The NHS is taking action to tackle antisemitism after a government-ordered report found that Jewish patients and staff face “routine ostracism” in the service.
Anti-Jewish hatred in the NHS means some patients hide their identity and staff “suffer in silence”, a review by Lord Mann, the government’s adviser on antisemitism, has found.
What action is the NHS taking then? Hanging anyone wearing a keffiyeh to work? Inquiring minds want to know….
Ah
Perhaps I misconstrued the headline.
I was going to complain aboutbthe poor quality of anti-Semitism in the NHS.
Why don’t they just sack anyone found guilty of anti-semitism, overt or covert (such as the keffiyeh)?
They appear quite ready, willing and able to get rid of any white bloke found guilty of being racist, sexist or homophobic, or is this just another example of the two tier UK we don’t live in according to labour…….
And Lord John Mann – always been a truly decent Labour politician, demonstrating that they don’t all have to act like cunts.
So hard to sack public sector, even when the kill the folk who are supposed to be the customers (but really aren’t)….
I used to know the head of a department of a famous London hospital. She tried to sack a useless nurse who was regularly mistreating patients and was pissing off other staff with her attitude. After the employment tribunal “useless” was reinstated after it was decided to be an unfair dismissal after her brief just kept repeating one word for an hour; “racist”.
I foresee the word being used with the volume turned up to 11 over the rest of the year…
It would help if they stopped employing foreigners who hate Jews in the NHS. While there are plenty of UK native anti semites, the blue hair nose ring brigade tend not to like doing a proper days work and exist either on benefits, or in some charity sector non-job. Doing 12 hour shifts in the NHS is probably not going to be on their agenda, despite being vociferous supporters (and consumers) of ‘Our NHS’.
The Lord knows I am no fan of the Mohammedans (except the pretty, Westernised ones with nice legs and killer all-over tans), but for the life of me I cannot see what is the difference between opinions biased against Jews for being Jews and opinions biased against Mohammedans for being Mohammedans. Not, in principle, anyway*.
Why should we applaud anti-semitism struggle sessions but deprecate the same thing when we’re talking about ‘Islamophobia’ struggle sessions?
*I accept that a fear of Islam is far more based in reality than is a fear of Judaism, and is certainly not irrational. But that’s just a matter of terminology. ‘Islamophobia’ is a stupid word.
Because you can’t choose not to be a Jew, only not to follow Judaism. Islam is merely a religion. A choice.
This is not hard.
It’s harder than you suppose.
If you’ve ever been to Israel, you’ll see Jews from places like Ethiopia and Somalia. Black as you like. And you’ll see Jews from central Europe. White as you like. It’s the age-old question: is Judaism ethnic? And I reckon it’s not.
And Benjamin Disraeli agrees with me.
Anyway, enough of policing and coercing opinions, and that is what these struggle sessions are.
African Jews are still considered brethren. The Israelis airlifted them out of Ethiopia during one of its famines and also because they were under threat from Menghistu.
But Mohammedans are defined by their religion whereas Jews are defined by religion, or ethnicity, or both, according to which category best suits the interest of the person arguing.
Not sure what you mean, but antisemitism is a real thing, there’s people out there firebombing Jewish ambulances and stabbing Jews in Golders Green.
Jews, for the first time in history since Cromwell let them back into England, are no longer safe going about their normal lives in our country thanks to immigration. Quite an achievement of Diversity.
Islamophobia, otoh, is a nonsense term based, cynically, on the equally tendentious term “homophobia”. It’s just the cry of a crybully who thinks he’s superior to you because his holy book says so. There are no Muslim countries wracked with guilt over “Christianphobia”, or “Jewphobia”, they’d laugh at you for that. Muslims aren’t afraid to walk the streets of Britain. It’s strictly for gullible white people consumption, like telling the police the man you’ve just stabbed repeatedly was “racist”.
I have no irrational fear of Islam (=islamophobia), but I have a perfectly rational fear about being blown up on my way into town, or stabbed on a night out, or my young nieces being raped. I’ve no fear of Jews whatsoever.
I think you’ve said what I said, to some extent.
Anti-semitism is indeed a real thing, and it is far less grounded in reality than is anti-Muslim bias – in the sense that you’re far more likely to be murdered, maimed or raped by a Muslim.
What’s the basis for anti-Jew bias? You don’t like Mendelssohn’s music or Goldman Sachs’s business ethics? (I love M’s music; Goldman’s can die in a ditch).
Jews are no longer safe, agreed. But nor are the rest of us. And I have to say that I have known a disproportionate number of Jews who, suicidally, have done their utmost to bring on this disaster.
Would I prefer to live among Jews or Mohammedans?, it’s the former – every time. They are civilised people, which is more than be said for most of the Islamic world.
Would I prefer to live among neither? … eeew, possibly. It does get sticky. I have feet in all sorts of camps.
Is Islamophobia a nonsense term? Yes, as I said above.
Q: What am I getting at?
A: Granted that Islam is a real, present threat in terms of maiming, rape, murder, and Judaism is not (but I am looking at you, Lord Justice David Sodding Bean, and your Epping hotel verdict), I nevertheless deprecate ‘action being taken’ to police people’s views. It’s creepy and totalitarian.
I’d have preferred it had we not invited en masse into our country people whose very identity – ethnic or religious – means we have to pick a side. But if they’re here they ought to be on our side, as British people. And that ought to be the end of it.
Otoh, looking to the future, I see a powerful if not overwhelming argument for modern Test Acts, expressly targeted against Muslims. No halal. No holding of public office. No public prayers. And so on and so forth. I hate that we are in that position and until a few years ago you’d have had to torture me to get me to say such things.
However, still and all, can we please avoid official interventions which tell people what the correct opinions are? (I know, I know, difficult to square that with Test Acts. Fucking progressives. Always get everyone coming and going). If people don’t like Jews, they don’t like Jews. Likewise Mohammedans. What matters is not their opinions, it’s what they do with them.
“had we not invited en masse into our country people whose very identity – ethnic or religious – means we have to pick a side”.
At no point did we invite these cunts in, politicians did, and it is politicians we should blame, 100%.
I first got educated about islam in 1985 when I read Ayatollah Khomeini’s ‘Little Green Book’, and have bored people ever since by warning them just how dangerous islam and its’ followers are. Glad that now a few others have cottoned on.
Years ago I was told that what you must pray for in the NHS is that your surgeon walks in and says “Hello, I’m Hamish McShapiro.” I suppose “I’m Moses McGregor” would do pretty well too.
Just one proviso: for ages many supporters of the Israeli government have said that anyone who criticises any of its actions is thereby undeniably anti-semitic. In other words, they encouraged the identification of all Jews with Netanyahu supporters. It’s a bit of a bugger when Palestinian supporters take it literally, eh? I mean, why encourage twats to be even more twattish? I suppose I could say “Serves them right for their dishonesty” but they are not the Jews on whom the pain is being visited.
But the people threatening Jews, screaming horrible things about them at Palestine marches, firebombing their ambulances and stabbing random people in Golders Green weren’t radicalised by Ben Shapiro.
They don’t attack Jews because of Israel, they just hate Jews
“They don’t attack Jews because of Israel, they just hate Jews”.
Maybe that’s true of the brown jobs but what about their white collaborators? If they “just hate Jews” many of them must have been quiet about it for years.
Or maybe I simply haven’t mixed with white people who “just hate Jews” and therefore I’ve not been aware of their existence.
One of my grandfathers was anti-semitic but then he was a Roman Catholic Irishman. In all other respects, apparently, he was a most lovable character. Nowt so queer as folk.
“brown jobs” – my dad said that during his national service that was the RAF’s name for those in the army. My dad was army but posted to RAF, they said “Oh look, they’ve sent us a brown job”.
Probably a lot of the Muslims “just hate Jews”, but I don’t think that’s a sufficient explanation for the white middle-class uni-graduate keffiyeh-wearing Trots. There just hasn’t been enough anti-Jewish prejudice in England for that to suddenly appear.
I think they hate Jews because they hate Israel, and they hate Israel because it’s a successful country surrounded by shitholes, with no more (mostly less) natural resources than them.
And it’s hugely more successful than its neighbours. GDP per capita ~55k in Israel; that’s up there with Kuwait, a tiny petro-state. It’s 10x Iraq or Iran, and they’ve got oil. 15x Egypt, and they’re supposed to be a developed economy. It’s not even worth comparing to Lebanon or Yemen.
Whether Israel’s success, compared to its neighbours, is because it’s run by white people, or that it’s capitalist, or whatever, its success disproves the modern Left’s worldview, and so they can’t bear that it exists.
It’s the 21st century equivalent of their hatred of South Africa. Same colonial history as it’s neighbours, comparable natural resources, but it it was a white-run capitalist success surrounded by black-run socialist shitholes, so they had to destroy it to preserve their concept of the world. It’ll be the same with Argentina if Milei manages to hang on long enough to succeed.
The Left can’t cope with reality; their conception of the world is wrong, but they won’t accept that, so they demand that reality changes to match their conception of it.
This is an interesting read: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/15/racism-and-violence-were-embedded-in-anti-zionism/
Two doctors, Manoj Sen and Mohammed Asif Munaf, have recently been struck off the medical register and banned from practising medicine in the UK because of antisemitic behaviour.
Another doctor, Rahmeh Aladwan, is due to go on trial at Bristol crown court next year on charges of inviting support for Hamas – a proscribed organisation – stirring up racial hatred and using threatening and insulting words at a protest.
Invite Muslims, get Muslim antisemitism.
I’m astonished.
Not that a Mohammed Asif Muna has been engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour, but that he has been struck off for it.
Now you mention it Steve, do you know who invited them? It wasn’t me or anyone I know.
Now you mention it Steve, do you know who invited them?
I wrote a long comment about it some time ago but in brief:
Binging in cheap Labour from Pakistan in the ‘50s was the last throw of the dice to try to save the mills for the mill owners. It was single men and they were meant to be guest workers and go back.
Then there were calls for them to bring wives and those who object were shouted down as racists, then it was close family followed by brides family and each stage those who complained were shouted down as racist.
Similarly those who complained they weren’t integrating and learning English were racist, as were those who complained about the costs of translation services.
All that played out in the 60s and 70s by which time they were British and no turning back.
In the ’50s there was a labour shortage in that the level of unemployment was below what economic theorists thought was the minimum. Secondly the woollen mills were not on the edge of going bankrupt.
I didn’t live in Yorkshire, let alone the West Riding, so I do not personally know but I should not be at all surprised to learn that the nearly all the migrant workers planned to make some money in Bradford and then return to Baluchistan (or Sind or Punjab) as relatively wealthy.
In the ’50s there was a labour shortage
There was a cheap labour shortage, as there was after Brexit or so it was claimed.
As it happens my father had worked in the mills until he was old enough to join up and after he came back from the Far East he went back to them. He left because the pay and conditions were lousy.
Whether or not those workers would have gone back in mute because they were invited to stay.
“There was a cheap labour shortage” – yes, this exactly.
by which time they were British and no turning back.
That’s just another thread they’ve tried to convince the elephant is a rope.
Citizenship and residency can be cancelled, ask Shamima Begum.
We can just deport the Boriswave, you know.
Packet of lard speaks:
Uhh . . . suffer what?
Everybody who has to use the NHS suffers…….
Discrimination
How? They are hiding their identify.
Difficult to hide a beard or a skullcap
That wouldn’t be ‘hiding,’ now would it?
British government: publish a report that you are going to do something about a problem.
That is your something.
Nothing is going to change.
As happened when Labour MP Frank Field reported on welfare in 1995. It got the ‘beware of the leopard’ treatment.
In the ’50s there was a labour shortage
Which was the justification for the Windrush. In the immediate post war period there was a shortage of labour. Labour was needed for the expansion of public services. But also labour was needed to satisfy demand for consumer goods. So there were two ways of solving the problem. Increase productivity or import labour. Industry was reluctant to make the investment in mechanisation increasing productivity would require. And of course there would have been resistance from the unions who controlled & financed the Labour Party. So the latter was opted for.
Immigration from the sub-continent was just an extension of that. An unholy alliance of the Labour & Tory parties