What does this whole blog add up to?
I think that it tells us that there are people who think that they can combat antisemitism by using antisemitic tropes to attack a Jew, to use Nazi-like medical tropes, allusions to his forthcoming death, comments about his family home, repeated lies, implied threats of violence, pickets and heckles at children's events, lies about the making of 'We're Going on a Bear Hunt', repeated social media distortions, attempts to get that person sacked, cancelled, or reviled in his public appearances. On two occasions - once to me and once to someone else - it was thought by some of these people that it was OK to make defamatory, lying accusations of sexually inappropriate activity.
This is now a story with several phases.
It is not in chronological order because this blog began with me reposting a response to something that happened in July 2025. Then I track back to connect it with how different members of Labour Against Antisemitism have attacked me.
It then focusses on the legal case brought against me by Dr Peter Newbon.
I then add on some postscripts as false accusation have gone on being made.
The very last section includes my comments on the analogies that some people on social media are making with the Jason Arday affair.
Story starts here:
Labour Against Antisemitism director and friend attack me
[Original Facebook post began here from July 2025:]
I have told my MP that following a post on X by the celebrated journalist Nicole Lampert, complaining that someone had graffiti'd the road surface with a pro-Palestinian slogan, the great Zionist and director of Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS), Jonathan Glass, made a gag suggesting that I could have done it (fair enough) but then pointed out that the photo was of my road. Jonathan Glass's consultancy firm is described on his LinkedIn profile as 'Winners of the Best Executive Search Firm in the UK'.
The reason why I have notified my MP about this is because the great Zionist and winner of Best Executive Search Firm in the UK, Jonathan Glass and the celebrated journalist Nicole Lampert have previous on this. Nicole for example has drawn attention to the fact that I live near her (presumably this is of huge interest to Zionists. Is there a sub-text to do with the fact that neither of us live in Israel? Perhaps not. )And Nicole, I've been told, 'liked' a tweet which said (hysterically funny this one) that if I had been around in Amsterdam during the Second World War, I would have betrayed Anne Frank and her family. Nicole, as I say, is a celebrated journalist.
Jonathan deserves to be more famous than he is but maybe his day will come now that Netanyahu is taking over Gaza. (That was a big surprise, wasn't it?). Jonathan started noticing me some years ago (2018, would you believe?) and made it part of his job to repeatedly talk about or describe where I live (with my family), repeat his estimations of the purported value of our house, allege that our house was largely empty, that he could pop round with some chicken soup (not at all threatening), and that when he saw me in the street, he 'booed' (grrrrrr!!!) and that if his wife hadn't been with him, he didn't know what he would have done. Are there awards for Zionists who say this sort of thing about anti-Zionists? Let's hope so.
Jonathan received a 'cease and desist' letter from my lawyer, which he took as a bit of comedy and indicated that he wouldn't and couldn't hurt a fly. At the time, as my health had turned me into something less powerful than a fly, this wasn't very reassuring. Nevertheless, good Jonathan carried on, regularly talking about our house, and even suggested that when I was going to do a signing at the Muswell Hill Children's Bookshop ('children's', note) he could leaflet the signing. What with? Why? The good news from Israel, presumably?
So there are various ways of fighting for ones' beliefs. Good Jonathan has decided that one way is to keep up a stream of gags (?) about the house I and my family live in and how he could get to know me better, as it were.
Let's see what my MP makes of it.
UPDATE ON THIS: I'm most most grateful to my MP for helping me alert the police to Mr Glass's behaviour and, as far as I understand it, the great Mr Glass has enjoyed hosting a visit from a police officer who suggested that perhaps Mr Glass should not keep mentioning that he knew where I and my family live, or making any kind of threat towards me.
UPDATE 2 (June 15 2026):
On June 7 2026, Mr Glass tweeted a jolly little reply to film-maker Richard Sanders' tweet that had publicised the video that Sanders has made of Alexei Sayle, Miriam Margolyes and me talking together. Mr Glass's tweet reads: 'The good news is that these cunts will all soon be dead and there is no one with the same profile to take over as Jews for Antisemites'.
As someone pointed out to me: Jonathan has still 'got it'.
UPDATE 3 (June 19 2025)
Jonathan Glass has revealed on a blog called 'Roll on Friday' which seems to be a blog for people in the legal profession, that he has taken himself off X (formerly Twitter) and regrets calling people 'cunts' (which seems to have happened every day for years).
Here's the link:
Now you may well ask, why didn't Jonathan stop his abusive and harassing behaviour back in 2021 when he got a 'cease and desist' letter from my solicitor? Or, why didn't he stop when a copper came round and felt his collar? What was it that got him to stop? A moment of self-awareness, perhaps? 'Maybe', he said to himself, 'I shouldn't really be tweeting in public that I am looking forward to the death of Miriam Margolyes.'
Or was it that someone in the legal world (which Jonathan inhabits) tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'Hey buddy, you're going to lose work if you go on like this'?
Or was it that fellow directors in the LAAS, said to him, 'Hey Jonathan, it's been really funny you calling hundreds of people "cunts", threatening and harassing Michael Rosen, but c'mon, talking of Rosen, Sayle and Margolyes's imminent deaths, is not very tasty.'
After all, amongst the Labour Against Antisemitism directors is seer, sage, all-round wise-guy and journalist Alex Hearn. Maybe Hearn wondered if it's his good name that Jonathan was endangering. Mind you, it hasn't publicly bothered the good Hearn at any point in the past that Glass, had for example, said that when he saw me in the street, if his wife hadn't been with him, he didn't know what he would have done.
So, the good folks of LAAS, who between them (says AI) sent 15,000 screen shots of allegedly antisemitic tweets to the EHRC, to aid the EHRC in their investigation of the Labour Party, seemed up until now, OK with Jonathan being his lively self on social media. (Not that the EHRC took much notice of the 15,000 screen shots as they only 'noticed' two people's alleged antisemitism, as such, Ken Livingstone and a Pam Bromley. (Not a great hit rate, then, for LAAS.)) Even so, LAAS did their bit, didn't they, to create the 'news cloud' that the Labour Party was riven through with antisemitism? Job done.
What follows is an account of how other directors of this honourable organisation have behaved towards a Jew (me) whose politics they don't like, not that this could in any way be described as antisemitic. Of course not. Apparently.
[In this next section, I track back over the past few years]
LAAS directors and friends had tried some tactics against me before - eg as you'll see with 'The Bear Hunt tweet' of using a photoshop of the 'Bear Hunt' book, so that it looked as if it was 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' (see below).]
Tweeter talking about our family home and my appearance
In tune with Jonathan Glass's tweets, one tweeter similarly focussed on our family home. The political point he insisted he was making is that leftwing people like me don't suffer (he says) when the Tories are in power. To prove this, he told his readers what he alleged we paid for our house and the value that he alleged it was worth at the time of his tweet.
To add weight to this highly astute political observation, he had further political comments to make about what he alleged was my appearance 'dresses like a tramp' and that when he saw me, I was 'pulling a tatty shopping trolley'.
He made clear that he worked very near to where we live, so it did occur to me that this series of tweets was at the very least discomfiting. My wife, our children and I had a sense that we were being spied on in an antagonistic way, and that in order to find out what we had allegedly paid for the house, some kind of research had taken place, possibly at the Land Registry. Then again, the state of my shopping trolley is hardly the stuff of political debate, is it? So we sent him a 'cease and desist' letter.
Later, he made several comments about the alleged high cost of the solicitor I had hired in order to ask him to cease and desist from making comments which I felt were harassing.
You'll notice that the theme of my alleged wealth crops up again and again when people made the attacks you can read in this blog. Any suggestion that this obsession with my alleged wealth is an antisemitic trope must be rejected immediately. Of course.
We'll take leave of this tweeter while he congratulates himself fairly regularly on the fact that his lawyer replied to my lawyer and that this, he alleges, has shut me and/or my lawyer up. What he doesn't seem to understand is that there is no need for any kind of reply to his reply. The only request in a 'cease and desist' letter is to ask someone to...er...cease and desist. That's to say, stop doing what you were doing, which in this case, was him making comments about our family home and making hostile comments, linked with that, about the state of my trolley or allegedly looked like.
I am extremely grateful to this tweeter that no matter how often he congratulates himself on his brilliant reply and his alleged success in shutting me up, he has not repeated the kinds of comments that we cited in our 'cease and desist' letter. As far as I know, that is the purpose of a 'cease and desist' letter.
LAAS
In my posts (above) , I outlined the behaviour of the wise and talented Jonathan Glass with a cameo appearance from the celebrated journalist Nicole Lampert. What I failed to do was provide some context and history. Can I refer you to Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS)?
Though I have never been in the Labour Party, my support for Jeremy Corbyn was good enough for LAAS to identify me as a danger to Jews. Several directors of LAAS got to work.
One director (who is not Jewish) was appalled that I was on Radio 4 and urged the BBC to no platform the 'antisemitism-denier' and 'racist', Michael Rosen. That tweet seemed to me (my honest opinion) to be approved of by Mr Myerson KC (then QC) in his tweet-reply saying that he thought I 'should be placed outside these conversations' [on the radio] on account of my political views (which he got slightly wrong.)
Then up popped the great Jonathan Glass, also an LAAS director with the activity I’ve outlined in the previous paragraphs above.
The Bear Hunt tweet
Then this was followed up with a third LAAS director, Pete Newbon, posting a photoshopped pic of Corbyn reading ‘We’re Going on a Bear Hunt’ to some children, with the book changed to show it as if Corbyn was reading ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’ - a document that was legendarily horrific in my home when I was growing up, for being at the heart and origins of Nazism, so much so that Hitler mentions it in 'Mein Kampf'. (My parents lost relatives in Poland and France during the Holocaust.) I was disgusted and horrified to see it on the book that Helen Oxenbury and I created with Walker Books.
Accompanying this image was a version of some of the words from the book.
I have discovered through Subject Access Request (a bit like FOI) and in the legal Claim made against me by Pete Newbon, that the new words in the 'Bear Hunt tweet' were what Newbon himself described as a ‘parody’ a ‘pastiche’ a ‘corruption’ of my words but, more importantly, that he said he had ‘echoed’ my words on account of the use I had once made by writing a parody of the Bear Hunt - for ‘political purposes’. In other words: Pete Newbon noted that I had once made a parody of my own words in order to support Corbyn. Newbon objected politically to this. So his words in the Bear Hunt tweet were meant by him to be a parody of my parody!
To be clear, it's not me saying this. This is what Pete Newbon says in his own documents (again: 'parody', 'pastiche', 'corruption' and 'echoed' my 'use') In other words, I was part of the target of the 'Bear Hunt tweet' as I call it.
Why am I saying this?
Because 100s of people have claimed that I was not targeted in the Bear Hunt tweet. Repeat: Mr Newbon makes clear in these documents that I was a target.
My response to the Bear Hunt Tweet
I responded by tweeting 'This is a loathsome and antisemitic thing to do' and directed a tweet at Mr Newbon's university asking them if he was employed by them. The address on Pete Newbon's profile was his university. At the time, there was no other way of getting in touch with him. In so doing, I hoped that this would bring matters to a head and that the university (or mine, or both) would convene some kind of conversation or mediation to deal with the fact that someone who was in the broadest sense a colleague (a university teacher of literature) had posted something which was in my opinion, gross and offensive.
Independently and prior to me, many people had already been in touch with Mr Newbon's university to complain about the Bear Hunt tweet and this went on for something like 24 hours before I got to see the Bear Hunt tweet and made my comment. Some people have claimed that I 'instigated' the response to Pete Newbon's tweet. No, the first round of responses came before I responded and it's impossible to disentangle those who responded to my tweet from those responding to tweets about this matter before I got involved.
In the meantime, Pete Newbon had taken himself off Twitter (now X), so by the time I got round to trying to find him, I couldn't approach him directly through Twitter anyway.
Did I have the right to respond in the way that I did?
By the way, some people have questioned my right to have made the comment that I did ('loathsome and antisemitic thing to do') or that, of course, I was wrong to have that view. I'll say here that I absolutely did have that right. It was an opinion. And in that I have the backing of the so-called Macpherson Principle which says that at the very least, when someone from a marginalised group voices an example of discrimination or racism, they should be taken seriously.
Strangely, some people who loudly voice that 'Macpherson' view, when they perceive that Jews are not listened to, have denied me my right to have had that view when I looked at the Bear Hunt tweet - and that was before I became aware that the caption was directed at me as well as directed at Corbyn - (as with 'parody', 'pastiche', 'corruption' and 'echoed').
In the end, whether the Bear Hunt tweet was or was not 'an antisemitic thing to do' is no longer material.
The key point is that I should have been free to have made that comment. Even so, I still do think publishing that image - which to me is akin to publishing a daubing of a swastika on one of my books - is an antisemitic thing to do. The authorship of the original photoshopping is not significant here. It's the fact that one person published it with the caption added.
Note, I didn't say that the tweet was the act of an antisemite. Simply and only and exactly what I said it was: 'an antisemitic act'. After all, Dr Newbon (and his co-directors of LAAS) knew very well that I'm Jewish and that their critque of me is precisely that I'm the wrong kind of Jew. So photoshopping one of my books with one of the most notorious antisemitic documents of all time, seems pretty much like making an antisemitic comment about a Jew (me).
The university gets involved
The effect of my notifying the university was indeed what I intended - that is that they convened mediation and informed me that Mr Newbon was writing an apology. But, then a day or so later, the university revealed that Mr Newbon had withdrawn that apology. I replied by saying that as far as I was concerned then, the matter was over. Please remember this! The whole matter could have ended there.
A few weeks later, I received notification from Mr Newbon and his solicitor that 'litigation' against me had begun on the grounds that I had libelled Mr Newbon.
The motive, the university and Professor David Hirsh, and the hearings against Dr Newbon
Let me turn now to Dr Newbon's disciplinary hearings at the university, in particular the one that addressed the fact that Dr Newbon had tweeted the Bear Hunt tweet.
Mr Newbon presented a document for the hearing that he faced. In this document, there are screeds of stuff explaining what is wrong with me and my politics. In other words, Mr Newbon's motive for doing the 'Bear Hunt tweet is explained, and described over and over again.
Rather absurdly, Mr Newbon thought that he could explain to a university hearing that he hadn't attacked Rosen (and was only attacking Corbyn) but to do so, he needed to...er...attack Rosen - and attack Rosen at great length with what seems to have been a many-clause tirade, aided by Professor David Hirsh. They both seemed to have missed the point that the hearing was over a breach in the university's social media policy and yet they thought that the best way to defend against that accusation was to repeat and enlarge an attack on me - which was what had got Mr Newbon in trouble with his university in the first place.
Surprise: it failed. It failed because Mr Newbon was indeed in breach of the university's social media policy - for the third time, actually.
The university had tried, very nicely, several times before, to tell Mr Newbon to stop tweeting stuff that was in ...er... breach of the social media policy. Of course, all he needed to have done was take the university's name off his profile, and then he wouldn't have been in breach. The huge punishment (irony alert) he got from the university for this third breach on their social media policy, (that Prof Hirsh has complained about in his articles), was that Mr Newbon should just stop being in...er...breach of the university's social media policy for one year. (Obvs equivalent to a lifetime in the Scrubs, I'd say.)
So, to sum this up: Prof Hirsh tried to help someone 'prove' that he wasn't attacking me, by helping to produce (so he says) ...er...many paragraphs that were...er...attacking me. In fact, this actually and surprisingly proved to be...er.... ineffectual.
Note: some people have claimed that the university dismissed my claim that the Bear Hunt tweet was antisemitic. Actually, it's more nuanced than that. What the university actually did was lay to one side the question of whether the Bear Hunt tweet was or was not antisemitic.
Their sole concern was their social media policy which turns on their reputation as described on social media, along with the extra use of their time in having to deal with the tweet.
Professor David Hirsh
Professor David Hirsh and I are colleagues at Goldsmiths University of London and Professor Hirsh is the CEO of the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (LCSCA). Goldsmiths provided Professor Hirsh with just over £9000.00 towards the cost of holding a LCSCA conference. He has written two articles in honour of Mr Newbon in which several paragraphs in both describe what is wrong with my politics and how, he says, for example, I 'mobilise my Jewishness' for what he thinks are wrong or even antisemitic reasons.
If you look at the documents, you might wonder why there are several paragraphs about me, allegations about me, and the alleged consequences of my actions, in these articles (1900 words in the more public one). Why am I in them? One of these is an academic tribute-obituary to Pete Newbon and the other is the document that accompanies the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism's Pete Newbon Award for the greatest contribution to the public understanding of antisemitism. It has been awarded every year since 2023.
At least one of these articles contains the disclaimer that the article does not seek to find 'cause' for Pete Newbon's death. This means that any linkage or connection that anyone might make between a hostile account of me and Pete Newbon's death cannot possibly be taken to be a cause. If you were in any way of a sceptical frame of mind, you might ask yourself, 'Then why would a tribute to one person, contain 1900 words of attack about someone else?' 'Might this tribute be attributing a cause even as it denies that it is attributing a cause?' Only Professor Hirsh would know the answer to that question.
In my view, the views that Professor Hirsh expresses are just a recycled version of the 'wrong kind of Jew' thesis, or the 'good Jew-bad Jew' thesis in which Professor Hirsh, Mr Newbon, LAAS are the good Jews and Rosen and some others (who are generally dismissed as 'cranks' or 'AsAJews' ) are the bad Jews.
More seriously and problematically, Prof Hirsh has also platformed a Rabbi on YouTube who, my lawyer tells me, implies in her lovely talk that I'm in part responsible for ('contributed to..') the death of Mr Newbon. I thought Rabbis didn't write that sort of thing and that they thought carefully about what the Samaritans say about such matters. I have written to the good Rabbi. She disagrees with me. I have put a comment under the video, but comments are disabled.
Again though, you might ask, (as I do!) why is Professor Hirsh doing this? Why, if he does not seek to find 'cause' for someone's death, does he platform someone on YouTube, who does indeed detail what she imagines are the factors that 'contributed to' someone's death?
In an ideal world, Professor Hirsh and I could benefit from the fact that we work at the same educational institution, Goldsmiths University of London. That's to say, we could use the facilities that the university has offered to go to mediation. The university suggested this. I was in favour of this. However, I received a note from Goldsmiths that Professor Hirsh did not want to participate in mediation with me over these issues.
Mr Simon Myerson KC has also written that my use of a children's book 'led to' 'tragedy'. Not 'caused', note, 'led to'. Well, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 'led to' me getting Covid (joke). Everything is linked to everything else. The good Mr Myerson was of course not making any kind of allegation in that tweet and I admire him hugely.
Jewish? Not Jewish enough?
It may interest people who are not Jewish that for hundreds of years some Jews have been fond of accusing other Jews of not being Jewish enough or for being 'wrong' Jews. An outsider looking in on this would find that even as one Jewish person accuses another of not being Jewish enough, the accusers themselves often get accused of the same thing! One example: someone who has already been mentioned on this blog is fond of identifying people as not being Jewish enough, but then on one occasion someone accused him of not being Jewish enough because he had married a non-Jewish woman who then converted!
My view of all this is that accusing people of not being Jewish enough is nearly always a way of trying to delegitimise what someone thinks, says or believes, but is doing so on phony ethno-religious grounds. This matter has become relevant for the reasons I describe in the next paragraph.
Big irony in the 'who's a Jew?' matter: Newbon or Rosen?
One of the biggest ironies in the middle of this series of events was me finding out that people antagonistic to me, claim that I wasn't 'really' Jewish while Mr Newbon, whose claims to be Jewish rested entirely on the fact that he had just one Jewish grandparent (his paternal grandmother ie his father's mother), was and is always described as Jewish. To get a persective on this, think of eg Bob Geldof and Helen Hunt (US actor) have the same lineage as Pete Newbon, I understand, and perhaps (I don't know) David Beckham has more claim to be Jewish according to orthodox Jewish law, on account of his Jewishness coming through his maternal grandfather's line! Or the same?!
Pete Newbon's lack of religious belief, his lack of observance, his lack of a Jewish marriage and his lack of participation in Jewish events (other than attacking people for their alleged antisemitism), were all put to one side by those claiming he's Jewish. It seems that in some circles, you can become Jewish if you have one Jewish paternal grandparent and you produce a lot of hostile tweets about antisemitism on social media. x
To be clear, I am utterly agnostic about this matter. If people want to self-identify as Jewish, it's fine by me. It's never me who acts as a gatekeeper on this matter, policing other people's Jewishness or lack of it. It's not me that uses lineage as a weapon and/or to use to delegitimise what people say. It's not me that calls other Jews, a 'kapo' (a WW2 Jewish concentration camp guard) or an 'AsAJew' (mocking description of some Jews) etc.
Here's an illustration of how on social media, Pete Newbon is described as unequivocally Jewish and I am not. This is Grok (X's information AI) describing the situation:
To clarify: Pete Newbon, a Jewish academic, shared a satirical edit of an image showing Jeremy Corbyn reading Michael Rosen's "We're Going on a Bear Hunt," altered to critique Corbyn's handling of antisemitism by swapping the book for "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and adding mocking text. Rosen condemned it as antisemitic. Newbon tragically died by suicide in 2022 amid backlash. It was an image alteration, not defacement of Rosen's book. Facts matter over labels.
(This is all for context and as you'll see there, one person is described as a 'Jewish academic' and another (me) is not.
For information, my qualifications and position at a university were identical if not 'higher' up the academic ladder than Pete Newbon's, with me having an MA, a Ph.D. and being a prof and all that. And on 'background' grounds, I am more Jewish - all my forebears are Jews! In short, I am a 'Jewish academic' but not in the eyes of Grok.
I really don't like messing in this kind of territory but if others (and AI!) want to go there, then I'm OK with slugging it out there. )
Pete Newbon expressed his Jewishness (or lack of it) here:
https://www.thejc.com/family-and-education/lets-be-fair-to-fathers-gz0mpqct
Political not personal
This brings us to the heart of the matter: this jolly, laughter-full stuff is political, channelled through the personal via all the channels I've mentioned above: ie to do with
a) me being on the radio talking about language,
b) living in a house (how dare I ?!) ,
c) doing children’s book signings and events - one of LAAS’s former consultants (who had already been convicted of being 'threatening') turned up to two of these Jewish children's events and heckled me, picketed me, and had to be escorted from the premises (with a police number attached to the event), while children cried.
He also picketed that second event, and while I was doing a reading (also for children), he waited outside. As I was still recovering from Covid and intensive care, I was not in a state to be able to defend myself.
Luckily, I was escorted off the premises through another entrance. As of June 15 2026, this former LAAS consultant is on Facebook complaining that I hired an 'expensive' lawyer to try to get him to cease and desist from harassing me. (Why would my finances be of interest to him, you might ask? Would that be some kind of sub-conscious connection to the fact that I'm Jewish? Of course not. Let's cast that thought from our minds.)
- And, as some have tried:
d) even accusing me of lying about how the book ‘We're Going on a Bear Hunt’ came about. (This is one of the most absurd bits of the story! See link at bottom of this page to an earlier blog I did on the charade that has gone on about people accusing me of not being honest in how 'We're Going on a Bear Hunt' came to be written! I am adding to this blog all the time, eg adding tweets and accusations from people tweeting as eg 'Gurujuish', 'Nine Lives of Summer' or even Simon Myerson KC. It's now even got to a point of people claiming to know how Helen and I split the Royalties that we earn from the book. They don't and are wrong about it. )
Pete Newbon decides to sue me while being sued himself
So what happened following Pete Newbon and his lawyer issuing me with a letter telling me that they were beginning legal proceedings against me?
This is a long 7-month story involving me being sued, even as the person (Pete Newbon) suing me was being sued himself - a fact that no one mentioned at the time and has hardly been mentioned in this context since! Please note the time period: 7 months.
Pete Newbon was being sued for having libelled and endangered someone on account of Pete Newbon's foul accusation that this person was a 'freak who takes photos of kids'. (Also part of the serious political activity of a director of LAAS, it would seem!)
Apparently it was OK to suggest in a tweet, (for political reasons!) that someone was a 'freak' and - further in the libellous tweet - that this 'freak' was inappropriately interested in children! (Is this really what an outfit called Labour Against Antisemitism regard as 'work'? Is this how directors of LAAS thought they were combatting antisemitism? )
Important note, this case was won by the person described as a 'freak'. In the case, the judge made this comment:
Interestingly, though the 'freak' case received a lot of publicity in the lead-up, when it was over, no press covered it. It's almost as if those on the LAAS side of things got good publicity when they were accusing but when they lost this one, no one was interested.
Why? I don't know. Meanwhile, the person who won that case, writes regular articles on substack about that case, and none of them are 'noticed' by those who write about the events I'm describing here. Why not? I don't know.
The person doing the suing and being sued (Dr Pete Newbon) took his own life. This was and still is a tragedy for all concerned. I have read the many articles written by Pete Newbon's widow and these are, as you might expect, deeply affecting. I very much regret that anyone takes their own life, and in this series of events, I very much regret that this was someone who for a short while, in mediation, engaged with me in an open and honest way. What happened after that reasonable engagement was highly antagonistic and destructive towards me. I regret that too.
Following Dr Newbon's tragic death
Directly following Pete Newbon's death, many folks who support LAAS leapt into action. They ignored Samaritans' guidelines on such matters (as did the good Rabbi platformed by Professor Hirsh, as related above) , and said (or implied strongly) that the death was ‘caused’ by me or by the person who was libelled and endangered with the 'freak' accusation, and/or that we had 'contributed to' this tragedy.
It is extraordinary and distasteful how people with no knowledge of trauma feel so free to jump onto social media and talk so ignorantly about 'causes'. To be fair to Professor Hirsh, he described the causes of suicide as 'multiple, complex and unknowable'. If only everyone followed that thought!
The Inquest and the Inquest ignored
Please note: the inquest into Pete Newbon's death made no linkages, no connections, said no such thing by way of suggesting that either I or the person accused of being a 'freak' was a cause, So every comment that claims that the person accused of being a 'freak' or me was a 'cause' or implies we are a 'cause' or even partly a cause, is telling a lie and it's defamatory, so my lawyer tells me. That's why people who say this kind of stuff on social media now, nearly always do it anonymously or from a foreign country! Neat. Safe.
(Brief legal note: Coroners and Inquests theoretically do not state causes for suicide but in actual fact often provide circumstantial narratives - often very lengthy ones - that do in fact make strong suggestions of a cause. You may remember, for example, the sad story of the headteacher who took her own life after an Ofsted Report, or the school student who received many hostile texts on her phone. )
Once again, the personal was used to further the political.
People who claim to have high motives and high ideals seem to have no qualms about claiming that they know the nature of people’s personal lives (in this case, Mr Newbon's personal life) to such a detailed extent that they can say that x caused y. But of course they don’t know that, which is precisely why the Samaritans ask people to not make such statements. And their story (or narrative) has been fatally undermined by facts that I won’t go into just now because…they are personal (not mine, I hasten to add!), though they have been posted on social media and are in the public domain. And, of course, that’s not why antagonistic people are doing it!
The purpose of pointing the finger of blame at me and the other person being libelled in the 'freak' case, is political and that purpose was at one stage to do anything to kick away the pillars of support for Corbyn, and right now to defend Israel’s genocide (or, if you prefer, 'mass killing'), and land grab. It goes on and on and on.
PS. I'll leave you to imagine how much it cost me to defend an 'action' (being sued) over a 7 month period of many, many pointless letters from the suers, which avoided the crucial matter that the person suing me had
a) written an apology for having made the 'Bear Hunt tweet' and secondly
b) had aborted mediation!
The letter of apology that sits in the archive of the university
I'll also leave you to speculate what a court would likely make of someone suing another person over a document (tweet) that they had already apologised for! The letter of apology would have come to the court for all to see. Also indeed, that the suer (Pete Newbon) had aborted mediation. For reference, courts don't like it if someone sues, having walked away from mediation. (As I've said, I had accepted that Mr Newbon had walked away from mediation, and I was content to drop the matter, but Mr Newbon chose to sue instead.)
If it had gone to trial, previous activity would have come to light
It was also likely that in court, some previous activity of the person doing the suing, would have come to light. That's what happens in defamation trials. That's how defendants defend - in this case, me. So, for example, as Professor David Hirsh and others point out, Pete Newbon (the claimant) was an active tweeter and I have personal testimony from two academics who had been targeted by Mr Newbon.
In one of these, the academic's colleges (ie his employers) were approached by Mr Newbon, with the result that that academic was faced with an inquiry and his job was on the line - long before the Bear Hunt tweet and my approach to Mr Newbon's university. In the other case, also before the Bear Hunt tweet, Mr Newbon threatened legal action against an academic in the midst of a private email correspondence - legal action which could have endangered that academic's job too.
The University Antisemitism Map
There is also the matter of the so-called 'University Antisemitism Map'. This is an anonymous website which lists academics, their exact places of work (with maps) and makes anonymous accusations that these academics are antisemites. A little research shows that Pete Newbon was, at the very least, engaging with this site, a site which - in my personal opinion - could have enabled harassment and vigilantism.
Who advised Pete Newbon? And why?
I also wonder about who advised Mr Newbon to withdraw his apology (which would have ended the whole matter, as I made clear in mediation), and who followed that up with the highly risky idea of suing me?
Why would someone advise those things?
What was the purpose of them?
I'm going to suggest that the reason was political - that is, the priority at the time for LAAS directors was
a) to harass (as with Jonathan Glass),
b) to cancel (as with the tweet trying to get me taken off the BBC)
and
c) to defeat and bankrupt people (as with suing me) who supported Corbyn.
But perhaps the intention never was for the case to come to court?
Perhaps the intention was for me to give in and pay out?
And it was only when (following the issuing of the Particulars of Claim) we asked for 'evidence' for some of the claims made in the legal claim that it became clear that:
a) we were prepared to go to trial and
b) that key documents would reveal
i) the apology,
ii) the aborted mediation,
iii) the political intention and motive for the Bear Hunt Tweet,
iv) the previous history of disciplinary action (twice before, and nothing to do with me) taken by the university,
v) the clashes with other academics endangering their jobs,
vi) the contact made with academics' universities (as employers of alleged antisemites),
vii) the engagement with the harassing 'University Antisemitism Map',
viii) the pattern of harassment from other directors of LAAS (who were mentioned in the Particulars of Claim, so this could have been brought to court) AND
ix) of course the 'freak' case (with the accusation of inappropriate behaviour towards images of children) which at that time was secret and was not a good case if what you have to go to court for is to defend your reputation! It was a disgusting thing to have accused someone of. Not good for your reputation with it coming up in a trial that you said that someone had an inappropriate interest in children and that this was a lie.
x) the fact that Pete Newbon had indeed targeted me with the tweet on account of him saying that it was a 'parody', a 'pastiche' and a 'corruption' of my work and that it 'echoed' my parody for political purposes.
These would all have come to light in a trial.
I only mention all this because both the great Jonathan Glass and the expert on antisemitism Professor David Hirsh have both claimed that it's likely that Mr Newbon would have won the case against me.
If we want to talk legal stuff, I'm happy to do it. After all, the legal was, it seems, being used for the political, was it not? Is it OK to use the legal system for political reasons? I dunno. But it looks at least a bit as if it's OK. Apparently.
What about the cost for Pete Newbon?
And I haven't even begun to talk about the potential cost it would have been like for Mr Newbon to go to court twice, or lose twice or to imagine you might lose twice.
Did he realise what this cost would be?
Had he been told by his legal team?
Had he shared with anyone the fact that he was involved not just in one case but in two cases, other than his legal team?
If not, why would he be keeping it secret?
What damage did he think might occur if people other than his legal team would know about these two cases?
When my case first hit the press, there was no mention of the two cases running at the same time.
Why not?
UPDATE: These are rhetorical questions for which there are now answers online in the public domain. In short, Pete Newbon was keeping both my case - and the 'freak' case - secret from his family. At one point, he even assured his family that he had dropped the case against Rosen even as he was ratcheting it up to the serious level of issuing the Particulars of Claim against me.
Why is issuing a Particulars of Claim a serious matter?
I can't emphasise enough what a serious thing it is to issue a Particulars of Claim against someone. It invites the defendant (me in this example) to say back to the issuer of the Claim, 'Bring it on. I'll defend and go to trial.' - at enormous financial and emotional risk to the claimant (Pete Newbon in this example) and their family. And, for reasons I know not, Pete Newbon was keeping this huge risk secret from his family. I think we can guess that if he was keeping it secret, he would also have dreaded it coming to light - as it was certainly going to be.
Please note, none of the people who have commented on this case in the mass media or in social media posts attacking me, have ever pointed out this last fact.
Why not?
I don't know.
Money
Just to cut this bit short: to take part in cases that you lose, costs 100s of thousands of pounds, even if your solicitor is acting on a 'no win no fee' basis or something similar. Hundreds of thousands of pounds!
Even if you win, you can still come out of a case seriously out of pocket. Remember, one of those cases was going to be a loser for Mr Newbon - the one about someone being a 'freak'. I think I've given enough facts here to show that my case would have been a loser for him too.
And, what's more, our side (my solicitor and me) might have 'cross-claimed'.
Namely, that I was defamed in the first place.
Or we might have defended on the basis of what's called 'reply to attack' and/or that my comments were 'honest opinion' and/or that they were in the 'public interest'... but hey, all this legal stuff directed at me was in a good cause, apparently. The LAAS cause. It was, as I very boringly keep saying, political not personal.
Side-story of 'Bear Hunt' (which - unbelievably - is brought up over and over again by people attacking me over this matter!)
[Here's the link to the side-story of how people have tried to 'reveal the truth' (lols) about the 'true' origins of 'We're Going on a Bear Hunt' - also in the service of this great cause....(er...what cause?). In short, it's an ignorant and silly smear.
Just paste this link into your browser.
https://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-true-story-of-making-of-book-of.html
[sorry I can't figure out how to make the link 'live']
Reaction to these posts above.
There's been some reaction to my blog about the three directors of Labour Against Antisemitism. I respond below!
Very nearly everyone has been helpful and supportive. One comment caught my eye. Essentially, it casts doubt on my main argument, which was that the attacks on me are political.
So, in case I haven't proved the point, I'll tell this bit of the story.
'Corbyn supporter', 'Corbynista'
When I received my first 'letter before action' in the libel case brought by one of the directors of Labour Against Antisemitism (Pete Newbon), it identified me as a Corbyn supporter. This was in the letter.
This is at best a bit bizarre. It immediately signalled the political motive for suing me. Put it this way, a Claimant's best tack in their first 'letter before action' is to be surgical about what they think that the person who they're suing (the 'Defendant') has done that is libellous and damaging. Ideally, a Claimant doesn't usually want to give away anything that might reveal any motive for suing other than there is a factual libel and 'serious harm' done as a result of that libel - something along the lines of: 'You said x, it was not true, my client has suffered loss of reputation as a result. And here's the evidence for why we think this.'
Taking a sideswipe at what they might think of the person they're suing, is probably not a great move as it might alert a judge to a dubious motive. Of interest to me though here is that there is an allusion to me being a supporter of Corbyn. It shouts out, 'We're doing this for political reasons, it's your politics that we dislike.'
OK, that's the 'letter before action'. Now for the Particulars of Claim. This is the document a Claimant sends that details exactly what they're suing you for. It also signals that they're serious about taking this whole thing to court. It arrived some 7 months or so after that first 'letter before action'.
(Note: when people leap to blaming me for what tragically happened in this case (in other words, claiming that I am a cause or the cause of Dr Newbon's death, they always leave out this time lapse. A lot of things can happen - and most certainly did - in 7 months - most obviously the case Pete Newbon was keeping secret from his family and the press was ratcheting up in seriousness. Why do they leave this time gap out of their comments? Because they want to suggest that there were hundreds of antagonistic comments on Twitter and Dr Newbon took his life immediately after. Clearly, they think that if they mention the 7 month gap, it's harder to make it look as if the antagonistic comments 'caused' someone to take their own life. I believe this way of commenting to be dishonest and malicious. )
Back with the Particulars of Claim: you might think that after 7 months or so of what I'll call pointless correspondence between Pete Newbon and me, the people assembling this claim would have weeded out this giveaway of their motive for suing - that is their dislike of my politics.
Digression
[Please also note that it wasn't me prolonging what I'll call the 'Bear Hunt Tweet Affair'. If, as some have suggested, that the flak from Mr Newbon's Bear Hunt Tweet was difficult for him, then you might ask, 'Why prolong the difficulty? Why introduce the stress, time and expense of litigation (legal correspondence) when the whole thing had been on the verge of being solved with mediation? And why keep the whole thing secret from the person or people who would be directly affected by the loss of a huge sum of money? Why lie that you had dropped the case? And what kind of stress might it be that having lied about all this, you realised that the case was going to trial, also that this would entail huge expense and yet more: having to confess that you hadn't dropped the case?']
To return to the matter of the politics of these legal documents ('Corbyn supporter', 'Corbynista'):
You might think that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) would be the surgical, analytical document that would deliver the telling blow. Anything to do with me being a supporter of Corbyn would surely have been junked? Not so. Right up at the top of the PoC was a comment about me being an 'active supporter of Jeremy Corbyn'.
Once again, the Claimant's team (Pete Newbon and his solicitor) are flagging up here the Claimant's political motive! It certainly didn't help or progress the Claim. I'll say it again: the crucial thing to show in a Claim is that the person you're suing (the Defendant) has made a statement of fact that is untrue and that it has harmed the Claimant (ie the person suing).
Later in this Particulars of Claim, there is a possible explanation as to why the Claim included that comment ('active supporter of Jeremy Corbyn'). This is how: the Claim goes in for a curious bit of mind-reading in which it claims that the reason why I had really objected to the 'Bear Hunt tweet' was because of what I thought of Corbyn. Here's what it says:
'The Defendant [me] was angry that a book that he [me] had authored formed part of a cartoon that ridiculed Jeremy Corbyn.'
Again, it really isn't necessary for a Claimant to go in for mind-reading and indeed, by doing it here, they revealed their motive for suing the Defendant (me).
Apart from anything else, this bit of mind-reading is way off the mark. As I explained above, what I was 'angry' about (and always said in public that I was angry about) was that sitting on the open pages of a book that I had co-created, were the words 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'. I was angry AND disgusted! I'm not even sure it's the business of the Claimant to waste time and space discussing my motive for being 'angry', but if the Claimant does it, it's a good idea to
a) get it right, and
b) not reveal your real motive for bringing the Claim in the first place!
My view of Corbyn in relation to this case of the Bear Hunt tweet
By the way, and for the record, my view of Corbyn at that particular moment was that if he thought he was unfairly attacked in the Bear Hunt tweet, he could look after himself. My concern - call it egotistical, if you like - was to look after me! So, to repeat: this comment about my motive got me completely wrong and in so doing, said more about the Claimant and his lawyer than it did about me, namely that they were extremely interested in Corbyn and Corbyn's supporters. So much so, they damaged their own case. It gave away a motive that was nothing to do with the precise legal matter in hand: defamation and loss of reputation.
So there we are:
we have me as the Corbyn supporter in the letter before claim;
we have this stuff about me being an 'active supporter of Jeremy Corbyn';
and, thirdly, a false and political comment about what had made me 'angry'.
(Incidentally, in an earlier libel case brought against me, in which the client was represented by the same solicitor, I was identified as a 'Corbynista'.) It all reveals a pattern, doesn't it?
I don't think it's terribly controversial (or is it?) for me to have the view that this episode might be an example of the law being used for political purposes.
And tragically, this whole matter (and its overlap with the disastrous 'freak' case) was secret and stressful for Mr Newbon.
I might also suggest that the politics (and/or his political friends, representatives and advisers) assisted him into making decisions that led him into self-inflicted difficulty. That's my honest opinion, not a statement of fact. Perhaps as you read this, you thought it's no such thing? If so, I'd be interested to know how you came to that different opinion.
[Here's the link again to the side-story of how people have tried to 'reveal the truth' (lols) about the 'true' origins of 'We're Going on a Bear Hunt' - also in the service of this great cause....(er...what cause?). In short, it's an ignorant and silly smear. Just paste this link into your browser.
https://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-true-story-of-making-of-book-of.html ]
Added final thought
When I look at this whole story and I think across what are two serious legal cases - mine and the 'freak' case - I see some people using the law to pursue political ends. I see some people urging others on to do this. I see some people seriously damaged by the process. I see some people pointing the finger at me and the person accused of being a 'freak' as being the cause of the damage.
But again, when I look at this whole story, I ask myself, why did people try to use the law, why did people advise Pete Newbon to sue me, why did people advise Pete Newbon and the other two defendants in the 'freak' case to go on and on defending what was an impossible case?
The point is, neither of these courses of action were necessary or sensible. Both the claimant in the 'freak' case and I were more than willing to settle these matters through mediation or reasonable correspondence between solicitors.
Perhaps one day, it will be become known exactly who advised what to whom, when and why.
Before then, my view is simple: in both cases, the claim against me and the defence in the 'freak' case were disastrous courses of action. I think I've provided enough evidence above to be able to claim that central to these matters in my case was that I was deemed to be a 'Corbynista' (their words not mine) and so pursuing legal action against me (or pursuing a disastrous defence) was a means to an end (with the ends justifying the means) for a bigger, political matter.
I believe that when people do that sort of thing, the personal lives of individuals start to matter less than the 'project' and so people get damaged under the wheels of the ongoing juggernaut (or if you prefer, 'thrown under the bus')
Postscript 1 (July 13 2026)
[I suspect there'll be more}
Someone by the handle of 'TJAllon1' and 'Tim' has taken up the mantle and written tweets like these (July 13 2026)
1 A creature who campaigned to get a Jewish man (who subsequently killed himself) fired for antisemitism, for using a photoshopped image of Corbyn reading "Bear Hunt", adapted to "Jew Hunt". Rosen is a malevolently, viciously bad-faith actor, esp. wrt antisemitism.
2 Rosen copied in Pete Newbon's employer, which subsequently received thousands of complaints. Corbyn himself got involved. Rosen later claimed not to know Pete was Jewish despite it being evident from his Twitter profile.
3 His allegation that an accusation of antisemitism against Corbyn was an antisemitic attack on himself was an absurd and bad-faith inversion and as untrue as his denial that he intended the disciplinary process he initiated.
That is what happened, and Rosen knows it.
I'll deal with some of these tweets.
'creature' is me, apparently, and is of course just dehumanising abuse.
Notice that Pete Newbon is described as 'Jewish' but I am not (see above for that pattern being repeated.)
'subsequently killed himself' - using the word 'subsequently' is the disengenuous way of saying that something I did was a cause but doesn't actually say so.
'claimed not to know Pete was Jewish' - indeed, I had no idea, that Pete was (or claimed to be/self-identified as) Jewish. (I repeat from above: his lineage was one Jewish paternal grandmother and no observance, no participation in Jewish activities apart from being active in campaigns against antisemitism. I repeat from above, I don't make a fuss about these things, but people who accuse leftist Jews of not being Jewish enough, often do.)
'claimed not to know Pete was Jewish despite it being evident from his Twitter profile'
On Pete Newbon's profile at the moment (June 16 2026) there's a Star of David. I believe that when the Bear Hunt tweet was published on Twitter on May 19 2021, there was no Star of David on Pete Newbon's profile. I have no recollection of seeing it there. No one that I know of mentioned it at the time and that includes Pete Newbon's legal team. I claimed at the time that I didn't know that Pete Newbon was Jewish. I still claim that. And as far as defining Jewish is concerned, I would express it as saying that he self-identified as Jewish. In lineage terms, he was as Jewish as the American actor Helen Hunt or Bob Geldof
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Hunt).
Pete Newbon expressed his Jewishness (or lack of it) here:
https://www.thejc.com/family-and-education/lets-be-fair-to-fathers-gz0mpqct
'copied in Pete Newbon's employer' - yes, I did. His employer (ie his university) was on his profile. I've explained above, that I approached the university in order to precipitate action for eg mediation. I explained several times at the time that I didn't ever seek to have Pete Newbon sacked. This was acknowledged in the 'Jewish Chronicle' at the time. As for mediation, that is exactly what happened. I don't believe that this would have happened, had I approached the university privately. I am acutely aware right now (on account of issues with my own university) how universities can sideline and delay dealing with awkward stuff.
As part of this very welcome mediation process, Pete Newbon wrote an apology, but then withdrew it, and then sued me, a process taking some 7 months. The word 'subsequently' leaves out this sequence of actions and that's why it is both disingenuous and false.
'His allegation that an accusation of antisemitism against Corbyn was an attack against himself...'
I've shown above that Pete Newbon made clear in his hearings with Northumbria University and in the Particulars of Claim issued against me that the Bear Hunt tweet was an attack on me (as well as on Corbyn). This is because Pete Newbon used the words 'parody', 'pastiche' and 'corruption' in regards of the words from 'Bear Hunt' and then, more significantly, that he, in his own words, 'echoed' the use that I had made of the words from 'Bear Hunt' for 'political purposes'. In other words, Pete Newbon thought he was writing a parody of my parody and therefore the Bear Hunt tweet was, in part, directed at me.
As to whether it was 'antisemitic' of him to have done so, that's a matter of opinion. Pete Newbon knew I was Jewish, regarded me as the wrong kind of Jew - and explained at great length in his university hearing why and how I was the wrong kind of Jew. Therefore appending 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' to a book I co-created in a tweet, in part, directed at me, does indeed still strike me as being 'an antisemitic thing to do', bearing in mind that 'The Protocols' was one of the most antisemitic documents ever produced.
'disciplinary process he [me] initiated' - this is untrue. Pete Newbon had already been brought before the university's disciplinary processes at least twice before. It's possible that one of these was on account of tweeting at someone that he was a 'freak who takes photos of kids'. (This resulted in Pete Newbon being sued, along with two others. The person doing the suing (the 'Claimant') won. Pete Newbon died before that case was resolved but the issue remained the same in court, ie the tweet was defamatory and the Claimant won damages and costs. )
Again, when TJAllon used the word 'subsequently', they've overlooked this serious sequence of events too.
Pete Newbon's Bear Hunt tweet attracted a lot of attention before it was brought to my notice. A lot of people wrote to the university before I knew about it. Given that the university had objected to Pete Newbon's social media activity twice before (at the level of 'hearings'), then this amount of push-back and publicity would have been quite enough for this to have caused the university to 'initiate' a process ie before I got involved myself. It is untrue to say that I 'initiated' the 'disciplinary process' - not that I would have had the power to do so, if I had wanted to. That was the choice that the university made, especially given that they had called Pete Newbon to hearings twice before anyway. In other words, unbeknownst to me, they were monitoring his social media output.
Postscript 2 (July 26/27 2026)
Someone by the handle 'Steve Nage' ( a pseudonym according to their profile) claimed that I'm 'always trying to start a pile-on, with tragic outcome in one famous case.'
(July 26 or 27 2026 on X)
I've long known that one method of doing social media battle is to say of oneself that all one is trying to do is get a message across (eg through having more than a 100k followers, or through reposting tweets, or through posting the same message on multiple platforms etc), while some other person (in this case 'Steve Nage' is referring to me) is 'trying to start a pile-on'.
[The matter at hand was that someone with 141k followers, who 'Steve Nage' was replying to, had alleged that 80 MPs and peers, including the Kindertransport survivor Lord Alf Dubs were 'antisemites'. I was contesting that description of Alf Dubs.]
But then 'Steve Nage' goes on to make a half-concealed allegation that there was a 'tragic outcome in one famous case'.
I'll simply note that of course 'Steve Nage' is anonymous. I ask the question, would 'Steve Nage' make such an allegation, in writing and signed with a traceable name?
If the allegation is referring to what was indeed the tragic end of Pete Newbon's life, then I can also say that there is no evidence from the Inquest that implicates or refers to me. I would suggest therefore, that legally speaking, what 'Steve Nage' is saying is probably/possibly defamatory.
I would refer 'Steve Nage' to Professor David Hirsh's measured and thoughtful comment that the causes of suicide are 'multiple, complex and unknowable'. Alternatively, there is advice on the Samaritans' website concerning media approaches to such events.
Again, as I've said above: very few of us are experts in trauma and making anonymous allegations about supposed, simple cause and effect relations ('A caused B') in such complex matters is ill-advised.
What of Labour Against Antisemitism now (August 2026)?
At Company House, LAAS is listed as having four directors, Emma Feltham, Jonathan Simon Glass, Alexander Hearn, Denny Anthony Taylor.
If you've read everything that comes before, you'll be familiar with Jonathan Glass. On July 31, 2026, an anonymous X account under the name of 'nadsat11' reported Jonathan Glass as posting a message on Facebook as follows: 'We need to go on the attack. And I really mean on the attack. Physically. Disruptively. Do to them what they've done to us. Make them feel fear. '
According to 'nadsat11', this was a Facebook post in reponse to some Hackney councillors' stated intention to de-twin Hackney from Haifa, Israel, so I'm not clear what Mr Glass meant by 'what they've done to us.'
That comment by Mr Glass seems to me to be not entirely peaceful in intent. It seems to me to be suggesting to another, that it's time to get violent and hurt people. I may be wrong and maybe it's another of Mr Glass's jolly jokes. If it is meant seriously, then surely some of Mr Glass's co-directors would want to detach themselves from these comments? Surely they wouldn't want their entirely respectable organisation tainted with such comments? Director Alexander Hearn (usually called Alex) presents himself on radio and TV as an entirely respectable and reasonable person. Quite right. So surely, he, for one, would want to say in public, something along the lines of 'I want to disassociate myself from my co-director's comments here'...or some such? No?
But there's more. 'nadsat11' reported a further conversation (apparently on Facebook, but perhaps somewhere else). Someone called Katie Rose wrote 'Jews are, on the whole, too middle class, too afraid, too invested in the status quo to actually fight.'
Mr Glass replied: '[...]But it only needs 20-30 people. There are many fit and healthy and strong Jews of all generations.'
This seems to me to be a very 'helpful' comment from Mr Glass. He comes over as willing to help with Katie Rose's suggestion that Jews need 'to actually fight'. However, it is possible that those officers who keep the peace (known as 'police') might wonder if Mr Glass is doing the right thing here, especially as one such officer has already called round to see Mr Glass to ask him to refrain from talking about where I live and/or write threatening tweets about me.
Again, Mr Alex Hearn seems to have chosen to be silent in public about Mr Glass's comments cited here. Why?
Alex Hearn
Not that Mr Hearn is usually reticent about speaking out. For some news outlets he's quite the go-to guy to come on air and explain things to do with antisemitism. In fact, Mr Hearn seems to be the main spokesperson for LAAS now.
Not to say that it's a one-man-band but it doesn't seem to be quite the same multi-pronged group that it was in the days that three different LAAS directors came gunning for me in three separate tweets as described above (one tweeting in an effort to get me taken off air of the BBC; another talking about my family home, and how when he saw me in the street, he didn't know what he would have done, if his wife hadn't been with him; and third, posting the Bear Hunt tweet, which as I've established above was partly directed at me.)
I must declare an interest here...
I must declare an interest here. Mr Hearn has at times felt it necessary to explain to his readers why I am an objectionable person. On July 27 2022 he wrote in the Jewish Chronicle,
'For the celebration of the 75th anniversary of Anne Frank’s memoirs, the Anne Frank Trust saw fit to commission Michael Rosen, a long-term friend and staunch defender of Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party into institutional antisemitism. Mr Rosen downplayed the issue.'
One or two points need explaining here: Mr Hearn seems to have implied that I was not a fit person to have been 'commissioned' by the Anne Frank Trust. This overlooks the fact that I had already worked with the Anne Frank Trust several times before, speaking on a panel with Anne Frank's cousin 'Buddy' Elias and making a 30 minute BBC Radio 4 programme about Anne Frank and the memorial trees the Trust sponsored.
He describes me as a 'long-term friend' of Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy and I have known each other for 40 or 50 years. Almost the only way we have met is on the occasions we've shared a political platform. We've never socialised, and I've never been a member of the Labour Party. Of course, Mr Hearn wasn't really intending to celebrate a long-standing friendship by saying this. I would suggest that his comments were in order to convey something more sinister and conspiratorial. No such relationship exists.
Now for the fib: it comes in this phrase '...who led the party into institutional antisemitism'. Put it this way, if the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party had found that the Labour Party was institutionally antisemitic, it would have said so. It didn't.
So what the good Mr Hearn has done here is pull me and my allegedly longterm friendship and staunch support for Corbyn into being part of the Labour Party's institutional antisemitism (which it wasn't found guilty of in the first place).
'Downplaying antisemitism'?
Then to top it, Mr Hearn explains to his readers that I 'downplayed' the alleged institutional antisemitism. Well, one reason I may have said that the Labour Party was not guilty of institutional antisemitism is because the EHRC didn't find it to be guilty of it. So on that count, it wasn't me downplaying it. If it was anyone at the time, then by Hearn's judgement, it would have been the EHRC.
What I did say in that period was that there was no evidence that the Labour Party was more antisemitic than the rest of society. I said that the word 'antisemitic' was being used to describe people's antagonistic attitudes to Israel.
I also said repeatedly that if people campaigning against antisemitism were only or primarily campaigning aganst antisemitism in the Labour Party and nowhere else, then they weren't really campaigning against antisemitism. They were campaigning against the Labour Party.
In fact, one or two influential people in what looked like an anti-Corbyn movement (on the grounds of alleged antisemitism) had declared more than a decade earlier in the 'Maida Vale Manifesto that: 'The mainstream Left has demonstrated clearly which side of the battle to preserve Western civilisation and freedom it is on. The Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy.'
(Stephen Pollard (former editor of the Jewish Chronicle), Maida Vale Manifesto, 2006)
This tells us indeed that some people in the anti-Corbyn anti-antisemitism movement were also motivated by a desire to bring down the Labour Party long before Corbyn anyway!
It would seem (according to Mr Hearn) that these kinds of comments are 'downplaying' antisemitism. No, I think they are comments which suggest that the accusation of antisemitism was being used as a means to damage or bring down the Labour Party, a project started at least as early as the Maida Vale Manifesto of April 2006. Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in September 2015.
In fact, to support my thesis here, there's a video of one present director of LAAS and one former director, chatting on a panel about actual or possible legal action they are, or could be taking against the Labour Party with a possible outcome that the Labour Party would be bankrupted. To which they all laughed.
So please forgive me if I take LAAS's press releases and LAAS's directors' comments on social media with a pinch of salt - though with Mr Glass's comments about making people feel fear, I ought, perhaps, to be learning a martial arts self-defence.
I have another reason to be sceptical about Mr Hearn. Here's a tweet about me:
To be clear the 'him' is me. The word 'nebbishy' is a way of turning a Yiddish word into an English word and it means pathetic, simpering, weak, useless. It's full of connotations in the context of how a small minority of pro-Israeli people regard some pre-Second-World War Jews. There was a theory that circulated around the terrorist end of Zionism (the Irgun and Stern gangs who blew up the British in British Mandate Palestine), that Jews had to stop being 'nebbishy' and become 'shtarkers' - tough guys. By using the word 'nebbishy', it's my guess that Hearn either deliberately or unconsciously puts me in that tradition. Anyway, that's his opinion, and what I've just said about it, is my opinion of his opinion.
Now to 'questionable uncle'. What's going on here? Who or what is a 'questionable uncle'? As far as I would guess, it's the image of the 'uncle' (or real uncle) who comes into a family setting and says or does sexually inappropriate things. He's a stereotype who often appears in comedy - I've seen Peter Kay do a gag about it.
But is Hearn in comedy? I don't think so. It's a straight down the line insult but the kind of insult that needs evidence. It's not usually possible to go about saying that person 'X' is someone who says or does sexually inappropriate things without some hint or proof. In fact, saying such things is itself inappropriate and - I would guess - defamatory. But hey, Alex Hearn is someone who presents himself as a respectable voice in the public sphere. He is quoted in national newspapers and the Jewish community press making sober and thoughtful comments about Jewish matters. But now you know he is also someone who suggests that a writer for children, a writer who meets children in signing queues, schools and theatres, at least once a week (and has been doing so since 1974) is a 'questionable uncle' type person.
August 15th in the wake of the Jason Arday affair and death.
As I write this, I have just come back from being in rural Canada and have missed some of the waves of sentiment, attack, mockery, figurative 'post-mortems' and analogies that people have made between events surrounding the deaths of Jason Arday and Pete Newbon.
Firstly, I notice that some people on all sides (mistakenly, I believe) suddenly become overnight experts on suicide. Into this mix of psychologising and pretend knowledge about 'cause and effect', some of the people who claimed to know why Dr Newbon took his life, are using Jason Arday's death as a reason to claim once again that they know why Dr Newbon took his life. Where did all these people get their degrees in psychology and trauma? Where are their papers?
I quote once again, what Professor David Hirsh wrote in his articles on eg 'Why we honour Pete Newbon': 'The causes of suicide are multiple, complex and unknowable.'
(I'll ignore the fact that following these wise words, Professor Hirsh wrote several hundred words about me, which seem to me are at the very least flavoured with the direct opposite: namely that the causes of suicide are simple and knowable! Indeed, Professor Hirsh then platformed a Rabbi who said in her video what 'contributed' to Dr Newbon's death. So - very simple and very knowable. Apparently.)
On the other hand, a view of suicide that has emerged over the last few days is what I might call the harsh existential approach, namely that no one is responsible for a person's suicide other than the person who takes their own life. The problem with that view is that it's a model of humanity that we are discreet agents bobbing about in society, unaffected by our environments, circumstances, events and how we, as individuals in groups, interact with these. We just 'act' as our own 'agents'. I don't think that works as a model for human behaviour...
That's enough cod sociology/philosophy from me, other than that several people who 'knew' what the causes of Dr Newbon's death were, have now flipped and taken up what I'm calling the 'harsh existential approach'. In other words, a few months ago, they knew who was to 'blame' for Dr Newbon's death and now, miraculously, the same people are claiming that no one other than Jason Arday is responsible for Jason Arday's death.
My next observation is that several people are diving in, digging up some of the old claims about me, that I have tried to answer in this blog (above). Perhaps they haven't read the blog, perhaps they've read it and disbelieve it etc, but merely resurfacing the claims isn't an answer.
Here's one example: they've repeated the claim that the 'Bear Hunt tweet' was solely about Jeremy Corbyn and his alleged antisemitism. I believe that I've shown above that Pete Newbon himself made clear how the Bear Hunt tweet was indeed also (note 'also') about me, through the words he used in this 'Particulars of Claim' against me, and in the words he used about the tweet and about me in his hearing at the university. I retrieved these through 'Subject Access Request' (a bit like FOI).
Again, for reference, this is that Dr Newbon used the words 'parody', 'pastiche', 'corruption' of my words (to describe his words in the Bear Hunt tweet), and that he 'echoed' my 'use' of some words from 'We're Going on a Bear Hunt' for 'political purposes'. To my mind, these words describe an intention ie to direct the words of the tweet and the tweet as a whole at me as well as at Corbyn. We would have argued this in court.
As part of his defence at his hearing, Dr Newbon presented many clauses in which he described what was wrong with my politics and my Jewishness. These clauses add 'beef' to why the Bear Hunt tweet was partly about me too. We would have argued this in court.
Talking of 'the hearing', I notice that some people refer to this hearing as if it was the sole hearing that Dr Newbon faced. Not so. He faced two hearings before the Bear Hunt hearing. Some people who tweet on social media know what these other two hearings were about but they don't reveal what they were about. I don't know what they were about! I've guessed that one of them was in relation to the case in which Dr Newbon accused someone of being a 'freak who takes photos of kids' (yuk). I might guess that the other one was about Dr Newbon's wranglings with two other academics. Dr Newbon threatened one of these academics with legal proceedings. The other was accused by Dr Newbon of antisemitism, and as a result this academic faced two disciplinary hearings at the two colleges who employed him. (Any shock-horror that this might have led to him being sacked? Apparently not.) Or perhaps it was none of these. I honestly don't know. All I know is that the online chat does its best to ignore and overlook these earlier hearings, neither of which had anything to do with me. I didn't even know that they had happened, until much later.
Please note that the issue of the third hearing where the 'Final Warning' was issued was nothing to do with antisemitism. The university laid that matter to one side. They didn't ever adjudicate on that matter. They chose not to adjudicate. Press accusations that they were dealing with antisemitism, or that they did deal with it, are untrue. The university were solely concerned with the 'reputation' of the university, and whether staff had taken time out to deal with the matter. This arose because Dr Newbon chose to include his university's address on his profile.
In relation to me, I believe that, as two other directors of Labour Against Antisemitism had already had a go at me - (well several threatening and harassing go's actually, as outlined above) - then the Bear Hunt tweet was a consistent part of LAAS having a go at me. Three LAAS hit jobs on me, with trimmings. That's why the police got involved.
The next issue being ignored yet again in this latest round of tweets and messages is the 'freak' case (that spoke of an inappropriate interest in children (yuk!)). Again, as a reminder, Dr Newbon was not just involved in one legal case (ie suing me for libel) but that he himself (along with two other people) was being sued. The two cases were running at the same time.
I notice that on social media people on all sides talk in ways that are quite jolly and carefree when they talk about suing people (or being sued), as if it's some kind of playground face-off. In fact, it's a fucking nightmare (excuse language). To be involved in two cases at the same time, seems to me to be worse than drowning in shit. And that doesn't convey the threat that you'll lose your home at the same time. I cannot comprehend how Dr Newbon found himself in a position in which he was conducting two major legal cases at the same time. Where were the people saying, 'Don't do it!'. Or were people - at no risk to themselves - saying 'Go on, do it, you'll beat that bloke who is daring to sue you for your jolly joke about 'freak who takes photos of kids' (yuk!)! And of course you'll beat that Rosen bloke because it's such a clear winner of a case...'? (see above for why it was not a clear winner!)
We now know that Dr Newbon would have lost the 'freak' case because his two co-defendants lost. Several important issues and principles have been raised by that case which cast a light on the libellous methods being used to combat the alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party at that time. The fact that the defence went down in flames has been totally ignored in the mass media. This disappearing job is being repeated and prolonged in the latest round of blame in relation to Dr Newbon's death. It's not 'Don't mention the war' (Faulty Towers). It's 'Don't mention the "freak case", we bloody lost it."
This is all part of the trick that portrays events which took place seven months apart as following each other in rapid sequence. People have become expert in writing in one sentence that 'x' happened and 'then' 'y' happened - the 'x' being what I tweeted and the 'y' being Dr Newbon's death. Again, this can be a way of alleging a 'cause' without actually saying it. Needless to say, most people doing this (while using words like 'vile' and 'disgusting') are anonymous/pseudonymous. Funny that.
Another word being used in the Jason Arday affair and in this one is 'hounded'. Over the last 7 or 8 years, I've noticed that many people believe there is good 'hounding' and bad 'hounding - but they don't call them that. Good hounding is what good hounders believe is honest criticism. Bad hounding is what 'you' do when 'you' object.
In my situation, I've been on the receiving end of loads of 'good' hounding: (see Jonathan Glass's good hounding of me above) and also the many people who've said or implied that I killed Dr Newbon. That's good hounding. Apparently. Bad hounding was the fact that I objected to a) the disgusting 'Protocols' being photoshopped onto a book I co-created, and b) was tweeted along with a parody of the words from that book. Bad hounding (apparently) was what people said about the Bear Hunt tweet before I saw it (note, 'before' I saw it) and then again after I saw it and commented on it. And the fact that I commented on it is called 'instigating'.
Pile-ons.
Social media is jam-packed with people (me included) commenting, trying to influence, trying to win arguments, trying to attract support for viewpoints. Quite often these involve attacks on others. Sometimes these are ignored. Sometimes they attract 'likes', favourable comments, retweets/reposts. People of every belief and viewpoint that we can think of are doing this. Social media is full of people attacking people, hoping that their attack will attract support. When it does attract support, some people call it a 'pile-on'. When it doesn't attract support, people don't call it a 'pile-on'. So what's happened is that alleging that a person caused a pile-on has become a way of trying to cause a pile-on!
However, when an 'I' does this, it's 'legitimate'. When a 'you' does it, it's 'instigating' and leads to 'hounding'. And bad hounding 'causes' suicide. Except when it doesn't. So we're back with the Hirsh formula, aren't we? The causes are multiple, complex and unknowable.
I'm in the weird situation of having been on the receiving end of many lies, false claims, claims full of such huge omissions they are in fact false claims, people calling for others to join in the attack on 'vile'/'disgusting' Rosen, whilst at that very moment complaining that it was me doing the 'hounding'. I could put forward an argument that there's a group of people who are hounding me about hounding! Or they're starting a pile-on by complaining I caused a pile-on. Lols.
('So , Mr Rosen, why don't you sue?'
'Because, as I said before, suing people or being sued is a fucking nightmare. Anyone who does it is either very rich or very foolhardy - unless you can sue or defend yourself 'in person'. And, by the way, the fact that someone doesn't sue, is not evidence that they wouldn't win. It's most likely to be evidence that they don't want to lose money (which you can do even if you win.')
To conclude on the 'hounding' point: there is even a set of social media posts mocking Corbyn over his comment about Jason Arday, claiming that he - Corbyn - was part of the 'hounding' of Dr Newbon. Some of these are the very same people who are doing the mocking are people who have 'hounded' Corbyn ever since he became leader of the Labour Party. Good hounding. Obvs.
Coroners and Inquests
Finally on coroners and inquests. I'm by no means an expert on these. But then neither are most people who write about them on social media. Or the opposite: neither are they experts, those who pretend that an inquest hasn't taken place! As I've said above. Coroners usually avoid attributing a 'cause' to someone's suicide. They may or may not provide a 'circumstantial narrative'.
In some cases that hit the headlines, the circumstantial narrative' is so detailed and condemnatory, in effect, it becomes a cause or causatory. Think of the headteacher, who it was claimed in the press, took her life 'following' an adverse Ofsted inspection. Many people dived in and said that the inspection 'caused' the woman's suicide. One or two people took up the Professor Hirsh position and said the causes of suicide are complex, multiple and unknowable. Quite obviously, some people get terrible Ofsted inspections and don't commit suicide. It is precisely for this reason that the Samaritans urge people to say little or nothing about 'causes'. But lots of people know better than the Samaritans. Apparently.
I'm not going to repeat what the Coroner said in the case of Dr Newbon. You can find reports of it online. Rest assured, if the Coroner had mentioned me, or any alleged consequence of what I said or did, you can be sure that there would have been headlines in the papers and social media would have been full of it ever since.
But he didn't.
This puts the claimers and blamers in a tricky position. That's why they do their claiming and blaming mostly anonymously. What a Coroner says or doesn't say is legally admissible. In other words, if you say that something was said or done which 'caused' a death to happen and the Coroner in question didn't mention that alleged 'cause', then that has risks for you.
But you can sleep tight in your bed, if your bit of good hounding doesn't get you many likes. That's because it may not 'damage the person's reputation'. This phrase is crucial for someone wanting to win a libel case. To win a libel case, you usually have to prove that your reputation was damaged. What this means is that you can shout accusations in the safety of just a few likes knowing that it didn't harm someone's reputation. And if the person's reputation wasn't harmed, you're in the clear. And that's what anon tweeters are doing right now, as I write this in August 2026.
Talking of people's reputation being harmed, this is how the case concerning Pete Newbon's 'freak who takes photos of kids' was viewed by the judge. It's interesting that this particular bit of 'hounding' is not being mentioned. Please note that this twitter attack took place some 18 months before the Bear Hunt tweet. Why is this part of the story being ignored even as people try to make analogies between alleged kinds of social media 'bullying', 'pile-ons' etc? What is it about this judgement that doesn't fit the social media story being told?
In the final High Court judgment, the judge (His Honour Richard Parkes KC) concluded that Dr Pete Newbon’s online publication of the screenshot was “simply abusive” and “amounted to a form of public bullying” directed at James Wilson.
The court's examination of Newbon's conduct highlights several key points:
- Weaponising Private Information: The court found that the first defendant, James Mendelsohn, had recycled private and untrue workplace allegations and passed them to Newbon. The judge noted that Newbon then used this data to target and publicly defame Wilson on Twitter/X.
- Extensive Harm and Scale: The judge took into account the vast reach of Newbon's actions, noting that Newbon's defamatory tweets were likely viewed by a platform audience running well into four figures. This widespread distribution among academics who knew Wilson significantly amplified the distress caused.
You will hardly find any of this report of the case anywhere on social media, apart from in James Wilson's substack articles. What a strange 'hole' in the narratives 'explaining' what happened in Pete Newbon's life!
----------
Social media activity in the wake of Jason Arday's death
Anonymous tweets are getting active with the false analogy between Arday and Newbon. See this one (below) that asks ‘explain the difference’. Yes, the difference is that with Arday, the tragic death did come very soon ‘after’ a mass media pile-on. (Whether that was a cause or not, can be debated. I, personally, don’t think we should talk about causes. But let’s leave that to one side). Now, with Pete Newbon, the tragic death came ‘after’ two long, unnecessary and disastrous legal cases that were unravelling fast, both of which he was keeping secret from his family but knew that at that precise moment, the family would hear of them. One of them was the disgusting and dangerous accusation that someone had an inappropriate interest in children. When that eventually came to court the Judge condemned Newbon’s behaviour as ‘abusive’ and ‘bullying’. ‘Pauliscalmerthanhelooks’ asks us to explain the ‘difference’ here:
Pauliscalmerthanhelooks
@socalmpaul
·
1h
Pete Newbon, academic, tragically takes his life after massive pile ons, including one instigated by a ‘national treasure.
Jason Arday, academic, tragically takes his life after huge media coverage.
Both leave a partner and 2 children.
Explain the very different responses.
---------------
This post (below) claims that Newbon was ‘hounded to death’ by what he calls a ‘racist mob’. The complaints (that the tweet calls ‘hounded’) that were posted on social media and/or to Newbon’s university stopped some 7 months before he tragically died. What took place in those 7 months were scores of legal letters passing between Newbon’s solicitor and Wilson, and/or between Newbon’s solicitor and mine – all of which were being kept secret from his family. This progressed towards a crisis in which Newbon would have realised he was going to lose both cases. As for ‘Rubie’s claim that he ‘did nothing wrong’, the judge in the Wilson case took a very different view. Newbon had accused Wilson of being someone who had an inappropriate interest in children. In legal terms this was indeed found to be ‘wrong’ ie that it was defamatory. It’ was also disgusting and dangerous for Wilson. The judge described Newbon’s behaviour as ‘abusive’ and ‘bullying’. So what is ‘Rubie’ doing posting that Newbon ‘did nothing wrong’.? It’s factually and legally false to say such a thing. Here’s ‘Rubie’s tweet
(((Rubie)))
@alexrubner
Today I’m thinking of a great man, an academic who did nothing wrong, a father, a husband, a son, who was hounded to his death by a racist mob. Whose family were trolled even posthumously.
His name was Dr Pete Newbon.
3:48 PM · Aug 15, 2026
·
--------------
August 19 2026
'Sir Bert Millichip' (@carausius286)
So here is an anonymous person (who blocks me, thereby ensuring I can't reply to him) responding to 'Sonny Bunch'.
In rather obvious terms, 'Bert' has implicated me in his tweet using the same mocking phrase that others use when they have a go at me ie 'national treasure'. I think these folks like to think that they've punctured some kind of bubble that others or I have created around myself. Let's hope it makes them happy doing that. Good fun is hard to come by these days. I'll deal once again with what's wrong with 'Bert's tweet.
'instigated' - no I didn't 'instigate' what they call a pile-on. The complaints began at least 24 hours before I saw Pete Newbon's tweet. Other words might be appropriate to describe the effect of me expressing my opinion of having a book I co-created daubed with title of one of the world's most antisemitic texts, and - as I have explained above - alerting Pete Newbon's university (as displayed on his profile) so that I could precipitate some kind of mediation. But I wasn't the one who kicked things off. The mediation did happen. Sadly, Dr Newbon walked away from it and chose to sue me instead.
'hounded to suicide' This is a lie. There is no evidence in the public domain nor, more specifically, in the legal domain (the Inquest) that this is a true statement. There was a seven months gap between what people like 'Bert' describe as a 'pile-on' and Pete Newbon's tragic death. This is why it is a different situation from what has happened to Jason Arday, where the time gap was a matter of days or less, as the mockery and shaming of Arday was still going on right up until he died.
What's more, in those intervening seven months, Pete Newbon was engaged in two legal cases both of which were coming unstuck. They were both avoidable too. In one he had already issued an apology - but withdrawn it, and in the other, he had turned down chances to settle at little or no cost. All this is in the public domain both described at different times by James Wilson, Pete Newbon's widow and me.
Further, we know that Dr Newbon was keeping both cases secret from his family. One of these cases revolved around what was a shameful tweet put up by Dr Newbon several months before the Bear Hunt tweet. Towards the end of the seven months it was becoming apparent to Dr Newbon and his solicitor, that this secret and shameful tweet would appear in the public domain and, later on, in court.
On top of this there was the very serious threat of these cases costing Dr Newbon's family tens of thousands of pounds.
If people think they are so knowledgeable about the causes of suicide that they can post on social media what they think those causes are, then the very least they could do is assemble all known and possible causes of stress, strain, or worse. Clearly, 'Bert' has done no such thing. He has decided that one thing caused it and he's putting it out there. I suggest he's doing this because he is trying to give me a kicking. If that is the case, then he is using someone's tragic death as a means to have a go at someone.
As I've said, 'Bert's way of writing overlooks a key statement that Professor Hirsh made in relation to all this: 'The causes of suicide are complex, multiple and unknowable.' I don't think Professor Hirsh has abided by his own dictum but nevertheless it's an admirable statement (in my view). People with little knowledge and no expertise should not be rushing onto social media and blurting out simple, single causes for such complex matters.
Clearly, 'Bert' thinks he knows better. Perhaps 'Bert' has a degree in psychology. Perhaps 'Bert' is a qualified trauma counsellor or the equivalent. In which case, it would be great if 'Bert' could share his expertise with us. I suggest he would also have to talk to those who knew Dr Newbon at this time, if he's going to reveal what he thinks is a cause. And perhaps 'Bert' could come up with some kind of explanation as to why the Coroner at the Inquest didn't mention anything of what 'Bert' mentions in this tweet.
But 'Bert' is anonymous and so he can say anything he wants without consequence. If he would like to reveal his name, I also suggest that that would put him at a teeny bit of risk of this matter being taken further on account of him making at least two statements of fact that are not true. Or perhaps 'Bert' lives outside of English jurisdiction. In which case, again, he can say what he wants with no worries about it being true.
Josh Howie
Or if he wants to reveal himself, he can be like comedian and TV presenter Josh Howie. Like 'Bert', Josh has indicated (but not stated) that he thinks he knows what caused the tragic death of Dr Newbon. What he does is ask me questions that imply my involvement. I've asked Josh to be more forthcoming and I've sent him this blog and invited him to have an 'open and honest' conversation about what I've written here. So far, he hasn't taken up the offer.
As for alleged pile-ons and houndings, 'Bert' and those accusing me aren't really against pile-ons and houndings, per se. They are only against pile-ons directed at them (or allegedly at them). This whole blog is an account of a sustained effort to engineer pile-ons on me since 2018. These have included implied threats of violence, causing anxiety to my wife and children in their own home, an attempt to get me fired from the BBC, repeated efforts to get me cancelled from bookings and organisations (sometimes successfully), picketing of my children's events with adult political slogans, heckling with such slogans at one of them, and two legal cases both of which could have been solved in hours in mediation but instead have cost me tens of thousands of pounds.
------------
Saul Faust (May 2026)
How about this one from earlier this year (May, 2026)?
I thanked Saul Faust for the tweet, especially as it turned out that Saul Faust is in fact Dr Faust, or even Mr Faust, or even Professor Faust, an eminent physician at one of our hospitals. I found myself wondering what state of mind might a leading physician be in to write a tweet at someone like this. No, I couldn't find words to describe it.
Well good old Mr Faust deleted this lovely tweet and I hope readers will join me in wishing Mr Faust all the very best with his medical career.
I have to say I feel sorry that when I arrived at the Whittington Hospital in March 2020, with a SAT level (oxygen saturation) of 58, it wasn't Mr Faust who greeted me. He would have done all he could to save my life. After all, might he not have thought that my brain was 'parasitised' and therefore done all he could to remove the offending parasite?
Or might he have thought, 'Mr Rosen appears to be near the end of his Seven Ages', and so should be treated with care and respect in his dying days? Yes, I'm honoured that Professor Faust expressed those opinions about me. It seems such a shame that he deleted the tweet. Luckily, I was quick-witted enough (even though my brain is parasitised) to screen shot it, so others can admire it too.
Rob Spitzy (?) September 1 or 2
On Sept 1 or Sept 2, someone with the handle @robspitzy claimed that I 'hounded someone to death'. The evidence of this blog hasn't convinced him to withdraw this libellous claim. Whether his name is Rob Spitzy or not, is not clear.
----------------
What does this whole blog add up to?
I think that it tells us that there are people who think that they can combat antisemitism by using antisemitic tropes to attack a Jew, to use Nazi-like medical tropes, allusions to his forthcoming death, comments about his family home, repeated lies, implied threats of violence, pickets and heckles at children's events, lies about the making of 'We're Going on a Bear Hunt', repeated social media distortions, attempts to get that person sacked, cancelled, or reviled in his public appearances. On two occasions - once to me and once to someone else - it was thought by some of these people that it was OK to make defamatory, lying accusations of sexually inappropriate activity.