Fair point!

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

For which reason, it is entirely apt to keep remembering.



So alleged anti-semitism is okay from a teenager?



His fingers are in his ears now. You can't put facts to him. Polls, perhaps (as long as they fit his 'thoughts'). But not facts.



Good that you're creating jobs. Excellent. But where is your evidence for this claim?

In the meantime, have you bothered to address those questions on ethics – or are you still finding them too difficult or are slightly embarrassed that you clearly didn't know what I did for a living, after being so certain that you did?



No. That's the point.

Abusing a 13 year old boy is a new low for you.

You really are too precious for this interweb mallarkey

Oh, indeedy. I've got my own little Tardis parked on the patio so that I could do it.

The problem with anything that's "alleged" is that it could just be simply made up so people can point and go "look, look isn't he she awful", it's a neat trick usually done by our glorious press.

So, I'll do you a deal, you come back with some evidence that a 13 year old boy wanted to change his name because he thought it was too Jewish and then I'll stop thinking that you're just an angry bag of not very much who gets their kicks from, well, just making up unpleasant things about people they don't like very much. Branding a 13 year old anti-semitic based nothing more than you don't like him. FFS. Grow up.

GEORGE OSBORNE - AN ANTI-SEMITIC ARSEHOLE: WHEN DID GIDEON OSBORNE BECOME GEORGE OSBORNE - AND WHY?

In his sympathetic new biography of the chancellor, FT reporter Janan Ganesh says it was on "the eve of moving 'up' to St. Paul's School in 1984" that Osborne changed his name.

This has surprised 'Old Paulines' of his generation, who insist Osborne was still Gideon when he started at the school and remained so for another couple of years.

"There was no doubt that he was well into his 'career' at St. Paul's at the time," says one.

"It was a comical event, the name change, and much talked about."

As for the question of why, Ganesh says that:

"Theories abound ... Osborne has always said that he simply did not like the name, so he changed it. But it may also be that he was already set on a career in public life and feared that his baroque and rarefied name might hold him back."

In fact the reason was rather more specific, an old scholl chum tells Lord Gnome.

This friend greeted Osborne in the 'Periodicals Room' outside the Library on the first day of term with a resounding:

"Ahoy, Gid! How goes?" - only to be told that "actually, it's George now".

"Really?" said the boy. "Why's that?"

"FRANKLY" the teenage Osborne explained:

"I CAN'T SEE THE BRITISH PEOPLE ELECTING A PRIME MINISTER WITH SUCH A JEWISH FIRST NAME."

(Private Eye No.1330 22nd Dec. 2012 - January 10th 2013)


Allegedly.

I thought he wasn't worth wasting anymore of your time on but I see you jumped in rather fast with this one.

Let us believe for a second that he did in fact change his name because he didn't believe the British people would elect a prime minister with such a Jewish first name.

Anti-semitism is hatred / discrimination / prejudice toward Jews.

If the reasoning above was correct then Osborne changed his name not because [uhe[/u wanted to discriminate against Jewish people but because he thought that others might discriminate against him because of his name.

Therefore there is no anti-semitism. George Osborne can in no way be described as anti-semitic.

I've been offline for most of the afternoon - I'm not sad as to wait for posts to be written and jump on them as soon as. I didn't waste time on him. I googled him and found it in seconds, like BobbyD could have done but instead chose to wind up Minty in pretending she'd made it all up.

I didn't say I agree with her or believe the article, more like just showing it was out there.

Allegedly.

Oh, well, there we are conclusive proof. FFS.
Plus, if you take that statement in isolation, how the hell is it anti semitic. He's basically calling the UK electorate a bunch of bigots. Which, if you really think about it, he's that not wrong. The dogs abuse Thatcher gets for closing less mines than Wilson in the Peoples Republic of Yorkshire shows misogyny reigns over that side of the hills.

Never said it was - read my post above before you start FFS'ing!!

It wasn't the numbers of mines closed, rather than the reasons for closure snd the numbers of miners thrown on the scrapheap.

Mind you, it's a similar argument to the growth of foodbanks under Labour. A statistic that brainless tories keep trotting out.

Politics of the playground, name calling, flag waving and blaming others - the only thing holding any government back is the constant need to deflect blame and pick up scraps of praise rather than just tell it like it is.

By means of comparison - you get a heating engineer in to install central heating in your home, he makes a complete balls up of it and is plainly out of his depth, so you invite another heating engineer around for his opinion, he tells you exactly what he thinks is wrong and what he thinks he'd do to fix the mess left by the first guy and asks you to give him the job, so you do, and he spends the next five years not fixing your central heating but telling you how bad a mess the first guy left.

Political chancers, a minimum five year mandate to line your own pocket, invest in property in Central London without using your own money and then cash in on the profit when your contract ends, if I didn't have to kiss so many s to get there then I'd do it myself.

FFS you're scraping the barrel now. So Tory pit closures are worse than Labour pit closures? I suppose Tory boom and bust was evil and ended by Gordon Brown who then presided over the grandest of boom and busts, one that has caused foodbanks and austerity. But that was a Labour boom and bust - so it's great. f*** the colleteral damage, it was a Labour one, so it was better than a smaller, Tory one!?

You and Brown have in your respective words encapsulated the warped, sick, deluded and frankly insane mind of the socialist.

I thought you were better than that.

How many strikes were called to oppose pit closures under the Wilson government? Pits have closed since the days they first opened, for the most part the NUM accepted, however reluctantly, that closures were an inevitability of an extractive process. The difference was the NCB would consult and explain the reasons for closure, they would also work to redeploy miners to productive pits. That all stopped under Thatcher, all the miners got was spin, lies and confrontation.

That is a pretty fair assessment of matters in my view - the question is why did the miners only strike when there was a Tory government and why did Thatcher take such a radical position?

It was published – not on social media, but right out in print – and has not been challenged or threatened with action.



Or he thinks the same way that he thinks the people he's commenting on do.

So what? What would he threaten exactly?



You've been asked for proof of this and haven't provided any, so we can only assume that you are now trolling.

To sue for libel.



A lack of evidence never stops you.

You really are scraping the barrel.

Can we have some actual proof please or will you retract your disgusting allegation that the Chancellor is anti-semitic?

I have merely explained that the story is in print. It wouldn't be the first time that someone had sued [iPrivate Eye[/i.

That's what libel law is for, after all.

I do hope that Gidiot knows of your almost orgasmic defence of his honour. I'm sure he appreciates it.

Now, when is that book going to be published by the young lady in this picture? Looks like they were having a rip-snortingly good time.

Firstly, what would he argue? That someone saying he changed his name because others might not have liked it will have lowered his estimation in the minds of right thinking members of society? Weak.

Secondly, even if he had considered the statement defamatory there are a multitude of reasons why someone may not choose to pursue legal action. You cannot infer anything from this. Weak.

You have accused him of being anti-semitic yet you have [uno proof[/u whatsoever to support your vile allegation.

BobbyD's post sums you up rather well:

Yes. It would make him look weak. Rather cowardly, really.



I haven't. Any more than you are. Apparently.



My, my, my. You do get excited about Georgie, don't you?

A little crush, perhaps?

Go on – admit it. There's nothing to be ashamed of on that score.

This is poor trolling this.

Still waiting for that proof....I'll be here when you're ready.

Ah, the old "if they don't sue, it must be true". That's a fine platform to build a legal framework on. Bloody cheap too. Fool proof, no way that could ever go wrong just ask Jeffrey Archer...wait, oh bugger.
Then there's the point that if you're a politician and spent you're time suing people for any perceived slight you'd never be out of court.

That would require you to have the ability to read minds.

But, hey, you've done your bit, thrown out an allegation based on nothing more that you don't like someone and here we are talking about it. Not a hack are you?