No gloating allowed as he was a Labour gobe and only dead tories are allowed to be derided on here (see Bob Crow thread).
Carry on.

Some people will never learn. Ignorance really is bliss.

rlNo, you don't.rl

And I said "possibly".

Would being overtly antisemitic not be a hate crime? Good job your new measure of justice would do away with, y'know, evidence! Jeffrey Archer sued some rag and won didn't he? How did that work out?

As I have explained, there are three possible reasons for his saying what Private Eye claimed he said (and which I have repeated here and previously). They are not all a sign of being anti-semitic.

Mind, assuming a teenager had said such a thing as has been reported, and that it was in a spirit of anti-semitism and not in any alternative manner, you're asking whether it would not be so "overtly antisemitic" as to "not be a hate crime"?

So PC, you're into the realms of Orwell.



In October 2002, Archer repaid the [iDaily Star[/i the £500,000 damages he had received in 1987, as well as legal costs and interest of £1.3 million, after being found guilty of perjury in the original trial and sentenced to four years in prison.

Had you forgotten that bit?

Yeah, like Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, a failed ideology, an error from history.