General Antisemitism

CST: Record number of antisemitic incidents recorded in the UK in 2016.

CST’s new Antisemitic Incidents Report shows a record number of antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2016.  According to CST, there were 1,309 antisemitic incidents nationwide during 2016, a 36 per cent increase from the previous year.


The highest previous number of antisemitic incidents was 1,182 in 2014. The report notes that, unlike in 2014 when there was a ‘trigger’ (the summer war between Israel and Hamas), in 2016 there was no one similar event that can explain the spike.

Here are some more highlights from the report:

  • The 1,309 antisemitic incidents in 2016 included 107 violent antisemitic assaults, an increase of 29 per cent from the previous year.
  • 64 antisemitic incidents in 2016 targeted synagogues, and a further 25 incidents targeted synagogue congregants on their way to or from prayers, compared to 51 and 34 incidents respectively in 2015.
  • In 169 incidents, the victims were Jewish community organisations, communal events, commercial premises or high-profile individuals, compared to 114 such incidents in 2015.
  • 83 incidents targeted Jewish schools, schoolchildren or teachers in 2016, compared to 86 incidents relating to schools and schoolchildren in 2015.
  • • In 41 antisemitic incidents, the victims were Jewish students, academics or other student bodies, compared to 21 such incidents recorded in 2015.
  • Of the 236 antisemitic incidents in 2016 showing ideological motivation or beliefs as well as antisemitism, 162 showed far right motivation or beliefs; 62 showed anti-Israel motivation or beliefs; and 12 showed Islamist motivation or beliefs.

You can read the full report here.


42 replies »

  1. This is nothing. The British Jewish leadership must concentrate on the rel problems of the UK’s Jewish community, like the Swiss ban on mosques and the stricter US limitations on entry from certain Muslim majority countries. Priorities must be observed….

    • Stephen please give us some context.
      If you look at the number of ALL violent assaults in England and Wales, how many people or what percentage were charged?

        • Stephen and I asked for some context to the question of violent assaults and how many are charged.

          If you don’t know the answer to the question please say so.

          • By the way Stephen your claim ” One context I can help you with. The CST are as bent as a wad of £9 notes.” is not context but an unfounded opinion of yours.

            • Stephen if you have no standard to judge it by, why ask the number of people involved in violent anti-Semitic incidents who were charged?

              As for your question about where to find out the numbers you can ask either the Research, Development and Statistics section of the Home Office, or ask the Crown Prosecution Service.

                • Stephen now you are contradicting yourself.
                  Above you made the unfounded claim that the CST are as bent as a wad of £9 notes, and now you post “Maybe the CST could tell us”.

                  Of course it might be your attempt at some kind of alleged humour. Whatever it is, it does bring into question whether you seriously want an answer to your original question or are just trying to make some point to support your usual anti-Semitic ‘theories’.

  2. Gerald there is no point in judging the answer until we know what it is. Is there ? I don’t recall making any judgment. I just recall asking the question. Are you not curious about the performance of Her Majestys numerous constabularies ?

    • Stephen Bellamy writes ” I don’t recall making any judgment. I just recall asking the question.” Sure. Oldest trick in the “have you stopped beating your wife” category. So I am not calling Stephen Bellamy a momzer (that would be a judgement, wouldn’t it?) but would just like to ask a question, “Did your mother ever get to know your father’s last name?”
      Sop stop asking questions and give us a few answers.

      • First rule of advocacy Jan ( and Gerald). Never ask a question the answer to which you don’t already know 🙂

        I guess you are confirming that somewhere between none and a very few of these largely mythical violent assaults even got reported to the police.

        • Stephen so if your maxim of “Never ask a question the answer to which you don’t already know” is one you observe, what is the answer to this question you asked above “How many people were charged over these violent assaults ?”

          It should not take you long to provide an answer as you claim you already know the answers to questions you ask.

            • Stephen so the truthful answer is you do not know.
              Your guess at somewhere between none and very few, is not an answer just a guess by you.

              • By the way Stephen why would you consider a question to be a ‘risk’?
                Unless of course you are afraid that the answer to the question will uncover something you would rather remain hidden.

                • Not at all Gerald I would love the precise number to be made clear. The CST know and maybe they might tell us ? Of course if my sense that it is between none and a very few turns out to be wrong then I will look very silly, not for the first time you doubtless will say. Gerald you are taking an old saying beloved by lawyers way too literally. It does not mean never ask a question that you don’t the precise detailed answer to. Rather it makes a useful point as a maxim of advocacy. That is be very careful what you ask.

                  You also keep on making the mistake of thinking that I give a flying fuck about your assessment of my credibility. You always make me the issue. I am just a humble bog man. I am not the issue and nor are you. The issue raised is the veracity and integrity or the lack thereof of CST.You either care about the answer to my question or you don’t. If you don’t just say you find the question wholly uninteresting. If you do then join me in encouraging CST to provide the answer. I would, in that case, advise both of us not to hold our breath.

                  • Stephen neither I nor anyone else needs to be in any doubt about your complete lack of credibility.
                    Apart from contradicting yourself on many occasions, which is there for all to see.
                    You have this naive belief that you can post and the contents will be accepted without challenge, wrong.
                    When challenged your first response is to ignore it and hope it will go away, if that fails you will try obfuscation, you will try to wriggle and squirm, you will try to twist the words, you will try anything OTHER than face the truth and admit that you are wrong.

                    If it is about you Stephen then that is because you are the one posting lies and half truths. You are the one Stephen who refuses to face up to not only history but the truth and reality of the situation today.
                    Stephen you are the one who has a strange and disturbing obsession about Israel, Zionists, and Jewish people everywhere.

                    Until the day comes when you get the treatment and therapy you so clearly need, stay happy in the ‘Twilight Zone’ of conspiracy theories you occupy. Obviously the cold, hard reality of the real World upsets you.

                  • Stephen your original claim was that the saying “First rule of advocacy Jan ( and Gerald). Never ask a question the answer to which you don’t already know”, the ‘First rule of advocacy’ no less. Then it became “an old saying beloved by lawyers”.

                    But where does it come from dear Stephen?
                    ” Burke’s Law was an Aaron Spelling-produced detective series that starred Gene Barry as Amos Burke, Los Angeles’ millionaire chief of detectives. The jet-setting, swinging Burke was chauffeured to crime scenes in his Rolls-Royce (“Never ask a question unless you already know the answer. Burke’s law!”) That’s right a 1960s American crime series!

                    How appropriate for some who spouts fictional nonsense to use a fictional TV series as a souce for his ‘wisdom’.

    • Stephen really you are trying to twist my words,.
      I clearly wrote “standard to judge it by” which is definitely not the same as “judging the answer until we know what it is”

      If you are unable to or do not want to answer the question, indulging in puerile attempts to twist the words and change the meaning of the question only brings further discredit on you Stephen.

  3. I think this business of asking questions to which the answers are known, as a sneaky way of introducing bias without needing to provide proof, has merely demonstrated Stephen’s slippery methods. Which we don’t need to prove – just read what he has to say and judge for yourselves.
    However, his original “question” was ” How many people were charged over these violent assaults ?” Implying that it is the number of charges which determine how serious the danger is. Nonsense. No police force counts the number of robberies by the number of charges, they count them by looking at the number of people who come back to find their TV gone out through the kitchen window.
    In the same way, violent assaults are counted by the number of people who are left bleeding on the ground, whether their assailant has been charged or not.
    And people like Stephen Bellamy are counted by the number of times they open their yap, and not by the number of times that they are charged.

    • Well I would never deny bias Jan. My bias is in favour of the Bedouin being ethnically cleansed from the Jordan valley.

      Jan how many people were left bleeding on the ground? It is interesting that you equate this imagery with a violent assault. It is the kind of imagery I would associate with violent assault too.

      So 107 Jews were left bleeding on the ground on account of their being Jewish. And virtually no arrests. How interesting is that.

      Particularly as the CST tell us that the overwhelming majority of these incidents occurred under the jurisdiction of the Met and the GMP, the two forces most securely in the grip of the CST/ZIONIST lobby.

      Jan burglars are notoriously difficult to apprehend. My wife used to work in a category A men’s prison. What do you think is the first thing a burglar’s mates do when the said burglar is banged up ? They go burgle his house. Burglars are totally and hopelessly amoral. ( a bit like Simon Cobbs ).

      The murderers were overwhelmingly sorta kinda victims too. There but for fortune go you and go I. What I mean is I am well able to imagine circumstances in which I might end up a murderer. There are no circumstances in which I might end up a burglar.

      Violent assaults are among the easier things to arrest and prosecute. There are tell tale contexts and often witnesses.

      A hundred and seven violent assaults and none to very few arrests ? Give me a break.

  4. Stephen you claim “Violent assaults are among the easier things to arrest and prosecute. There are tell tale contexts and often witnesses”
    But the report of HMIC says this,
    “It is known that violent offences are more prone than some other offences to subjective judgement about whether or not to record a crime. The Crime-recording: making the victim count report, published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), found that “violence against the person” offences had the highest under-recording rates across police forces in England and Wales. Nationally, an estimated 1 in 3 (33%) violent offences that should have been recorded as crimes were not.”

    Who to believe Stephen Bellamy, who lives in his own ‘Twilight Zone’, or Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary?

    Stephen you write “What I mean is I am well able to imagine circumstances in which I might end up a murderer”, but you are the one who professes to be a Quaker. Strange and contradictory? Definitely, but not for Stephen in his own ‘Twilight Zone’.

    “A hundred and seven violent assaults and none to very few arrests ” There you go again with your unsubstantiated claims.

    Poor Stephen who likes to spout his ‘evidence-free’ conspiracy claims, and regards questions as a risk. No wonder you deny the truth Stephen, you can’t handle it!

    • Gerald the reality of this claim of 107 Jews left bleeding on the ground because they are Jewish is not a function of anything I say or do or am.

      Anyway these 107 incidents were recorded by CST and presumably were reported to the police. Koff.

      • Stephen when you write, “..anything I say or do or am.” the answers are obvious.
        “anything I say” Well we can all read what you say here and on other websites and know that it is detached from the truth and reality.
        “do” Probably nothing. Fantasists such as you Stephen are all talk and no action.
        “am” Anyone who reads your posts knows exactly what you are Stephen.

  5. Also Gerald you need to brush up on your understanding of a contradiction.

    That is, statements that CANNOT be true together. Clearly a Quaker murderer is not a contradiction.

    • “Clearly a Quaker murderer is not a contradiction.”
      But Stephen I clearly wrote ” Stephen you write “What I mean is I am well able to imagine circumstances in which I might end up a murderer”, but you are the one who professes to be a Quaker. Strange and contradictory? Definitely, but not for Stephen in his own ‘Twilight Zone’.”

      A contradiction definitely and not unusual for you.

      • Gerald when I am in the presence of such logical ignorance I usually recommend EJ lemon’s ” Beginning Logic “. It is very much first term first year philosophy undergraduate stuff. But you should be able to come out of it with a rudimentary understanding of notions such as ” contradictory ” , contrary” etc. Let me know how you get on.

        • Stephen many thanks for your kind advice. But, I see no need to change my view so my post and its content stands.

          • By the way Stephen it might be useful if when you recommend a book you spelt the name of the author correctly.
            However when have accuracy, the truth or indeed logic stopped you from posting your anti-Semitic fantasies.

              • No Stephen it is not ‘might be’ but as usual you guess.
                Of course in the ‘Twilight Zone’ you inhabit your idea of verifiable evidence is one of your guesses, but not in the real World Stephen.

                  • No Stephen.
                    Your futile attempts to cover up your own errors and lies, yet again, are getting even more farcical.
                    Worse still is the fact that you have gone from being mildly amusing to downright boring.

                    I have better things to do with my time than waste anymore of it on a fantasist, and proven liar, who lives in his own ‘Twilight Zone’

                    • Stephen as you like to suggest books for others to read, then I suggest you buy and read a book that will teach you about the correct usage of the English language.
                      Your use of English is appalling.

                      It is not, “Your a drama queen…” but “You are a drama queen…”
                      Very poor and the same sad standard as your use of History, facts, truth, reality and logic.