If James/Paul was an oik, definitely.

Is this possibly the longest post we've seen from Ajw71 – and does it indicate a unique and independent mind or that of a troll who does'nt actually possess an idea of his own?

He doesn't usually make this much effort, unless crying like a baby that anyone suggesting he's a troll is unfair.

And BTW – what is it that he does or pretends to do? Has he ever answered that simple question?

I'll tell 'Minty' what I do when she lets me have evidence that George Osborne hates Jews.

Until then I'll just assume it is a nasty troll who likes to invent serious accusations about others.

Have I missed something? Or is that so far out of left field that its almost right field ?

Ah, so you [ido[/i remember and were just pretending that you didn't know.

That or you really are losing your memory, since it was a thread that had you frothing at the mouth in indignation.

Mind, I never said that "George Osborne hates Jews".

I said that the accusation had been made – not by me – that he changed his name as a teenager because he thought that Gideon 'sounded too Jewish for a future prime minister'. At the time you were pointed to [iPrivate Eye[/i, where this accusation was published.

And try as you might, that is not the same.



Must try harder.

Troll.



It's Ajw71. It's what constitutes 'debate' for him.

He gets very upset when anyone is nasty about his hero.

It makes one wonder if he has a poster of the Chancellor on his bedroom wall and, when mummy has tucked him up for the night, he gazes lovingly at it by the streetlight that filters through the gap in his curtains. Some people might use page 3, but not Ajw71. Although he probably keeps the poster of Eric Pickles locked up out of sight.

Gideon's parents must have been devastated to find that he had spurned their imaginative choice of christian name for their son in favour of "George", I mean they COULD have called him George themselves, would have taken very little imagination to come up with a name like George. but no, they gave their boy a moniker to carry through his life which carries the Hebrew meaning "Destroyer" or "Mighty Warrior" and named after a respected judge of Hebrew folklore.

All of those years of getting nanny to explain to the prep school tutors that it wasn't a silly name at all and could the other children stop teasing him or he'll get a complex, all those roastings by the fire at Eton with the big boys in the dorm who simply wanted to slap that lovely chubby face around for a while (we all know that feeling, don't pretend you haven't thought the same), he goes through all of that and for what, to change his name to George.

Sounds like a greengrocers name does George, or when linked to David is the sort of thing you'd see hanging up above a slightly camp male hairdressers, "Tresemme products only at David and George", bad choice of name Gideon, should have stuck to your parents choice, they know what they are doing and they've got your inheritance too...

No idea what you are talking about.



You said this:



Quite a vile individual aren't you?



See above for Mintball style quality 'debate'.



Sounds like you are describing you and your 'hero' Heinrich Marx.

You would like it in North Korea. They have big pictures of him everywhere. Maybe you should holiday there sometime?

Troll.

Probably because he wasn't able to get his message across when he had the chance I imagine.

When was he prime minister?

Heard of Thatcherism yes? There is no 'Bennism'

Here's a thing about elder "statesmen", those who have taken a well paid retirement from parliament - the ones who sat on the Labour side of successive parliaments right up until Blair & Co made their incursion are seen as old school left-wing socialists who are still proud of their heritage, they are valued for their living history opinions of how things may have been in a utopian world - the ones who sat on the Tory side of successive governments are seen today as moderates, men like Heseltine and Portillo just don't seem to be so reactionary these days because of course they aren't anymore, their mantra's of 20 years ago are mild by comparison.

This is how far all political party's have moved to the right, which is what makes the football supporter politics of blue and red flag bearers so laughable - there is so very little to choose between all of them today that they may as well redesign the Commons so that anyone can sit anywhere.

I've never got the whole thing about Osborne's first name. If you don't like your first given name then what is wrong with going by one of your middle names?
I have three given names and I'm not very keen on the second one, whats actually wrong with prefering to use one of the other ones? I'm from a working class family btw.

Oh Dear, oh Dear. Well and truly caught with your knickers down around your ankles Amanda!



Still, it is the weekend, so a quiet s will suffice. One does wonder though if you purchased them from Coddy. He was very big in Ladies Unmentionables at one time. Alllegedly.

Incorrect.

Let's look at what was said, since you appear to have as limited a mind as Ajw71, which I admit to finding slightly disappointing.





These comments do not contradict each other.

There are, that I can see, three possible explanations for saying that a name sounded 'too Jewish' to get one elected as PM – not one.

I'll list them for you.

1) He was anti-semitic himself.

2) He considered the British electorate at large to be anti-semitic.

3) He considered Conservative voters to be anti-semitic.

There may be more, but I can see those three. You and Ajw71 are welcome to show that in previous posts I meant any one, or a combination of any of them. Since you've quoted the relevant posts yourself, you won't even need to hunt far and wide.

And he was "an arrogant little teenage tosspot" because he was a teenager who had already decided that he wanted to be prime minister; in other words, to rule. But that's what a public school education gives you – that arrogant belief in your divine right to lord it over everyone else, even if your only work talent is for folding towels.

But my Dear, we were not discussing what the reasons could possibly be for changing his name. Although you appear to be more than happy to parade your own anti semetic leanings dressed up as "an explanation as to why a name may sound too Jewish"

I was simply highlighting your short term memory loss in your two posts, in which you claimed you were not responsible and pointed the finger at Private Eye....

And yet in an earlier post. " He changed it because he was an arrogant little teenage tosspot who had already decided he wanted to be PM, and because he thought it sounded a bit too Jewish to help him in that."

No mention in there I can see of Ian Hyslop, or Private Eye, so it is reasonable to assume, that as you posted this nonsense, this is what your views are.

You have been weighed Minty, and found wanting.

Even if we are to take uncorroborated hearsay evidence from a number of years ago as being fact. That is a huge 'if'. Osborne's 'words' clearly referred to the electorate and not himself.

As for calling a teenager arrogant because he may or may not have had ambitions of becoming prime minister one day. That is just bizarre and sad in equal measure. Is is wrong for children to have ambition nowadays? Linking it to his school is just mindless class war rubbish.

Totally agree - but when you can no longer argue against policies / facts, people need some way to attack that person. Politics of the gutter.

Been and looked in the mirror, have you?

You never bother with facts or evidence and simply persist in repeating drivel and accusing anyone who dares challenge your lack of intellectual rigour as 'lefties' etc.

Proof? What you want it to mean does not count as proof. And besides, if I had claimed that Osborne had changed his name because he was anti-Semitic, and done so in a context of criticising him, then that could be read to suggest that I did not approve of anti-semitism.

Trolling apparently damages the mental capacity for logic.



Yes. As reported in [iPrivate Eye[/i. I suggest you go and look at the entire previous conversation. It was mentioned there quite clearly. Iirc,I noted that Osborne ad not sued the publication in question.

And it's Hislop.

No, though I suppose if MP's sued everyone who said something mean about them, they'd be permanently in or around courthouses. Still, I always find that whether someone sues or not is a sound way of determining whether someone is or isn't guilty of something. I can't see how that theory can ever be proved fallible.

Yes, how dare he have these ridiculous delusions of grandeur, when asked what he wanted to be he should have said "I want to serve, I want to be at the beck and call of people "better" than me".

FFS,

I wasn't aware that being a teenage tosspot – or even a teenage bigot, were that the case – were criminal offences and thus things to be "guilty" of.

Possible use of cocaine, on the other hand ...

And then there's using taxpayers' money to pay for a paddock ... scroungers, eh?

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9729139/George-Osborne-bought-paddock-with-taxpayers-money.htmlOsborne flips mortgage etc.[/url

Some people will never learn. Ignorance really is bliss.

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036563/George-Osborne-took-cocaine-Former-prostitute-Natalie-Rowe-repeats-drug-allegation-TV-interview.htmlNo, you don't.[/url

And I said "possibly".

Would being overtly antisemitic not be a hate crime? Good job your new measure of justice would do away with, y'know, evidence! Jeffrey Archer sued some rag and won didn't he? How did that work out?

As I have explained, there are three possible reasons for his saying what Private Eye claimed he said (and which I have repeated here and previously). They are not all a sign of being anti-semitic.

Mind, assuming a teenager had said such a thing as has been reported, and that it was in a spirit of anti-semitism and not in any alternative manner, you're asking whether it would not be so "overtly antisemitic" as to "not be a hate crime"?

So PC, you're into the realms of Orwell.



In October 2002, Archer repaid the [iDaily Star[/i the £500,000 damages he had received in 1987, as well as legal costs and interest of £1.3 million, after being found guilty of perjury in the original trial and sentenced to four years in prison.

Had you forgotten that bit?

Yeah, like Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, a failed ideology, an error from history.