BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 07:05 AM

Jim Carroll - 31 Jul 16 - 03:14 AM

Thanks for the link Jom - proves the points I am trying to make admirably.

With the Labour debacle over anti-Semitism, violent behaviour, misogyny, etc we have been told of allegations and no names have been named and the Royall report requested by Labour's NEC will not be published. The Chakrabarti Inquiry basically serves as to draw a line under the issues and one of its recommendations closes the doors an any investigation of incidents prior to her investigation and submission of her report (That would in effect mean that the vast majority of the incidents linked to by Jom would not be investigated by the Labour Party today). Within the membership of the Labour Party there were some 50 suspensions and I can only recall one named individual - Naz Shah who admitted and apologised for her comments and behaviour and that was considered sufficient.

Jom's link details 27 instances involving 25 individuals who are ALL named. Jom deplores the lack of investigation and action taken - Let's take a look at them:

1: Apology made (Good enough for Labour with Naz Shah good enough for the Conservatives)

2: Apology made - ditto above

3: Apology made - ditto above

4: There was an investigation and the offender was forced to make a public apology.

5: There was an investigation and the offender was forced to make an apology and attend "Diversity Training"

6: Offender forced to make an official apology

7: Offender suspended from the Conservative Party

8: Council decision that no action be taken

9: Expression of opinion

10: Offender suspended from the Conservative Party

11: Offender sacked from his job within the Party, full investigation ordered and carried out, subject of the investigation cleared by the Inquiry.

12: Incident investigated by the Police and subject of the investigation cleared by the police.

13: A joke at the expense of "political correctness", an extremely poor one, although quite accurate, but nonetheless a joke told in private.

14: Offender resigned

15: Account contradictory UCL Conservative Society was investigated and apologies were made.

16: Offender resigned

17: Expression of a personal opinion. Expressing your opinion does not make policy it does not constitute fact.

18: Offender apologised and was suspended from the Party.

19: Offender apologised

20: Storm in a teacup. No action could be taken by the council as the alleged "offender" although he had been elected he had not yet signed the "Declaration of Office" so Council could not take any official action - all explained at the time. The Police who did investigate described the complaint as "pathetic" and remarked that there was nothing to investigate particularly after questioning the two people who were alleged to have been racially abused - Rav Thakir ("The Indian") did not regard the remark as racist and Councillor Thonk ("The Chink") regarded it as light hearted humour, the person who made the remarks having referred to himself as "The Whitey" The incident arose at the election of three Conservative Councillors who happened to win seats that Labour supporters thought they should have held - the police received only two complaints and they did investigate - no case to answer.

21: Offender suspended from the Party.

22: No case to answer. The remarks were made in 1985 and the actions of those who participated in the Broadwater Farm Riots did display "Bad moral attitudes"

23: Politicians poor choice of words certainly not racist, anti-Semitic, islamophobic or anything else.

24: Offender apologised and warnings issued by Conservative Party regarding choice of wording in online communications.

25: No action, exercise in free speech. Factually correct statement relating to Barak Obama on both counts.

26: Offender expelled from the Party

27: Offender suspended from the Party.

All 25 individuals named and shamed whether they were guilty as charged or not. The contention was that no action was taken whereas the truth was that rather a lot of action was taken - and we, the public, sure as hell know a great deal more about these 27 instances than we do about what has been happening within the Labour camp where there were at least 50 suspensions.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 07:12 AM

Jim Carroll - 31 Jul 16 - 05:54 AM

"BLIND defence of the nation that kills a hundred times more people with no regard" {Steve Shaw}
And appoints a racist as Foreign Secretary"

Oooooh Jom - you jumped in with both feet and got it wrong AGAIN didn't you - ask Shaw for an explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 08:07 AM

Apology made - don't all politicians do that when they've been caught out?
Johnson is a serial racist and should never have been appointed Foreign Secretary - no self respecting nation should ever place such a political deadweight into such a position.
"All 25 individuals named and shamed"
Doesn't make any difference that they were named and shamed, they are indications of the racism that pervades the Tory Party, who have yet to respond to a demand for an enquiry into Islamophobia.
As you have not linked to any of your claims I will treat them with the distrust with which I regard all your claims.
You have a nasty habit of making up "facts"
"Jom ".
Still sieg heiling your way through this forum, I see.
I don't need to ask Steve anything - the addition I put to his statement stands on its own mrits

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 08:21 AM

Incidentally,
The number of cases of Tory racism, particularly regarding the Foreign Secretary, is a clear indication that, while it has been established that while there is no major problem with any kind of racism or bigotry in the Labour Party, the situation in the ruling Conservative Party is very different.
Johnson's appointment confirms that either racism has reached and Institutional level or it is not regarded as important in multi-cultural Britain.
Apart from the international implications, I'm sure that all non British residents will rest easy in their beds knowing their welfare is in safe hands
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 08:33 AM

I'll call you a big baby now before you even say it.

Call me all the names you like, I consider the source and laugh myself silly. And don't worry I won't run crying to the mods like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 09:48 AM

Jim Carroll - 31 Jul 16 - 08:07 AM


"As you have not linked to any of your claims I will treat them with the distrust with which I regard all your claims.
You have a nasty habit of making up "facts"

But...But..."Jom " everything I have written contains the information I got from the link that YOU, YOURSELF PROVIDED - So what have I got to reference - you dull PRAT.

Give me an example of one of my "Made-Up-Facts" Carroll - I can give you a ready made list of the howlers you have tried to pass as "facts" in discussions on this forum - To date you have been unable to detail a single one from me.

27 instances going back over 31 years involving 25 people who were all named whether they were guilty or not - That is the apparent case in the Conservative Party. Your claim was that there was no action taken - But by reading the link YOU PROVIDED we find that that is not the case. Those involved have been investigated, suspended, expelled, subject to resignation and where appropriate they have been exonerated and cleared. But it was all done in the open for all to see - nothing hidden.

Let's have a look at the Labour Party. They make a big thing about mounting investigations and inquiries after 50 members are suspended for anti-Semitism, then more and more allegations made by members of the Labour Party start coming out about other abuses within the Party and all of a sudden no names are to be mentioned, the report into the anti-Semitic abuses within the OULC is suppressed by Labour's NEC.

Eleven recommendations for immediate and sustained action are tabled by Baroness Royall. She makes a further seven suggested recommendations in the light of further allegations to Shami Chakrabarti and I see that Shami ignores the most important ones.

But she does suggest that within the Labour Party:

1: A moratorium on any charges of abuse - in effect "all-sins-of-the-past" are forgiven and cannot be investigated

2: A time limit must be introduced for any complaints

3: No lifetime bans from the Party as people can have a "change of heart" - they can apologise for past actions - Naz Shah recently went this route over anti-Semitic comments that she made as did Tony Blair, he apologised for the Iraq War.

4: There were 49 people at least in the Labour Party who were suspended for anti-Semitic behaviour, no idea how many complaints there were for sexist and misogynist behaviour, or for intimidation and making violent threats against those viewed as not toeing the Corbyn party line by Momentum. And we haven't a clue who any of these people are, we don't even know if they were guilty or innocent of the accusations made against them - all covered-up by the NEC.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 09:52 AM

Apologies I forgot this classic from Jim Carroll's post:

"I don't need to ask Steve anything - the addition I put to his statement stands on its own mrits"

Well, well Jom I didn't know that Boris Johnson had been appointed as Israel's Foreign Minister, I didn't even know that he was a member of the Knesset.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 10:21 AM

Rag,
If you do not recognise the term "piccannines" as being racist (which even Bobad accepts) you are an abject racist.

I know it is considered racist in US, but not here.
Un-PC maybe.
Read the old thread. The term was used for any child.
If that is all you have on Johnson, it is not proved.
Anything else?

How about "If you do not recognise Naz Shah's bile as being anisemitic (which even Shah herself accepts) you are an abject antisemite."

What does that make you, Steve and Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 10:44 AM

Steve Shaw - 31 Jul 16 - 03:41 AM

1: "Well if any criticism at all of Hamas and Hezbollah is Islamophobic, that makes me thoroughly Islamophobic, seeing as 'ow my post is full of it! See, Teribus, I speak as I find. I won't deny their faults. I wish they were better."

Missed the point being made entirely Shaw but that is only to be expected - I'll run it past you again - you are free to criticise Israel as that cannot in any way, shape or form be viewed as being anti-Semitic - yet others cannot criticise Hamas or Hezbollah as that is according to you Islamophobic.

Your criticism of the deeds of the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah are demonstrated above, mild in the extreme. You might not deny their faults but you certainly do not go out of your way to mention them and you always seem to find excuses for them - Fact no attacks on Israel from Gaza results in no attacks by Israel on Gaza. You might think or wish that they better as much as you want, but you still advocate supporting them in the full knowledge of what they are.

2: But look at your loyal, valiant and BLIND defence of the nation that kills a hundred times more people with no regard as to how many children, which steals the best land and which has entrapped over a million in the world's biggest prison.

Nothing "loyal, valiant and BLIND" about it Shaw - mere observation. Any nation on earth has the right to defend itself. Since 2005, when the Israelis unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, over 15,000 missiles of some sort or another have been fired indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza. If they were French missiles being fired across the channel into England I would certainly hope that the UK would lay waste to and destroy whoever it was that fired the first missile - they certainly would not hang around until the numbers had reached the hundreds, let alone thousands.

As to attacks on civilians being made with no regard by the IDF. Independent observers have commented on the extraordinary steps taken by the IDF to keep such casualties to an absolute minimum. Logic and common sense would tell you that if what you said was true the population of Gaza would have been wiped out 10 years ago.

The only land that has ever been stolen in Palestine was Gaza by the Egyptians in 1948 and East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Jordan in the same year. That land was restored to Palestine in 1967 by the IDF.

When the Egyptians and the Jordanians took and occupied those chunks of Palestine in 1948 they rounded up the Arabs of Palestine and shut them up in "Refugee Camps" - they have lived there ever since, it suited the political purposes of the Arabs to use these unfortunates as political bargaining chips. Gaza is no prison, the solution is simple, stop the attacks on Israael, eject those fomenting trouble, then prosper.

3: Your egregious defence of that nice General Pinochet puts you firmly in the fascism camp. You won't hear a single bad word. Unbelievable. Any nice things you want to tell us about Franco while you're here? He kept the lid on and handed over peacefully too. Lovely feller!

I didn't know that I had mounted any sort of defence egregious or otherwise of General Pinochet - I think I said Pinochet's Chile, not General Pinochet himself. Pinochet and Franco - comparing apples to oranges Shaw. In Chile a Provisional Constitution was drawn up in 1980 and Pinochet and the military were working towards a return to democratic rule. In 1987 a referendum was held that would have granted Pinochet another possible eight years in Office as President, the people of Chile rejected this and things were put in motion for an election. The Provisional Constitution was debated and suggested amendments made via consultation with all political parties. When that was done the New Constitution was put before the people and they voted to accept or reject it in another referendum - they accepted it and elections were held. Pinochet accepted the results of both referenda and of the election. Franco on the other hand consulted nobody and named his successor as Head of State then died. Now in one of those instances I can detect a certain willingness to adhere to and accept the democratic process, with the other it is merely the continuance of the same old autocratic, authoritarian, dictatorial rule.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 10:56 AM

The mere fact that you do not recognise "piccaninnies" as racist speaks volumes. It shouts loud and clear for all to see I AM A RACIST.

Question for you, if it wasn't recognised as racist here, as you weakly claim, why did Johnson issue an apology.

Sheesh. Keep digging professor.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 12:26 PM

It has been interesting what you turn up when you start looking at words. Take the word "piccaninnie", or whatever way you wish to spell it (There are literally dozens of different spellings the world over) but it would appear that only in the UK and in the USA is it considered racist or derogatory.

In the Caribbean, Northern Territory in Australia, throughout Melanesia and in Papua New Guinea it just means small or a child (Any child). I think it was on the 10th January, 2002 that Boris Johnson came out with his sarcastic article about "the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies." which he later apologised for. Advance the clock some ten years or so and here is how HRH Prince Charles was officially referred to in the Press in Papua New Guinea - "nambawan pikinini blong Kwin" and apparently he was not offended at all, he even adopted it when talking to native speakers of the Tok Pisin language.

As the usage of the term has all but died out in our language, where it never belonged in the first place, I think I would leave it to those who do use it daily to determine if it is offensive or not.

But just had a thought though in the context that Boris used the term. IF what he had in mind when he wrote his article and he was describing the Queen visiting Melanesia, then in their local parlance and usage he wasn't being too inaccurate and he would certainly not be regarded as being offensive . In Vanuatu, on the Island of Tanna out in the Melanesian chain the population regard HRH The Duke of Edinburgh as some sort of deity - no accounting for taste. But according to their culture and folklore they believe that he is their ancestral spirit as one of their legends tells of a pale skinned man who sailed across the Oceans to find and marry a rich and powerful woman. Now I can see how to them Prince Philip would fit the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 12:55 PM

But...But..."Jom " everything I have written contains the information I got from the link that YOU, YOURSELF PROVIDED
"."Jom " "
My goosestepping friend.
" I have written contains the information I got from the link that you provided"
Soo based on what is no more than a superficial list of racist incidents, you attempt to write off a whole list of examples as unimportant basically because they were apologised for, and do't bother to go any further.
In fact, they are the tip of a much larger iceberg and include some serious examoples of racism.
The one where the Councillor said there were "too many Pakis" was investigated by the police to find if it was liable for prosecution - his excuse for making it was he "did't know the meeting was being filmed".
The list includes the last Prime Minister and the newly appointed Home Secretary - that is how seriously the Tory Party regard the issue of racist, not just within the general membership, but including high officials and members of the government.
The question of accusations of Islamophobia have not even been considered.
"Those involved have been investigated, suspended"
not true - most have been ignored, a few have beer reprimanded.
These cases are worse than the accusations that the Labour Party has been found not guilty of.
Accusation of racism, sexism and bullying abound in the Tory Party and go ignored, Labour carried out two investigations immediately any accusations were made - none involved senior figures and most were connected with criticism of Israelk's terrorist behaviour.   
Your list of what was included in the must do in the future recommendations are confirmation that no serious incidents were discovered, this has been confirmed by the fact that the report has not been challenged by the Labour party members themselves ot by the national press.
If there had been any attempts at a cover up the right wing press would have made a meal of it and we would still be hearing about it - it was a non-event.
"There were 49 people at least in the Labour Party who were suspended for anti-Semitic behaviour"
Oot of a membership of 270,000 all were reinstated while investigations took place, none were expelled.
Typical examples of why these suspensions took place were, in realation to the US support for Israeli terrorism, that "Israel should be re-located to the US, and another, "A reminder of the treatment and suffering of Jews in Nazi Germany. Are there any similarities to how Israel is treating Palestinians?"
Remarks such as these are being made regularly by Israeli opponents of the present regime - including by ex Secret Service members and high ranking officers in th Israeli army - given the criminal behaviour of Israel they are far fromexamples of atisemitism and are now accepted as valid opinions - Istael is no The Jewish People and criticism such as this cannot be considered Antisemitic.
"you dull PRAT"
You nasty, goose stepping, atrocity denying, racism appeasing fascist
Feckin' grow up, you infantile eejit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 01:27 PM

Missed a bit
"Give me an example of one of my "Made-Up-Facts" Carroll "
Your practice of making up claims or presenting half-truths which don't relate to documented facts - on weaponry and armaments, on Ireland, on British industry, on the lazy British people and the crappy nature of British products, on social history.... is legendary and endless.
You have been challenged on it before - you either try to bluster and bully your way out of it or you just stay silent.
It is why you never link anything and why you have refused all requests to do so.
Try the Homs Thread, The Irish Famine, Easter Week, World War one - every one of your racist or class superior or atrocity excusing crusades.
You are know as being a bluffer who attempts to cover up your ignorance and dishonesty with personal insults and abuse.
"Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Who is the biggest bullshitter of all" - to borrow from one of the few fairy-tales that wasn't all your own work
Jim Carroll

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 01:53 PM

Rag,
It never had racist connotations here.
Is Kevin McGrath of Harlow a racist because he remembers it being used about all children?

Now,
"If you do not recognise Naz Shah's bile as being anisemitic (which even Shah herself accepts) you are an abject antisemite."

Do you see what I did there Rag?
By your own logic you three are "abject antisemites."
For shame.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 02:03 PM

they are far fromexamples of atisemitism [sic] and are now accepted as valid opinions - Istael [sic] is no [sic] The Jewish People and criticism such as this cannot be considered Antisemitic.

"On the left, black people are usually allowed to define what's racism; women can define sexism; Muslims are trusted to define Islamophobia. But when Jews call out something as antisemitic, [regressive] leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is."

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 02:06 PM

There are only two contender to be leader of the Labour Party.
One of them said this, and that was AFTER Chakrabarti.

"A fresh row has broken out over the scale of abuse and intimidation in the Labour Party, as Owen Smith claimed Jeremy Corbyn must "take more responsibility" for the concerns that have led to the suspension of most constituency Labour Party (CLP) meetings across the country.

Leadership challenger Smith has claimed that the level of "abuse, misogyny and anti-Semitism" in the party has risen since Corbyn's victory last September. His intervention comes after Angela Eagle suspended surgeries in her constituency after consulting police and experiencing threats to her and her staff. She has also accused Corbyn of "stirring" up problems."

"Speaking to the BBC today, Owen Smith said that Corbyn has "effectively… licensed" the abuse of Labour MPs, and that the leader's response "is not good enough".

"Jeremy Corbyn should take more responsibility for what's going on we didn't have this sort of abuse, intolerance, misogyny and anti-Semitism before Jeremy became leader," Smith said.

"Angela is right it has effectively been licensed over the last nine months."
http://labourlist.org/2016/07/senior-labour-figures-in-row-over-level-of-abuse-in-the-party/

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 02:12 PM

I think you will find professor that I have never mentioned Naz Shah, not once, not ever.

I know when I was a child "piccanniny" was understood to be a racist expression.

Johnson was criticised and apologised for using the term.

You (and now Teribus) are seeking to excuse the use of the word.

As I have already stated if Johnson apologised for using the word because it was implicitly acknowledged as racist it is a racist expression.

By continuing to use the word YOU ARE A RACIST.

Everyone on this forum has had it proved beyond any doubt that YOU ARE A RACIST.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 02:27 PM

Rag,
I know when I was a child "piccanniny" was understood to be a racist expression.

No it was not.
Your memory or honesty are at fault.
I have produced an old Mudcat thread to support my asserttion.
You will never be able to produce anything because your assertion is bollocks.

I think you will find professor that I have never mentioned Naz Shah, not once, not ever.

True for once Rag. What you did say was,
"If you do not recognise the term "piccannines" as being racist (which even Bobad accepts) you are an abject racist."

So by your logic, "If you do not recognise Naz Shah's bile as being anisemitic (which even Shah herself accepts) you are an abject antisemite."

See what I did there Rag?
Now, both Steve and Jim denied that her statement was antisemitic, but she herself, the NEC and the Party agree it was.
That makes Steve and Jim abject antisemites according to you then Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 02:28 PM

"On the left, black people are usually allowed to define what's racism;
Jews are entitled to define racism - right wing political fascist regimes usaully define it to defend their right wing political fascism
As much as you would like it to be the case, the behaviour of the Israeli regime has nothing to do with being Jewish and everything about it being the bahaviour of a right wing fascist regime.
The Israelis are well aware of this and have insulted all Jews who disagree with them
as "self-hating" - Holocaust survivors and their families, ex Mossad officials, army generals, intellectuals, humanists, Rabbis, journalists.... all "self hating Jews"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 02:33 PM

Jim, Israel has an opposition whose JOB it is to disagree with the government.
Likewise a free press and media that is constantly disagreeing with the government.

So, your assertion that the regime "have insulted all Jews who disagree with them as "self-hating" is made up shit Jim, like so many of your claims.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 02:57 PM

Keep digging professor, even Bobad accepts it was a racist term in America as early as 1939 as I KNOW it was in early 1960's Britain.

The more you try to explain your racism the deeper in you go.

I am not at all surprised by your attitude and your pathetic attempts to exonerate yourself.

Please keep it up.

Link

You may wish to take notice of the reference to Enoch Powell in 1968 when it was considered racist.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 03:35 PM

31 Jul 16 - 02:03 PM

Same old twisted BooSpew. Move along, nothing to see here.

P.S. Why does anyone continue to attempt to engage/dispute the vile vomit from this bigoted brain-dead arsehole? Pure masochism? There have to be better ways to spend one's time - voting for The Trumpsh*t, perhaps....pretty much the same thing at the end of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 03:51 PM

" Israel has an opposition whose JOB it is to disagree with the government."
It is the job of an opposition to disagree when it disagrees - not to disagree on principle   
No State which attempts to set up a monotheistic Apartheid State (a term freely used by Israelis, Jews and non-Jews alike)can be described as "democratic"
No State which drives long residing non-Jewish residents to make room for settlers of he approved religion can be described as "democratic"   
No State which drives nomadic peoples onto a toxic rubbish site in order to take over their land can be described as "democratic"
No State which facilitates the massacre of 3,500 unarmed refugee can be described as "democratic"
No state which uses chemical and anti-personnel weapons on civilians can be described as "democratic"
No people who massacres thousands of civilians and destroys their homes, hospitals, places of learning and the means of living and can be described as "democratic"
No State which installs a ten-year long blockade on a neighbour in order to starve them into submission can be described as "democratic"
No State which builds a wall dividing families of their means of sustenance and living can be described as "democratic"
No state which regards opposition to their political and military actions as "antisemitic" or Anti-British, or Un-American can be described as "democratic"
Israel is an extremist, right-wing State run for the benefit of those who fit required religious or racial concepts, it can never be described as "democratic"
Far from being a "democracy", Israel is a repressive undemocratic State bearing all the characteristics of previous fascist states - that is a description being used by Jews and non Jews, including Israelis.   
"MADE UP SHIT "
The Holocaust survivors who signed the petition were described the same recently
""There have long been efforts to identify anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in an effort to exploit anti-racist sentiment for political ends; 'one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all,' Israeli diplomat Abba Eban argued, in a typical expression of this intellectually and morally disreputable position (Eban, Congress Bi-Weekly, March 30, 1973). But that no longer suffices. It is now necessary to identify criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitism -- or in the case of Jews, as 'self-hatred,' so that all possible cases are covered."
Noam Chomsky
Critics of Israel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 05:40 PM

"There were 49 people at least in the Labour Party who were suspended for anti-Semitic behaviour"

Oot of a membership of 270,000 all were reinstated while investigations took place, none were expelled."

As nobody knows the detail or nature of the accusations;

As no-one apart form the sitting members of Labour's NEC have been able to read the Report.

I would say under such circumstances it would be the easiest thing in the world for the Labour Party's NEC to just sweep the dirt under the carpet wouldn't you? You are normally pretty good at "establishment" conspiracy theories Jom.

Jim Carroll - 31 Jul 16 - 01:27 PM

Teribus: "Give me an example of one of my "Made-Up-Facts" Carroll "

OK folks here is Jom's reply, please let me know if at any point in the following rambling, meaningless and pointless exercise in waffling anyone can identify the example requested.

"Your practice of making up claims or presenting half-truths which don't relate to documented facts - on weaponry and armaments, on Ireland, on British industry, on the lazy British people and the crappy nature of British products, on social history.... is legendary and endless."

"On weapons and armaments" - Well Jom that used to be an integral part of my job, I probably understand as much about weapons, armaments, strategy and tactics as you do about traditional folk music.

"On Ireland" - As demonstrated in threads on the "Troubles"; The 1916 Uprising; The Famine - My perspective is broader than yours and my knowledge a great deal more detailed than yours - you Carroll cannot even muster and appreciate details of even the simplest event, being wrapped up and driven by emotive twaddle as opposed to fact.

"British Industry" - according to Jom was so efficient and the products they produced were so in demand that Britain became the most successful country economically in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s - Hands up anyone who could support Jom's view on things? If so could you then explain why Britain, with all those workers working so hard, and all those world class products flying out the door to destinations all over the world, had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail out. Or why we had to shorten the working week to 3 days. Perhaps some of you could explain why it is economically more competitive to pay £250 per ton for coal to produce electricity for heavy industry than it would be paying £8 per ton.

"legendary and endless." - Yet Jom the infallible cannot find a single example, the best he can manage is to waffle on about generalities - but there again Jom has never been good on detail or specifics.

"Try the Homs Thread, The Irish Famine, Easter Week, World War one"

The Homs thread where Jom was shown to be a liar, whose overriding bigotry, bias and Anglophobia completely got the better of him and common sense, rationality and logic went straight out of the window.

Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" on this thread included Sniper rifles supplied by the British Government being used to kill civilians in Homs. This claim was made despite the fact that the British Government has never actually sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria.

Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" on this thread changed to rifle ammunition being sold to Assad's regime - yet the ammunition identified would be impossible to use in Assad's Russian weapons ( The rounds are 12mm too long)

Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" on this thread quoted an Amnesty International Report dated March 2012 that he tried to say identified electrical equipment that was supplied by the British Government that was sold to Syria and used to torture prisoners - On investigation the Amnesty International Report of course said nothing of the sort.

There you go Jom - three specific examples of Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" on that one thread - there are others but quite frankly I cannot be arsed to detail them as we have so much ground to cover.

The Irish Famine - Jom's take on this is that it was deliberately engineered by the British Government with the express intention of exterminating the Irish Nation as part of a policy of deliberate genocide.

Perhaps he could explain why it wasn't more successful?

Perhaps he could explain why aid from the British Government amounted to ten times that of the next highest provider of aid (Cecil Woodham Smith: "The Great Hunger")

Perhaps he could explain how food could have been distributed without roads, harbours, storehouses and transport. Minor details I know but vital when it comes to feeding people in remote areas. So if you cannot get the food to the people, the people must come to the food.

Jom witters on about "The Famine" and food being exported from Ireland - He ignores and is not prepared to accept the fact that four times the amount of food that was exported from Ireland was imported into Ireland over the same period. He does this because it does not suit his biased take on things. The other thing he completely ignores is the fact that lack of food and starvation was not the cause of the drop in Ireland's population during the "famine" - Primary cause of depopulation was emigration: the second was death caused by diseases that at the time knew no cure, the third and way, way down in order of magnitude was hunger - so Jom's fixation on food exports is basically irrelevant.

Jom witters on about workhouses being closed down. Now as part of this British campaign of extermination they were responsible for establishing something like 165 poorhouses in Ireland to provide relief (Strange thing to do if you are trying to wipe them out I would have thought). The population was on the move, because they had to so as the demand and call on resources shifted facilities were shut down and others opened where they were needed.

"Easter Week" - Jom tried to tell us that the uprising had popular support - it didn't the majority of people in Ireland in 1914 and in 1916 backed the Home Rule aspirations championed and won by John Redmond. The Easter week Rising was supported by only 0.3% of the Irish population.

"Easter Week" - Jom tried to tell us that the 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill was defeated in the House of Lords - yet the 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill became the 1914 Government of Ireland Act on the 18th September 1914 - it is on the statute books so how on earth could it have been defeated in the House of Lords as Jom said? More Jim Carroll "made-up-shit".

"Easter Week" - Jom tried to tell us that the rebels did not collude with the Germans - yet a formal alliance was signed in November 1914, this alliance having been negotiated by Sir Roger Casement. The evidence and documented records show the extent of the collusion between the Rebels and the Germans - all conveniently ignored by Jom the Infallible.

Again loads more examples on this thread, but we must press on.

"World War One" - According to Jom, Lord Kitchener was forced to resign.

"World War One" - According to Jom, there were special squads of Military police who summarily executed British Soldiers who didn't get out of their trenches quick enough. Unfortunately for Jom he cannot provide any substantive evident for this scurrilous and baseless accusation. But Jom is big on baseless accusations and very poor on providing substantive evidence to back those accusations up.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 05:57 PM

31 Jul 16 - 05:40 PM

And then there are the folks attempting to engage/dispute the vile vomit from this other bigoted brain-dead arsehole. Why? More masochism? Time better spent pounding salt down a rat hole.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 06:49 PM

Blimey, Maggie's mouthpiece defending Pinochet! 😂😂😂

your attention but the world is passing you by on this one. You're getting boring. Look after your blood pressure is my advice.   

A quick word in your shell-like, bobad. I never, ever go whingeing to the moderators. Go on, why don't you ask them? Bet you won't! 😂 How old are you, sonny? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 06:59 PM

Huh, that went haywire. Here's the whole thing.

Blimey, Maggie's mouthpiece defending Pinochet! 😂😂😂

How long have you spent on this today, Teribus, what with your deep research into all those Labour scallywags? You are getting very obsessive yet only grey-man Keith, who agrees with your every word anyway, is listening. Feeling ok are you? It's been a lovely day outside and I've travelled the length of England today, fretting at having to miss the only sunshiny day in the offing all week (bloody M6). It may have escaped your attention but the world is passing you by on this one. You're getting boring. Look after your blood pressure is my advice.   

A quick word in your shell-like, bobad. I never, ever go whingeing to the moderators. Go on, why don't you ask them? Bet you won't! 😂 How old are you, sonny? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 16 - 07:18 PM

"On weapons and armaments" - Well Jom that used to be an integral part of my job, I probably understand as much about weapons, armaments, strategy and tactics as you do about traditional folk music.

Well now this is interesting. Not only has he got a comprehensive knowledge of weapons and armaments, but he's also the man to consult about tactics and strategy too. Blimey, Churchill would've given an arm and a leg for you, mate! Could've shortened the war by years! Are you mentioned in any history books by any chance?

Of course, some people are just rotten at their jobs. Aw, that's unkind. But no more unkind than your comments about my teaching skills a while back. I suppose it depends on how much you value a good, sound education ...😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 03:13 AM

How long have I spent on this Shaw? Obviously just about the right amount of time to reduce you to spouting meaningless twaddle - three posts (Albeit one of them repeated/corrected - no idea why the second really didn't say much more of any importance than the first truncated version) saying nothing, adding nothing - par for the course.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 03:41 AM

You want to re-open lost battles by jackbooted friend, then start producing linked evidence rather than arrogant statements that we are expected to take at face value.
I link evidence to all my statements - you give nothing but your own opinions arrogantly delivered.
It is why you end up sprinting away from everything you take on - you are a blustering know-nothing who believes that if you shout and sneer loud enough your opinions will be accepted - they are not, it is why you have so few takers for your archaic and blimpish arguments.
You sneer at people who disagree with you and you permanently talk down to people as if you actually know anything.
Your mates are no better - Bobad has had "Jew-hater" permanently dubbed into his vocal chords and Keith has invented a system of stonewalling arguments with his "real historians" or "it must be true because "experts" say so, or the most recent with his defence of Israeli terrorism - that we can't believe anything we see on the television ore read in the paper because if it was true "democratic nations" would have nothing to do with them - arrant, juvenile nonsense.
The pair of you have developed a permanent defence, not by providing documented evidence of your own, but by describing anything that you don't agree with as "made up shit" - Keith's latest offering with his attitude to "self-hating jews".
He won't withdraw his accusation of it being made up, he won't apologise for having made the accusation - he will just creep away - until the next time - that's what he does.
A reminder of some self-hating Jews
We are all prone to making mistakes, none of us know everything, you you are the only person on this forum who appears to think he does nad sneers at anybody who doesn't accept his omnipotence.
Why not tart on your Road to Damascus with your latest single-handed invention.
If you believe the Labour reports are whitewashes - where is your evidence - who says so apart from you, Uriah Heep and the vitriol-spitting Bobad?
Where is the press outcry of whitewash, where is the evidence of major Antisemitism in the Labour Party - who says there is and why hasn't the Labour Party been publicly pilloried.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 03:47 AM

"How long have I spent on this Shaw? Obviously just about the right amount of time to reduce you to spouting meaningless twaddle"
See what I mean - raw blustering arrogance, arrogantly delivered?
Beautiful timing, by the way - many thanks!
What weapons did you need to serve up burnt scrambled eggs and greasy bacon?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 04:06 AM

Still can't find anything to say Jom?

C'mon Jom give us all a laugh tell us the date of Kitchener's resignation.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 04:26 AM

How can you possibly believe that somebody who permanently behaves like a strutting megalomaniac can ever be taken seriously (apart by themselves)?
Evidence - links - anything but sneery opinions!!
A reminder;
"How long have I spent on this Shaw? Obviously just about the right amount of time to reduce you to spouting meaningless twaddle"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 05:36 AM

Oh I don't know about that Jim. You, Shaw and your pals having had your rather poorly presented arguments and points of view shredded on yet another thread so you lot have pretty much reverted to following your standard script:

1: Divert
2: Deflect
3: Then the baseless accusations are made
4: Then the insults and ad hominem attacks

Accused of being a "racist" none of you can come up with one single example to back-up your accusation - Situation normal.

Accused of being "Islamophobic" none of you can come up with one single example to back-up your accusation - Situation normal.

And then of course, to our collection of "Class Warrior" and would-be working-class "heroes" of the "Left", we've got to be "fascists" - well isn't everyone who disagrees with you.

This apparent inferiority complex you seem to suffer from Jom probably stems from the fact that you probably are genuinely inferior.

What a truly pathetic, spineless and sorry lot you are.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 05:50 AM

Show us your evidence for all your claims
I have not the slightest interest in aruing the toss with an arrogant bully who believes he can get away with top-of-the-head claims that have no substance in reality
You have been given link after link in all these arguments - you provide none and when asked to do so, refuse.
What kind of a NUTTER are you?
"What a truly pathetic, spineless and sorry lot you are."
Thanks again for that example of your arrogance - you're certainly racking them up.
Where is your evidence that The Labour investigations were rigged - does anybody else claim it?
I'll be asking your mate about his "made up shit" claim on "self-hating-Jews" when he gets home from church!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 06:03 AM

For someone who objects to Ad Hominem attacks as you have done so many times, you above all, seem to be the most vitriolic in this regard.

Care to read your last post again, the one where you complain of Ad Hominem attacks in the same post as you accuse Jim of being inferior.

If that is not an Ad Hominem attack perhaps you, with your vast higher education could explain the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 07:36 AM

Jim,
Where is your evidence that The Labour investigations were rigged - does anybody else claim it?

"Rigged?" No-one used that word about them!
Plenty of criticism though.
Not of the Oxford enquiry obviously, because it has been withheld.
You have to wonder why.
Here is David Hirsh on Chakrabarti.

"What Shami Chakrabarti failed to do in this report was to explain how to recognise contemporary left wing antisemitism. She failed to describe it, how it operates, how it is sometimes hidden, and what its key tropes are.

She had every opportunity to do this in a way which could be easily understood because her inquiry was precipitated by a number of examples of left wing antisemitism. She could have gone through them and explained why they were antisemitic. She did no such thing. Indeed there were two incidents which happened at her very launch which illustrate precisely the kind of antisemitism which requires explaining and opposing....

In my submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry, I wrote: "A bad apple theory will not do as an explanation for the current phenomenon of antisemitism on the left. We need to understand what the problem is with the barrel which has allowed so many apples to turn bad."

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 07:47 AM

Raggy I have long ago accepted that when Jom, Steve & Co (Including yourself) run out of road they follow what is by now a very tired and worn out script. I have got so used to it by now that I barely notice their remarks and idiotic, groundless allegations that both Keith A and myself have continually demonstrated can never be substantiated. Please point out where in that last post of mine I complain or state my "objections" to their ad hominem attacks - I merely commented on the fact that that is what they do. I leave the bleating and complaining to them. They are very good a dishing it out to others then scream like stuck pigs when they get some of their own treatment back. You're like a flock of sheep - not an independent thought among the lot of you, if you had brains you'd be dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 07:53 AM

Mudcat is not showing highlights just now.
Here is David Hirsh on Chakrabarti,

"What Shami Chakrabarti failed to do in this report was to explain how to recognise contemporary left wing antisemitism. She failed to describe it, how it operates, how it is sometimes hidden, and what its key tropes are.

She had every opportunity to do this in a way which could be easily understood because her inquiry was precipitated by a number of examples of left wing antisemitism. She could have gone through them and explained why they were antisemitic. She did no such thing. Indeed there were two incidents which happened at her very launch which illustrate precisely the kind of antisemitism which requires explaining and opposing....

In my submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry, I wrote: "A bad apple theory will not do as an explanation for the current phenomenon of antisemitism on the left. We need to understand what the problem is with the barrel which has allowed so many apples to turn bad." "

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 08:06 AM

If you're not really bothered about Ad Hominem attacks why do you mention them so frequently while more often than not indulging in the same yourself. Someone from the right wing (your)side has run off crying to the mods about this on more than one occasion. Perhaps that was you.

If you feel a desire to slag me off please carry on. I really don't give a flying **** what you call me. Now if someone I respected were to criticise me I would take note, but an uneducated oaf, who considers an argument won because he shouts louder than anyone else who bullies and blusters more than anyone else, who demonstrates his profound ignorance at every turn I quite honestly feel sorry for.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 08:10 AM

He barely notices it but he spent all day yesterday raging about it! I'm beginning to think that I detect signs of an inferiority complex....now why didn't think of that before...

And here we go, good old Hirsh again...😂

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 08:15 AM

And here we go, good old Hirsh again...

Right, he's just another one of them Jews, WTF would he know about anti-semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 08:31 AM

No more or less than anyone else, I imagine. Unless you have a victimhood story about him to tell us. Care to expand?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM

"If you're not really bothered about Ad Hominem attacks why do you mention them so frequently" - Raggy

I don't mention them frequently.

I do naturally request substantiation for accusations and allegations, a pointless exercise so far as those coming out with these baseless accusations never, ever seem able to support them.

"Someone from the right wing (your)side has run off crying to the mods about this on more than one occasion. Perhaps that was you."

Not me Raggy - I prefer to trade like for like - and so far on this thread it would appear that it's "your side" that's doing the screaming.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 08:55 AM

"No-one used that word about them!"
Teribus implied it by suggesting that facts were held back
If it wasn't rigged, you have no case - there was no serious problem found.
"Plenty of criticism though."
The criticism can be applied to any political party and any section of the British public
The Labour party party dealt with the criticism and made recommendations - nothing from the Tories yet and nothing from you pair about the fact that Britain has a racist foreign Secretary - you made enough fuss about the Labour problem - doesn't racism and bigotry count if it comes from the right - obviously not.
The decision not to publish details of the Oxford enquiry was, as afar as I am concerned, a correct one.
It involved young people in the process of getting an education whose futuers depend on their not being a scandal attached to them in any shape or form - to people like you, being accused is tantamount to their being guilty, as you have amply demonstrated here.
If there had been a serious problem, I have no doubt that the authorities would have dealt with it - in the light of the publicity this has received they could not afford to do otherwise.
If you have any information that the verdict that was reached was inaccurate or rigged, please offer it - so far you have given neither numbers or the nature of the accusation - you have dealt only in smears.
The verdicts of both enquiries seems to have been generally accepted - that's enough for me.
Talking of which - do you really think you are going to walk away from once again accusing me of making things up?
In your dreams.
You have exposed yourself once again as the unpleasantly dishonest individual you appear to be.
Now - how about a withdrawal and an apology for suggesting that I made up the "self-hating Jews" statement - you have had ample proof that it is now a standard way of describing opponents of the regime.
I am not a believer, but I have spent my life in the company of people who describe themselves as Christians and have learned to love them and respect their beliefs, even if I don't share them.
I have no idea what form of Christianity you aspire to but your vicious inhumanity and your dishonesty is far beyond my experience.
" run out of road "
You are the one who "runs out of road", refuses to provide evidence for your claims and eventually lapses into silence.
How about some links - to anything you have claimed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM

Can't be arsed going back through your posts Teribus. However you, probably above all others, are the one person who complains about such Ad Hominem posts. For example a few months ago you mentioned the use of given pseudonyms yet you continue to refer to me a Raggy, Jim as Jom (ever so childish) and Steve Shaw as Shaw. This not only shows a lack of intelligence it also clearly demonstrates a lack of education.

If you really wanted a sensible debate you would refrain from such.

You may have noticed I have referred to yourself as Teribus for some time despite your continuing use of a abbreviation for myself.

Perhaps if you were to debate intelligently and cohesively instead of bullying and blustering insisting you are right and others are wrong your posts may carry more weight. The world isn't just black or white, it isn't just good or bad, much of the time there isn't even a clear right or wrong.

My views on most subjects are the product of the books I have read. I am aware there is a propensity to read things that will reinforce things that I preconceive, a natural enough line to take, but not necessarily the best one. Thus I attempt to read round a subject taking in the views of ALL sides so I may form my own opinions. I do not, as you seem to do, just regurgitate the views of the nearest (in your case right wing) diatribe I can find.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 09:14 AM

No more or less than anyone else, I imagine

Obviously not more that you and the rest of the flock who see fit to let everyone know that every definition of anti-Semitism but yours is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 09:48 AM

"every definition of anti-Semitism but yours is wrong"
You refuse to give us yours
As far as I am concerned, it describes attacks on the Jewish People - not their politicians, not those who excuse their behaviour be hiding by the dead of Auschwitz - we leave that to cowardly people like you.
Nobody, to my recollection, has ever attacked the Jewish people on this forum, with the exception of those who euqate Israeli atrocities with being Jewish (oh, and those who use terms like "Self hating Jews") - not here, but in general.
The offer of that donation still stands
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 12:34 PM

every definition of anti-Semitism but yours is wrong.

Right back atcha, Boo! Physician, heal thyself.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 16 - 01:03 PM

Frankly, I get along just fine without a definition. I do object when people with ulterior motives improperly try to embrace legitimate aspects of criticism as antisemitism that have nothing to do with hating Jews because they are Jews. Like what you and Keith do, bobad. I haven't read a single comment here from anyone who has attacked Jews because they are Jews and you can't quote me any.

You should listen to Raggytash, Teribus. That patient man is painting an accurate picture of how you come across. You need to be far calmer, more measured and more constructive. All that acquired mass of information you have to hand is projected at us through a distorted lens, tinted with a very rigid, right-wing ideology. Baby out with bathwater. And if that sounds patronising, tough shit. We're going to keep telling you.