, the most credible scenario of all, that British intelligence services carried out a chemical warfare attack on its own soil against its own assets and threatening the lives of its own citizens. Classic 'false flag' bull****, swallowed whole by gullible fools.

Link to the chemist... https://twitter.com/deadlyvices/status/974171484787822592

It's sadly part of the Orwellian bull**** deployed by conspiracy theorists that they pretend that by citing other conspiracy theorists they are somehow above the 'sheeple'. Give it up, it'll damage your health. If you think I get my news authoritatively from the Mail and Telegraph then you must be new to this place. Murray, however, is not an 'alternative' news source. Here he is getting his clock cleaned by an actual chemist. If you're serious about 'alternatives' I suggest you read this carefully, because the 'alternative' in this case is an actual chemist, who knows slightly more than your average 'alternative' Joe. Why am I supposed to have a view about Annie Machon. I don't even know who she is. So let's stick to the topic. Here's my tempting offer on the bet. I'll bet you £500 you're wrong about the poisoning being carried by by our own intelligence services. If I'm right you only have to pay me £250. What could be fairer? And what could be a better test of a conspiracy loon's convictions?