For details of the Jonathan Hoffman saga I recommend Charlie Pottins's blog, Random Pottins, but let's have his apology again because it says it all about Jonathan Hoffman and zionist "debating" tactics in general:
On my Jewish Chronicle blog I described a photograph taken on 14 August 2010 at the pro-Ahava demonstration as "fraudulent". I also wrote "That photo was 'Photoshopped' -- and it is bloody obvious that it was 'Photoshopped' I do not discuss but I do identify lies and fraudulent Photoshopped photos."Got it? Hoffman simply lied about a photo of himself at a demonstration apparently enjoying the company of an activist with the fascist English Defence League.
These statements were entirely without foundation and I had made no attempt to check their accuracy. I accept that the photo was absolutely genuine and had not been tampered with in any way. The photographer, David Hoffman, is a well known and respected photojournalist and I apologise to him unreservedly for my hasty and unfounded comments and for the distress and embarrassment caused.
Ok, now let's see the apology over an article headed "Demos and Genocide" which appears on the front of the latest edition of The Spectator today:
Stephen Pollard and the Spectator apologise for the unintended and false suggestion in a blog published on 15 July 2008 that Islam Expo Limited is a fascist party dedicated to genocide which organised a conference with a racist and genocidal programme. We accept that Islam Expo's purpose is to provide a neutral and broad-based platform for debate on issues relating to Muslims and Islam.Now how on earth can you suggest that an organisation "is a fascist party dedicated to genocide which organised a conference with a racist and genocidal programme" without actually intending to?
First up we have a prominent official of the Zionist Federation with a Jewish Chronicle hosted blog flagrantly lying about a photograph and then we have the Jewish Chronicle's editor unintentionally accusing a Muslim group of fascism, racism and genocidal intentions? Was it a typo while he was trying to describe an Israeli party perhaps? Sadly, unlike the Hoffman apology, Pollard hasn't been forced to repeat the libel and then to self-expose its falsehood but see this from the Middle East monitor website:
the Spectator and Mr Pollard have undertaken never to repeat the allegations complained of and agreed to pay damages to compensate us for the damage done to our reputation by the article. They have also agreed to pay our legal costs.That seems to be suggesting that Pollard didn't even attend the event that formed the basis of his allegations. But what's this? I just googled "Demos and Genocide" hoping to find the offending piece. Of course I couldn't find it but I did stumble on this from Liberal Conspiracy:
Litigation was not and is not our preferred option and we prefer to deal with everyone on an open and amicable basis. However, when false and serious allegations are published that seek to discredit and damage the reputation of Islam Expo, and the publishers refuse to apologise, then we have no option but to take legal action. We are delighted with the eventual outcome in this matter.
We hope that in future third parties intending to write about us will attend our future events which remain, as ever, open and welcoming to all, and be fair and objective in their comments.
It’s also worth noting that Stephen Pollard referred to material first published on the Harry’s Place blog in that post.And our liberal conspirators helpfully link to the judgement in the case so we can see what exactly Stephen Pollard wrote in The Spectator.