A place where I'll post up some thoughts and ideas - especially on literature in education, children's literature in general, poetry, reading, writing, teaching and thoughts on current affairs.
We are a group of Jewish staff at Goldsmiths who are increasingly anxious about the university’s plans to challenge antisemitism and racism more generally.
In June 2025, following the Mohinder Sethi KC’s report on antisemitism on campus, the College drafted an action plan in association with a private consultancy, Six Ravens, but not with Jewish staff or students. The action plan included a two-year timetable to address antisemitism based on a series of broad commitments. It decided on a governance structure, again without any consultation with Jewish staff or students. Implementation of the plan is to be coordinated by a project board led by pro vice-chancellor Professor Adam Dinham and scrutinised by an external oversight and advisory group chaired by Goldsmiths academic Dr Emma Davies.
There is currently no list of any actions to be delivered and no publicly available evidence that either the project board or oversight and advisory group have yet met. This is hardly an example of the transparency that the College claims to embrace. We have recently received an invitation from Dr Davies to attend a knowledge-sharing ‘workshop’ but it is very unclear about who will be in attendance and how this relates to the existing governance structure.
Requests by our ad hoc group to meet with Professor Dinham to discuss the shape of the action plan governance structure have been repeatedly rebuffed and we have been told that the plan is ‘owned’ by Goldsmiths Council and therefore not up for debate. Instead, we have been offered informal meetings which we do not consider to be part of any meaningful consultation. Our reluctance to engage in future meetings and workshops is therefore based on what we believe to be fundamental flaws in the action plan and its implementation.
To date, no one has explained why the university is making a special case for antisemitism as a single example of racism. This argument wasn't made at the time of setting up the Inquiry nor the action plan and now, as the plan moves forwards into 'conversations' and enactment, the argument has still not been made. The college has now spent well over £500,000 at a time of severe financial hardship on an inquiry and action plan without a clear and detailed timetable or buy-in from affected staff and students.
We have argued that the College should fold antisemitism into a university-wide programme of anti-racism training but this has been repeatedly rejected. If the argument had been put as to why antisemitism is a special case, then we would at least have something on the table to discuss (and to have a 'conversation' about), but there is nothing.
In conclusion, we believe that to progress in this way is wrong-headed, offensive to many different groups in the university and potentially a trigger for antisemitic accusations about 'privilege'. In other words, this process could well result in precisely the opposite situation from the one intended. Imagine a situation in which antisemitism awareness training is being delivered, and someone being trained asks the trainer, 'Why has antisemitism training been prioritised over other forms of anti-racism training?' We do not want to be part of such a scenario in which we would have been incorporated into a position in which de facto we would be in part responsible for this position of prioritising one form of racism above any other.
In conclusion, we have been offered informal meetings which we do not consider to be part of any meaningful consultation. We are of course prepared to meet with any individual or group to discuss these issues as we are committed to mounting the most effective challenge both to antisemitism and all forms of racism. However we are reluctant to take part in meetings or workshops that reinforce what we believe to be fundamental flaws in the action plan and its implementation.
For the record, my Facebook page is not private. It's public. Anyone can read what I write and/or share it. 156k people choose to 'follow' me. I have 5000 'friends'. I'm not sure why anyone would say (as they have) that my Facebook page is 'private'.
I 'shared' the statement below on Facebook on either Oct 3 or 4. The Manchester Synagogue atrocity took place on Oct 2.
The statement below (that I shared) was posted on Facebook by the 'Jewish Bloc for Palestine'.
I agreed with it then, and still do.
Just like for any of us, I sometimes feel that for some momentous occasions, I can't immediately find the words to match what I feel - but this did. And it made me also think that sometimes the collective response is more important than the individual one. After all, I don't represent anyone and I should always keep that in mind.
Now for the sting in the tale. Over at X (formerly twitter) something unpleasant happened.
When anyone from the pro-Palestine side expressed regret, sympathy or horror at the Manchester attacks on Jews, they were immediately attacked for being (variously) hypocrites, liars or - worse - somehow responsible for the attacks. Individuals (like Jeremy Corbyn, of course) became a focus for rage and hate. In fact, as this happened so quickly, that immediately put a strong brake on me making any kind of comment. There's just so much personal hate and rage that a body can take! In my case, for the last 7 years or so there's been a constant undertow to that hate and anger: a threat of physical confrontation.
I've described some of these before, some I haven't.
They're sufficiently serious for me to take them at face value, so with these, was yet another reason, with feelings running high (some quite legitimately of course) for me to deliberately not express myself on X.
And, meanwhile, over here on Facebook - a much safer place! - was a statement from the Jewish Bloc that I could get behind and so did. What's more, within 24 hours of the attacks I was speaking at a public event about one of my books and someone asked me about the attacks and I felt free and safe there to express myself in those surroundings, expressing my horror at what happened and wishing anyone connected to the families every sympathy. (That was the evening of October 2)
In other words, I had found safe ways (away from X) to express myself. But then, lo and behold, up pops someone on X, saying that I hadn't said anything about the Manchester attacks on Jews - more exactly that I was 'too busy to comment', and following that up with a seeming joke reply to my question 'When does the ceasefire begin?' by saying '...at the time you're due to deliver your condemnation of the antisemitic murder on Yom Kippur by an Islamist terrorist.'
What? 'Too busy'? '..due to...' ? But I had commented in my way in a place of my choosing.
Well the law operating here is of course, the old one of 'damned if you do', (as with Corbyn et al) 'and damned if you don't'. Other than that I had! (via the Jewish bloc statement and my public appearance.). And then, lo and behold, this tweet condemning me has gathered momentum and loads of people are getting in there, calling me a 'kapo' and the like, because I 'haven't commented'. It's almost as if some people think that because they are on X, that is the whole world. (Is this a new phenomenon born of the digital world? That whatever social platform you're on, you think it IS the world?!
Needless to say, I don't feel like replying over there on X, and saying 'But I have commented' because that will just snowball into another hate-fest of false accusations and/or accusations of bad faith or words to the effect that 'You've got no right to speak on such matters because you're a self-hating antisemitic Jew' - often said from people who keep themselves anonymous anyway...followed up with some implied physical threat to me along the lines of 'A lot of people would have to be physically restrained from getting to him [ie Michael Rosen], including me.' (that's a true one!).
So, I've abstained over there on X but I'm saying it over here on Facebook because this feels safe. It also feels like something that perhaps people should know about as context for what has gone on in the last few days.
On that, here's an interesting snippet. I listened to Tracy-Ann Oberman talking about the attacks. Trevor Phillips was interviewing Tracy-Ann and she said, that the 'placards' on the Palestine Solidarity marches were the 'same' as those from the 1930s which my parents and Tracy-Ann's relatives fought against. Then she said that the 'rise of anti-Jewish vernacular has absolutely contributed to what happened [in and around the Manchester synagogue]'
I thought about that. Have they? Have they 'absolutely contributed' - ie definitely contributed? How could Tracy-Ann or anyone know 'absolutely' or definitely (my word)? Until there is meticulous research and inspection, we won't know and can't know what motivated the attacker. What's more, I might ask, isn't it just a little bit dangerous to dive in and make comments like that before the research and inspection has come out?( If you disagree with me on that, or anything else here, do say so below. Keep it polite.) Thanks for reading.
SO HERE IS THE STATEMENT THAT I 'SHARED' ON FACEBOOK BY WAY OF MY RESPONSE TO THE MANCHESTER SYNAGOGUE ATROCITY
"Statement by the Jewish Bloc for Palestine last night after the events in Manchester on Yom Kippur: The Jewish Bloc is horrified and sickened by the murderous attack on the Manchester synagogue yesterday. We send our condolences and love to the families of the victims and all members of the congregation. Nobody should lose their life for where or when they choose to pray. We were devastated by the news that the Greater Manchester Police operation was responsible for the death of one congregation member and the injury of others, as well as the death of the attacker. It is appalling that shul goers who called the police for help ended up dead at their hands. We stand in solidarity with the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz. In the immediate aftermath of an attack like this we mourn the victims and offer our support to a community reeling in shock, whether the attack be at a synagogue, school, mosque or nightclub. We are deeply moved by the widespread expressions of sympathy and solidarity we have received from our comrades and friends in the Palestine solidarity movement and a range of Muslim organisations, and are grateful for the support they have offered. We were shocked when, less than 24 hours after the attack, a relatively new Home Secretary went onto the airwaves to weaponise the fear and grief of our community by resurrecting a slur: that those protesting for Palestine represent a danger to Jews. She is cynically exploiting this tragic event to fulfil a long-standing ambition of successive British Governments: to justify a ban on the mass protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. We are distressed that some of our communal leaders, including the Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue, have also tried to exploit our grief and fear in order to suppress and silence those organising for Palestine. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and violent bigotry are on the rise. We will not speculate on the motives of the attacker but we all recognise and condemn the increase in antisemitic conspiracy theories across social media, as well as the dog-whistle phrases now appearing in the speeches of mainstream politicians. We are a diverse group of British Jews. Some are secular and some were in synagogues yesterday. Many have links to families and friends who will have attended Heaton Park synagogue yesterday. We will be marching again next Saturday, and will continue to take to the streets until we see an end to this genocide and until Palestine is free. We will continue to strengthen our links of solidarity and mutual support with Muslims and other communities targeted by racism. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us."
INCIDENTALLY THIS STATEMENT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE POLICE REPORT THAT INDICATED THAT THE MURDERER WAS MOTIVATED BY HIS ATTACHMENT TO ISIS. I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE JEWISH BLOC BUT PERSONALLY I CAN PUT IT ON RECORD THAT I CONDEMN TERRORISM OF THIS KIND WHETHER IT'S CALLED 'ISIS TERRORISM' OR 'ISLAMIST TERRORISM'.
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.
When I received my first 'letter before action' in the libel case brought by one of the directors of Labour Against Antisemitism, identified me as a Corbyn supporter.
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 - something along the lines of: 'You said x, it was not true, my client has suffered loss of reputation. 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. Of interest to me, though here is that 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'.
You might think that after 7 months or so of what I'll call pointless correspondence, the people assembling this claim would have weeded out this giveaway of their motive for suing. You might think that the Particulars of Claim would be the surgical, analytic 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 the top of the PoC was a comment about me being an 'active supporter of Jeremy Corbyn'.
Once again, the Claimant's team flagged up 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 (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'). The Claim goes in for a curious bit of mind-reading in which it tries to show 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 was angry that a book that he [that's me] had authored formed part of 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, 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 in the previous blog, 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 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!
So there we are: we have 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'.)
I don't think it's terribly controversial (is it?) for me to have the view that this episode might be an example of the law being used for political purposes. 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.
And here's the original text (to save you looking for it!)
PART ONE
Facebook post one
Just to say that 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.
The reason why I have notified my MP about this is because the great Zionist 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 and made it part of his job to identify where I live (with my family), alleged 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 where I live and how he could get to know me better, as it were.
Let's see what my MP makes of it.
PART TWO
Facebook post 2 - slightly adapted
In my last post, 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. 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 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 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 post. 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'. 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 that the new words in the 'Bear Hunt tweet' was 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 made of my parody - namely for ‘political purposes’. In other words, I had once made a parody of my own words in support of Corbyn. Newbon objected politically to this. In other words, I was part of the target of the 'Bear Hunt tweet' as I call it. I'm saying this because 100s of people have claimed that I was not targeted in the tweet. Repeat: Mr Newbon makes clear in these documents that I was a target.
There are also screeds of stuff explaining (in this SAR document) what is wrong with my politics. In other words, the motive for doing the 'Bear Hunt tweet' is explained, and described. Rather absurdly, Mr Newbon thought that he could explain to a university hearing that he hadn't attacked Rosen 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 but they thought that the best way to defend against that accusation was to repeat and enlarge an attack on me. 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 to tell him to stop tweeting stuff that was in ..er.. breach of the social media policy twice before. Of course, all he needed to have done is take the university's name off his profile, and then he wouldn't have been in breach. The huge punishment he got from the university, that Prof Hirsh has complained about was that Mr Newbon should just stop from 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.
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. He has written two articles in honour of Mr Newbon in which several paragraphs describe what is wrong with my politics and how I 'mobilise my Jewishness' for what he thinks are wrong or even antisemitic reasons. In my view this is 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. 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 hasn't answered yet.
Mr 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. 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.
(This is all for context.)
This brings us to the heart of the matter: this jolly, laughter-full stuff is political, channelled through the personal, to do with me being on the radio talking about language, living in a house (how dare I ?!) , doing children’s book signings and events - one of LAAS’s former consultants turned up to two of these children's events and heckled me or picketed me or both )- and with writing ‘Bear Hunt’ etc etc. [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!]
What happened next is a long story involving me being sued, even as the person (Pete Newbon) suing me was being sued himself for having libelled and endangered someone on account of that accusation about being a 'freak'. Also part of the activity of a director of LAAS, it would seem! Apparently it was OK to suggest (for political reasons!) that someone was a 'freak' and was inappropriately interested in children! Note, that case was won by the person described as a 'freak'. Interestingly, though the case received a lot of publicity in the lead-up, but when it was over, no press covered it. It's almost as if those on the LAAS side of things get good publicity when they're accusing but when they lost this one, no one was interested. Why? I don't know.
The person doing the suing and being sued (Pete Newbon) took his own life. This was a tragedy for all concerned. Many folks who support LAAS leapt into action, ignored Samaritans' guidelines on such matters (as did the good Rabbi platformed by Professor Hirsh, as related above) , and said that the death was either ‘caused’ by me or by the person who was libelled and endangered, or that we 'contributed to' this tragedy.
Please note: the inquest said no such thing, so every comment that claims that Wilson or I were a 'cause' or even implying we are a 'cause' or 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.
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 to such a detailed extent that they can say that x caused y. But of course they don’t. And their story has been fatally undermined by facts that I won’t go into 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 - but of course again - that’s not why they’re doing it! The purpose of pointing the finger of blame is political and that purpose was at one point to do anything to kick away the pillars of support for Corbyn, and right now to defend Israel’s genocide and land grab. It goes 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 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) aborted the mediation.
I'll also leave you to speculate what a court would likely make of someone suing another 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 had aborted mediation! For reference, courts don't like it if someone sues, having walked away from mediation. (I had accepted that that person walked away, but they chose to sue instead.)
You might also want to have a think 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 idea of suing me? Why would someone do 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 to harass (as with Jonathan Glass), shackle (as with the tweet trying to get me taken off the BBC) and to defeat 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 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 all the documents would reveal the apology, the aborted mediation, the political intention and motive for the Bear Hunt Tweet, the previous history of disciplinary action taken by the university, AND of course the 'freak' case 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! 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. These would all have come to light in a trial. I only mention this because both the great Jonathan Glass and the expert on antisemitism Professor David Hirsh have both claimed 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.
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 the fact that he was involved in two cases with anyone, 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?
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 a loser for Mr Newbon - the one about someone being a 'freak'. So that was a director of LAAS losing that one. I think I've given enough facts here to show that my case would have been a loser for that same director of LAAS too. And, what's more, we might have 'cross-claimed'! Namely that I was libelled in the first place. We might also have defended on the basis of what's called 'reply to attack'. 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.
[Here's the link to the side-story of how people 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?)
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.
(My original blog is above this.)
So, in case I haven't proved the point, I'll tell this bit of the story.
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 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 - something along the lines of: 'You said x, it was not true, my client has suffered loss of reputation. 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. Of interest to me, though here is that 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'.
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. You might think that the Particulars of Claim would be the surgical, analytic 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 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) flagged up 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 (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'). The Claim goes in for a curious bit of mind-reading in which it tries to show 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 was angry that a book that he [that's me] had authored formed part of 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, 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 in the previous blog, 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 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!
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'.)
I don't think it's terribly controversial (is it?) for me to have the view that this episode might be an example of the law being used for political purposes. 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.
Good evening. Believe it or not, I am your prime minister. Israel. Yes. Israel. Today, we've been hit by what can only be called a bombshell. Hah! Let's hope that wasn't said in bad taste. However, let me proceed. My friend and our ally, Benjamin Netanyahu who has striven (or is it 'strove?) more than anyone to build a just and fair place for all in Israel and...er....the other places that are...[checks notes] not, or...er...anyway, generally to do with Israel. However - and this is a big however, as my Jewish teacher used to say because in a way I've always been Jewish. I do Friday nights, you know? However, as I was saying, however, Bibi (as I like to call the old chap), has gone one step too far this time. Even some of my best friends are Jewish. I mean even some of my Jewish friends say that Bibi has gone too far this time. They're saying 'How can we stick up for Israel if Israel is killing some children?' 'Not many, surely?' I say, But even my best friends - who are Jewish - say that it's more than some. So we've reached a cross roads. The time has come for me to say to my very good friend and ally Bibi, 'C'mon old Bibi, chum, ease up on Gaza.' So David Lammy and I are going to go to the UN and make a speech as forceful as this one. When it comes to a time when there will be peace and prosperity in Gaza and everyone can holiday there in peace and prosperity, the world will remember how David and I singlehandedly together (have I got that right?) saved the Middle East from Islamacist Jihadist Isis-ist, Daeshist, Hamas-ist, Palestine Actionist terrorist groups. People will know how resolute we have been in ensuring that our RAF planes only took photos of waves breaking on the beautiful beach of Gaza. Vote Labour, good night.
Michael Rosen loves words. He loves their sense, their sounds, their layers of meaning and the uses they can be put to. He does not like the way politicians use them to hide their deeds, their true intent. He does not like obfuscation in language whether in speech or on the page.
For Beckett ‘words are all we have’ and for Sartre words can be ‘loaded pistols.’ Rosen’s latest collection ‘Words United’ (published by Culture Matters) would seem to accept both these definitions. In his Preface he tells us that our ‘words are not enough to express the horror and depravity of what’s going on’ in our world today.
Yet, like Beckett’s characters who must keep on using words, must keep talking against all the existential odds, Rosen will keep on writing, keep on placing his words in the right order to serve his meaning and intention. He then questions, ‘could words puncture the armour that surrounds our politicians as they engineer war, starvation and mass killing?’ All he can say is that he hopes so and this is where his words become ‘loaded pistols.’
He knows how to fire his words and who to fire them at. But he is also going to have a good time using them, and this collection is witty, amusing and entertaining as well as well as being politically astute. The collection has been written in the last few months with a couple of poems written earlier. It is not all poetry – there are humorous anecdotes, sketches and some performance pieces. The book is written in three overlapping sections: Words, Words, Words; What Words Do We Trust?; and Words United.
Bogus words from Netanyahu
And the subject matter is largely about the genocide going on in Gaza. He casually picks up a comment made by Netanyahu ‘about our ancestral lands.’ These words get Rosen thinking about ‘how things are going in my ancestral lands.’ He thinks about Harrow, where he was born, on to Pinner, Rickmansworth and Muswell Hill ‘where I was brought up.’ He muses that Netanyahu maybe didn’t have these ancestral lands in mind. Then he goes on to Whitechapel and Bethnal Green ‘where my parents were brought up.’ Again, he thinks that Netanyahu probably didn’t have them in mind.
From these places he then goes to Massachusetts where his father was born, on to Poland, Lithuania and the Austro-Hungarian Empire where ancestors did come from only to realise that Netanyahu didn’t mean these places either. He ends the poem:
I mean, I can’t even go to the flat where I lived as a kid ring the bell and say, ’Hi, this is my ‘ancestral land.’ I don’t think I’d get very far with that.
This poem, like others, comes about through the misuse of words. The words are examined carefully and shown to be bogus. Exactly the same technique is used in the poem ‘Defiant Words’ where he takes the Chief Rabbi to task for talking about ‘our heroic soldiers.’ Rosen suggests that the Chief Rabbi and himself ‘already have one army: the British Army.’ He then brings up ‘the fury that’s been flung at those/who have suggested that/the deeds of Israel/are somehow the deeds of all Jews.’
He then indulges in an important digression invoking Norman Tebbitt’s cricket test of loyalty for Britons of Indian, Pakistani and West Indian descent failing that test by supporting their ancestral lands. By implication, the Chief Rabbi is actually showing dual loyalty and would fail Tebbitt’s test. Rosen then reminds those who accept the narrative of our heroic soldiers to remember the soldiers they align themselves with whose ‘origins lie/with those who once blew up a hotel/full of British citizens but are, mysteriously/not described as terrorists.’
He questions, ’Who is this ‘our’? He then says:
It’s Jews. Isn’t that me? I’m Jewish, aren’t I?
Rosen then mentions the heroic soldiers he refuses to align himself with:
going about their soldiering heroically killing and torturing heroically bulldozing and flattening now heroically making sure that 2 million people starve to death.
The term ‘our heroic soldiers’ has been shown what it really means and he defies and refuses to have any part of it. Clearly, you would have to be Jewish to write this since the Chief Rabbi’s words were directed at Jews, and it is worth recalling the politics of Rosen’s parents. They were both members of the YCL, opposing Mosley’s fascists in London’s east end during the 1930s. They were involved in the genuinely heroic Battle of Cable Street in 1936 when Mosley’s fascists, supported by the Daily Mail, attempted to march through the east end where many Jews were living at the time. Many Jews were communists in those days and active in the Labour movement. Other working- class groups like the Irish also opposed Mosley, and there was a clearer sense of class consciousness which seems to have got lost these days. Then it was uniforms and now it is suits. Then the problem for fascists and racists was Jews – today it is Moslems and migrants, net zero and wokery.
Rosen takes issue with those ‘people who don’t like the word “Islamophobic.”’ As he considers alternatives, he frames his response in a subtle way, seeking ‘another word/that describes ‘attacking a mosque’/or attacking people because they ‘’look Muslim’’, thus effectively legitimising the word Islamophobic.
The words ‘Promised Land’ have an unusual twist for Rosen. An anonymous family come to claim their ancestral home someone else lives in. They are told by the residents ‘my people have always lived here.’ The family persist with their claim and have a stack of documents to support their claim to the house. The residents are told, ’Turn to the page marked ‘Promised Land.’ When the residents ask who wrote this, they are told that God did, ’God wrote them, look/Here come His tanks.’
Brave words
This is not merely clever writing, it is brave writing. And bravery is required today to speak out against the unspeakable things that are happening. Rosen has been consistently speaking out for most of his life and it is encouraging that he still espouses socialist values which rise above national, ethnic and religious differences, believing that the human race is the only race in all its wondrous differences. There are a few amusing poems about his parents. They both worked in education and obviously gave Michael a love for language and words. In ‘My Father’s Words’ Rosen recalls the time when he was doing homework and his father asked what his homework was about. ‘Stuff,’ replies the schoolboy. The father’s persistence breaks the boy down and it turns out Michael had been doing a piece on the Chartists. The father then gives the son some value-added education on the Chartists:
Then my father went over to the books that my parents had on their shelves like Marx on Engels and Engels on Marx and Marx on Marx and Engels on Engels and he pulled down a book called something like: ‘What Michael Needs to Know About the Chartists’ and he dropped it on the table.
This tale has all the hallmarks of similar tales that the comedian Alexei Sayle once gave on stage about his Jewish and communist parents. Naturally, such memories would leave a lasting impression on a child. But for Rosen this memory goes deeper still as his father then told him what Michael’s great-grandfather once said to him. His Zeyde (grandfather) asked his father, ’You know vossiz a union? ’The Zeyde then takes a box of matches and says to Michael’s father:
One match you can break. Two matches, you can break. Three matches you can break. But take the whole box of matches, you can’t break. That is vossiz a union.
This lesson, for Rosen, is as relevant today as it was when Rosen first believes this tale was told in 1890, on to when his father heard it ‘around 1930’. We need to be retelling this story all over again – this tale of class solidarity is incredibly pertinent today.
Another tale from childhood is told when Rosen recalls saying to his parents that he likes Biology, Instantly, they respond, ‘You could become ….. a DOCTOR.’ While his parents were teachers and thought of teaching as worthy, their interior league table of professions rated being a doctor higher. But above that being ‘a Jewish Communist Doctor’ was higher still. Rosen plays with his reader by informing them, ‘And you know what they did next, don’t you.’ They took him to see a Jewish Communist Doctor ‘who could tell me how to become a/Jewish Communist Doctor.’
Playful words
There is a wonderful playfulness in Rosen’s writing and it comes from the stories of his childhood but no doubt more so in his long life of working with children, listening to them, engaging with them and sharing his love of words with them. His style of writing has the simplicity of what could come from a child yet he is dealing with subject matter that is politically mature. Bringing the storytelling technique to political discourse makes the politics more illuminating on the page. It also makes it more accessible to readers of all kinds.
As well as this playfulness, Rosen reveals a concise logic in everything he writes, a process of ratiocination, the kind of exact thinking shown by the metaphysical poets in the careful way they developed their poems. Like them, Rosen knows exactly where he is going in his work and knows how he intends to conclude well in advance of getting there. The love of words creates a playfulness in his work but there is a clear ratiocination at work as well. This wonderful combination of qualities makes his collection very readable.
For example, Rosen can also take a commonplace word like qualms and run with it as he applies it to the genocide in Gaza. In a rather innocuous way he states, ’Tonight I’m thinking about ‘qualms.’ He gives an example that could apply to qualms about ‘expelling someone from school.’ And to fit the mood of having mentioned school he says, ‘Qualms are quivers of disquiet/when you feel queasy.’ Such language is the language of teaching alliteration in the classroom. It can and should be playful and enjoyable. He then remarks, ‘I thought that people would have qualms about Gaza.’
Rosen then tells us that the two main Jewish newspapers don’t seem to have any qualms. He imagines possible Jews having qualms about the genocide but being afraid of voicing them ‘in case they’ll be accused of being self-hating.’ In a playful way he continues, ‘No-one wants to be accused of having/self-hating qualms.’ He then suggests that those who have no qualms and say they believe it is necessary to wage war in Gaza and ‘it’s all the other people’s fault’, Rosen cautions:
do they catch sight of the flattened cities the terrified, scarred and bleeding people? The Tik Tok films of laughing soldiers grabbing the innards of people’s flats, cupboards and drawers.
Finally, he imagines ‘the qualm is put back in the cupboard’ and a sense of acceptance descending on the group, ’when someone says that it only looks bad/because people who hate us say it’s bad.’ Michael Rosen remains appalled at what Israel is doing.
In the poem ‘Trump has words with Trump’ Michael explores how the hidden, secretive face of capitalism has now turned into the full-frontal horror show under Trump. Before his ascent to power, capitalism and big business seemed to keep the masses at bay. It was generally said in the past ‘there is no ruling class/acting in league with itself/running the show.’ Rosen, however, remained curious about the huge disparities in wealth, and how ‘the wealth could co-exist/with the poverty.’ The arrival of Trump has changed all that:
What’s happened is that business is government and government is business.
For Rosen ‘Trump is/the ruling class/The ruling class/is Trump. Where’s your liberalism now in the free world? he seems to ask. And in a delightful poem called ‘Rags’, a son asks his father, ’Daddy, what’s that pile of rags in the corner? The father replies,’ That, dear, is the cloak of liberalism.’ Contemporary capitalism, or late capitalism as some have it, has no qualms about being nothing more than business management run by a caste of mediocrities and opportunists. This is how all western nations operate today. The centre has moved to the far right and Rosen takes issue with Starmer for his ‘island of strangers’ speech with its nod to Enoch Powell.
In Rosen’s poem of the same name, he addresses Starmer directly and recalls the time he nearly died from Covid. Rosen had a gruesome time trying to recover as he had difficulty breathing. He had to undergo a tracheostomy, had to learn how to start walking again with a stick and then without a stick. All this was made possible by:
people on this ‘island of strangers’ from China, Jamaica, Brazil, Ireland India, USA, Nigeria and Greece.
These three lines are used twice in the poem to emphasise their international dimension, as Rosen concludes by saying to Starmer,’ If ever you’re in need as I was/may you have an island of strangers/like I had.’
Inane and biased words
In a delightful flourish of sketches, ‘Great Interviews: Words From The Past And Present’, Rosen wittily yet seriously attempts to capture the inanity of our media. He starts with Israel speaking: ‘The reason we’re not letting food into Gaza has nothing to do with depriving the people of Gaza of food.’ The interviewer, like the ones on the BBC, simply says, ’Thanks,’ followed by, ’And now here’s Fred with the weather news/Later in the show, can double-glazing help you lose weight?
This is the puerile talking shop that capitalism has become. A series of variations on this interview with Israel has Julius Caesar being asked about rebuilding Carthage, ‘On the ruins of the old Carthage where 1000s of Carthaginians were killed? Caesar’s brusque response is to say, ‘Carthage belongs to Rome.’ Caesar is duly thanked by the interviewer who then he finishes off with, ‘And here’s Flavia with today’s cookery tips.’
There are some hilarious ones about the Siege of Leningrad, India in 1858, one jointly with a Starmer and Trump double-act, and a delightful one by God which people of faith should also find amusing. God is asked if he gave Israel to the Jews. God replies Yes. He is then asked, ’Did you own the land that you gave to the Jews? God replies that he owns everywhere, to which the interviewer asks, ‘Have you given away any other lands? God replies, ‘Yes. Yorkshire.’
‘Words United’ even has its own slogan – ‘Words united, will never be defeated.’ You simply can’t get better than that. There are so many delights in this book and as readers we should all be grateful that Michael Rosen not only recovered from Covid but also that he never became a doctor.
Words United by Michael Rosen, 120 pps., £10 inc. p. and p., is available here. All profits will go to Medical aid for Palestine.
