Jewish group calls for Burnley Football Club to rename Turf Moor's Bob Lord Stand

[northernpowerhouse]

The club statement says "He was also responsible for a number of disgraceful anti-Semitic statements which were condemned by Jews at the time."

What were the other statements? If he consistently made anti-semitic comments then change the name. It's only a stand. But if it's just the one incident fifty years ago it's a bit of an overreaction.

[Elbarad]

Today's world needs more people who are willing to say, 'I'm sorry you feel that way, but no.' What are they going to do? Write a strongly worded letter?

[Claretforever]

The world has gone mad, and soft. It’s ridiculous. Some things are worth fighting for, but the name of a stand after 50 years? Jesus!

Is this purposeful deflection from the club? The Americans are brilliant marketeers, and things aren’t well right now. I’m the suspicious type.

[tarkys_ears]

Genial Bob Lord

[Volvoclaret]

On behalf of The Apiary Owners Gazette, I would like to ask Mr Scholes to give his view on part of Turf Moor being named The Beehole End. I would like to know whether it is right to name a stand after an intimate part of our female bees? In 2022 does he agree that it is extremely sexist to our hives up and down the UK to highlight this intimate part especially when it includes our Queens. Come on Tony don't hide behind honeyed words, tell it like it is and no we wont buzz off. This is not a sting operation.

[redwasp]

post of the year so far Volvo.

[aggi]

I wasn't attempting to answer that question and I don't think it's really relevant.

My point was that the majority of posters on this board shouldn't believe they are the barometer for what is offensive to a Jewish person. Or a female, or an Asian etc, etc.

Why has this been brought up now? I don't know, possibly following the dickhead giving the Nazi salute at WHL has prompted them to dig for other examples of anti-Semitism at BFC.

I don't think there is anything wrong in bringing up these things from the past. For me, acknowledging what has happened in the past and moving on is more beneficial than trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretending it never happened.

I think this group of mainly middle aged white blokes has proven over the years that they are experts in judging racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Not sure why you need other viewpoints.

In all seriousness, for those who weren't aware the JC is the biggest Jewish newspaper in the country and pretty influential. I see the same reporter had done a story on the fan doing Nazi salutes at spurs a few weeks ago, maybe that's what brought Burnley, and Bob Lord, to his attention.

[ClaretTony]

The club statement says "He was also responsible for a number of disgraceful anti-Semitic statements which were condemned by Jews at the time."

What were the other statements? If he consistently made anti-semitic comments then change the name. It's only a stand. But if it's just the one incident fifty years ago it's a bit of an overreaction.

I was somewhat surprised at the club statement and if there weren’t a number of such comments from Lord then they need taking to task.

[dsr]

Oh dear.

I've certainly done things I regret and, no, I'm not perfect (although with that weak response I have another wise adage for you - sarcasm being the lowest form of wit). What I've never done is come out with such disgusting comments as Gray did, and even if I did think those awful things I'd not be stupid enough to provide an online record of my views. Gray was rightly punished and it was absolutely correct that he was.

I'm glad you agree his comments were wrong though. That's something, at least.

There's no doubt that Gray should have been punished, as he was, but the punishment has to be proportionate. Suppose Gray goes on to be chairman of a small town club which is so progressive and well-run that they win the league, and he also becomes long-term vice chairman and for one season acting chairman of the Football League, should his comments mean that he is banned forever from having a memorial?

Lord made one foul comment for which he apologised. Whitewashing him from history would be grossly overreacting.

PS - how many of us on this board, particularly the older ones, have ever described someone as "jewing" them? I did, for one. Are we all condemned forevermore?

[Volvoclaret]

post of the year so far Volvo.

Thank you and Shalom

[2 Bee Holed]

I would like to know how many people of the Jewish faith know who Bob Lord was. Furthermore, how many of them are even aware of the one comment he made in the 1960's.
I'd be amazed if there are more than 10 people of the Jewish faith who are aware of this incident, and an even smaller number who are offended by the name.
I suspect there are far more Burnley fans offended by the stand's name, than Jews.

I wonder what is the opinion of Jewish Burnley fans?

I'm concerned about the German car manufacturers who have Nazi and slave labour connections being advertised throughout tonight's game. Will I write a letter about it to the press and expect an investigation? No.

[2 Bee Holed]

would like to know how many people of the Jewish faith know who Bob Lord was. Furthermore, how many of them are even aware of the one comment he made in the 1960's.
I'd be amazed if there are more than 10 people of the Jewish faith who are aware of this incident, and an even smaller number who are offended by the name.
I suspect there are far more Burnley fans offended by the stand's name, than Jews.

I wonder what is the opinion of Jewish Burnley fans?

I'm concerned about the German car manufacturers who have Nazi and slave labour connections being advertised throughout tonight's game. Will I write a letter about it to the press and expect an investigation? No.

[bobinho]

It won't be long until its offensive to call them down the road B+×÷=/_s.

The world has gone mad

It IS offensive.

And that’s exactly how I mean it to be….

[claretonthecoast1882]

The clarets trust should be told to get ******

[claptrappers_union]

This is where we are now, you can't win. Bob Lord has been placed on record making disparaging remarks about Jews, he is also on record for apologising for it... so the acknowledgment of that is basically the evidence, no matter what the context. Now, if the club decide that the name remains on the stand, the club are labelled anti-semitic, becuase they choosing to ignore it, thats not good PR - and that when it starts... because if anyone agrees with the club, they are anti-semitic too.

While we are at it, lets route out his opinions on gays, women, black people and 'men with long hair' - we'd have to burn the stand down! I mean, the guy was born in 1908 and a local Butcher and self-made businessman in a poor working mill town... Do people in the 21st Century really expect him to have been a gentle soul with progressive ideas or something?

It's mad. This needs to stop.

[Jambo]

It doesn't really matter if Lord was deliberately being anti-Semetic. People who are racist often insist and genuinely believe they are not. It was clearly an anti-Semetic comment. I think it's absolutely fair enough to get the views of Jewish fans on this and I assume that's all is meant by "internal investigation" given the time that has passed. To be honest, though, they can change the name of the stand, probably to a sponsor, and everyone will still call it the Bob Lord anyway.

[groove]

Forgive my cynicism but i think this has been brought up just to justify a commercial decision to rename the BLS after the highest bidding sponsor. Jumping on the 'woke' bandwagon for financial gain.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Forgive my cynicism but i think this has been brought up just to justify a commercial decision to rename the BLS after the highest bidding sponsor. Jumping on the 'woke' bandwagon for financial gain.

How does the journalist running the story benefit from us re-naming a stand ? If you think the club are behind it why are the doing it after relegation from the highest profile league in football rather than while they were still in it ?

[Bullabill]

Bob Lord was a Freemason - how does that align with anti-semitism?

[BuryClaret]

As a Jewish Burnley fan, I have to say this is utter nonsense.

If I was around at the time when Bob Lord made those comments, sure, I might've been offended. But we're now years down the line. It's another example of the cancel culture and woke brigade at its finest.

[Devils_Advocate]

Bob Lord was a Freemason - how does that align with anti-semitism?

You tell us as you seem to making reference to an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory historically linked with far right groups across Europe? I hope you're not implying there is some link we should be considering or concerning ourselves with as that would be you promoting an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which wouldn't be a good look

[Colburn_Claret]

As a Jewish Burnley fan, I have to say this is utter nonsense.

If I was around at the time when Bob Lord made those comments, sure, I might've been offended. But we're now years down the line. It's another example of the cancel culture and woke brigade at its finest.

Thank you

[ClaretTony]

As a Jewish Burnley fan, I have to say this is utter nonsense.

If I was around at the time when Bob Lord made those comments, sure, I might've been offended. But we're now years down the line. It's another example of the cancel culture and woke brigade at its finest.

I know it's not relevant but worth noting that we had a Jewish director at the football club for a long period of the time Lord was chairman

[Stayingup]

I suppoe we could call it the Ben-Gurion stand. There would then be an outcry from at least one other activist group.

[claptrappers_union]

As a Jewish Burnley fan, I have to say this is utter nonsense.

If I was around at the time when Bob Lord made those comments, sure, I might've been offended. But we're now years down the line. It's another example of the cancel culture and woke brigade at its finest.

I think at the end of the day, no one is interested other than this Keith Appleby fella, I suppose as deputy for St Albans United Synagogue, maybe its his job to point things like this out... but the regurgitation on social media and lazy journalism fuels as they all report the same story over and over and it seems a bigger thing than it is. There is no 'woke brigade' behind it really.

[forzagranata]

I think it is worth pointing out that despite the headline in the newspaper - no 'Jewish group' at all has called for the stand to be renamed. Indeed, as far as I am aware, no Jewish group has said anything at all about Bob Lord. If the reports in the Jewish Chronicle and follow up in the Burnley Express are accurate then one individual from St Alban's made a comment about Bob Lord at a meeting. This was then reported on and the club, decided to issue a comment.

[Damo]

Interesting that the middle aged white blokes on here that think middle aged white blokes shouldn't be telling Jewish people what they should be offended by, are the same ones that said they were wrong to proclaim the previous opposition party as antisemitic

[Petersa]

Whenever Bob Lords comments at that time are brought up I always remember that a long serving member of the Burnley FC board at the time was Jewish, namely Dr David Iven who had an incredible life journey being born in Odesa and being smuggled to the then Palestine as an 8 year old in the 1930s and eventually joining the British Army as a medic during the Second World War before coming to Burnley afyer the War.
Ther will be a number of articles available even on UTC which will have far more detail than I could ever know. My understanding has always been that Lord and Iven were good friends and Dr Iven received his shares from Mr Lord to enable him to be a director in the first place. This fact is very much at odds with his reputation of being an outspoken anti semitic. I have in my posession an old football annual from 1962 describing him as forthright! Critics of Bob Lord should perhaps be reminded of these details before major issues are raised unnecessarily.
If I have any of these details wrong I am sure I will be put right by someone on this board. If I am even close to the truth it may be worthwhile CT and anyone else reposting any articles to nip this in the bud.....even giving copies to the internal enquiry.

[ClaretTony]

Whenever Bob Lords comments at that time are brought up I always remember that a long serving member of the Burnley FC board at the time was Jewish, namely Dr David Iven who had an incredible life journey being born in Odesa and being smuggled to the then Palestine as an 8 year old in the 1930s and eventually joining the British Army as a medic during the Second World War before coming to Burnley afyer the War.
Ther will be a number of articles available even on UTC which will have far more detail than I could ever know. My understanding has always been that Lord and Iven were good friends and Dr Iven received his shares from Mr Lord to enable him to be a director in the first place. This fact is very much at odds with his reputation of being an outspoken anti semitic. I have in my posession an old football annual from 1962 describing him as forthright! Critics of Bob Lord should perhaps be reminded of these details before major issues are raised unnecessarily.
If I have any of these details wrong I am sure I will be put right by someone on this board. If I am even close to the truth it may be worthwhile CT and anyone else reposting any articles to nip this in the bud.....even giving copies to the internal enquiry.

I referred to us having a Jewish director five posts above yours.

[Petersa]

Sorry Tony wasn't trying to steal your thunder..I think we are probably in agreement on this issue.

[BuryClaret]

I think at the end of the day, no one is interested other than this Keith Appleby fella, I suppose as deputy for St Albans United Synagogue, maybe its his job to point things like this out... but the regurgitation on social media and lazy journalism fuels as they all report the same story over and over and it seems a bigger thing than it is. There is no 'woke brigade' behind it really.

In the era of social media and live news channels, the story travels fast. Back in Bob Lord's day, it would've just been a small piece in the papers

[Spiral]

This post is going to outrage almost everyone on here, and I doubt I'll ever be more unpopular, but I'm saying it all anyway. People will probably want to kick my head in, that's okay, you're entitled to that fantasy. But if you're going to read it, please do read the whole of what I write, and not mere parts of it. There are ideas in this post that go beyond the particulars of this case, but I'm using this story as the basis. Forgive me if I drift between specific points, and more general ones. I'm not necessarily demanding the stand's name be changed, I'm not joining any 'calls for change' or such, I'm merely offering a perspective on this which I feel is lacking on this thread. So take this as an abstract exercise. I hope it might provoke a thought or two.

Football club owners should not be naming the buildings they have commissioned to be built under their regime after themselves. By all means emblazon your name on the garish skyscrapers your own enterprise pays to have built; lease out by the sq ft office space and premium real estate and make yourself ludicrously wealthy, build an empire, leave some vain monument of your own to posterity. But to do this in football, to a club bearing the name of a town, yoking into its fortunes and reputation the very people who live in the community which gives that club its legitimacy and to whom the club owes its very existence, eternally, beyond the life of any one individual? For a person to impose themselves on such a precious thing is ghastly. This contravenes the communitarian spirit of football as we conceive of it as an ideal, as binding, as belonging to all of us. It's loathsome, it's a product of a narcissistic ego. It would be outrageous if a football club owner unilaterally did this today. Only a base, traditionalist pang allows us to turn a blind eye to the fact this has happened to our club.

We renamed the stretch of Brunshaw Rd outside Turf Moor to 'Harry Potts Way' in order to honour Potts. This was done with the assent of fans. Bob Lord did not build the Bob Lord stand. He did not lay a single brick in earnest. The stand bears his name not as a result of supporter consensus, but as a result of his own heart's desire. The stand we call the 'Bob Lord Stand' has a function unto itself, but Bob Lord emblazoned his own name on the stand he commissioned to have built as a monument to his own vanity and ego. Problem (and this is where I wish to make a more general point): as with any monument to a human who is fallible by dint of their being human, by acting as its guardians in posterity we invite upon ourselves criticism from those who object to the behaviours, words, and implied and assumed beliefs of the one being honoured monumentally, thus inviting upon ourselves the criticism that we are indifferent to those objections being made. Our self-respect is diminished by a sense of duty to the act of preservation, a feeling of necessity to defend things which we don't always really believe in against attacks we might sometimes find to have just cause. To defend the naming of a stand, a building, any monument, is to defend the person being honoured by its naming, for we only honour those whom we wish to honour. The character of the person is inextricably linked to their name, and to insist on their name being honoured is to insist on honouring the person himself, which rightly or wrongly is perceived to insist on honouring their character. It is the nature of human beings to think this way. Our patterns of cognition lead us to make associations like this.

To critique Lord's remarks and more importantly to challenge, to re-evaluate the extent to which he or anyone more generally (but I'm going back to Lord as a subject) is lionised today is to engage with history, not erase it. To palm his comments off as being "from another time" is to attempt to sanitise what he said and to whitewash history. This attempted appeal to some primordial innocence does not hold up to scrutiny considering these remarks came after 1945, when, in spite of testaments to his otherwise decent reputation, the ramifications of hateful Jewish stereotyping had tragically been made aware and had been a part of public consciousness for a generation. To re-name a building is not to re-write history, it is to re-evaluate our relationship with it. And possessed with the knowledge that Lord openly expressed views remarked on at the time (the anti-Semitic belief in Jews conspiring for pecuniary gain) — an articulation, however clumsy, betraying a belief consistent with a worldview which when taken to its logical conclusion saw Jews routinely persecuted and murdered as scapegoats for centuries, and even still today is a belief held in sincerity by extremists — we find ourselves in a bind, philosophically and commercially.

To demonstrate this, permit me to ask you to engage in an easy thought experiment. Imagine the stand on Harry Potts Way bears the name of a commercial sponsor, and has done since the day it opened. It's 2022, and the sponsorship is coming to an end. Due to fantastical financial circumstances acquiring sponsorship is of no financial import to BFC, and as such it is proposed by a Burnley fan, in a spasm of traditionalism, that we name the stand the 'Bob Lord Stand'. Lord's anti-Semitic statement again comes to light, and no fan can plead ignorance to their knowledge of his remarks, yet by majority we assent. What are the implications of this? To assent to naming the stand after Lord is to value the mere honouring of a long-dead chairman, not universally liked in his time, over the tastelessness of his remarks, an act which brings disrepute to the club by its apparent willingness to overlook those remarks. I'll second what has been said about the 'calls' not being very loud, but please know that opposition bordering on hostility in the form it takes on this thread to any plead by others to rename the stand is tantamount to hostility to the grievance being expressed, and please know that this will be accompanied by reputational damages, small though they may be, that the club and fans alike will bear whether you like it or not. The crux of the matter is this: this is not so much a litigation of Bob Lord's comments, but rather a litigation of our persistent attitude and tolerance towards them. This is not about Bob Lord, this is about us. The living. The here today. If we're being forced into taking a stance, it is being done by people with the freedom to effect such a thing. It's the exact same freedom and power we all enjoy if we so choose to put it to work. Rage at that all you want, but this is what's happens. I suspect the sentence, "It was condemned at the time, move on" is not a particularly convincing argument to those with grievance, and the headline, "Calls for Burnley football club to rename stand dedicated to 'anti-Semite' owner" is a rhetorically powerful one.

So why the impulse to the preservation of that which is reputationally damaging? Well, firstly, it's because — it seems — people are fairly casual about casual anti-Semitism. You want proof, or rather, a demonstration? If it came to light that Bob Lord were a paedophile the signage bearing his name would be ripped from the stand within an hour. Everyone reading this post can understand the idea of a value judgement. Everyone can understand the idea of one thing being considered more virtuous or more reprehensible than the other; of degrees of virtue and vileness. In this sense everything is a calculation, a negotiation of the value of one thing over the other, and so in this context (it seems, judging by the thread) people negotiate and calculate in their mind that Lord's anti-Semitic utterances are not disqualifying of his continued honouring. Secondly (regarding the traditionalist impulse to preservation), this is all about legitimacy. Historical legitimacy. Heritage. Authenticity in this very moment. It's about having one foot planted firmly in the past: to honour the past is to build a bridge to the present, and the legitimacy of the present exists as a continuation of the past. To uphold the past is to grant legitimacy to those things that exist today, those things which we can touch and feel and interact with here and now, and also those abstract things, those feelings of what it is to support a team. And people feel as though any challenge to those monuments that signpost our history is a challenge to that history itself, and thus a challenge to the reality they live in today which is fundamentally tethered to their conception of the past, and that by extension can feel like a direct challenge to the very emotions that the contemplation of the past invokes in the subject which identifies itself with that past. But why? Why does it have to be that way? Because your father framed it that way? No! The past can be $hit, real, separate, and connected all at once without impinging upon the validity of the present moment. The present is not imperilled by a re-evaluation of the past. It never has been. Why surrender to a history other people wrote? History is never settled. We're more informed as a species than at any other time in history. History is not contingent on the establishment or preservation of monuments: only our willingness to engage with and remember it. In the case of BFC, you feel as though to challenge Lord is to challenge Burnley FC's history itself. But disentangle this man's views and behaviours from our proud history. He was there, but our history isn't embodied in him. To stand against Lord's anti-Semitic remark is to stand FOR Burnley FC in 2022. We're far bigger than one man's self-imposed legacy.

Lastly, people are quite rightly soliciting the views of Jewish Burnley fans. This is good, but I'd make some final points, interrelated. The first is that no one person can speak for another, but it's still worth seeking those views. The second is that it is not entirely uncommon for people in bad-faith to seek to solicit the views held by those belonging to the group being attacked so as to create a sort of alibi when the 'right view' (which is to say, the one convenient to the bad-faith actor) is found. Just be weary of this. Furthermore, when you're sitting in the Bob Lord stand, you're sitting in a stand bearing the name of a man associated with a regretful episode to which you are bound, rightly or wrongly, by association. The point goes beyond the offensiveness of Lord's comments to Jewish people. In honouring Lord, a non-Jewish individual opposed to anti-Semitism is asked to consider if they are comfortable with that. Think of it a bit like the tree falling in the woods idea. If a race of people is insulted and there's no one of that race around to hear, is it offensive? I want to assert that your relationship to hateful speech and stereotyping is not conditional on you being the one spoken against. Everyone has a moral compass, and most people are capable of empathy.

I think I've said everything I want to say and I don't feel the need to elaborate. I honestly don't want a fight with anyone on here, and I don't know when I'll get the chance to respond to anything, so as far as this post goes, take it or leave it. I hope you get something out of it however small.

[Murger]

Yeah, no chance I'm reading that.

[Spiral]

Yeah, no chance I'm reading that.

I was going to say it's shorter than the combined word count of the rest of the thread which you've probably read, but then I'm not so sure it is!!!

[dsr]

... [not quoted for length]

I think you're right that people see a single comment about Jews as much less serious than paedophilia. But surely that's an argument in favour of Bob Lord, not against him?

Could you please say what these utterances are. Like the original objector, you have pluralised the word, so you are saying he made anti-semitic references more than once. Please elaborate.

[Lancasterclaret]

I was going to say it's shorter than the combined word count of the rest of the thread which you've probably read, but then I'm not so sure it is!!!

Paragraph 4 onwards are what quite a lot of people on this thread could do with reading

[dsr]

One problem with refusing to accept his comment (singular) about being "from another time" is that you have to judge his peers by modern standards as well. If that single comment is enough to get Bob Lord's name erased from the stand, then what does it say about the people (other club chairmen, presumably) who repeatedly appointed him vice-chairman of the Football League? What does it say about our fathers and grandfathers who happily supported the club that he was chairman of? Many of us have grandparents who we can remember saying things about immigrants that would be considered unsayable today. Do we have to erase our grandparents from our memories? Take their photos off our walls?

you have to take context into account.

[Spiral]

I've got a minute so I'll respond really quickly.

I think you're right that people see a single comment about Jews as much less serious than paedophilia. But surely that's an argument in favour of Bob Lord, not against him?

Could you please say what these utterances are. Like the original objector, you have pluralised the word, so you are saying he made anti-semitic references more than once. Please elaborate.

Top part, yes, we're in agreement that some things are more vile than others. The point I want to stress is that we're essentially settling on what we consider to be acceptable. The rest of my post talks about how this can give us problems.

Second part, I should have been more careful with the pluralising as I can see how it comes across as suggesting this happened more than once, but in sincerity I was using words like 'remarks' and 'utterances' in the way you'd use the word "words", which can be attributed to a single sentence made up of many words. But I think this is pedantry, I'm sorry.

One problem with refusing to accept his comment (singular) about being "from another time" is that you have to judge his peers by modern standards as well. If that single comment is enough to get Bob Lord's name erased from the stand, then what does it say about the people (other club chairmen, presumably) who repeatedly appointed him vice-chairman of the Football League? What does it say about our fathers and grandfathers who happily supported the club that he was chairman of? Many of us have grandparents who we can remember saying things about immigrants that would be considered unsayable today. Do we have to erase our grandparents from our memories? Take their photos off our walls?

you have to take context into account.

I totally agree with that last line, which is why I've tried to be very careful to stress, explicitly so in the part I underlined, that this is less to do with Lord himself, and more to do with our own relationship with the past. I've made that point as well as I am capable of doing, and to elaborate, I feel, would only be to reword what I've already said.

[Lancasterclaret]

As long as the lessons have been learnt, then I think history should remain in the past

But as you can see in far too many cases, it never does, and the only way to avoid that (at least to me) is to confront it and deal with it, however uncomfortable it makes you feel

If its any help, its was a struggle (and remains a real struggle) for me

[groove]

Ricky Gervais touches on this sort of thing in his new Netflix stand up gig. He references Kevin Hart, I think it was, who asked to do present the Oscars but then someone dug up a homophobic tweet from years ago which he had indeed apologised for. He basically says what is the point apologising if you're still gonna get cancelled for it. You might as well just say/tweet the offending remark again.

[claptrappers_union]

Ricky Gervais touches on this sort of thing in his new Netflix stand up gig. He references Kevin Hart, I think it was, who asked to do present the Oscars but then someone dug up a homophobic tweet from years ago which he had indeed apologised for. He basically says what is the point apologising if you're still gonna get cancelled for it. You might as well just say/tweet the offending remark again.

And Kevin Hart hasn't been dead for 40 years…

[Sproggy]

Was Bob Lord antisemitic?

Did he apologise?

[JTClaret]

I'm just as surprised people haven't lost the plot about him calling it 'soccer'? Seems to be a massive trigger for British football fans.

[android]

Logged in to like the Damo classic at 3.23pm. Lol

[Rowls]

DId somebody say "soccer"?????!!!!!

GJDLD MLMKGS EROIERKL DU*GUSIODGU IODGJL DLJFJKLLMSLMFKLMXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[boatshed bill]

We'll be rewriting the Bible eventually.

[HitchinClaret]

Too much reading for me, might go and kick someone’s head in instead.

[Bullabill]

You tell us as you seem to making reference to an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory historically linked with far right groups across Europe? I hope you're not implying there is some link we should be considering or concerning ourselves with as that would be you promoting an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which wouldn't be a good look

??????????? I haven't the foggiest idea what you're on about!

[Devils_Advocate]

??????????? I haven't the foggiest idea what you're on about!

Your contribution to this thread was to bring up that Bob Lord was a Freemason. I was wondering why you think this has any relevance to the discussion about his past anti-Semitism.

Was there a reason you thought this was relevant or was it just a random comment with no point?

[Stayingup]

I wonder just how / why this guy from St Albans Jewish group discovered this 1974 speech by Bob Lord. It seems that the great offended of today will go to hreat lengths to uncover historical material that doesnt measure up to todays 'woke' standards.