Stephen Fry openly supports the weird bully and racist Rachel Riley and encouraged her in her bizarre nasty tweets.

Riley and Jonathon Freedland steamed in and falsely accused a Labour candidate- he had a Muslim name ...of being antisemitic .

The pair are now back-peddling like crazy as it dawns on them that they mistook him for another man with the same name.

Well they all look the same don't they? Those darkies..

This is an example of why I dislike Britain now and plan to not set foot there again in the forseeable future.

The country has gone so far to the right under the crass Tories (and Tony Blair). It's become a vulgar joint that is heading down the same road as the USA.

Rachel Riley , apart from seeming incredibly thick, is one of the oddest bullies on social media who seems to issue vile attacks on innocents yet escapes all censure.

Her last outrage was to attack a Northern working man's band because they had the hide to play Hava Nagila in a march!
Sheer madness but her hate simply drips from vacuous white lips as she flings back her blonde hair( she doesn't look typically Jewish according to her)

Stephen fry applauded Riley in her campaign of abuses. If he thinks she is fighting antisemitism then he is even more of a lightweight than I ever thought.

For a major Guardian journalist like Jonathan Freedland to steam in and falsely accuse a political candidate of antisemitism without checking simply defies belief. It's beyond depressing and simply echos how in the gutter Britain's media is.

Both Freedman and Riley should be sacked

Of course they won;t be. They'll sail through this as though it never happened (with support from those like Fry) but heaven help, say Dianne Abbott if she dares get a sum wrong. Never hear the fucking end of it.

There was always an underlying thread of racism in British society. Never affected me of course- I don;t look "typically Jewish" (instead I was endlessly and viciously attacked when young for looking Slavic)

# Riley hasn't even got the good grace to simply apologise properly- she has to have a go at Corbyn in her ridiculous back down.What a mealy mouthed cow she is.

These false claims of antisemitism that have been bandied about for crass politician advantage is one of the most destructive aspects of British political life today.
It's why the Tories can calmly announce they are considering a law aimed specifically at Travelers in order to move them on. Adolf Hitler & the Nazis had a way of sealing with the "Gypsy problem" as well and made laws aimed just at them.

Sailed over he heads of dills like Freedman and The Guardian (and probably Fry as well let alone Rachel Frigging Riley)

It's sheer dynamite and those who happen to be Jewish in Britain will pay a very dear price for it for decades.(unless they "don't look Jewish" like Riley.)

It was depressing to see Stephen Fry applaud Rachel Riley in her nastiness. It says a lot about his character. Either he doesn't really follow her dreadful falsehoods or was just jumping on a bandwagon.

Falsely accusing people of antisemitism is not too different from falsely accusing them of sex crimes (or any crime). The damage can be permanent and destructive. Encouraging those who falsely accuse is beyond the pale.

Stephen Fry reminds me a bit of Germaine Greer. Both are articulate and come across well in conversation, interview and on television. However, critical scrutiny of the content of what they actually say shows that many of the positions they assert rely on false premises or enthymematic arguments.

With Stephen Fry, this is particularly noticeable outside of contexts where he can control the discourse. There was a documentary he did, examining laws prohibiting homosexuality in various countries. He performed weakly when debating an issue which is well trodden ethical ground with long-established arguments on his side.

Stephen Fry isn't really an intellectual, an academic or an expert . He's an entertainer, and he's good at that.

Stephen Fry is both an intellectual and an entertainer. The hypocrisy and double standards I read on this forum is so extreme I actually now find myself no longer interested in entering into any of the arguments as I find the opinions so predictable but I continue reading to remind myself how closed minds some individuals can have. Issues seldom can be black or white but rather are often a shade of grey. Opinions should be formed based on the available evidence and if new or revised evidence appears then there should be nothing wrong with changing that opinion.

Taking a set position and applying it to every situation is not very intellectual. If someone is accused of doing something it should be based on the evidence and also the probability that evidence is correct and representative. That means sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with a proposition and not just following a particular ideology.

Randall wrote:
Stephen Fry reminds me a bit of Germaine Greer. Both are articulate and come across well in conversation, interview and on television. However, critical scrutiny of the content of what they actually say shows that many of the positions they assert rely on false premises or enthymematic arguments.

With Stephen Fry, this is particularly noticeable outside of contexts where he can control the discourse. There was a documentary he did, examining laws prohibiting homosexuality in various countries. He performed weakly when debating an issue which is well trodden ethical ground with long-established arguments on his side.

Stephen Fry isn't really an intellectual, an academic or an expert . He's an entertainer, and he's good at that.

He is incredibly contrary, and flounces off in a sulk whenever he's challenged. If he had a Brummie accent he'd be mocked rather than revered. He just has that sound that triggers a deep-rooted compulsion within some people to bow and tug their forelocks.

Well said Blue Boy.