Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Labour & Anti-Semitism.

As diamond has decided to bottle my questions to him and o have to go out soon i'll just post this up before i go:

This was the basis for Evans involvement as an expert witness in the irving trial - it comes in two sets:

A
1) He was a specialist in modern history
2) Good command of German - esp obsolete german script
3) Familiarity with the documentary basis of much modern german history
4) Had long taught on Nazi germany

All helping to provide expertise on how to interpret nazi documents

B
1) Just published a book on process of historical investigation and objectivity and bias, nature of historical research and possibility of producing accurate historical knowledge.

So, not a thing about any expertise in the holocaust. Which means that you (diamond) either haven't actually read the book but pretended to some expert knowledge about it - or that you have read it and chose to misrepresent the nature of the basis of Evan's expert witness involvement.
 
Relevant to the thread looking at the Indy and the Graun this morning the story seems to some degree to have run it's course, headlines superseded by surprise footie win and just a couple of not very prominent straplines.
 
Relevant to the thread looking at the Indy and the Graun this morning the story seems to some degree to have run it's course, headlines superseded by surprise footie win and just a couple of not very prominent straplines.

Will there be another related story before Thursday? I wouldn't be surprised.
 
tbh I haven't really seen an opinion from you on this thread.

How about there is an increasingly powerful undercurrent of antisemitism in the UK left-wing movement, defended, awkwardly, but relentlessly by its members, as evidenced here.

That's a pretty straightforward opinion, no?
 
Relevant to the thread looking at the Indy and the Graun this morning the story seems to some degree to have run it's course, headlines superseded by surprise footie win and just a couple of not very prominent straplines.
tell you what, we should send the maquis diamond and see them flounder and implode under his influence.
 
You lot of, and I'm guessing here, largely middle-aged male keyboard warriors are such a cosy bunch.

The idea that someone might disagree with you is totally alien to your closeted world.

I respect someone who disagrees with me, but has the ability to argue their case solidly, and support it with evidence.

You never argue your case solidly. You use sophistry and circumvent actual substance. That's not opinion informing what I've just written, by the way. It's a practical technique known as "textual analysis". :)
 
As diamond has decided to bottle my questions to him and o have to go out soon i'll just post this up before i go:

This was the basis for Evans involvement as an expert witness in the irving trial - it comes in two sets:

A
1) He was a specialist in modern history
2) Good command of German - esp obsolete german script
3) Familiarity with the documentary basis of much modern german history
4) Had long taught on Nazi germany

All helping to provide expertise on how to interpret nazi documents

B
1) Just published a book on process of historical investigation and objectivity and bias, nature of historical research and possibility of producing accurate historical knowledge.

So, not a thing about any expertise in the holocaust. Which means that you (diamond) either haven't actually read the book but pretended to some expert knowledge about it - or that you have read it and chose to misrepresent the nature of the basis of Evan's expert witness involvement.

The trial was about defamation in relation to Holocaust Denial.

He testified on Holocaust Denial.

He was cross-examined by Irving himself on Holocaust Denial.
 
How about there is an increasingly powerful undercurrent of antisemitism in the UK left-wing movement, defended, awkwardly, but relentlessly by its members, as evidenced here.

That's a pretty straightforward opinion, no?
Ok that's an opinion. An idiotic opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. Why should any of us waste our time countering it?
 
The trial was about defamation in relation to Holocaust Denial.

He testified on Holocaust Denial.

He was cross-examined by Irving himself on Holocaust Denial.
holocaust denial of course famously happened after the conclusion of the holocaust. someone may be a historian of fascist attempts to dispute the reality of the holocaust while not being a historian of the holocaust.
 
Relevant to the thread looking at the Indy and the Graun this morning the story seems to some degree to have run it's course, headlines superseded by surprise footie win and just a couple of not very prominent straplines.

Will there be another related story before Thursday? I wouldn't be surprised.

It's highly likely that there are more - specious - stories lined up.
 
Apparently the expert witness in the most important defamation trial on Holocaust Denial was not either not qualified or not instructed appropriately.

OK, let's ignore everything that's actually been said and assume that is entirely true and not a misrepresentation. The question remains,
*who* has been defending this undercurrent of anti-Semitism on the British left?
 
The trial was about defamation in relation to Holocaust Denial.

He testified on Holocaust Denial.

He was cross-examined by Irving himself on Holocaust Denial.
No he didn't, be testified on the process of historical investigation with special emphasis on interpretation of nazi documentary evidence. The last paragraph of my post above is looking more solid with each response from you.
 
Apparently the expert witness in the most important defamation trial on Holocaust Denial was not either not qualified or not instructed appropriately.
no. you have said words to the effect of 'richard evans is the country's most revered historian of the holocaust'. as his own profile shows, he does not consider himself a historian of the holocaust but rather - as butchersapron points out - an expert on historical method and documentary evidence.
 
OK, let's ignore everything that's actually been said and assume that is entirely true and not a misrepresentation. The question remains,
*who* has been defending this undercurrent of anti-Semitism on the British left?

Livingstone!

And Corbyn by association.

And there's Naz Khan also.

Aren't they the politicians who are leading the charge on this issue?

Or maybe I'm completely misreading the runes...

[we could add Diane Abott too btw]
 
Jesus, if you really are a lawyer, Diamond, I'd be very worried if you ever defended me (or faced you). I've never known such a twister.
it's not so much he's a twister, it's that he has difficulty getting to grips with even simple concepts: not that he uses the law imaginatively but that i doubt he can use it at all.
 
Livingstone!

And Corbyn by association.

And there's Naz Khan also.

Aren't the the politicians who are leading the charge on this issue?

Or maybe I'm completely misreading the runes...

[we could add Diane Abott too btw]
let's take livingstone. could you run through his defence of anti-semitism?
 
How about there is an increasingly powerful undercurrent of antisemitism in the UK left-wing movement, defended, awkwardly, but relentlessly by its members, as evidenced here.

That's a pretty straightforward opinion, no?

Increasingly powerful in comparison to what, though?

As for where it comes from, while I've encountered some anti-Semitism on the left, it's almost always been from Swappies, and usually from ones who haven't understood the distinction between the state of Israel's policies and the personal ideologies of individual Jews. It's not something I've seen in the Labour Party, and those I know who are members of Momentum are mostly old school anti-fascists.

The anti-Semitism I've experienced, has always come from the right. Everything from verbal abuse to violence.
 
Back
Top Bottom