1. The EUMC has not existed for the last nine years. It was superseded by the FRA.

2. The document on antisemitism was NEVER endorsed by the EU.

3. The document was NEVER recommended for endorsement to member states.

4. It is UNTRUE to state, as you did, that all 28 member states endorsed the document. They did not.

5. The document is defunct. It was set aside, OFFICIALLY, in 2013.

6. If the FRA say they have not adopted it, they have not adopted it. It does not become "adopted" just because they haven't adopted an alternative.

7. Are you really trying to tell us that this set of criteria that are "in use" (which they are not, even though certain organisations may have latched on to them) are the only definition around of antisemitism? Why, you'd think that no-one down the millennia had ever brought up the matter and tried to define it. The truth of the matter is, Keith, that the definition of antisemitism is in dispute and always has been. Pro-Israel factions do not get to have the final say. They are entitled to their input just the same as any other interested parties, including people who may wish to legitimately criticise the Israeli regime. And it is not antisemitic to say that.

The thing is, Keith, you've been dribbling out this false information to us for days, taking us for fools. Not only that, you've used an officially defunct document to brand Richard Bridge antisemitic. You've been caught out once again. Busted, can't be trusted.