Who he?? Its probably someone obvious, but the only member of the HoL that is consistent in his public views - and has been for 40+ years, is Alf Dubs (Labour)?
If you look up the origin of the word "moderator", you will find (unsurprisingly) that it draws from the word "moderate", being as it was historically that the position of a moderator was first and foremost to use their powers of diplomacy and reason to bring a conversation threatening to boil over, back to the 'moderate' middle ground. One of our forum moderators has on this thread posted views and opinions which are among the most extreme I have ever read on this website, and let me add: I am a frequent visitor of the main PL board and its politics thread! From unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to highly aggressive and expletive laden language, the content he posts given the position he holds deserves scrutiny. Just the other day I saw an exchange between him and another poster (I think it was RCL) in which he openly states that unbridled physical violence, no matter how disproportionate it is, is totally fine and not subject to any judicial process as long as it is 'retaliatory'. Blessedly, his view isn't mainstream or we'd live in a society of endless violence and lawlessness. At some point over these long years, he also assumed the additional role of Editor-in-Chief of the forum, arbitrarily moving posts and threads as he subjectively saw fit. He even boasts about this in his bio. He has therefore become the gatekeeper for what is or isn't considered political, one anecdotal example of this being the time I mentioned in passing on a match day thread that Manor Solomon's extended absence from the squad was rumoured to be related to death threats he had received. The post was moved to the politics thread for one reason only: it hinted to the situation in Israel and Gaza and, as this moderator's comments have since revealed, his is one of the most anti on the entire website. Let me be clear, I have absolutely no problem with him posting whatever views and opinions he wants to. Other posters constantly do this and, as said above, I've seen everything there is to see from my time on the main board. It's a circus over there most of the time. But if he wants to do so, it should be as a regular poster, not under the moniker of someone whose position calls upon them to moderate discussion instead of taking them to previously unchartered extremes. I have never had so much as a hint of an issue with our other moderators, one of whom is to my mind the best Mod on the whole site, but the moderator in question should behave more like one. I won't say anything further on this and have put both him and this thread on ignore, which no doubt is for the best as at the present time there is nothing more I can do as it seems forum moderators are appointed for life terms. Bit like Mahmoud Abbas.
I'm not going to address the bulk of this comment without discussing it with Spurf and SD, but I'm not ignoring it. I'll just comment on the two parts that I feel I can directly respond to now. Spurf and SD will often move or merge threads (on the rare occasion that either happen) at my request. This is because at some point I lost the option to do so. Can't remember when or why. If I see something that I believe should be moved or merged, then I message them about it. That's why you'll never see me do it personally. As for the mods being appointed for life terms, we've always made it clear that is not the case. Any and all of us are replaceable at any time if the Spurs fans on here request it. We've asked for feedback at various points and that hasn't been the case at the time. We continue to be open to complaints and commentary on what we're doing and whether we should be doing it.
Funny there's no mention about the Stade de France the other night on his timeline... please log in to view this image
I wasn't going to respond to this initially, but while not wishing to get embroiled in a difference of opinion between two members, as you replied to my very respectful request for calm, I do feel it necessary to say this - even if you have put us on ignore! . First of all I have never found any decisions or actions taken by any Mod on our board to have been made to fit a personal agenda. Nor have I noticed any Mod using their position illegitimately. I might not agree with every one of their decisions, but if I'm honest I can always see the rationale - even if not at the time. Geo-Politics is a particularly divisive subject and tempers are running high with the escalating situation in the ME and around the World. Events last week in Amsterdam - and the apparent misreporting of them - has just exacerbated matters locally. You have your strong opinions and standpoint on the subject in question and many others differ from those opinions. I also haven't witnessed the 'extreme' commentary you describe in this thread. It is passionate and at times heated, but the emotions are genuine. In fact, I have several times wished and asked that there were more 'opposing' voices to initiate more constructive debate, but in general there is much consensus. And sometimes we all just need to take a step or two back. Standing too close to the elephant is never a great view! Namaste!
1) Claims that the majority of MPs are working for Israel: "It's not surprising when 80% of Tories and 30% of Labour MP's are financially supported by Israel. Elected by Briton but working for Israel." Says it again elsewhere, but notice how the percentages change arbitrarily: "80% of Conservative MPs are in the Conservative Friends of Israel and receive money from Israel 20% of Labour MP's and 50% of the shadow cabinet. Including Starmer and Lammy. The Zionist reach runs very deep in the USA and the UK and of course Germany." "I think Diane Abbott was correct and the racism was to call her racist and anti- semitic. The Labour party should apologise to her, but of course they won't. Their Israeli paymasters will see to that." 2) Frequently pushes the line that both the media and the state are controlled by 'zionists': "Let's be clear the real cess pit is not social media it's main stream media, the BBC, ITV, the national newspapers including, sadly, The Guardian, hedge funds moved in apparently, as well as Zionists who are embedded in the state." When pressed on this, he references one isolated incident involving Alan Duncan at the peak of the Corbyn anti-Semitism uproar, and also seems to be under the illusion that the only lobbyist groups active in the UK and/or making donations to major parties are all pro-Israel. 3) I've genuinely done a double take at a number of his posts to check they weren't written by Aber, who is our resident tin foil hat man on the PL board. Here's a gem in which he claims that the Chief Rabbi exerts control over the national broadcaster: "Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders) Why is the BBC keeping this secret? Might it be because their patrons include powerful Zionists like Netanyahu, Herzog, Mirvis & Blair." 4) Frequently refers to Israel as an apartheid terrorist state. This is regarded as one of the most extreme positions one can take on the matter. "all sporting ties to this apartheid terrorist state should be cut." 5) Seems fine with a disproportionately violent response to provocation, as long as it is done in the name of retaliation: "It's very clear who started the violence (the day before the game) and it's clear that locals retaliated. Retaliated being the operative word." If any of this came from a standard poster, I'd have no problem with it. I've spent over a year debating with the likes of Aber, Fosse, Archers and Pinkie on the PL board on the exact same subject matter. But I am not remotely comfortable with the fact that the person who posted this stuff is a moderator of the forum of which I am a member.
Much of what you quote above is not conspiracy theory, it is popular opinion, much based on fact: - There is a disproportionate (x-Party) financial influence being applied to UK politics parties by Israeli-sponsored orgs and individuals. - The % of funding from 'Jewish/Israeil' groups that are mentioned can differ. 30% of all MP's can include 50% of the Shadow Cabinet. More Tory MP's represents a much smaller % of the HoC since June. The data is published and if you disagree, then quote what you believe to be correct. - MP's of all Parties receive funding from numerous sources. Surely it is OK to highlight this when major international actions to stop the destruction of Gaza (and now Lebanon) are being twarted in the Region? - There are significant and influential people who have platforms and positions that most would determine to be inappropriate, particularly when they hold sway over media policies. The most senior executive in the BBC being a prominent member of the Jewish Chronicle, an organisation/ publication that has been totally discredited for it's pro-Netanyahu stance in recent months as an example. Nothing you quote above is particularly extreme. It is a range of opinions that while can certainly be challenged, do all have some basis in (reported) fact. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I know how they are formed. But I fail to see how one person's opinions should be stifled because they happen to be a Moderator - unless that person uses his position to silence other voices w/o reason. He hasn't. If you can 'debate' these issues on the main board with the individuals you mention, then I'm disappointed you have never previously, or seriously, engaged on this (or a range of other political issues) here before.
"Popular opinion, much based on fact". The world of lobbying and special interest donations is horrendously oblique and without question a threat to democracy. It is appalling in the States and is drifting that way rapidly in this country too. To pretend that Israel-aligned NGOs are the only groups exerting influence is a conspiracy theory. Good luck demonstrating how the data shows this support to be 'disproportionate'. MPs are legally required to declare all donations over £300 (although there is occasionally leeway up to circa £1400), a trifling sum of money that is hardly going to exert any influence whatsoever. But when presented as a statistic, it is easy and clumsy to shout "x % of the cabinet received funding from Israel!" In reality, the cabinet receives far more per head from Qatari interest groups and exponentially more from the mysterious 'Labour Together' group, which is a peculiar ensemble of law firms, energy firms and businesses. Six cabinet members have received less than £2000 each from Israel aligned groups. What they've received from so many other groups dwarfs this. But when packaged neatly as a headline shouting "Israel bought half the cabinet!", then yes it does sound much worse than it actually is in reality. "The most senior executive in the BBC being a prominent member of the Jewish Chronicle." Unless I've gone blank, I believe you are referring to the brouhaha involving Sir Robbie Gibb? He is not the most senior executive in the BBC. Perhaps you picked that up from a headline or tweet and didn't bother fact checking? He was part of a consortium that saved the Chronicle from liquidation during COVID and assumed the role of CEO there as he guided it back to health. At the BBC, he is one of five members of the Editorial Standards Committee. This committee has very limited executive power. It does not set the BBC's editorial standards in the first instance, but does work to ensure compliance with those standards. Gibb resigned from the Chronicle months ago. You probably didn't know that either. I note that you haven't addressed my other concerns, chief of which was him explicitly telling another poster that he condones unbridled physical violence, as long as it is in retaliation to a provocation. It seems to me that you both build vast castles based on cherry picking of half-truths and incomplete data. This is typical of conspiracy theorists. Similar to turning on a film that is "based on a true story". There is some semblance of 'fact' somewhere in there, if you dig deep enough.
In my responses to you, I have attempted to remain civil and unconfrontational, putting an alternative opinion admittedly, but one that is as equally researched and considered as anyone out of the immediate vicinity of Cabinet Government can possibly assess from the myriad of opposing sources available. Apologies for not using the 'A' most senior rather than 'the' - however, there are many moderate voices within the BBC who regard Gibb as a malign influence within that organisation and the financial backing for his takeover of the JC in 2020 remains unknown. I also did not say that he was still a Director, although his departure in late August only came while the publication had already become embroiled in accusations of political activism and editorial malfeasance (aka the Elon Perry scandal) on behalf of the Israeli State. Unfortunately, you continue to make personal slights however, so I think its time for me to disengage from this exchange.
Your responses are indeed always civil and measured. I acknowledge that I am comparatively more of a firebrand, which is precisely why I have never and will never put my name forward to be a moderator. I'd vastly prefer the freedom to act like a complete bellend every now and then, so steer well clear of that nice green label. I believe with that title comes a greater burden of duty, most important of all as I said initially is to use their position to bring discussions back to the moderate middle ground. To the contrary, much of what has been written by the moderator in question is in direct breach of the IHRA definition on anti-Semitism. Like it or not, the EU and the UK government have broadly adopted that working definition. I personally expect better from a forum moderator. The bit I've highlighted in bold is difficult to understand. This is your opinion of your own opinions. I have no idea what your sources are. You haven't backed up anything you've said with actual data or impartial evidence. You got Robbie Gibb's position very wrong. Even switching 'the' for 'a' is still a falsification of the truth, as he isn't an executive at all. With that said, it is difficult for a third party to read those opinions and treat them with the gravity you claim - second in accuracy and insight only to the top level of government itself. Have I misread that? I apologise for any personal slights. I feel bad for the fact that you are somewhat 'caught' in an issue that is really between me and another poster, but since I have put him on ignore it seems I have defaulted to having the conversation by proxy. Apologies for that. I too will leave it here. I've made every point I felt needed to be made very clearly. I'll now leave it to the judgement of our other Mods and fellow forum members. If they decide that the content and tone of the moderator in question is acceptable, I will disagree with but accept their decision. I have nothing against him personally and thoroughly enjoy his footballing insights and knowledge of Spurs through the ages. I don't think it is appropriate for him to continue as a moderator. If that is turned down, fair enough. I tried, I move on.
Re point 4 Sorry but what is extreme in believing Israel behaves like Apartheid S African did and should therefor be boycotted until they fully comply with international law. I personally find some of your views so pro Israel that you can't or won't accept they are responsible for atrocities. But to call you anti muslim, anti Palestinian or anti Arab would be way over the top. I ain't talking for Spurf but for myself. It is not extremist or anti semitic to boycott Israeli products or to believe that Israel should be excluded from sporting events. I am not anti semitic but I do oppose the actions of the Israeli state and to claim that this is an extreme position is both insulting and wrong
Respectfully, you don't know very much about my opinions on Israel, unless you've read the last 200 pages of debate on the main PL board's 'War what is it good for?' thread. I actually hold a number of views that might come as a surprise to you, but you haven't done me the courtesy of asking. I'd be happy to discuss the apartheid point, if you'd like to. We'd need to start with a jointly agreed definition of the term and then scrutinise Israel's behaviour through that term's lens. I'd also be happy to discuss the issues of boycotting and exclusion and they tend to be far easier. Let me know which, if any, you'd like to discuss and we'll go from there.
