But my Dear, we were not discussing what the reasons could possibly be for changing his name. Although you appear to be more than happy to parade your own anti semetic leanings dressed up as "an explanation as to why a name may sound too Jewish"

I was simply highlighting your short term memory loss in your two posts, in which you claimed you were not responsible and pointed the finger at Private Eye....

And yet in an earlier post. " He changed it because he was an arrogant little teenage tosspot who had already decided he wanted to be PM, and because he thought it sounded a bit too Jewish to help him in that."

No mention in there I can see of Ian Hyslop, or Private Eye, so it is reasonable to assume, that as you posted this nonsense, this is what your views are.

You have been weighed Minty, and found wanting.

Even if we are to take uncorroborated hearsay evidence from a number of years ago as being fact. That is a huge 'if'. Osborne's 'words' clearly referred to the electorate and not himself.

As for calling a teenager arrogant because he may or may not have had ambitions of becoming prime minister one day. That is just bizarre and sad in equal measure. Is is wrong for children to have ambition nowadays? Linking it to his school is just mindless class war rubbish.

Totally agree - but when you can no longer argue against policies / facts, people need some way to attack that person. Politics of the gutter.

Been and looked in the mirror, have you?

You never bother with facts or evidence and simply persist in repeating drivel and accusing anyone who dares challenge your lack of intellectual rigour as 'lefties' etc.

Proof? What you want it to mean does not count as proof. And besides, if I had claimed that Osborne had changed his name because he was anti-Semitic, and done so in a context of criticising him, then that could be read to suggest that I did not approve of anti-semitism.

Trolling apparently damages the mental capacity for logic.



Yes. As reported in [iPrivate Eye[/i. I suggest you go and look at the entire previous conversation. It was mentioned there quite clearly. Iirc,I noted that Osborne ad not sued the publication in question.

And it's Hislop.

No, though I suppose if MP's sued everyone who said something mean about them, they'd be permanently in or around courthouses. Still, I always find that whether someone sues or not is a sound way of determining whether someone is or isn't guilty of something. I can't see how that theory can ever be proved fallible.

Yes, how dare he have these ridiculous delusions of grandeur, when asked what he wanted to be he should have said "I want to serve, I want to be at the beck and call of people "better" than me".

FFS,

I wasn't aware that being a teenage tosspot – or even a teenage bigot, were that the case – were criminal offences and thus things to be "guilty" of.

Possible use of cocaine, on the other hand ...

And then there's using taxpayers' money to pay for a paddock ... scroungers, eh?

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9729139/George-Osborne-bought-paddock-with-taxpayers-money.htmlOsborne flips mortgage etc.[/url

Some people will never learn. Ignorance really is bliss.

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036563/George-Osborne-took-cocaine-Former-prostitute-Natalie-Rowe-repeats-drug-allegation-TV-interview.htmlNo, you don't.[/url

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?