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?

rlOsborne flips mortgage etc.rl

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.