Oh fuck off. It was one example of many that I subsequently provided.
"Subsequently" being the operative word i.e. after I pointed out that your original post was pretty thin on the evidence. Am I supposed to withhold my criticism on the basis of a post that you are going to make in the future? And, of course, you definitely would have made it, even if I hadn't criticised your first post.
Your pretence that you don't think him anti-semitic is pretty feeble.
You are accusing me of lying. However, your evidence is even even more feeble than your original post on this thread i.e. you don't even have one piece of evidence.
I'll say again: I do not believe Corbyn is anti semitic. I think some of his actions prior to becoming leader show naivety about the Middle East situation. I think the term "antisemitic" is most often used, in the context of the Palestine problem, as a way to shut down debate. I think some of the antisemitic accusations against the Labour Party are effectively smears. I also think Corbyn is a useless twat and his leadership of Her Majesty's Opposition during the Brexit fiasco was an unmitigated disaster. I'm glad he's gone. But he does not hate Jews.
Returning to the subject of the OP. It is my opinion that Starmer's actions were not based on right or wrong, but on a desire to draw a line under the antisemitic issue and move on to more pressing matters such as the uselessness of the Johnson government.
