Maureen Lipman Contemplating Leaving Britain Due To Antisemitism

Pro-Israel actress Maureen Lipman is contemplating quitting Britain due to rising antisemitism. And Israel is on the list of potential destinations.

Maureen Lipman has said she is contemplating leaving the UK because of the ‘worrying’ rise of attacks on Jewish people.

Mrs Lipman, 71, said the Jewish community in Britain ‘give, give and give’ and described the recent rise in anti-Semitic attacks as ‘very, very depressing’.

The actress, best known for her 1980s adverts for BT, told LBC Radio: ‘When the economy dries up they turn on the usual suspect the Jew… and when the going gets tough the Jews get packing.’

When asked if she’d considered leaving the UK, Mrs Lipman replied: ‘Yes it’s crossed my mind that it’s time to look around for another place to live.

‘One school of thought says it’s because of Israeli policy in the Middle East, it isn’t. There’s been anti-Semitism for 4,000 years.’

—-

In her interview on LBC, Mrs Lipman continued: ‘I’ve thought about going to New York, I’ve thought about going to Israel. I’ve been talking about this for a long time’

‘My kids are very bored with me…but it’s only in the last few months they’ve said “mum, we think you have a point”.

‘There are 245,000 Jews in the country. [W]hat’s to fear? We don’t fly planes into buildings, we generally keep on the right side of the law.’

Mrs Lipman’s comments add to the growing clamour of voices calling for protection of Jews and an end to anti-Semitic attacks

I hope Maureen comes to live in Israel. I’d like to buy her a cup of tea.

16 thoughts on “Maureen Lipman Contemplating Leaving Britain Due To Antisemitism”

        1. I’d call those comments welcoming… welcoming their Muslim overlords, that is. Stupid multi-culti rootless cosmopolitan British lefties.

    1. The only times I am surprised in The ‘Grauniad’ is when they publish someone intelligent. FYI – because of its numerous misspellings and bad grammar, Guardian critics refer to the rag as “The Grauniad”.

  1. Hard Little Machine

    Keeping in mind of course that on the day the last Jew in Britain leaves or dies, the BBC and the Guardian will shriek to the skies even louder about the Jews. Just like the Arab states.

      1. Yes Norman, but as throughout history, some Jews stayed behind to become assimilated changing their name from Jacob Shapiro to Shakespeare. There is an interesting thing about Shylock and how Shakespeare got it wrong. According to Jewish Halachic law, a Jew is not permitted to enter into any business deal or sale of goods if it is not, beneficial to all parties. This is one of the reasons why Jews have always been so successful. Honesty! Concern for the other! Love thy neighbor as thyself!

        The “pound of flesh” as a penalty for non-payment of a loan would not be acceptable under Jewish law. As a religious Jew, Shylock could never have entered into such an arrangement. The whole premise for the Merchant of Venice is based on a lie – literally, a blood-libel.

        Norman I appreciate your posts – I feel you’re a good dude

          1. Yes, I would agree with that. But Shakespeare was very in-tune with the human condition. He could have simply decided that by pandering to popular myth regardless, he could create a play that would have greater commercial success.

            1. Back in Yeshiva High School, we had a teacher (like the rest, a public-school moonlighter) who emphasized the commercial aspect of Shakespeare, dirty jokes and all, and how different parts of the plays appealed to different classes (and ticket prices!).

              Think about it. The greatest original works ever produced in English were produced under political, commercial, and religious censorship. And think about what today is produced, uncensored, with government funding.

        1. Dickens got the name for his Jewish villain “Fagin” from a friend (Bob Fagin) he had known in his youth while working in a boot-blacking factory.

          1. Unlike Shakespeare, there were Jews in England in Dickens’ time, and he was called on it, and made to do penance, from what I’ve heard.

            It’s easy to see why this otherwise enjoyable book is anti-Semitic, from a literary device Dickens employs. Bill Sykes is described as a thief. After he kills his common-law, his appellation changes to “the murderer”. But Fagin is always “the Jew”. (He is described as secular, BTW.)

            Nothing, however, can “top” the blood libel in Chaucer’s Canterbury tales.

        2. He took the plot from a play called the Jew of Malta. More to the point, it appears that the true story the latter was based on involved a Christian moneylender.

          At no time did the Jews have the majority of the trade, nor higher rates.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top