Verbal

Well what a stirring speech. Here's a song that perfectly encapsulates your uplifting sentiment. Great title too.

Maybe so, but... Everyone's so surprised here that Chilcot wasn't a whitewash that no one seems to have noticed that it really doesn't say much that's new. In its documentary evidence, it's also limited to the British side of the story - we get none of Bush's responses to Blair's painfully fawning memos (because the US - in true special relationship fashion - told Chilcot to go fish). So it seems a bit parochial. What was needed was an international commission, looking at the conduct of the war by the 'coalition' from more angles. What we actually got was a retired British civil servant's very diligent sift through mountains of paperwork from a narrow clique of British senior politicians, civil servants and military commanders. So geopolitics in Chilcot is reduced to Blair's desperate clinging to the 'special relationship' with Bush/the US. But this war didn't happen simply because Blair wanted to schmooze George W. I'm not sure how far this gets us.

More news from your direction-of-travel correspondent… Very little reporting was given to yesterday’s speech by Oliver Letwin. Letwin, unknown to most I suspect, is the government minister in charge of the Brexit negotiating strategy. I say strategy, but I mean codsbo11ox. He, and the Cabinet Office that he heads, are preparing – in his words – a “fine-grained, multi-dimensional” paper on Britain’s negotiating positions and options once the nuclear Article 50 button is pushed. Of course, WTF “fine-grained, multi-dimensional” actually means is anyone’s guess. But as one of those dimensions, post- Einstein, is time, I’m supposing he’s going to exploring that one extensively. That Letwin has anything at all to do with Brexit negotiations is something deserving of a feature-length film of Yes Prime Minister. Logically, the UK government’s Brexit positions would have been under the direct control of the intellectual whippets of the Treasury and/or the Foreign Office. These two ministries also happen to be the bureaucratic powerhouses of the British state. But no, the ministry in charge is one that’s generally viewed as career death for anyone seconded there – the Cabinet Office. Its – and Letwin’s – last great non-achievement was the Sovereignty Bill. Remember that? No, me neither. Either this was Cameron’s quite clever decision, or one dreamed up by one of his Sir Humphrys. And there’s an interesting contrast between the Bank of England’s rigorous modelling of the implications of a Brexit vote and the complete absence of planning by the government. The upshot is basically that Mark Carney – a migrant by the way, and one of those damnable ‘experts’ – is presently running the country single-handedly, trying to mitigate numerous disasters as they begin to unfold. Letwin, meanwhile, is exploring other dimensions. Brexit is now officially in outer space.

Is Chilcot the longest whitewash in history? Or does it unblinkingly reveal the inner workings of a dysfunctional inner government intent on war? Or a government that thought it could avoid war but got it anyway? Is Blair finally declared by officialdom to be a war criminal (clue: the report’s terms of reference excluded consideration of war crimes)? Will surviving Iraqi victims and families of the dead each receive a bound and embossed copy? Will this be a Hillsborough verdict moment families of dead British soldiers? Or the beginning of years of struggle to get one? Will Corbyn and the Corbynista cultists be awarded special medals for being the only people on the planet who knew beforehand that the war would be a disaster? (And will catweazle shuffle off once he’s bathed himself in glory?) Can’t wait.

Some snippets from the news in the last day or so: Sparsely reported in the UK media yesterday, the London Stock Exchange merged with the German Borse. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/business/dealbook/lse-deutsche-borse-shareholders-merger.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article&version=newsevent&rref=collection%2Fnews-event%2Fbritain-brexit-european-union This will be hedged around about who's based where, to play up the 'chaos of exit' line. But the underlying message is a strengthening of a core UK/EU economic activity that's far better served with the UK in the EU. And this from the Austrian finance minister: Brown's Euro fudge seems to be the model for the way to go. Announce five 'conditions' that simply can't be met to ensure the 'best deal from Britain', and then just wait. McDonnell has already done a pastiche of this, with his 'we must respect the decision' speech, in which he set out five 'guidelines' that won't be achieved: Expect the Tories to have their own 'conditions' soon - certainly minus protection of workers' rights, and probably participation in EIB too. We never finally said we wouldn't join the Euro. The idea just withered and died, as it was clear Britain would get nowhere near Brown's 'conditions'. Also: watch what happens to the Swiss in the next few months because it’ll be a dry run for what will happen to the UK should we ever be foolish enough to actually venture down this route. In 2014, a Swiss referendum voted with a majority of less than a single percentage point to renegotiate freedom of movement as part of their agreement of access to the EU’s internal market. After all this time negotiating, the Swiss have got precisely nowhere, and, after the UK referendum, have just been re-warned by the EU that they won’t ever get a deal that means cherry picking on one of the ‘four freedoms’. A disorganised exit of the Swiss from the internal market beckons in February 2017, with all the disastrous consequences that entails. (I suggest that this is what Theresa May and others are thinking about when they say they won’t press the Article 50 nuclear button until early next year). And finally, government lawyers have just concluded that triggering Article 50 doesn’t require parliamentary assent, but can be done by cabinet or simply prime ministerial decision. However, the conditional repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act does (obviously) require a decision by parliament. That is, a predominantly Remain-majority parliament. To all you 'kippers wot dun it', I'm just reporting direction of travel – this isn’t about what should or shouldn’t happen but about what is or is not happening. Instead of responding with the usual hysterical bleating, please do feel free to post evidence of any counter-indications….

I disagree. From the moment Cameron delivered the double-shock of resigning AND saying he wouldn't trigger Article 50, there's been, if not a clear plan, then at least a clear direction of travel. To quote the FT's legal correspondent: "Cameron did more to secure the UK's future in the EU by not making the Article 50 notification on referendum day than anything else he ever did."

Way more interesting that that... https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor (Paywall),

Oh, it ends, but it's what happens at the end that's important: nothing. Hence the link. On which subject, this thread seems to have drifted from what will happen to what should. The former is much more interesting.

Okay let's try to untangle this bird's nest of pernicious illogic. There is no 'New World Order'. Rothchild has no connection with that which does not exist. He is though a Jew with power and influence and the 'New World Order' conspiracy theory resolves with controlling Jews. This was the point that Saxon was making. So, plainly, to all but Jew haters and people who are really quite stupid, Saxon is a Jew hater. It's entirely possible; you demonstrate the kind of ideation that would make you susceptible to conspiracy theories which resolve with Jews being the common enemy. A Bilderberg meeting "orchestrating" the "Remain campaign of propaganda" is exactly the kind of conspiracist thinking that leads to finger-pointing at you-know-who. If you say so. Already done so. So withdraw. Given the above, I do not find this at all surprising. You seem to have little to no understanding of antisemitic tropes. Mein Kampf would be quite an eye opener for someone like you. Are you serious? Are you actually saying that it's impossible to read Mien Kampf without being seduced by its poisonous ideas? Or is that a fear you have...? Some friendly advice: grow up.

I can't work out from this whether you agree with the Jew-hating scumbag or are too dim to see the usual tropes. Take Saxon's advice and google "New World Order + Rothschild". (It helps if both you and the Jew-hater spell the name correctly.) First up is Wiki, which should offer you some clues. (I take it you know what the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" actually means. If not, read Main Kampf.): And if you're in any doubt that Saxon links Jews with New World Order conspiracy theories (which he does explicitly), there's then this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVzMpx5mnw Now try arguing that the anti-Semitic linking of Rothschild and the NWO conspiracy theory is "just a bizarre leap of the imagination".

Are you quoting this as something you approve of? I just ask because of this part of his rant: So he's just a Jew-hating scumbag. Are you?

Can someone remind me how Waiting for Godot ends? https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen/status/746635672098906112

Some helpful quote from the comments section under that video: Zionism is all about world domination! It is clear that Israel wants to rule the world! Zionists control governments through their control of the mass media and financial institutions and thus control of the p̶u̶p̶p̶e̶t̶s̶ politicians. Rothschilds, who also own Israel, and many, many other world banks, and global corporations. Zionist, murdering, evil, overlords, that along with the Rockerfellers and their ilk, make up the 1% that own everything and everyone on the planet. I've noticed that the Jews have exploited anti Muslim sentiment to bolster their own position. Their influence is becoming as vicious and demanding as it is in the USA. Enjoy world war three and the end of Europe as white homeland people. Not being racist, but being a person living in Britain, it makes ALLOT of sense that the way of "Life" is thoroughly influenced by the greed of the Jew. (Greed is universal in all nationalities & is found within every human being, though greed & Dominion seem to be a corrupted ethnic trait commonly prevalent in Jewish peoples, & can be found to be factual all throughout history from Old Testament [ Genesis ] [ Exodus ] right up to the Capitalistic "high cultures" in 2016.) Etc., etc. The Zionist=Dirty Jew label has well and truly stuck. The Corbynist cultists may not have invented it, but they play in the same same sandpit. In this, there is no difference between the extreme left and the neo-Nazi right. Hence Naz Shah's "transportation of Jews", or Oxford Corbynists hissing "Zio" at Jews, or Livingstone invoking Hitler "before he went mad" to justify Naz Shah's Jew-hating post. Again, etc., etc.

Ah, that old get-out - "But some of my best friends are..." Actually Ken Livingstone has the antisemitic answer to this: in his view it's possible to hate every Jew in Israel but not every Jew elsewhere - and that means he's not a Jew hater. It depends what you want. Do you want to attack injustices and abuses against Palestinians? Or do you want to virtue-signal your moral superiority about these injustices? By labelling every violent act by Israel "Zionist" you're also labelling and alienating large numbers of Jews who hold to the Zionist ideal but who also oppose - and protest against - these acts. The Corbynist Jew-hating virtue signals do their own small part to perpetuate the violence, not address it. So for the Corbynist hard-of-thinking grandstanders - why not condemn the act, drop the label, and build support among moderate Jews - almost all of whom support the Zionist goal - against violence directed at Palestinians? Sadly it'll never happen for the simple reason that Corbynists revel in their Jew-hating and can't wait to spit out "Zionist" - or "Zio", a new favourite expression hurled at British Jews - at every opportunity that Netanyahu has given them. It also won't happen because Corbynism is yet another brand of left-sectarianism, dedicated to purity of thought rather than against effective action. (No wonder the discredited and appalling old UN resolution about Zionism = racism is dragged into this - the most divisive piece of virtue signalling). And CB - that is a brilliant piece of writing from the Labour teacher. Game, set and match against the Corbynist conspiro-planks.

I'm afraid I have no idea why you're so fixated on Alan Sugar. He's not a member of the Labour party and he has no relationship with the Labour-affiliated Jewish Labour Movement. As for your/Livingstone's conspiracy theory that it's a Blairist/Tory plot to discredit Corbyn, would those Blair-Tories include John McDonnell, who said today he "wished Ken Livingstone would have apologised for the offence he's caused"? Would they include Isaac Herzog, the leader of the Israeli Labour Party, who said he was "appalled and outraged" by Livingstone's and other Jew-hating Corbynist comments, and who described Livingstone himself as "beyond hope of redemption"? I know Livingstone - and presumably you - likes to make a distinction between the honourable cause of opposing Zionism and the hate crime of Jew-bashing, but there's really no such clear-cut distinction. David Aaronovitch in The Times today gives a neat summary history of "Anti-Zionism". It began in the early 1950s with Stalin, whose paranoid fantasies included one that Jews in the Soviet Bloc were "hijacking communism". The charge of anti-Zionism - that is, of being Jewish - was enough to earn a death sentence. This idea of "anti-Zionists" being Jewish plotters against the revolution (sound familiar?) was taken up in Britain by a Trotskyist cult known as the WRP. The WRP was financed by oppressive Arab regimes, including Gaddafi. With this Arab backing, the WRP started an argument that radiated out into other fringe leftist groupings in the UK, that Zionism was somehow associated with Nazism, and that therefore the Zionist state, as a fascist state, should be destroyed. Those views are now essentially mainstream within the Corbynist hierarchy. The absurd lengths to which Corbynists adopt this argument is illustrated by a story in The New Statesman this week about Corbyn's top press advisor Suemas Milne. Milne is so enamoured of the cause that after a trip to Lebanon in the 1980s he returned to Britain "wearing a Mao jacket and talking with a fake Palestinian accent." Where the "anti-Zionism" of the Corbynist left meets the Jew-hating of the fascist right is in Livingstone's comments and quotations. The book he cites, Lenni Brenner's "Zionism in the Age of Dictators", is regarded by historians who specialise in the period as hate-filled garbage. That's if they've heard of it at all - so far is it outside the academic mainstream. According to the historian Thomas Weber, Brenner's book "is mostly celebrated either by the extreme left or the neo-Nazi right." The idea in particular that "Hitler was a Zionist" flies in the face of so many basic facts, not least of which is the passing of the so-called Nuremberg laws in 1935, which implemented Hitler's racial theories and, most importantly rendered all Jews in Germany stateless. Those laws were passed ten years after the publication of Mein Kampf - hardly a text of pragmatic or interdenominational tolerance ("...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.") So much for Livingstone's "pragmatic" Hitler "before he went mad". One fantasy let loose by Livingstone's remarks is that the Jews needn't have set up a homeland in Palestine - it was merely "one of many options". This argument is drawn directly from Nazi propaganda in the 1930s. It led to plans to ship Jews en masse to Madagascar. Other plans included shipping them to Uganda. I've read one or two Corbynist dimwits arguing that there's nothing in Zionism itself that actually claims that the Jewish homeland had to be in Palestine - just that it had to be "somewhere". This is weirdly stupid, but sinisterly echoes the Nazis' Jews-to-Madagascar plan. To be clear, the word "Zion" is a direct reference, in Hebrew, to Jerusalem. Zionism is and always has been about the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic land of Israel. Zionism manifested itself in some of the great socialist experiments of the mid-20th century, in the form of the kibbutz movement. Left-Zionism continues in strength to this day, and opposes (obviously) the settler movement, the far-right Netanyahu wing and all destinations even further to the Israeli right. Zionism is upheld by almost all Jews in Israel. It is also a core belief among the majority of the world's Jewry. So to be "anti-Zionist" is to all intents and purposes to be "anti-Jewish". But the Corbynist variant of Jew-hating goes one step further by adopting the arguments of the Stalinist purges to demean and condemn Jews. This is the virus that is inextricably linked to Corbynism. It can't be excised from Corbynism but it is an essential part of it. You choose whether you want to be a part of that.

The answers to your questions are that the Jewish Labour Movement is obviously not associated with Lord Sugar (careful with your stereotypes!) because Sugar is not a member of the Labour party. I think you're also confusing Blue Labourism with Blairism. They are absolutely not the same. The architect of Blue Labour, Maurice Glasman, was a close ally of Ed Miliband. It's also utter nonsense to describe the JLM as a "mouthpiece of the Israeli government". I'd be curious to know why you think a longstanding socialist organisation would endorse Netanyahu. The Jewish Labour Movement has been with the affiliated with the Labour party since 1920 - that is, for almost a hundred years and for almost three decades before the creation of the Jewish state itself. It is also affiliated with Havoda (the Labour party in Israel) and, please note, the World Labour Zionist Organisation. It has a long and proud history of Labour party activism. So if you want to have fun driving Corbynists bonkers, just remind them - or educate them - that Zionism is not restricted as an ideology to the rabid settler movement or political extremists like Netanyahu. The reason it infuriates Corbynists is because they are suddenly revealed as the exact mirror image of right wing racist scumbags - left wing racist scumbags, if you will. Chuck in their propensity to indulge in conspiracy theories and you have a complete set for the Posturing Left Bigot. Livingstone is a beacon for PLBs. So is Corbyn. Livingstone 'minimises' his taxes by running his appearance and speech fees through a personal 'services' company, and a good proportion of those fees are from organisations like Press TV, the Iranian, virulently anti-Jewish state propaganda organ. Corbyn is a fan of speaking to Russia Today, the state propaganda organ of Vladimir Putin - who is currently killing far more Middle Eastern Arabs than were killed during the recent war in Gaza. Corbynist PLBs love Putin, and fondly quote Russia Today (or RT) as gospel. PLBs won't take kindly to your calling their racist scumbaggery out. That doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of Jews in Israel - and a very large proportion of Jews elsewhere - are Zionist in their belief in the right to exist of the Jewish state. So to be anti-Zionist is to be to all intents and purposes anti-Jewish. People campaigning for change should go the opposite way to the racist scumbags among the Corbynists. They should embrace Zionism - reclaim it more loudly from the settlers and rabid right-wing politicians. You can do that by joining organisations like the New Israel Fund which fights for equal rights - religious, civil and political - for all Israeli citizens regardless of religious identity. Or there's the Alliance for Middle East Peace, a joint Israeli/Palestinian campaigning group. Both organisations recognise the basic Zionist tenet of the right of Israel to exist. And both are highly active in constructing a peaceful path in Israel and Palestine, via versions of the two-step solution. Compare and contrast the Corbynists' embrace of the Islamist fanatics in Hamas (Corbynists will never allow themselves to condemn Hamas's indiscriminate and deliberately provocative rockets), and their platform-sharing with Holocaust deniers and supports of Islamist violence. So give it a go - and tell the PLBs and conspiro-planks among the Corbynists to go **** themselves. John Mann them.

Not half as interesting as a Jewish socialist group that's actually affiliated to the Labour party. http://www.jlm.org.uk In their words: Again, this doesn't compute with Corbynist conspiro-planks. And you might ask yourself how long you can sweep Corbynism's Jew-hating under the carpet. If you're really interested in defeating the Conservatives and rendering Labour electable, I suggest you might want to actually confront a loon so close to Corbyn effectively saying that the Hitler of Mein Kampf was some kind of pragmatic politician - as if of course everyone knows those damned Jews are the problem so wouldn't be nice to chuck them out of the country humanely. Your insinuations of a Tory plot rather bizarrely ignore that it was Livingstone himself who volunteered more evidence of his frankly crackpot views - I highly doubt he'd have done the Tories' bidding. Livingstone should now slope off, and if he wishes to pursue his bizarre, Labour-wrecking agenda he should form a new party. Perhaps called, after his new bestie, the Naz Party.

Which is of course rubbish. Those among the Corbynist Left (it's not all of them by any means) who indulge in Jew hating use a standard get-out: that it is not anti-Jew to be anti-Zionist. In fact, in the vast majority of instances, it is precisely that. "Anti-Zionism" is a convenient cloak for Jew hating. The reason is simple enough. Zionism itself is a broad political ideology which contains at its heart one key belief: the belief in the existence, and the right to its existence, of a Jewish state in Israel/Palestine. Zionism embraces therefore anyone who endorses, for example, the two-state solution - a separate sovereign homelands for Israelis and Palestinians. That makes me a Zionist; it makes the vast majority of people who've tried to negotiate a long-lasting peace settlement a Zionist; it even makes Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, and the joint author of the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement (a classic two-state proposal) a Zionist. Zionism also embraces the extremists, whether by that we mean the land-grabbing settlers or the political hotheads that emerge in Likud and parties of the extreme Israeli right. The vast majority of Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere, will be some sort of Zionist. Not all are, and there are some notable exceptions, but they're very small in number. So to label yourself "anti-Zionist" is to label yourself almost entirely anti-Jewish. Zionism is not a full and complete description of the ideology motivating the Israeli extremists or the more extreme measures of the Israeli government. If you want to condemn - as one should - the appalling actions of the Israeli government during the invasion of Gaza, or historically the massacres at Sabra and Chatilla, then condemn the government and the extremists committing those atrocities. But don't lazily label them "Zionists", because you're incriminating pretty much all Jews. If you want to condemn extra-judicial attacks and imprisonment by the IDF, then condemn those actions - don't label them "Zionist". And if you want to criticise the attacks on land rights, do just that - don't label them "Zionist". The minute you apply that label, you're casting an accusation at pretty much all Jews in Israel - and if you then drone on (as many Corbynists do) about Zionist conspiracies in the Zionist-controlled western media, then your Jew-hating credentials are pretty much established. The problem for the Corbynists - which provokes such grandstanding rage among them when they're accused of Jew-hating - is that they can't compute their entirely self-perceived moral superiority with such a low crime as Jew hating. But difficult as it is for them to understand, it's precisely their moral certainty that both produces the Jew hating sentiments, and precisely that certainty that perpetuates them. Corbyinists even resort to the oldest Jew-hating tactic in the world to defend themselves - conspiracy theories about the dastardly Jews manipulating the agenda against them. Corbynists are native conspiracy theorists - it's part of their paranoid, anti-Western make-up. And if you follow the thread of pretty much all conspiracy theories, you'll find a dirty Jew at the end of it.

Ken Livingstone is a full-blown bigot. His harassment of a Jewish journalist from the Standard in 2006 - calling him a concentration camp guard, knowing full well he was Jewish - is the measure of the man. No one's mentioned John Mann's heroic fight back. At least some in Labour believe that a stand should be taken against Jew hating - even as Corbyn shrugs his shoulders. Without Mann and others the idea would quickly spread among voters in London and elsewhere about to go to the polls in local elections that Labour is a party of hate.

The upsurge in Jew-hating within the Corbynist wing of the party is truly staggering. Labour has traditionally been, if anything, a staunchly pro-Israel party, and the recognition of Palestinian rights has tended to fall into the background, and that needed to change. But the emergence of a vehement anti-Jew wing - from Oxford Labour students being encouraged to harass Jewish students in the streets to references to "big nosed" big business conspirators and "solutions" for all Israeli Jews - is a sickening disgrace for a party with a proud tradition in human rights and equality. Livingstone is Corbynism unchained. Removing him won't stop the onward rise of Jew-hating in the party. Only the removal of Corbyn - who has dragged his heels on this issue at every opportunity - will achieve that.

We seem to have accidentally discovered with this thread a new and quite precise psychological test for sociopathy.

Please, for the love of god, take the trouble read the jury's findings and stop repeating this garbage. You'll feel ashamed.

The Leave supporters certainly include an awful lot of right-wing golf bores. Some of them are on here and flirt with kippers. Of course there's a wide spectrum of support for Leave - it's just that the majority on here don't represent that diversity. They can barely get their buggies out of the sand traps. To paint the "Tory establishment" as pro-EU is equally lazy and incorrect. Insofar as you can define an establishment in the party, it's clearly split. How is Michael Gove or Boris Johnson or Chris Grayling or IDS not "establishment". Hopeless each and every one of them - but anti-establishment? Don't be ridiculous. The simple fact is we're having this referendum precisely to paper over the Tory party cracks on the EU that have persisted ever since 1992, when the party split right down the middle of Maastricht. The outcome of the referendum will determine who leads the Tory party in the short term. Boris is banking on it being him. He won't. He's popular in the country but universally loathed within the Tory party hierarchy. It could be Michael "let's all be like Albania" Gove, or even IDS (which would be hugely funny - the worst Tory leader of all time gets a second go). Whoever it is, we're all just vote fodder for a Tory party in a hell of a mess, yet uniquely facing no serious opposition whatsoever from a prolix, ineffectual Labour party leader. The party wounds over Europe therefore have all the room they need to fester, because regardless of who takes control of the Tory leadership, there's no risk at all of being unseated by a viable opposition. So Brexit won't only be a disaster because it'll be BHS writ nationally large; it'll be a disaster because we'll face a Tory party with a renewed vigour to smash the "red tape" that does things like protect our remaining employment rights, holiday entitlements and civil rights, as well as some sort of effective protection against rampaging multinationals like Google (patchy as the EU now is with the latter, what the hell is going to happen when Little England floats alone, or allied with Albania, against the big multinationals).

Come on, kipper T. Get round to answering ecuk's question. And how are you shaping up with your Brexiteer Great Leader's view that we should be like Albania. I can see a lot of kippers thinking Michael Gove's Albania is the ideal role model. You should push Albania harder in the referendum campaign. #Votewinner. I'm still predicting an easy Brexit win, by the way. Nailed on.

Hmm. I did take a quick look. I don't want to get into some pointless forum war, and it did seem obvious to me that that Dip Schitt, or whatever he's called, is a wind-up. No one would actually want to come off, as he does, as the love-child of David Icke and Alan Partridge. Would they? It's you, isn't it? On a less happy note, I see the conspire-planks (not nuts) have now converted their preening, self-righteous fury into crowd-funding the Portuguese cop's appeal against the McCanns. I am dumbfounded that people can work themselves into such a ludicrous froth about this, blotting out all common sense and humanity. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556119/British-trolls-paid-50-000-help-Portuguese-policeman-fight-libel-suit-against-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents.html