Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Mirror now becoming the leading backer of King Charles – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • Leon said:

    Dialup said:
    Fair play to the Guardian. Can’t ask for more than that

    Tbh I had no idea “octopus” was an antisemitc trope


    Propaganda cartoon by Seppla (Josef Plank) warning of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The cartoon depicts an octopus with a Star of David over its head and tentacles encompassing a globe. Germany, date uncertain.

    https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/photo/anti-jewish-propaganda
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,474

    Can we talk about Charles’s sausage hands.

    Is this a hereditary feature? Or evidence of some kind of medical condition?

    He is just a chipolata off the old block.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,095
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    What kind of moron thinks you’re fine travelling with a passport over ten years old, or with less than 6 months left? That’s nothing to do with Brexit, that’s just Being Stupid

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/apr/29/briton-valid-passport-barred-from-flight-brexit-rules-eu


    “Despite previous warnings in Guardian Money and some other publicity, UK travellers trying to enter the Schengen zone are being turned away on a daily basis by airline staff at boarding gates – in most cases because their UK passport was issued more than 10 years ago.”

    Lol. Cretins

    Nonsense - a passport should do what it suggests until it expires.
    Anyone with a rudimentary nervous system knows that you need to renew your passport before there is less than 6 months left of the 10 years. Multiple countries insist on this. At least six months validity

    If you don’t know this you have an IQ of 13 and it’s best you stay home instead of embarrassing the whole country
    How precisely does one come to know this? So far as I recall there isn't a great big sticker on your passport when you get it saying such a thing. Maybe I do have an IQ of 13, but even such low power seems to be defeating your logic.
    Literally the first page of google, addressing this question



    So a real world example?

    Passport issued 22/7/14
    Expiry date 22/3/25

    When do I renew it. December 2023 or July 2024
    May or June 24

    There are two criteria for being valid to travel:

    - issued less than 10 years ago
    - At least 6 months left to run
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Dialup said:

    20 degrees. Is summer on the way?

    When I was driving home from Edinburgh at lunch time across Fife my frost warning light came on because it was 4 degrees. Absolutely miserable.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,894
    DavidL said:

    Dialup said:

    20 degrees. Is summer on the way?

    When I was driving home from Edinburgh at lunch time across Fife my frost warning light came on because it was 4 degrees. Absolutely miserable.
    @juliamacfarlane

    TAPS AFF. I repeat. TAPS AFF IN LONDON
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Apart from the obvious benefit of winding up @Morris_Dancer is there any point to this sprint race today?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    What kind of moron thinks you’re fine travelling with a passport over ten years old, or with less than 6 months left? That’s nothing to do with Brexit, that’s just Being Stupid

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/apr/29/briton-valid-passport-barred-from-flight-brexit-rules-eu


    “Despite previous warnings in Guardian Money and some other publicity, UK travellers trying to enter the Schengen zone are being turned away on a daily basis by airline staff at boarding gates – in most cases because their UK passport was issued more than 10 years ago.”

    Lol. Cretins

    Nonsense - a passport should do what it suggests until it expires.
    Anyone with a rudimentary nervous system knows that you need to renew your passport before there is less than 6 months left of the 10 years. Multiple countries insist on this. At least six months validity

    If you don’t know this you have an IQ of 13 and it’s best you stay home instead of embarrassing the whole country
    How precisely does one come to know this? So far as I recall there isn't a great big sticker on your passport when you get it saying such a thing. Maybe I do have an IQ of 13, but even such low power seems to be defeating your logic.
    Literally the first page of google, addressing this question



    So a real world example?

    Passport issued 22/7/14
    Expiry date 22/3/25

    When do I renew it. December 2023 or July 2024
    May or June 24

    There are two criteria for being valid to travel:

    - issued less than 10 years ago
    - At least 6 months left to run
    This whole confusion stems from UKPO giving out passports that last more than ten years. It seems generous but it just confuses things - and it confuses border guards and customs. It’s a UK issue not a Brexit issue
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,344
    Pirate Festival in Brixham today. The town really throws itself into it.

    Worm-charming tomorrow. It's all go.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/desantis-tells-israelis-a-hurricane-mostly-spared-florida-thanks-to-prayer-i-put-in-the-western-wall/

    DeSantis Tells Israelis a Hurricane Mostly Spared Florida Thanks to ‘Prayer I Put in the Western Wall’

    Well, it seems to have worked so well done RDS and the wall.
    He don’t need no education.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,135

    Pirate Festival in Brixham today. The town really throws itself into it.

    Worm-charming tomorrow. It's all go.

    Brixham near Torquay?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    Leon said:

    Dialup said:
    Fair play to the Guardian. Can’t ask for more than that

    Tbh I had no idea “octopus” was an antisemitc trope
    Why fair play to them given they published it, and as such, it must have been approved.

    Would they have pulled it had there not been the outrage ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,344
    Andy_JS said:

    Pirate Festival in Brixham today. The town really throws itself into it.

    Worm-charming tomorrow. It's all go.

    Brixham near Torquay?
    Barely a cannonball distance between the two....
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255
    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255
    edited April 2023
    Leon said:

    Dialup said:
    Fair play to the Guardian. Can’t ask for more than that

    Tbh I had no idea “octopus” was an antisemitc trope
    It can be, but not always, and not in this case.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,573
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Dialup said:
    Fair play to the Guardian. Can’t ask for more than that

    Tbh I had no idea “octopus” was an antisemitc trope
    Why fair play to them given they published it, and as such, it must have been approved.

    Would they have pulled it had there not been the outrage ?
    Must it have been approved or do they just print whatever the cartoonist submits? If it was, it would have been by one person; there won't be a whole committee of cartoon-approvers, the cost would be unbearable for a start.
  • Inject Max Verstappen's whining into my veins.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    edited April 2023
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Judging by some of the reactions to my view of the awful caricature contained in this cartoon, (1) we need much more education in this country about c20th history, and (2) the situation is worse than even I'd feared.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1652282999495376897?s=20

    It takes a lot to shock me. And I am well aware of the Guardian's and especially Rowson's form. But I still find it genuinely shocking that not a single person looked at this and said, no, we can't run this. To me that's the real issue.

    https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1652270079847944192?s=20

    What is the issue the cartoon is commenting on ?

    It does not just strike me as horrendously misjudged but it’s not especially good either.

    I’ve always thought of the guardian as a left wing daily Mail, happy to pander to its readers basic prejudices for sales and clicks.
    Yes, I love having a go at the guardian, and that Abbott letter was a disgrace, but this cartoon feels marginal. Is it really playing on anti-Jewish tropes? Hmm. Maybe. It’s unpleasant in tone, but it is a cartoon

    It’s also a rubbish, unfunny cartoon
    I believe the choice of a squid is considered dodgy. From earlier this year:

    https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-why-has-the-economist-used-an-ancient-anti-jewish-image-to-illustrate-a-modern-business-story/
    That article gives the impression it is classifying the octopus as an "ancient" anti-semitic image solely on the basis of a single cartoon in the 1890s. But apparently it has been used a lot more widely than that would suggest:
    https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    Mirror supporting Charles?

    Told you before and I'll state it again:

    Monarchy = Socialism!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,307

    Leon said:

    Dialup said:
    Fair play to the Guardian. Can’t ask for more than that

    Tbh I had no idea “octopus” was an antisemitc trope
    Propaganda cartoon by Seppla (Josef Plank) warning of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The cartoon depicts an octopus with a Star of David over its head and tentacles encompassing a globe. Germany, date uncertain.

    https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/photo/anti-jewish-propaganda
    It's also been used to depict Britain.

    https://hyperallergic.com/375900/the-map-octopus-a-propaganda-motif-of-spreading-evil/

    image

    image
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687
    DavidL said:

    Dialup said:

    20 degrees. Is summer on the way?

    When I was driving home from Edinburgh at lunch time across Fife my frost warning light came on because it was 4 degrees. Absolutely miserable.
    This is why I no longer live in Fife. Glorious sunshine in the back garden in South London.
  • Inject Max Verstappen's whining into my veins.

    Glorious.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668
    edited April 2023

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Judging by some of the reactions to my view of the awful caricature contained in this cartoon, (1) we need much more education in this country about c20th history, and (2) the situation is worse than even I'd feared.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1652282999495376897?s=20

    It takes a lot to shock me. And I am well aware of the Guardian's and especially Rowson's form. But I still find it genuinely shocking that not a single person looked at this and said, no, we can't run this. To me that's the real issue.

    https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1652270079847944192?s=20

    What is the issue the cartoon is commenting on ?

    It does not just strike me as horrendously misjudged but it’s not especially good either.

    I’ve always thought of the guardian as a left wing daily Mail, happy to pander to its readers basic prejudices for sales and clicks.
    Yes, I love having a go at the guardian, and that Abbott letter was a disgrace, but this cartoon feels marginal. Is it really playing on anti-Jewish tropes? Hmm. Maybe. It’s unpleasant in tone, but it is a cartoon

    It’s also a rubbish, unfunny cartoon
    I believe the choice of a squid is considered dodgy. From earlier this year:

    https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-why-has-the-economist-used-an-ancient-anti-jewish-image-to-illustrate-a-modern-business-story/
    That article gives the impression it is classifying the octopus as an "ancient" anti-semitic image solely on the basis of a single cartoon in the 1890s. But apparently it has been used a lot more widely than that would suggest:
    https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf
    Jesus, from that PDF from Bristol in 2017:


  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668
    carnforth said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Judging by some of the reactions to my view of the awful caricature contained in this cartoon, (1) we need much more education in this country about c20th history, and (2) the situation is worse than even I'd feared.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1652282999495376897?s=20

    It takes a lot to shock me. And I am well aware of the Guardian's and especially Rowson's form. But I still find it genuinely shocking that not a single person looked at this and said, no, we can't run this. To me that's the real issue.

    https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1652270079847944192?s=20

    What is the issue the cartoon is commenting on ?

    It does not just strike me as horrendously misjudged but it’s not especially good either.

    I’ve always thought of the guardian as a left wing daily Mail, happy to pander to its readers basic prejudices for sales and clicks.
    Yes, I love having a go at the guardian, and that Abbott letter was a disgrace, but this cartoon feels marginal. Is it really playing on anti-Jewish tropes? Hmm. Maybe. It’s unpleasant in tone, but it is a cartoon

    It’s also a rubbish, unfunny cartoon
    I believe the choice of a squid is considered dodgy. From earlier this year:

    https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-why-has-the-economist-used-an-ancient-anti-jewish-image-to-illustrate-a-modern-business-story/
    That article gives the impression it is classifying the octopus as an "ancient" anti-semitic image solely on the basis of a single cartoon in the 1890s. But apparently it has been used a lot more widely than that would suggest:
    https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf
    Jesus, from that PDF from Bristol in 2017:


    Balfour?????
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Judging by some of the reactions to my view of the awful caricature contained in this cartoon, (1) we need much more education in this country about c20th history, and (2) the situation is worse than even I'd feared.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1652282999495376897?s=20

    It takes a lot to shock me. And I am well aware of the Guardian's and especially Rowson's form. But I still find it genuinely shocking that not a single person looked at this and said, no, we can't run this. To me that's the real issue.

    https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1652270079847944192?s=20

    What is the issue the cartoon is commenting on ?

    It does not just strike me as horrendously misjudged but it’s not especially good either.

    I’ve always thought of the guardian as a left wing daily Mail, happy to pander to its readers basic prejudices for sales and clicks.
    Yes, I love having a go at the guardian, and that Abbott letter was a disgrace, but this cartoon feels marginal. Is it really playing on anti-Jewish tropes? Hmm. Maybe. It’s unpleasant in tone, but it is a cartoon

    It’s also a rubbish, unfunny cartoon
    I believe the choice of a squid is considered dodgy. From earlier this year:

    https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-why-has-the-economist-used-an-ancient-anti-jewish-image-to-illustrate-a-modern-business-story/
    That article gives the impression it is classifying the octopus as an "ancient" anti-semitic image solely on the basis of a single cartoon in the 1890s. But apparently it has been used a lot more widely than that would suggest:
    https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf
    Jesus, from that PDF from Bristol in 2017:


    Balfour?????
    As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration presumably. Corbynites: holding a grudge for 100 years...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668
    There are clearly elements of the Left and even the centre Left which have now crossed into blatant anti semitism, and aren’t even embarrassed about it
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,412


    For any boat geeks I’m just about to go on the biggest wooden ship in the world. I’m hoping there is a bar on there.


  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    Leon said:

    There are clearly elements of the Left and even the centre Left which have now crossed into blatant anti semitism, and aren’t even embarrassed about it

    That can't be right. Labour has eradicated antisemitism in the Party .
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Judging by some of the reactions to my view of the awful caricature contained in this cartoon, (1) we need much more education in this country about c20th history, and (2) the situation is worse than even I'd feared.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1652282999495376897?s=20

    It takes a lot to shock me. And I am well aware of the Guardian's and especially Rowson's form. But I still find it genuinely shocking that not a single person looked at this and said, no, we can't run this. To me that's the real issue.

    https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1652270079847944192?s=20

    What is the issue the cartoon is commenting on ?

    It does not just strike me as horrendously misjudged but it’s not especially good either.

    I’ve always thought of the guardian as a left wing daily Mail, happy to pander to its readers basic prejudices for sales and clicks.
    Yes, I love having a go at the guardian, and that Abbott letter was a disgrace, but this cartoon feels marginal. Is it really playing on anti-Jewish tropes? Hmm. Maybe. It’s unpleasant in tone, but it is a cartoon

    It’s also a rubbish, unfunny cartoon
    I believe the choice of a squid is considered dodgy. From earlier this year:

    https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-why-has-the-economist-used-an-ancient-anti-jewish-image-to-illustrate-a-modern-business-story/
    That article gives the impression it is classifying the octopus as an "ancient" anti-semitic image solely on the basis of a single cartoon in the 1890s. But apparently it has been used a lot more widely than that would suggest:
    https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf
    Jesus, from that PDF from Bristol in 2017:


    Balfour?????
    As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration presumably. Corbynites: holding a grudge for 100 years...
    I know what it means. I’m just astounded
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    edited April 2023
    carnforth said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Judging by some of the reactions to my view of the awful caricature contained in this cartoon, (1) we need much more education in this country about c20th history, and (2) the situation is worse than even I'd feared.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1652282999495376897?s=20

    It takes a lot to shock me. And I am well aware of the Guardian's and especially Rowson's form. But I still find it genuinely shocking that not a single person looked at this and said, no, we can't run this. To me that's the real issue.

    https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1652270079847944192?s=20

    What is the issue the cartoon is commenting on ?

    It does not just strike me as horrendously misjudged but it’s not especially good either.

    I’ve always thought of the guardian as a left wing daily Mail, happy to pander to its readers basic prejudices for sales and clicks.
    Yes, I love having a go at the guardian, and that Abbott letter was a disgrace, but this cartoon feels marginal. Is it really playing on anti-Jewish tropes? Hmm. Maybe. It’s unpleasant in tone, but it is a cartoon

    It’s also a rubbish, unfunny cartoon
    I believe the choice of a squid is considered dodgy. From earlier this year:

    https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-why-has-the-economist-used-an-ancient-anti-jewish-image-to-illustrate-a-modern-business-story/
    That article gives the impression it is classifying the octopus as an "ancient" anti-semitic image solely on the basis of a single cartoon in the 1890s. But apparently it has been used a lot more widely than that would suggest:
    https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf
    Jesus, from that PDF from Bristol in 2017:


    Is that relevant in some way to the link I posted confirming that the octopus had been commonly used as an anti-semitic image?

    (Edit: Sorry - I see - that's where you got the image of the Bristol poster from.)
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    DavidL said:

    Dialup said:

    20 degrees. Is summer on the way?

    When I was driving home from Edinburgh at lunch time across Fife my frost warning light came on because it was 4 degrees. Absolutely miserable.
    Perhaps Scotland is in that short and interesting time when it's not quite clear whether the frost warning is because it's the end of last winter or the start of the next.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668
    So is the Left angry with the Tories because in 1917 the British government agreed there should be a Jewish homeland. Is that it?

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,135
    edited April 2023
    Powerful speech just after 46 mins 30 secs at the Post Office inquiry.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwEOHLfkL5M
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687
    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    edited April 2023
    Leon said:

    So is the Left angry with the Tories because in 1917 the British government agreed there should be a Jewish homeland. Is that it?

    Anti-semitic pogroms, whilst not unknown on the "Red" side during the Russian Civil War (1917-1921), were far, far more prevalent on the "White" anti-communist side. Even the Poles indulged when they retreated from Kiev in 1920.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    edited April 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    That's 7 frames in a row for Luca Brecel. From 5-14 to 12-14.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,474
    edited April 2023

    Leon said:

    So is the Left angry with the Tories because in 1917 the British government agreed there should be a Jewish homeland. Is that it?

    Anti-semitic pogroms, whilst not unknown on the "Red" side during the Russian Civil War (1917-1921), were far, far more prevalent on the "White" anti-communist side. Even the Poles indulged when they retreated from Kiev in 1920.
    There was even an anti-semitic pogrom in Poland in 1945-6.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kielce-post-holocaust-pogrom-poland-still-fighting-over-180967681/

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,829
    edited April 2023
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    TimS said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, private education seems like a waste of money. Typically, one is spending £20,000 a year, per head, out of after-tax income, to have some privileged left wing head teacher trying to indoctrinate one's children into far left politics.

    Far better just to move to a place where the State schools are good.

    I’ve come to think that myself. Our son is at a private school. It’s bloody expensive, and yes he’s getting good teaching and pastoral support but he’d have done fine in the state school he had a place for too, and would be better placed for university applications. I wouldn’t describe his teachers as remotely far left though (or privileged for that matter).
    Once you get sucked into the private system it’s a massive guilt trip. Because you’re shelling out cash it has to be better? No. You can be far better off elsewhere and if you think of the opportunity cost it’s a very bad deal.

    I went through a few months of guilt tripping myself about not sending my older shyer daughter to a private school. But in the end she went to a jolly good comp and is now at an outstanding 6th form and is thriving, in her own way, and looking at top notch universities so I think hey, maybe I saved £200,000, nice one

    My younger daughter is ebullient and would probably thrive anywhere so it didn’t matter
    The local comp delivered straight A*s , a love of Rugby, a musical instrument and friends for life. With money saved, we did all sorts of trips.

    Job done.
    Agreed

    I also think it’s spiritually and morally better to go to a state school, if you can. You will understand your own country and your compatriots so much better

    Public school kids are always faintly and embarrassingly clueless about fundamental aspects of Britain
    What is this “Britain” you mention?

    But seriously there’s a weird reverse snobbery about public school kids I find a bit odd. It’s usually along the lines of them being so isolated and in a bubble they have no idea about “real life”.

    It shows a lack of knowledge that people at public schools have a wider exposure to people from different countries and cultures than anyone who isn’t in some cosmopolitan inner city state school. My housemates were literally from all around the world; Thai, Russian, Malaysian, HK, China, India, France, Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Philippines and Scotland.

    That same group consisted of Catholic, CofE, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and atheist.

    Their backgrounds were wide ranging from children of overseas politicians, nobles, diplomats, sons of small business owners whose grandparents were helping with the fees and assisted places kids. And the British kids were from all parts of the country from all furthest points of the compass.

    And funnily enough we also mixed socially with our peers in the state system out of school.

    Your average state school kid will go through their time with a cohort from a pretty similar demographic because of catchment areas. A state school in a wealthy part of Cheshire might have as many wealthy kids but probably drawn from a pretty identikit background and a comp in inner city Southampton is going to generally have kids from similar backgrounds.

    So no school system gives kids some total “real” insight into the makeup of the country and if you go to your state school in a very white middle class area then you can’t fling shit at public school kids re having their finger on the pulse of the nation as they will have had a narrower experience of people in their formative years.

    I went to a state school. But half my friends are private school kids. The latter are genuinely and notably more clueless about normal daily life in the UK. It’s just a fact

    On the other hand I have seen the big advantage you get from a really good private school - eg Westminster, Winchester, Eton - in terms of lifelong networks
    Also, a small number of public schools - particularly places like Winchester and Westminster, I would say, are good at teaching at critical thinking. Two of the most intelligent people I've met were from those two schools, and not particuiarly socially networked. PBers will know that my views on Eton and a few other schools are less favourable.

    Once Labour changes the rules on VAT and charitable status, the last of the non-ultra rich British-based kids now there will be forced to leave. The most famoust schools have a huge ready market and profile in Asia, which will step in instead, and fill the gap.
    It's a myth that these give "life long" networks that, if it was ever true, expired a hundred years ago.

    I'm only in touch with two people I used to go to school with, neither of which are particularly influential. All my useful professional contacts have come from ex-university friends or colleagues and peers I've worked with since graduation.

    That's how it works these days. Not the old school tie.
    Did you go to Winchester, Westminster or Eton?

    I know a dozen people that did, and their networks are remarkably advantageous. I’m talking about the really elite public schools here

    Friends who went to middling or minor private schools barely have old school networks at all. University was more important for them (as it was for me)
    You only really develop a network through fagging. I assume only the proper elites still do it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,573
    Leon said:

    There are clearly elements of the Left and even the centre Left which have now crossed into blatant anti semitism, and aren’t even embarrassed about it

    And the right with even MPs banging on about Cultural Marxists and North London Intellectuals.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    Yeah it is, inter alia, simply a shit, unfunny, laboriously predictable cartoon. The Guardian employs some really crap cartoonists

    Looking at that PDF of alleged anti-Semitic imagery I’d say these are both acceptable, and not anti Semitic. Cartoonists must be allowed to criticize the State of Israel, and these cartoons do that, they don’t attack Jews per se




  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,412
    Quite an impressive bit of kit. Well done Swedes.





  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255
    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    Yeah it is, inter alia, simply a shit, unfunny, laboriously predictable cartoon. The Guardian employs some really crap cartoonists

    Looking at that PDF of alleged anti-Semitic imagery I’d say these are both acceptable, and not anti Semitic. Cartoonists must be allowed to criticize the State of Israel, and these cartoons do that, they don’t attack Jews per se




    I think those examples show how much bollocks is spouted on this issue.

    Netanyahu is not a puppet-master, he is a bricklayer.

    And Sharp’s nose is not “anti-Semitic”. In fact, he actually looked Indian to me in the cartoon.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    Sharp is Jewish

    I agree its an edge case

    What is more suspicious to me is that the Guardian got 400 comments on the cartoon all saying Yay, that’s funny, and Nice one and Ugh Boris etc, and about two dozen comments were invisible because moderated. I bet those were the ones pointing out that the cartoon was in questionable taste due to possible racism. The Guardian hates being criticized for hypocrisy and finds it intolerable

    It is a fairly pathetic newspaper, these days
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    That sounds like certain people about the noose found hanging in a NASCAR garage…
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,796
    boulay said:



    For any boat geeks I’m just about to go on the biggest wooden ship in the world. I’m hoping there is a bar on there.


    Is that the Santisima Trinidad replica in Alicante harbour? Only saw it from a distance but it looked f***ing huge. I’d heard it was in a sorry state but good if they’ve fixed it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,829
    Dialup said:
    I do like the implication they either did think it met their editorial standards until a compkaint or didnt check it beforehand though.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,412

    boulay said:



    For any boat geeks I’m just about to go on the biggest wooden ship in the world. I’m hoping there is a bar on there.


    Is that the Santisima Trinidad replica in Alicante harbour? Only saw it from a distance but it looked f***ing huge. I’d heard it was in a sorry state but good if they’ve fixed it.
    It’s the Gothenburg. I believe they are lifting the original from the Baltic currently. Hornblower gives a misleading impression of how complicated rigging is…
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,194

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    Hmm…I think I’m on the other side, just. Rowson is experienced as a cartoonist, will have caricatured many Jewish people before, and so should be expected to know better than most what might be considered antisemitism.

    If the squid and the caricature of his face were essential to the message it might be different, but they don’t add much. I suspect it’s just thoughtless but deserves criticism imo.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,573
    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    The "gold sack" thing is his box (because he's been sacked) labelled Goldman Sachs because that is where he used to work, and was Rishi's boss, which is why Rishi's head is in there (we'll ignore Rishi's nose). The trouble is, if you leave out the Goldman Sachs connection, it falls apart because the intention surely is to portray Sharp as at the centre of the web around Downing Street and the loan but if you include it then there are two antisemitic tropes right there: the puppetmaster pulling the strings and the Jewish banking cabal running the world. Even ignoring the antisemitic content, the cartoon fails because it implies Sharp is sacked from the bank and not the BBC.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    edited April 2023

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
  • DialupDialup Posts: 561
    Wasn't me who said anti-Semitism had been tackled in Labour. It was the EHRC and the BoD.

    Whatever happens, Keir Starmer will go down in history for doing the right thing.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    Yeah it is, inter alia, simply a shit, unfunny, laboriously predictable cartoon. The Guardian employs some really crap cartoonists

    Looking at that PDF of alleged anti-Semitic imagery I’d say these are both acceptable, and not anti Semitic. Cartoonists must be allowed to criticize the State of Israel, and these cartoons do that, they don’t attack Jews per se




    I think those examples show how much bollocks is spouted on this issue.

    Netanyahu is not a puppet-master, he is a bricklayer.

    And Sharp’s nose is not “anti-Semitic”. In fact, he actually looked Indian to me in the cartoon.
    Yes, where are the puppets?!

    That is simply a good, hard-hitting cartoon criticizing Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians. Perhaps if Israel stopped brutalizing and killing Palestinians, these cartoons would not exist

    There is no doubt that the State of Israel DOES use the rightly taboo nature of anti-Semitism to quash entirely justifiable criticism of Israel itself. That there is an example
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255
    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,796
    boulay said:


    boulay said:



    For any boat geeks I’m just about to go on the biggest wooden ship in the world. I’m hoping there is a bar on there.


    Is that the Santisima Trinidad replica in Alicante harbour? Only saw it from a distance but it looked f***ing huge. I’d heard it was in a sorry state but good if they’ve fixed it.
    It’s the Gothenburg. I believe they are lifting the original from the Baltic currently. Hornblower gives a misleading impression of how complicated rigging is…
    Golly, just checked Google and the Santisima also has a lion figurehead.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,353
    Scott_xP said:

    There’s been colour blindness in casting on the stage, such as in Shakespeare from RSC, a long time, and no problem at all with it. A Black Romeo with a proper lunchbox will get rave reviews for all the right reasons.

    The RSC staged an all black Hamlet a few years ago. It was brilliant.
    So why couldn’t the part of Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour have been played by a Pakistani?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    The "gold sack" thing is his box (because he's been sacked) labelled Goldman Sachs because that is where he used to work, and was Rishi's boss, which is why Rishi's head is in there (we'll ignore Rishi's nose). The trouble is, if you leave out the Goldman Sachs connection, it falls apart because the intention surely is to portray Sharp as at the centre of the web around Downing Street and the loan but if you include it then there are two antisemitic tropes right there: the puppetmaster pulling the strings and the Jewish banking cabal running the world. Even ignoring the antisemitic content, the cartoon fails because it implies Sharp is sacked from the bank and not the BBC.
    I don't want to sound too Sarah Vine, but Sharp is the victim here. Very definitely not an innocent victim, but yet another person who dealt with Boris and came to regret it (it happens to everyone eventually).

    Very occaisonally, The Daily Mash hits the nail on the head;

    BBC chairman Richard Sharp has resigned and received his coveted invite to the f**ked-by-Boris luncheon club on the same day... He said: “Apparently they meet in the City of London’s historic Guild Hall every Friday at 1pm. It used to be a room above a pub but membership’s grown exponentially.

    https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/uncategorized/richard-sharp-receives-invitation-to-the-fked-by-boris-club-20230428234572
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,048
    DavidL said:

    Apart from the obvious benefit of winding up @Morris_Dancer is there any point to this sprint race today?

    It's supposed to be part of spreading out the action over three days, but I think changing the Sprint to a stand alone race instead of basically the beginning of the main race makes it less exciting.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,707

    Leon said:

    There are clearly elements of the Left and even the centre Left which have now crossed into blatant anti semitism, and aren’t even embarrassed about it

    And the right with even MPs banging on about Cultural Marxists and North London Intellectuals.
    The trouble is that both of those are blatantly true. It's unfortunate that cultural marxism is associated with antisemitism but what are you supposed to call social and cultural theorists heavily influenced by Marx. North London intellectuals is one I hadn't considered before. Again though, there are a lot of political and intellectual types in Islington.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141
    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    Sharp is Jewish

    I agree its an edge case

    What is more suspicious to me is that the Guardian got 400 comments on the cartoon all saying Yay, that’s funny, and Nice one and Ugh Boris etc, and about two dozen comments were invisible because moderated. I bet those were the ones pointing out that the cartoon was in questionable taste due to possible racism. The Guardian hates being criticized for hypocrisy and finds it intolerable

    It is a fairly pathetic newspaper, these days
    The hooked nose and thick lips make Sharp look as if he’s stepped out of the pages of Der Giftpilz.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,685

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    The "gold sack" thing is his box (because he's been sacked) labelled Goldman Sachs because that is where he used to work, and was Rishi's boss, which is why Rishi's head is in there (we'll ignore Rishi's nose). The trouble is, if you leave out the Goldman Sachs connection, it falls apart because the intention surely is to portray Sharp as at the centre of the web around Downing Street and the loan but if you include it then there are two antisemitic tropes right there: the puppetmaster pulling the strings and the Jewish banking cabal running the world. Even ignoring the antisemitic content, the cartoon fails because it implies Sharp is sacked from the bank and not the BBC.
    I don't want to sound too Sarah Vine, but Sharp is the victim here. Very definitely not an innocent victim, but yet another person who dealt with Boris and came to regret it (it happens to everyone eventually).

    Very occaisonally, The Daily Mash hits the nail on the head;

    BBC chairman Richard Sharp has resigned and received his coveted invite to the f**ked-by-Boris luncheon club on the same day... He said: “Apparently they meet in the City of London’s historic Guild Hall every Friday at 1pm. It used to be a room above a pub but membership’s grown exponentially.

    https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/uncategorized/richard-sharp-receives-invitation-to-the-fked-by-boris-club-20230428234572
    he tripped and loaned 800k by mistake did he?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    Sharp is Jewish

    I agree its an edge case

    What is more suspicious to me is that the Guardian got 400 comments on the cartoon all saying Yay, that’s funny, and Nice one and Ugh Boris etc, and about two dozen comments were invisible because moderated. I bet those were the ones pointing out that the cartoon was in questionable taste due to possible racism. The Guardian hates being criticized for hypocrisy and finds it intolerable

    It is a fairly pathetic newspaper, these days
    The hooked nose and thick lips make Sharp look as if he’s stepped out of the pages of Der Giftpilz.
    Total crap.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    My grandad used to do this, was always trying to figure out if people were Jewish or not. He was extremely right wing and a total bigot, who complained to his neighbour that my then girlfriend was "as black as the Ace of Spades" the first time he met her. He was basically a West Country Alf Garnet.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,353

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.

    I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,573
    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
    Here they are.




  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    Sharp is Jewish

    I agree its an edge case

    What is more suspicious to me is that the Guardian got 400 comments on the cartoon all saying Yay, that’s funny, and Nice one and Ugh Boris etc, and about two dozen comments were invisible because moderated. I bet those were the ones pointing out that the cartoon was in questionable taste due to possible racism. The Guardian hates being criticized for hypocrisy and finds it intolerable

    It is a fairly pathetic newspaper, these days
    The hooked nose and thick lips make Sharp look as if he’s stepped out of the pages of Der Giftpilz.
    Total crap.
    No, it is a classic anti-Semitic facial caricature of a banker

    The question is whether Rowson meant it to be like that or he just lazily reached for “banker face” without realizing how it would come across
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,707
    People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069
    Tres said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    The "gold sack" thing is his box (because he's been sacked) labelled Goldman Sachs because that is where he used to work, and was Rishi's boss, which is why Rishi's head is in there (we'll ignore Rishi's nose). The trouble is, if you leave out the Goldman Sachs connection, it falls apart because the intention surely is to portray Sharp as at the centre of the web around Downing Street and the loan but if you include it then there are two antisemitic tropes right there: the puppetmaster pulling the strings and the Jewish banking cabal running the world. Even ignoring the antisemitic content, the cartoon fails because it implies Sharp is sacked from the bank and not the BBC.
    I don't want to sound too Sarah Vine, but Sharp is the victim here. Very definitely not an innocent victim, but yet another person who dealt with Boris and came to regret it (it happens to everyone eventually).

    Very occaisonally, The Daily Mash hits the nail on the head;

    BBC chairman Richard Sharp has resigned and received his coveted invite to the f**ked-by-Boris luncheon club on the same day... He said: “Apparently they meet in the City of London’s historic Guild Hall every Friday at 1pm. It used to be a room above a pub but membership’s grown exponentially.

    https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/uncategorized/richard-sharp-receives-invitation-to-the-fked-by-boris-club-20230428234572
    he tripped and loaned 800k by mistake did he?
    No, but outside public life, chums do favours for chums all the time. And if you're a squillionaire, 800k is quite a small favour.

    Had he not become a highish profile public figure, the humiliation wouldn't have happened. Had someone who is meant to know about being a public figure (Boris should have, Simon Case Dismissed definitely should have) nipped this in the bud, this wouldn't have happened.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.

    I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
    I actually like Rowson’s grotesques.
    He is in the tradition of Gillray.
    I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.

    I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
    I actually like Rowson’s grotesques.
    He is in the tradition of Gillray.
    I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
    Is Rowson ever funny or insightful? Is Steve Bell?

    They are both desperately repetitive, heavy handed and dull
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,657
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    Sharp is Jewish

    I agree its an edge case

    What is more suspicious to me is that the Guardian got 400 comments on the cartoon all saying Yay, that’s funny, and Nice one and Ugh Boris etc, and about two dozen comments were invisible because moderated. I bet those were the ones pointing out that the cartoon was in questionable taste due to possible racism. The Guardian hates being criticized for hypocrisy and finds it intolerable

    It is a fairly pathetic newspaper, these days
    The hooked nose and thick lips make Sharp look as if he’s stepped out of the pages of Der Giftpilz.
    Total crap.
    No, it is a classic anti-Semitic facial caricature of a banker

    The question is whether Rowson meant it to be like that or he just lazily reached for “banker face” without realizing how it would come across
    Does it look like Richard Sharp - albeit allowing for caricatural exaggeration - is what we need to establish.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255
    Leon said:

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.

    I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
    I actually like Rowson’s grotesques.
    He is in the tradition of Gillray.
    I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
    Is Rowson ever funny or insightful? Is Steve Bell?

    They are both desperately repetitive, heavy handed and dull
    Funny no.
    But sometimes grotesquerie is enough.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141
    Leon said:

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.

    I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
    I actually like Rowson’s grotesques.
    He is in the tradition of Gillray.
    I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
    Is Rowson ever funny or insightful? Is Steve Bell?

    They are both desperately repetitive, heavy handed and dull
    That is of course, their chief fault as cartoonists.

    Neither one is funny or insightful.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,573
    edited April 2023

    People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.

    Satirical caricatures go back to the dawn of time and are intended to make a point. Matt intends to tell a joke. It's not quite the same thing.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255

    People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.

    Satirical caricatures go back to the dawn of time and are intended to make a point. Matt intends to tell a joke. It's not quite the same thing.
    Yes, there seems to be a basic ignorance of how grotesque caricature functions.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,829
    edited April 2023

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    The "gold sack" thing is his box (because he's been sacked) labelled Goldman Sachs because that is where he used to work, and was Rishi's boss, which is why Rishi's head is in there (we'll ignore Rishi's nose). The trouble is, if you leave out the Goldman Sachs connection, it falls apart because the intention surely is to portray Sharp as at the centre of the web around Downing Street and the loan but if you include it then there are two antisemitic tropes right there: the puppetmaster pulling the strings and the Jewish banking cabal running the world. Even ignoring the antisemitic content, the cartoon fails because it implies Sharp is sacked from the bank and not the BBC.
    I don't want to sound too Sarah Vine, but Sharp is the victim here. Very definitely not an innocent victim, but yet another person who dealt with Boris and came to regret it (it happens to everyone eventually).

    Very occaisonally, The Daily Mash hits the nail on the head;

    BBC chairman Richard Sharp has resigned and received his coveted invite to the f**ked-by-Boris luncheon club on the same day... He said: “Apparently they meet in the City of London’s historic Guild Hall every Friday at 1pm. It used to be a room above a pub but membership’s grown exponentially.

    https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/uncategorized/richard-sharp-receives-invitation-to-the-fked-by-boris-club-20230428234572
    He's not a victim when he voluntarily participated.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
    Here they are.




    The caricature looks nothing like Sharp, who is good-looking, and neither hook-nosed nor thick-lipped.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    Brecel from 5-14 to 14-14. Just fantastic stuff.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,125

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    Rowson, I'm guessing unlike you, is an experienced cartoonist who's got into trouble before over antisemitism claims. He's complained about the Israeli government trying to paint any criticism of Israel as "antisemitic", so why can't he be bothered not to give his critics ammunition? Seems like he's just trying to get a bit of publicity for his pretty poor cartoons.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    Andy_JS said:

    Pirate Festival in Brixham today. The town really throws itself into it.

    Worm-charming tomorrow. It's all go.

    Brixham near Torquay?
    "Well, may I ask what you expected to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically…?"
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,573
    carnforth said:

    Brecel from 5-14 to 14-14. Just fantastic stuff.

    Not for PBers who backed Si Jiahui as part of the new wave of young Chinese snooker players.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141

    People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.

    People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.

    I could never understand the point of putting Cameron inside a condom.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069

    People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.

    Satirical caricatures go back to the dawn of time and are intended to make a point. Matt intends to tell a joke. It's not quite the same thing.
    Matt does his job brilliantly, but his cartoons wouldn't work blown up to the op-ed page. Steve Bell often managed more reliable amusement in the If... strips (especially the ones that were just silly) than in the larger format.

    Has there ever been a reliably funny editorial cartoonist? Most of them (left and right) find it hard to avoid spilling into angry and frankly nasty. Maybe Peter Brookes's Nature Notes series.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255
    kamski said:

    It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.

    I had no idea.

    I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.

    Rowson, I'm guessing unlike you, is an experienced cartoonist who's got into trouble before over antisemitism claims. He's complained about the Israeli government trying to paint any criticism of Israel as "antisemitic", so why can't he be bothered not to give his critics ammunition? Seems like he's just trying to get a bit of publicity for his pretty poor cartoons.
    Actually, I am a half decent cartoonist, albeit not publishing in a national (or anywhere significant).

    I agree that Sharp is unrecognisable, which is a fail, but I think the idea that this cartoon comes straight from Der Sturmer is ridiculous.

    Some people just want to be offended.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,796
    Sean_F said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
    Here they are.




    The caricature looks nothing like Sharp, who is good-looking, and neither hook-nosed nor thick-lipped.
    By what means have you discerned Rowson has depicted Sharp’s nose as hooked?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    Leon said:

    There are clearly elements of the Left and even the centre Left which have now crossed into blatant anti semitism, and aren’t even embarrassed about it

    And the right with even MPs banging on about Cultural Marxists and North London Intellectuals.
    The trouble is that both of those are blatantly true. It's unfortunate that cultural marxism is associated with antisemitism but what are you supposed to call social and cultural theorists heavily influenced by Marx. North London intellectuals is one I hadn't considered before. Again though, there are a lot of political and intellectual types in Islington.
    It’s very simple.

    Palestine is one of the big causes of the hard left.

    A lot of countries in the area preach (literally) antisemitism as part of the blame-the-Jews-for-everything-not-the-wankers-running-the-country thing.

    So quite a few people from the region are steeped in anti-semitism.

    A tenant of modern progressivism is that non-white people can’t be racist. This means that white, middle class progressives feel they can’t push back against minorities expressing antisemitism.

    So the antisemitism is allowed. And so people are listening to it, seeing the cartoons etc on a regular basis. And it rubs off on them….
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,135
    edited April 2023
    Interesting how the left are warming to Charles because they think he's a bit of a lefty and may be more left-wing than any politicians who could be running the country in the future.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,255

    Sean_F said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
    Here they are.




    The caricature looks nothing like Sharp, who is good-looking, and neither hook-nosed nor thick-lipped.
    By what means have you discerned Rowson has depicted Sharp’s nose as hooked?
    That was my first question.
    Maybe I don’t study noses closely enough.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141

    Sean_F said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
    Here they are.




    The caricature looks nothing like Sharp, who is good-looking, and neither hook-nosed nor thick-lipped.
    By what means have you discerned Rowson has depicted Sharp’s nose as hooked?
    By his making it enormous, ugly, and prominent.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,668

    Leon said:

    There are clearly elements of the Left and even the centre Left which have now crossed into blatant anti semitism, and aren’t even embarrassed about it

    And the right with even MPs banging on about Cultural Marxists and North London Intellectuals.
    The trouble is that both of those are blatantly true. It's unfortunate that cultural marxism is associated with antisemitism but what are you supposed to call social and cultural theorists heavily influenced by Marx. North London intellectuals is one I hadn't considered before. Again though, there are a lot of political and intellectual types in Islington.
    It’s very simple.

    Palestine is one of the big causes of the hard left.

    A lot of countries in the area preach (literally) antisemitism as part of the blame-the-Jews-for-everything-not-the-wankers-running-the-country thing.

    So quite a few people from the region are steeped in anti-semitism.

    A tenant of modern progressivism is that non-white people can’t be racist. This means that white, middle class progressives feel they can’t push back against minorities expressing antisemitism.

    So the antisemitism is allowed. And so people are listening to it, seeing the cartoons etc on a regular basis. And it rubs off on them….
    Yes, the anti-Semitism of much Muslim opinion has infected the Left, for sure. Normalizing it, and encouraging it, to the extent they do not notice it
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
    Here they are.




    My point in a nutshell. It's not a recognisable caricature of Richard Sharp. It's a very recognisable caricature of a Jewish stereotype.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,796
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Chris said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
    The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.

    People are touchy, though.

    However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy

    Right on the edge I’d say

    Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper

    And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic

    Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
    You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
    If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
    Lazy bugger.



    Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
    I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt?
    How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
    I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.

    But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
    Here they are.




    The caricature looks nothing like Sharp, who is good-looking, and neither hook-nosed nor thick-lipped.
    By what means have you discerned Rowson has depicted Sharp’s nose as hooked?
    By his making it enormous, ugly, and prominent.
    Who knew Jimmy Durante was Jewish?
    Sounds like you’re applying your own ‘what makes an antisemitic cartoon’ filter.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,118

    People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.

    Satirical caricatures go back to the dawn of time and are intended to make a point. Matt intends to tell a joke. It's not quite the same thing.
    Also demanding Matt-levels of humour from the whole cartooning profession is a bit like saying "Einstein's theories are superb, but what is the value of these more dubious physicists on the whole?"...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,307
    Has everyone seen Rishi’s inspirational message?

    https://twitter.com/matt_vickersmp/status/1652223631634714627
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Rowson’s apology:

    https://www.martinrowson.com/
This discussion has been closed.