Title

The PalArse of Westminster

Text

Exposing the hypocrisy, greed and incompetence of our "respected" elected political "elite".
Showing posts with label guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guardian. Show all posts

Monday, 16 March 2026

The Guardian Excuses Kristallnacht 2.0 – Over Croissants


 

The Guardian's piece by Jonathan Liew – "A corner of north London where food has become a battleground in the Israel-Gaza war" (published 14 March 2026) – is straight-up disgusting propaganda disguised as commentary.

It takes a new branch of Gail's Bakery (founded in the 1990s by an Israeli baker) opening 20 metres from a Palestinian-owned cafe in Archway and calls its mere existence an "act of heavy-handed high-street aggression". It sneers at the chain's success, drags in its private-equity owner Bain Capital's investments in Israeli security tech, and then shrugs off the actual violence: the shop was daubed in red paint the night before opening, then had all its windows smashed with graffiti screaming "reject corporate Zionism" and "fuck Bain Capital". No arrests. The Board of Deputies rightly called it part of a pattern to drive Jews out of civil society. Liew's response? Frame the bakery as the aggressor in a "battleground" and the smashed windows as "petty symbolism" in the Israel-Gaza war. The Palestinian cafe owner gets a sympathetic quote about "legal" competition and cheaper coffee. Classic.

This is Kristallnacht with a Guardian byline. In 1938 the Nazis smashed Jewish shop windows, painted hateful slogans, and called it "retaliation" while the real victims were blamed for existing. Here in 2026 London we have exactly the same tactic: target a Jewish-founded business, vandalise it with antisemitic/anti-Zionist slurs, then have a prestige paper publish a column that essentially says "well, it was a bit provocative to open a successful bakery near a Palestinian cafe, wasn't it?" The Palestine Solidarity Campaign distanced itself (smart), but the rhetoric and the broken glass are the same. The Guardian is normalising pogrom-lite and dressing it up as "food as resistance".

And spare us the gentrification guff or Bain Capital diversions. Gail's is a British business with no direct Israeli government ties, as it has repeatedly stated. The real story is a Jewish-founded success story being punished for existing in the same postcode as someone else's cafe. That's not "asymmetric conflict". That's bullying.

Britain is full of thriving Jewish-founded businesses that everyone happily shops at without calling their existence "aggression". Examples:

  • Marks & Spencer (M&S) – founded by Jewish immigrant Michael Marks from Belarus in 1884 on a Leeds market stall. Icon of British retail.
  • Tesco – founded by Jack Cohen, son of Jewish immigrants, from a stall at Spitalfields Market.
  • Burton (menswear giant) – founded by Montague Burton (born Meshe David Osinsky, Jewish) who built it into a household name.
  • Moss Bros – expanded into a major chain by the Jewish Moss family.

These aren't "corporate Zionism". They're part of the fabric of UK high streets, employing tens of thousands and beloved by millions. No Guardian columnist is writing columns about their "heavy-handed" presence squeezing out corner shops. The double standard is grotesque.

To the prick who wrote it – Jonathan Liew – a quick reality check before you hit "publish" again: some of the technology you used to type, save, and publish this garbage was invented or massively advanced by Israelis. The USB flash drive (the Disk-on-Key) was invented by Dov Moran at Israel's M-Systems – the thing every journalist still uses to back up drafts or transfer files. The microprocessors powering the laptop or desktop you wrote it on owe huge debts to Intel's Israel R&D centres, which designed key generations of Pentium and Core chips that run the entire modern computing world. Even the cybersecurity protecting The Guardian's systems and your online publishing pipeline draws from Israeli innovations like Check Point firewalls. You might want to boycott those next time you rage against "Zionist" bakeries.

And yes, you're a coward. Your X/Twitter account (@jonathanliew) is locked down – protected tweets, invisible to the public. But you post freely and publicly on Bluesky (@jonathanliew.bsky.social), a platform infested with antisemites who get to spew their bile without pushback. Bold enough to smear a Jewish-founded business in a national paper, too spineless to face open scrutiny on the world's biggest open platform. Classic.

The Guardian has form. This isn't journalism; it's blood libel with croissants. The vandalism of Gail's wasn't "resistance" – it was thuggery. The article excusing the context around it is worse. British Jews and anyone with a spine should call this out for what it is: the same old antisemitic trope, updated for 2026 and wrapped in Guardian font. Kristallnacht didn't start with gas chambers. It started with broken windows and columns blaming the Jews for existing. Never again means never again – even when the target is just a bakery.

The Guardian's "journalists" are afraid of both Jewish people and croissants. 

Wednesday, 13 November 2024

Guardian Has a Hissy Fit and Flounces Off Twitter..Except It Hasn't!


 

In a hissy dipslay of outrage and liberal tears about the elcetion result in the USA, the Guardian (favoured by the quinoa eating classes) has announced ON TWITTER that it is no longer going to post on Twitter.

Digging itself further down into its own hypocritical hole, the Guardian goes on to say:

"The nature of live news reporting means we will still occasionally embed content from X within our article pages.

Reporters will also be able to carry on using the site for news-gathering purposes."

These people are so far up their own arses that they cannot even see the hypocrisy of any of that.

As I have said before, and happily say again, I wouldn't use the Guardian to wipe my armpits with, let alone use it as a news source!

Wednesday, 19 August 2020

The Guardian Hangs Carole Cadwalladr Out To Dry

 

Rather bizarrely, despite the fact that the Guardian occasionally uses her articles, the Guardian is happily going to let Cadwalladr go to the wall.

Given that the Guardian is sitting on a £1BN trust fund, I would have thought it would bail out one of its own?

Friday, 10 April 2020

Guardian Fails Again!

I wouldn't use the Guardian to wipe my armpits with!

Thursday, 27 August 2015

Saturday, 21 April 2012

The Guardian - Hypocritical Gobshites!



As I have stated before, it's not just the politicians who are hypocrites but also the media who feed off them.

Step forward the bastion of the "moral left" the Guardian, which yesterday published an article about the finances of David Cameron's family under the attention grabbing headline "Cameron Family Fortune Made in Tax Havens".

I will allow one of my ICAEW chums, Christie Malry, to explain why this story is bollocks:
"Ooh, have we caught the Cameron family doing something naughty?
David Cameron's father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance, the Guardian can reveal.
Though entirely legal, the funds were set up in tax havens such as Panama City and Geneva, and explicitly boasted of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction.
Er, no (emphasis added):
The structure employed by Cameron senior is now commonplace among modern hedge funds, which argue that offshore status can help attract international investors. UK residents would ordinarily have to pay tax on any profits they repatriated, and there is nothing to suggest the Camerons did not.
So they've put a bunch of money into a place where it's not subject to UK tax. They'll be subject to UK tax whenever they bring any money back to the UK and there's no evidence or allegation that they haven't complied with their tax obligations at all.

This isn't tax avoidance, because not even the mighty brains at The Guardian seem to be able to articulate precisely what taxes have been avoided."
Well said Christie!

Now there is of course another point to be made about the Guardian's hissy fit over tax avoidance (even though their story states clearly that there is no avoidance in this particular case), what of the Guardian's own dealing with HMRC and it's use of Auto Trader as a possible "vehicle" (pardon the pun) for tax avoidance?

Here I will refer you to Tim Worstall:
"There’s a reorganisation from the Scott Trust to the Scott Trust Limited in 2008.

2008 is also when that 50% sale of Autotrader went through, leading to the £300 million profit which was not taxed: quite righteously not taxed because it was a subsidiary of Scott Trust Limited and the sale of a subsidiary of a limited company is not, under the SSE rules, subject to corporation tax (technically, a chargeable gain).

The question is: if the Scott Trust had not reorganised into the Scott Trust Limited, would some form of tax have been due on that £300 million?

That is, did the reorganisation alleviate some of the tax bill on that capital/chargeable gain?"
Oh, and by the way, don't forget that the Guardian Media Group set up a Cayman Islands company to minimise its own tax liability.

I think the phrase hypocritical gobshites springs to mind here!