The intent to bully and intimidate permeates this thread (as it did the one about Chris Blackhurst).

Your second paragraph implies that you believe Zionism was a response to the Holocaust – a rewriting of history beyond anything the “revisionists” have attempted.

As for your question about racism, I haven’t answered it because I haven’t understood it. Nothing that Jonathan described about the debate appears “racist”, though as I wasn’t there I’ve no idea whether there were racist speeches that he hasn’t reported. (I do know for example that Jonathan’s hero Nick Ferrari was censured for his LBC show’s racism by the Broadcasting Standards Commission in 2003.)

As for the conversations he reports after the debate, they could hardly be classed as racist either, if Jonathan is accurate in reporting Lady R’s criticisms of “Jew-ish” behaviour by clearly non-Jewish politicians.

Self-evidently these are not racial remarks. They may well have been extreme and offended Jonathan, but they can only have referred to a religion or ideology, not to a race.

The correct answer to Paxman by the way is to point out that Zionism was a RESPONSE to racism against the Jews from people like Renouf. And to say that if Israel had been created 10 years earlier, many lives might have been saved.

And how about an answer: Is it only ‘racism against Jews’ that is a ‘conflicting opinion’ ?

I can’t see how you can dispute that it developed into a cranky conspiracy theory portraying Blackhurst as a covert anti-semite.

Your sub-Dershowitz mission to intimididate opponents doesn’t seem to have worked too well in Blackhurst’s case. (Ironically this is the one piece of evidence in the entire saga which militates against the idea of a powerful Zionist conspiracy!!!)

You’re away with the fairies. Goodbye.

As for “revisionism”, I merely suggest that since many people of Lady R’s outlook would be likely to speak of Schiff in the same breath as Rothschild, it is very probable that she was speaking of Schiff rather than Sieff.

Hardly an outrageous allegation of “lying”, more a matter of common sense I’d have thought.

But I’m sure that won’t stop your attempts at revisionism

You mean when Blackhurst made an allegation about the ‘pro-Israel lobby’ which my subsequent ‘Freedom of Information’ request to the Treasury suggested was completely false?

Paxmanite, you dig yourself in deeper with every post!

On the basis of no evidence whatsoever you decide it was Schiff not Sieff. That is tantamount to saying that I am lying.

Not for the first time, you protest too much.

I haven’t said you “lied” about anything. I just thought (and still think) Schiff would be a very likely name to mention for someone with Lady R’s point of view; Sieff would not.

It would also be very easy for you to mishear – more likely (imho) than either you lying or Lady R bringing Sieff into a conversation about bankers.

As for conflicting opinions, I’m sure you are more than capable of looking after yourself in a debate at the Stone Club. Wouldn’t it be more edifying for you to pursue that debate in the normal fashion rather than trying to organise a boycott?

And btw that is very clearly what’s going on here: while I’m sure you’re not “lying” about Sieff/Schiff, you are being disingenuous about your efforts to bully Carole Stone, consistent with your earlier behaviour re Chris Blackhurst of the Standard.

I wonder if Paxmanite thinks it’s only ‘racism against Jews’ that is a ‘conflicting opinion’ …………

Let’s get this straight: You are saying I lied about her saying “Sieff”; you accuse me of ‘threatening a Zionist boycott’ when I merely reported the facts and pulled out of the panel; you dignify out-and-out racism by the phrase ‘conflicting opinions’.

Is racism against Muslims or blacks merely a ‘conflicting opinion’?

If you’re trying to portray yourself as a Renouf supporter, you’re not doing a bad job at all.