Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The conundrum is when being Jewish shuts down any legitimate commentry or criticism for fear of being immediately labelled anti-semitic. The Rothschilds were incredibly rich bankers after all, so taken at face value his comments address that.Apart from the fact that the Rothschilds are Jewish, and the fantasy that Jews control world finance is a well known anti-Semitic and fascist metaphor. It's about as blatant as it gets.
Did it? I wasn't at that trial, so I wouldn't know.Worked for Gazza.
Mitigation, perhaps, but not defence. At least, I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows? It's a funny old game, Saint.Solicitors do it for druggies all the time. "In his defence, he was only shoplifting to feed to his drug habit". The magistrates should be saying "so he is guilty of drug possession too eh? That's an extra ten weeks then"
No it doesn’t. If it “plays” on anything it is that the family mentioned are a powerful banking family. Other peoples prejudices then inform their own racism not his.It is though, isn't it. Whether intentional or not (I suspect not) it plays on the trope of Jewish people being minted and running the world. Ignorance isn't really an excuse.
He'll get a slap on the wrist and that'll be that.
I don’t think he’s very sensibleLast sentence in the linked article
He was also handed a one-match suspension by the FA in November for Twitter abuse
Any sensible person would have left Twitter at that time, surprised his club didn’t insist he did
Did it? I wasn't at that trial, so I wouldn't know.
Mitigation, perhaps, but not defence. At least, I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows? It's a funny old game, Saint.
Apart from the fact that the Rothschilds are Jewish, and the fantasy that Jews control world finance is a well known anti-Semitic and fascist metaphor. It's about as blatant as it gets.
He's talking about one specific Jewish family not Jews in general. How is that anti-semitic?
Aye, but it shouldn't be mitigation either. If someone uses illegal drugs that's a choice.Did it? I wasn't at that trial, so I wouldn't know.
Mitigation, perhaps, but not defence. At least, I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows? It's a funny old game, Saint.
Is it really though? If he didn't know they were Jewish or the links to this in an anti-Semitic context, the point of the remark could easily be based on their family wealth and the trope of "greedy bankers" rather than their religion.It's a trope that goes back to the time of Waterloo, and has been consistently used in an anti-Semitic context. The fact that it singles out one family is irrelevant - the point of the remarks is based on their religion. That makes it ant-Semitic.
Don't mess with their tropes.It is though, isn't it. Whether intentional or not (I suspect not) it plays on the trope of Jewish people being minted and running the world. Ignorance isn't really an excuse.
He'll get a slap on the wrist and that'll be that.
The fact that it singles out one (super rich banking) family is exactly relevant in the context (taking over banks).It's a trope that goes back to the time of Waterloo, and has been consistently used in an anti-Semitic context. The fact that it singles out one family is irrelevant - the point of the remarks is based on their religion. That makes it ant-Semitic.
In my experience what the media generally does is misrepresent the facts.Aye, his defence was he does it to everyone and his solicitors brought in photos of him kissing random people.
I wasn't there either, mind. That's generally what the media does.
Well that Palace keeper Hennessey got away with doing the nazi salute by pleading ignorance.Unless he can come up with a defence of crass stupidity (plausible, and even then ignorantia non excusat comes into play), then yes. Even if it's just a warning as to future conduct.
I didn't say it should be mitigation. I merely said - in response to your assertion that it was used as a defence by those representing drug addicts - that it might be used as a plea in mitigation, but not as a defence. Whether drug addiction should or should not be a mitigating factor was not the issue.Aye, but it shouldn't be mitigation either. If someone uses illegal drugs that's a choice.