Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafehuddy

Post to this Thread - Sort Ascending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Labour party discussion

Steve Shaw 02 Feb 17 - 08:39 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 08:28 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 17 - 08:23 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Feb 17 - 08:17 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 17 - 08:09 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM
Joe Offer 02 Feb 17 - 07:29 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 17 - 07:01 PM
Joe Offer 02 Feb 17 - 06:32 PM
Dave the Gnome 02 Feb 17 - 05:06 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 04:33 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Feb 17 - 03:47 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 03:23 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Feb 17 - 02:54 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 02:46 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Feb 17 - 02:37 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 02:09 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 01:51 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM
bobad 02 Feb 17 - 01:45 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Feb 17 - 01:45 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Feb 17 - 01:40 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM
Dave the Gnome 02 Feb 17 - 01:23 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM
Teribus 20 Jan 17 - 01:19 PM
Donuel 20 Jan 17 - 12:43 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Jan 17 - 03:31 AM
Dave the Gnome 20 Jan 17 - 03:13 AM
akenaton 19 Jan 17 - 05:47 PM
Dave the Gnome 19 Jan 17 - 04:03 PM
akenaton 19 Jan 17 - 03:37 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Jan 17 - 11:53 AM
Raggytash 19 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM
akenaton 19 Jan 17 - 11:05 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Jan 17 - 11:05 AM
Raggytash 19 Jan 17 - 10:07 AM
Teribus 19 Jan 17 - 09:36 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Jan 17 - 04:05 AM
Teribus 19 Jan 17 - 02:58 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Jan 17 - 01:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 18 Jan 17 - 01:10 PM
Raggytash 18 Jan 17 - 12:59 PM
Teribus 18 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM
Raggytash 18 Jan 17 - 11:30 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Jan 17 - 11:03 AM
akenaton 18 Jan 17 - 11:02 AM
Dave the Gnome 18 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM
akenaton 18 Jan 17 - 10:13 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Jan 17 - 09:16 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM
Teribus 18 Jan 17 - 08:04 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Jan 17 - 07:21 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Jan 17 - 06:12 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Jan 17 - 04:50 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Jan 17 - 04:21 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM
Teribus 18 Jan 17 - 02:38 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Jan 17 - 08:28 PM
Raggytash 17 Jan 17 - 04:48 PM
Teribus 17 Jan 17 - 04:01 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM
Teribus 17 Jan 17 - 02:08 PM
bobad 17 Jan 17 - 01:17 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Jan 17 - 12:11 PM
Teribus 17 Jan 17 - 11:28 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Jan 17 - 08:03 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Jan 17 - 06:44 AM
akenaton 17 Jan 17 - 05:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jan 17 - 04:53 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Jan 17 - 04:27 AM
Teribus 17 Jan 17 - 03:38 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Jan 17 - 07:56 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Jan 17 - 07:25 PM
Teribus 16 Jan 17 - 07:18 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Jan 17 - 12:12 PM
Teribus 16 Jan 17 - 11:28 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Jan 17 - 10:48 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jan 17 - 10:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Jan 17 - 02:43 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 17 - 01:05 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Jan 17 - 07:33 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Jan 17 - 07:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 17 - 04:42 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 17 - 09:13 PM
bobad 13 Jan 17 - 05:18 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Jan 17 - 11:58 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 17 - 11:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 17 - 11:08 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 17 - 09:49 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Jan 17 - 09:41 AM
Raggytash 13 Jan 17 - 09:37 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Jan 17 - 09:24 AM
bobad 13 Jan 17 - 09:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 17 - 09:16 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Jan 17 - 05:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 17 - 04:53 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 17 - 02:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 17 - 12:45 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 17 - 12:40 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 17 - 12:05 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 17 - 12:00 PM
akenaton 12 Jan 17 - 09:23 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 17 - 09:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 17 - 05:16 AM
Teribus 12 Jan 17 - 02:09 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Jan 17 - 10:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Jan 17 - 10:36 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Jan 17 - 06:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Jan 17 - 05:37 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Jan 17 - 05:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Jan 17 - 04:45 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Jan 17 - 04:01 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 17 - 06:13 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 17 - 05:46 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 17 - 05:36 PM
The Sandman 10 Jan 17 - 04:59 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Jan 17 - 04:09 PM
Donuel 10 Jan 17 - 03:25 PM
Jim Carroll 10 Jan 17 - 02:14 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 17 - 01:22 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM
bobad 10 Jan 17 - 11:53 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Jan 17 - 07:28 AM
akenaton 10 Jan 17 - 06:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 17 - 01:47 PM
Jim Carroll 09 Jan 17 - 01:09 PM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 17 - 10:13 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 17 - 10:11 AM
Allan Conn 09 Jan 17 - 09:02 AM
akenaton 09 Jan 17 - 08:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 17 - 07:27 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Jan 17 - 07:09 AM
Joe Offer 08 Jan 17 - 09:33 PM
Donuel 08 Jan 17 - 07:55 PM
Donuel 08 Jan 17 - 05:24 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Jan 17 - 04:44 PM
Iains 08 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 17 - 01:49 PM
Donuel 08 Jan 17 - 01:42 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Jan 17 - 12:30 PM
Donuel 08 Jan 17 - 12:13 PM
Donuel 08 Jan 17 - 12:11 PM
Donuel 08 Jan 17 - 11:57 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 17 - 04:14 AM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 10:33 PM
Donuel 07 Jan 17 - 07:49 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 17 - 07:00 PM
Stu 07 Jan 17 - 03:51 PM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 03:21 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 17 - 03:19 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 17 - 03:13 PM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 03:07 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 17 - 02:32 PM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 02:27 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 17 - 02:00 PM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 01:44 PM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 01:25 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Jan 17 - 12:45 PM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 10:56 AM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 10:45 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Jan 17 - 10:25 AM
bobad 07 Jan 17 - 10:01 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Jan 17 - 07:16 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 17 - 07:11 AM
Teribus 07 Jan 17 - 07:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 17 - 05:09 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 17 - 03:04 PM
Raggytash 06 Jan 17 - 12:29 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 17 - 12:01 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Jan 17 - 09:12 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Jan 17 - 08:29 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Jan 17 - 08:28 AM
bobad 06 Jan 17 - 08:13 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 17 - 07:37 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 17 - 07:16 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 17 - 06:19 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Jan 17 - 05:55 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 17 - 05:28 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 17 - 05:24 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 17 - 05:02 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 17 - 04:37 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 17 - 04:18 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 17 - 02:48 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Jan 17 - 03:15 PM
Teribus 05 Jan 17 - 03:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 17 - 07:26 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Jan 17 - 05:59 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Jan 17 - 04:35 AM
Teribus 05 Jan 17 - 04:10 AM
Teribus 05 Jan 17 - 03:43 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Jan 17 - 03:04 AM
Tunesmith 05 Jan 17 - 01:48 AM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 08:39 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 07:39 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 05:55 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 05:20 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 05:09 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 04:08 PM
Dave the Gnome 04 Jan 17 - 03:47 PM
Tunesmith 04 Jan 17 - 03:40 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 03:19 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 03:06 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM
Dave the Gnome 04 Jan 17 - 02:16 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 02:10 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 01:58 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 01:50 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 01:36 PM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 01:31 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 01:13 PM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM
Tunesmith 04 Jan 17 - 12:50 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 12:40 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 11:55 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 11:41 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 11:33 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 17 - 11:32 AM
Tunesmith 04 Jan 17 - 11:24 AM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 10:54 AM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 17 - 10:44 AM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 10:38 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 10:32 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 10:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 09:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 09:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 09:43 AM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM
bobad 04 Jan 17 - 08:38 AM
Tunesmith 04 Jan 17 - 08:31 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 17 - 07:57 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 06:03 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 06:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 05:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 05:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM
bobad 03 Jan 17 - 09:29 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 08:21 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 08:20 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 07:32 PM
bobad 03 Jan 17 - 07:24 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 07:15 PM
bobad 03 Jan 17 - 07:09 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 06:50 PM
bobad 03 Jan 17 - 06:45 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 06:23 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 06:19 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 06:15 PM
bobad 03 Jan 17 - 05:43 PM
Raggytash 03 Jan 17 - 01:41 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 17 - 01:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 17 - 01:32 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 17 - 01:07 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 01:05 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 17 - 12:06 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 17 - 11:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 17 - 11:20 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 17 - 06:25 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 17 - 06:08 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 17 - 05:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 17 - 04:56 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 17 - 01:46 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 17 - 12:54 PM
Raggytash 02 Jan 17 - 12:44 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 12:39 PM
Greg F. 02 Jan 17 - 12:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 12:28 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 12:19 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 17 - 12:13 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 17 - 12:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 12:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 11:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 11:41 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 17 - 10:21 AM
Greg F. 02 Jan 17 - 09:54 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 17 - 09:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 08:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 08:52 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 17 - 08:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 07:26 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 17 - 06:26 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 17 - 05:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 17 - 05:03 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM
Greg F. 31 Dec 16 - 06:55 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 16 - 04:08 PM
akenaton 31 Dec 16 - 03:53 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 03:05 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 16 - 02:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 16 - 02:04 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 01:52 PM
bobad 31 Dec 16 - 12:55 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 12:51 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 16 - 12:39 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 11:30 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 10:17 AM
bobad 31 Dec 16 - 09:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 16 - 09:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 16 - 09:06 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 08:55 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM
bobad 31 Dec 16 - 08:21 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Dec 16 - 07:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 16 - 07:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 16 - 07:48 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Dec 16 - 06:30 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Dec 16 - 06:28 PM
bobad 30 Dec 16 - 06:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 30 Dec 16 - 05:52 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 16 - 03:04 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 16 - 02:31 PM
bobad 30 Dec 16 - 01:31 PM
Greg F. 30 Dec 16 - 10:13 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 16 - 09:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 16 - 07:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 16 - 04:45 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Dec 16 - 05:04 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 16 - 02:38 PM
bobad 29 Dec 16 - 01:48 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Dec 16 - 01:43 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 16 - 01:41 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 16 - 12:48 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 16 - 12:44 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Dec 16 - 12:36 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 16 - 12:28 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Dec 16 - 06:30 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 16 - 06:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 16 - 05:07 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Dec 16 - 10:20 AM
Raggytash 24 Dec 16 - 09:55 AM
bobad 24 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM
bobad 24 Dec 16 - 09:38 AM
Raggytash 24 Dec 16 - 09:30 AM
bobad 24 Dec 16 - 09:26 AM
bobad 24 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM
Raggytash 24 Dec 16 - 09:02 AM
bobad 24 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Dec 16 - 08:20 AM
Teribus 24 Dec 16 - 07:02 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Dec 16 - 05:15 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Dec 16 - 04:52 AM
Iains 24 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Dec 16 - 03:54 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Dec 16 - 03:22 AM
Raggytash 24 Dec 16 - 01:54 AM
Iains 23 Dec 16 - 03:07 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 16 - 02:56 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM
Dave the Gnome 23 Dec 16 - 02:05 PM
Iains 23 Dec 16 - 01:56 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM
Greg F. 23 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM
Iains 23 Dec 16 - 11:38 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 16 - 11:26 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM
Iains 23 Dec 16 - 08:58 AM
Raggytash 23 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 16 - 07:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 16 - 06:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 16 - 06:53 AM
Raggytash 23 Dec 16 - 06:21 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 16 - 06:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 16 - 06:05 AM
Raggytash 23 Dec 16 - 05:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 16 - 05:51 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 16 - 06:40 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 16 - 05:26 PM
Iains 22 Dec 16 - 04:44 PM
Raggytash 22 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 16 - 04:04 PM
Iains 22 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 16 - 03:12 PM
Raggytash 22 Dec 16 - 03:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM
Raggytash 22 Dec 16 - 11:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 16 - 11:07 AM
Greg F. 22 Dec 16 - 10:25 AM
Greg F. 22 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 16 - 07:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 16 - 05:30 AM
Iains 22 Dec 16 - 04:33 AM
bobad 21 Dec 16 - 09:19 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 07:21 PM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 03:56 PM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 03:52 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 01:20 PM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 11:15 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 11:11 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 10:55 AM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 09:16 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 16 - 08:11 AM
Teribus 21 Dec 16 - 08:10 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 06:49 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 05:24 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Dec 16 - 05:04 AM
Iains 21 Dec 16 - 04:50 AM
Teribus 21 Dec 16 - 04:03 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 16 - 03:14 AM
Teribus 21 Dec 16 - 02:13 AM
Greg F. 20 Dec 16 - 01:04 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM
bobad 20 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM
Dave the Gnome 20 Dec 16 - 10:56 AM
Greg F. 20 Dec 16 - 10:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM
Dave the Gnome 20 Dec 16 - 10:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM
Raggytash 20 Dec 16 - 08:55 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 16 - 08:39 AM
Dave the Gnome 20 Dec 16 - 07:52 AM
Teribus 20 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Dec 16 - 05:39 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 16 - 04:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Dec 16 - 03:46 AM
Teribus 20 Dec 16 - 01:47 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 16 - 04:08 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 16 - 12:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 16 - 12:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM
Teribus 19 Dec 16 - 09:33 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 16 - 05:29 AM
Teribus 19 Dec 16 - 03:03 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 16 - 08:51 PM
bobad 18 Dec 16 - 04:29 PM
Teribus 18 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM
Raggytash 18 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Dec 16 - 11:47 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 16 - 09:29 AM
Raggytash 18 Dec 16 - 08:41 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 16 - 07:37 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 16 - 07:24 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 16 - 04:31 AM
Teribus 18 Dec 16 - 03:38 AM
akenaton 18 Dec 16 - 03:34 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 09:05 PM
bobad 17 Dec 16 - 08:46 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 08:38 PM
Greg F. 17 Dec 16 - 08:15 PM
bobad 17 Dec 16 - 06:57 PM
akenaton 17 Dec 16 - 05:03 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 16 - 03:32 PM
Teribus 17 Dec 16 - 12:54 PM
bobad 17 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM
Teribus 17 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 12:31 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 16 - 12:19 PM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 16 - 12:08 PM
bobad 17 Dec 16 - 11:13 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM
bobad 17 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM
Teribus 17 Dec 16 - 07:41 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 16 - 07:20 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM
Teribus 17 Dec 16 - 05:21 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 16 - 04:37 AM
Teribus 17 Dec 16 - 02:57 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 16 - 08:33 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 16 - 08:03 PM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 07:18 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 16 - 06:36 PM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 06:11 PM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 06:09 PM
Greg F. 16 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM
Teribus 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM
Greg F. 16 Dec 16 - 11:59 AM
Greg F. 16 Dec 16 - 11:54 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 16 - 11:32 AM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM
Greg F. 16 Dec 16 - 11:16 AM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 10:49 AM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 10:43 AM
Greg F. 16 Dec 16 - 10:14 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 16 - 09:37 AM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 09:14 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 16 - 08:35 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 16 - 07:57 AM
bobad 16 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 16 - 06:09 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 16 - 04:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 16 - 03:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 16 - 03:47 AM
bobad 15 Dec 16 - 09:03 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 16 - 01:06 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 16 - 11:06 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 16 - 09:56 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 16 - 06:47 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 16 - 06:44 AM
Raggytash 15 Dec 16 - 06:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 16 - 05:49 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 16 - 06:55 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 03:00 PM
Greg F. 14 Dec 16 - 02:47 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 16 - 02:32 PM
bobad 14 Dec 16 - 02:09 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 16 - 01:37 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 12:41 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 16 - 12:30 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM
bobad 14 Dec 16 - 11:42 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 10:36 AM
bobad 14 Dec 16 - 09:19 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 08:59 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 08:57 AM
bobad 14 Dec 16 - 08:07 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 06:45 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 05:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 16 - 04:42 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Dec 16 - 04:17 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 16 - 04:01 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 16 - 03:12 AM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 10:03 PM
Greg F. 13 Dec 16 - 08:58 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 16 - 08:01 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 16 - 07:39 PM
Greg F. 13 Dec 16 - 04:16 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 03:47 PM
Greg F. 13 Dec 16 - 03:22 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 02:21 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 02:17 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 02:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 02:01 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM
Greg F. 13 Dec 16 - 01:51 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 01:50 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Dec 16 - 01:41 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 01:37 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 01:31 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Dec 16 - 01:18 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 16 - 01:11 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 01:03 PM
Greg F. 13 Dec 16 - 01:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 12:56 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 12:56 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 12:43 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 16 - 12:12 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 12:03 PM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 11:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 11:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 11:34 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 11:25 AM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 10:27 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM
bobad 13 Dec 16 - 08:41 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 08:22 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Dec 16 - 06:59 AM
Raggytash 13 Dec 16 - 06:56 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Dec 16 - 06:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 06:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 16 - 06:17 AM
Raggytash 13 Dec 16 - 06:06 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 16 - 06:03 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 16 - 05:31 PM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 05:16 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 16 - 04:55 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 04:52 PM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 04:48 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 04:44 PM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 04:42 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 04:35 PM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 04:35 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 04:34 PM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 04:32 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 04:22 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 16 - 04:14 PM
Raggytash 12 Dec 16 - 04:11 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 03:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 02:59 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 02:51 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 16 - 02:36 PM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 02:05 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 16 - 01:52 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 16 - 01:22 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 12:02 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 10:00 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 09:41 AM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 09:37 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 09:29 AM
bobad 12 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 16 - 09:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 09:00 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 08:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Dec 16 - 06:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 16 - 04:26 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 16 - 02:44 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Dec 16 - 06:35 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 16 - 05:37 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 16 - 03:54 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Dec 16 - 01:22 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 16 - 01:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 16 - 12:50 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 16 - 11:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM
bobad 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM
bobad 11 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM
bobad 11 Dec 16 - 10:05 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Dec 16 - 09:47 AM
bobad 11 Dec 16 - 08:14 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Dec 16 - 04:27 AM
bobad 10 Dec 16 - 11:17 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 07:53 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 05:09 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 05:07 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 04:46 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 04:39 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 04:00 PM
bobad 10 Dec 16 - 03:56 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 03:55 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 03:52 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 03:48 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 16 - 03:34 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 16 - 03:30 PM
Jim Carroll 10 Dec 16 - 03:13 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 02:47 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 16 - 02:22 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 16 - 02:13 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 01:50 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 12:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 16 - 12:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 16 - 12:01 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM
Greg F. 10 Dec 16 - 11:51 AM
bobad 10 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM
Greg F. 10 Dec 16 - 11:00 AM
Greg F. 10 Dec 16 - 10:58 AM
Greg F. 10 Dec 16 - 10:54 AM
bobad 10 Dec 16 - 10:35 AM
bobad 10 Dec 16 - 10:29 AM
bobad 10 Dec 16 - 10:26 AM
Greg F. 10 Dec 16 - 10:18 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Dec 16 - 08:36 AM
bobad 10 Dec 16 - 07:26 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Dec 16 - 07:03 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 16 - 06:20 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 06:12 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Dec 16 - 06:02 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 16 - 05:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 16 - 04:48 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Dec 16 - 04:22 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 16 - 04:55 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 16 - 04:52 PM
bobad 09 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 16 - 03:11 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 16 - 03:11 PM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 16 - 02:37 PM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 16 - 02:30 PM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 11:57 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 11:55 AM
bobad 09 Dec 16 - 10:16 AM
bobad 09 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 16 - 10:04 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 10:01 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM
bobad 09 Dec 16 - 09:46 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM
bobad 09 Dec 16 - 08:44 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 07:43 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 16 - 06:57 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 06:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 16 - 06:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 16 - 06:33 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 16 - 04:24 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 16 - 04:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 16 - 03:58 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 16 - 03:04 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 16 - 02:18 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Dec 16 - 08:55 PM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 05:02 PM
Teribus 08 Dec 16 - 04:06 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM
bobad 08 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 01:14 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 11:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 10:24 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM
Teribus 08 Dec 16 - 09:23 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 08:19 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 08:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 08:15 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 07:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 07:08 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM
Teribus 08 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 05:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 05:35 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 04:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 04:39 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM
Teribus 08 Dec 16 - 04:20 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 04:10 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Dec 16 - 03:59 AM
Raggytash 08 Dec 16 - 12:32 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 07:15 PM
bobad 07 Dec 16 - 06:41 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 05:53 PM
bobad 07 Dec 16 - 04:50 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 16 - 04:13 PM
bobad 07 Dec 16 - 03:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 16 - 03:17 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 02:51 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM
Teribus 07 Dec 16 - 02:44 PM
Teribus 07 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM
Teribus 07 Dec 16 - 02:33 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM
Raggytash 07 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 12:52 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM
Teribus 07 Dec 16 - 11:44 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 16 - 09:40 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM
bobad 07 Dec 16 - 08:50 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 16 - 06:08 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 16 - 05:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 16 - 05:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 16 - 05:25 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 16 - 04:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 16 - 04:28 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 16 - 04:21 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Dec 16 - 04:18 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 16 - 03:15 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 03:02 PM
Teribus 06 Dec 16 - 01:51 PM
bobad 06 Dec 16 - 01:32 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 01:24 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 01:21 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 01:03 PM
Teribus 06 Dec 16 - 01:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 12:59 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 16 - 11:07 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 11:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 10:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 10:09 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 09:49 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 08:46 AM
Teribus 06 Dec 16 - 08:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 07:46 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 16 - 07:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 07:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 07:08 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 06:47 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 16 - 05:45 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 16 - 04:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Dec 16 - 04:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 04:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 16 - 04:11 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Dec 16 - 05:49 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Dec 16 - 05:28 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Dec 16 - 04:13 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Dec 16 - 03:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Dec 16 - 01:54 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 16 - 01:50 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 16 - 01:39 PM
Teribus 26 Oct 16 - 11:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Oct 16 - 10:38 AM
bobad 26 Oct 16 - 07:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Oct 16 - 06:38 AM
Jim Carroll 26 Oct 16 - 05:13 AM
Jim Carroll 26 Oct 16 - 04:51 AM
Teribus 26 Oct 16 - 04:18 AM
Jim Carroll 26 Oct 16 - 03:49 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 16 - 09:14 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 16 - 09:05 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Oct 16 - 07:27 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Oct 16 - 07:25 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 16 - 07:10 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Oct 16 - 04:09 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Oct 16 - 02:53 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Oct 16 - 02:23 PM
bobad 25 Oct 16 - 02:22 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 16 - 02:17 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Oct 16 - 01:51 PM
bobad 25 Oct 16 - 01:32 PM
Greg F. 25 Oct 16 - 01:21 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Oct 16 - 01:16 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Oct 16 - 01:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Oct 16 - 12:51 PM
Raggytash 25 Oct 16 - 12:51 PM
Greg F. 25 Oct 16 - 12:37 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Oct 16 - 12:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Oct 16 - 04:28 PM
bobad 23 Oct 16 - 04:15 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Oct 16 - 02:30 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Oct 16 - 01:52 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Oct 16 - 01:44 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 16 - 01:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM
Greg F. 23 Oct 16 - 01:05 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 16 - 12:44 PM
bobad 23 Oct 16 - 12:08 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Oct 16 - 06:29 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 16 - 06:02 AM
Raggytash 23 Oct 16 - 05:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Oct 16 - 05:06 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Oct 16 - 04:22 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Oct 16 - 04:07 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Oct 16 - 04:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Oct 16 - 03:54 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Oct 16 - 03:47 PM
Jim Carroll 22 Oct 16 - 08:56 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 16 - 07:22 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 16 - 06:02 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Oct 16 - 05:50 AM
Raggytash 22 Oct 16 - 05:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Oct 16 - 04:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Oct 16 - 04:17 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Oct 16 - 04:15 AM
Teribus 22 Oct 16 - 03:16 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Oct 16 - 06:21 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Oct 16 - 04:54 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Oct 16 - 03:44 PM
Raggytash 21 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Oct 16 - 02:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Oct 16 - 02:32 PM
Greg F. 21 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Oct 16 - 02:04 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Oct 16 - 01:53 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Oct 16 - 11:34 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Oct 16 - 10:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Oct 16 - 10:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Oct 16 - 10:33 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Oct 16 - 06:19 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM
Teribus 21 Oct 16 - 01:42 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Oct 16 - 06:13 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Oct 16 - 05:47 PM
Raggytash 20 Oct 16 - 03:46 PM
Raggytash 20 Oct 16 - 03:04 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Oct 16 - 02:58 PM
Greg F. 20 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Oct 16 - 01:55 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Oct 16 - 01:46 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Oct 16 - 10:42 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM
Teribus 20 Oct 16 - 02:49 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 03:20 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 16 - 02:43 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 01:59 PM
Teribus 19 Oct 16 - 01:42 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 12:54 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 16 - 12:24 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM
Teribus 19 Oct 16 - 12:09 PM
McGrath of Harlow 19 Oct 16 - 11:58 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 16 - 11:50 AM
McGrath of Harlow 19 Oct 16 - 11:12 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 11:10 AM
Teribus 19 Oct 16 - 10:36 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 05:42 AM
Raggytash 19 Oct 16 - 05:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Oct 16 - 04:37 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 04:01 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Oct 16 - 03:53 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 16 - 07:43 PM
Greg F. 18 Oct 16 - 07:36 PM
Raggytash 18 Oct 16 - 07:26 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 16 - 06:37 PM
Greg F. 18 Oct 16 - 05:52 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 16 - 05:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Oct 16 - 02:21 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM
Jim Carroll 18 Oct 16 - 10:58 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 16 - 09:54 AM
Raggytash 18 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Oct 16 - 09:08 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM
Raggytash 18 Oct 16 - 05:40 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 16 - 03:56 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Oct 16 - 02:16 PM
Greg F. 17 Oct 16 - 02:03 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Oct 16 - 01:02 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Oct 16 - 11:41 AM
Teribus 17 Oct 16 - 11:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Oct 16 - 11:12 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 16 - 09:54 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM
Teribus 17 Oct 16 - 09:17 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 16 - 09:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Oct 16 - 08:49 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Oct 16 - 08:16 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Oct 16 - 07:55 AM
Raggytash 17 Oct 16 - 07:42 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 16 - 06:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Oct 16 - 06:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Oct 16 - 05:57 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Oct 16 - 05:56 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 16 - 04:43 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 16 - 04:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Oct 16 - 03:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Oct 16 - 03:11 AM
Teribus 17 Oct 16 - 03:08 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 03:03 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Oct 16 - 02:36 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 01:43 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Oct 16 - 01:08 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 12:59 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Oct 16 - 12:51 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Oct 16 - 12:45 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM
Teribus 16 Oct 16 - 11:20 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 10:34 AM
Teribus 16 Oct 16 - 10:26 AM
bobad 16 Oct 16 - 09:23 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 08:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Oct 16 - 08:07 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 06:39 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Oct 16 - 06:34 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Oct 16 - 06:19 AM
akenaton 16 Oct 16 - 06:06 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM
Teribus 16 Oct 16 - 04:30 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 04:29 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Oct 16 - 04:21 AM
Teribus 16 Oct 16 - 03:49 AM
Greg F. 15 Oct 16 - 06:41 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Oct 16 - 06:40 PM
akenaton 15 Oct 16 - 05:29 PM
Teribus 15 Oct 16 - 03:27 PM
Raggytash 15 Oct 16 - 09:40 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Oct 16 - 08:31 AM
Teribus 15 Oct 16 - 07:43 AM
Teribus 15 Oct 16 - 04:31 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM
Raggytash 14 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Oct 16 - 06:14 AM
Teribus 14 Oct 16 - 03:36 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Oct 16 - 06:08 PM
Teribus 13 Oct 16 - 02:46 PM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM
Teribus 13 Oct 16 - 12:33 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Oct 16 - 10:21 AM
Teribus 13 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM
Teribus 12 Oct 16 - 12:58 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Oct 16 - 07:45 AM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Oct 16 - 07:27 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Oct 16 - 02:27 PM
The Sandman 11 Oct 16 - 01:32 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Oct 16 - 01:22 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Oct 16 - 01:19 PM
akenaton 11 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM
Jim Carroll 11 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM
Raggytash 11 Oct 16 - 11:52 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Oct 16 - 11:38 AM
Teribus 11 Oct 16 - 11:29 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Oct 16 - 08:12 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Oct 16 - 08:11 AM
akenaton 11 Oct 16 - 08:06 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Oct 16 - 07:53 AM
akenaton 11 Oct 16 - 07:40 AM
akenaton 11 Oct 16 - 07:36 AM
Jim Carroll 11 Oct 16 - 06:53 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Oct 16 - 06:34 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Oct 16 - 06:33 AM
Raggytash 11 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM
akenaton 11 Oct 16 - 06:07 AM
Raggytash 11 Oct 16 - 05:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Oct 16 - 05:14 AM
akenaton 11 Oct 16 - 05:04 AM
Teribus 11 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM
Raggytash 11 Oct 16 - 04:48 AM
Teribus 11 Oct 16 - 04:21 AM
Teribus 11 Oct 16 - 04:02 AM
Raggytash 11 Oct 16 - 03:50 AM
Teribus 11 Oct 16 - 02:25 AM
Teribus 11 Oct 16 - 01:50 AM
Greg F. 10 Oct 16 - 04:35 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM
Raggytash 10 Oct 16 - 03:23 PM
Jim Carroll 10 Oct 16 - 03:02 PM
Teribus 10 Oct 16 - 03:00 PM
Raggytash 10 Oct 16 - 08:54 AM
Teribus 10 Oct 16 - 08:40 AM
Teribus 10 Oct 16 - 08:34 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Oct 16 - 08:17 AM
Raggytash 10 Oct 16 - 04:44 AM
Teribus 10 Oct 16 - 02:40 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Oct 16 - 03:11 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM
Jim Carroll 09 Oct 16 - 12:14 PM
Greg F. 09 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Oct 16 - 11:31 AM
Teribus 09 Oct 16 - 10:32 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Oct 16 - 10:06 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM
bobad 09 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Oct 16 - 05:41 AM
Teribus 09 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Oct 16 - 05:08 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM
Teribus 09 Oct 16 - 02:21 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 16 - 09:06 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Oct 16 - 08:56 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 16 - 08:09 PM
bobad 08 Oct 16 - 06:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM
Greg F. 08 Oct 16 - 06:15 PM
Greg F. 08 Oct 16 - 06:11 PM
bobad 08 Oct 16 - 06:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Oct 16 - 04:48 PM
Teribus 08 Oct 16 - 03:48 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 03:14 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 02:55 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Oct 16 - 02:23 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 01:35 PM
Greg F. 08 Oct 16 - 01:01 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 16 - 12:18 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Oct 16 - 11:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Oct 16 - 11:48 AM
Greg F. 08 Oct 16 - 11:46 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 11:42 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 11:29 AM
Greg F. 08 Oct 16 - 11:27 AM
Teribus 08 Oct 16 - 11:23 AM
bobad 08 Oct 16 - 11:22 AM
Teribus 08 Oct 16 - 11:11 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 10:47 AM
Greg F. 08 Oct 16 - 09:49 AM
Teribus 08 Oct 16 - 09:35 AM
Teribus 08 Oct 16 - 09:27 AM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 06:46 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 16 - 05:28 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 16 - 05:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Oct 16 - 05:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Oct 16 - 05:21 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 05:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Oct 16 - 05:05 AM
Teribus 08 Oct 16 - 04:48 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Oct 16 - 03:54 AM
Teribus 08 Oct 16 - 02:58 AM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Oct 16 - 09:55 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 16 - 08:13 PM
Raggytash 07 Oct 16 - 08:06 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 16 - 05:17 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Oct 16 - 05:08 PM
bobad 07 Oct 16 - 04:28 PM
Raggytash 07 Oct 16 - 03:34 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 16 - 03:25 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 16 - 03:17 PM
Raggytash 07 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM
Raggytash 07 Oct 16 - 03:05 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 02:48 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 16 - 02:02 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Oct 16 - 01:50 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Oct 16 - 08:45 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 16 - 08:27 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 07:52 AM
bobad 07 Oct 16 - 07:48 AM
Raggytash 07 Oct 16 - 07:26 AM
Teribus 07 Oct 16 - 07:19 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 06:24 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 05:55 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 05:35 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 16 - 05:34 AM
Teribus 07 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 16 - 04:09 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 16 - 03:57 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 03:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Oct 16 - 03:51 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 03:47 AM
akenaton 07 Oct 16 - 03:39 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Oct 16 - 03:18 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 09:54 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 16 - 09:26 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 08:35 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 16 - 07:57 PM
bobad 06 Oct 16 - 07:07 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 16 - 06:54 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 06:38 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 PM
bobad 06 Oct 16 - 05:53 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 03:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 03:16 PM
Teribus 06 Oct 16 - 02:57 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 02:15 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Oct 16 - 02:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 01:31 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 01:05 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Oct 16 - 12:52 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 12:39 PM
akenaton 06 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 11:24 AM
Teribus 06 Oct 16 - 10:59 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 09:53 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 08:58 AM
akenaton 06 Oct 16 - 08:39 AM
akenaton 06 Oct 16 - 08:36 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM
Greg F. 06 Oct 16 - 08:02 AM
Teribus 06 Oct 16 - 07:48 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Oct 16 - 06:37 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM
Raggytash 06 Oct 16 - 05:56 AM
Teribus 06 Oct 16 - 05:36 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 04:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Oct 16 - 04:20 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Oct 16 - 04:13 AM
akenaton 06 Oct 16 - 03:00 AM
Teribus 06 Oct 16 - 01:46 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 05:06 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 04:52 PM
Greg F. 05 Oct 16 - 04:34 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Oct 16 - 03:10 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 03:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Oct 16 - 02:43 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Oct 16 - 02:35 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 01:58 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Oct 16 - 01:29 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Oct 16 - 01:26 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Oct 16 - 01:17 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 01:04 PM
akenaton 05 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM
akenaton 05 Oct 16 - 12:47 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Oct 16 - 12:38 PM
akenaton 05 Oct 16 - 12:29 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 11:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Oct 16 - 10:43 AM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Oct 16 - 10:27 AM
akenaton 05 Oct 16 - 10:11 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 09:56 AM
DMcG 05 Oct 16 - 09:56 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Oct 16 - 09:32 AM
Stu 05 Oct 16 - 08:35 AM
Teribus 05 Oct 16 - 07:15 AM
akenaton 05 Oct 16 - 07:10 AM
Stu 05 Oct 16 - 06:54 AM
akenaton 05 Oct 16 - 03:38 AM
Teribus 05 Oct 16 - 02:13 AM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Oct 16 - 06:20 PM
Greg F. 04 Oct 16 - 04:32 PM
akenaton 04 Oct 16 - 03:48 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Oct 16 - 01:38 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Oct 16 - 08:08 AM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Oct 16 - 07:58 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Oct 16 - 06:49 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Oct 16 - 08:56 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 16 - 07:46 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Oct 16 - 07:26 PM
bobad 03 Oct 16 - 07:21 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Oct 16 - 07:21 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Oct 16 - 07:16 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 16 - 06:55 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Oct 16 - 06:54 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Oct 16 - 06:43 PM
akenaton 03 Oct 16 - 05:35 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM
Teribus 03 Oct 16 - 03:31 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Oct 16 - 03:24 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Oct 16 - 02:10 PM
Teribus 03 Oct 16 - 01:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Oct 16 - 01:38 PM
The Sandman 03 Oct 16 - 01:21 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Oct 16 - 01:11 PM
Teribus 03 Oct 16 - 11:42 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Oct 16 - 11:21 AM
bobad 03 Oct 16 - 10:41 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Oct 16 - 09:53 AM
Greg F. 03 Oct 16 - 09:14 AM
Greg F. 03 Oct 16 - 08:52 AM
bobad 03 Oct 16 - 08:46 AM
Teribus 03 Oct 16 - 07:02 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Oct 16 - 06:32 AM
Teribus 03 Oct 16 - 01:03 AM
Greg F. 02 Oct 16 - 08:07 PM
bobad 02 Oct 16 - 07:13 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Oct 16 - 04:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Oct 16 - 02:38 PM
Teribus 02 Oct 16 - 02:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Oct 16 - 01:01 PM
Donuel 02 Oct 16 - 10:59 AM
Big Al Whittle 02 Oct 16 - 10:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Oct 16 - 10:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Oct 16 - 10:19 AM
Donuel 02 Oct 16 - 10:09 AM
bobad 02 Oct 16 - 08:58 AM
Teribus 02 Oct 16 - 06:33 AM
Teribus 02 Oct 16 - 06:23 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Oct 16 - 05:18 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Oct 16 - 04:28 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Oct 16 - 03:07 AM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Oct 16 - 08:40 PM
bobad 01 Oct 16 - 08:09 PM
Greg F. 01 Oct 16 - 08:07 PM
bobad 01 Oct 16 - 06:49 PM
DMcG 01 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Oct 16 - 05:44 PM
bobad 01 Oct 16 - 05:15 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Oct 16 - 03:08 PM
Teribus 01 Oct 16 - 01:47 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Oct 16 - 01:25 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Oct 16 - 01:15 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Oct 16 - 10:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Oct 16 - 10:23 AM
bobad 01 Oct 16 - 10:13 AM
bobad 01 Oct 16 - 09:48 AM
Teribus 01 Oct 16 - 09:38 AM
Teribus 01 Oct 16 - 09:38 AM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Oct 16 - 08:12 AM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Oct 16 - 07:35 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Oct 16 - 05:33 AM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Oct 16 - 05:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM
Greg F. 30 Sep 16 - 09:07 PM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Sep 16 - 06:03 PM
bobad 30 Sep 16 - 04:07 PM
bobad 30 Sep 16 - 04:04 PM
Greg F. 30 Sep 16 - 02:28 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Sep 16 - 02:21 PM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Sep 16 - 01:20 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 01:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Sep 16 - 12:38 PM
Greg F. 30 Sep 16 - 12:31 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Sep 16 - 12:20 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 11:56 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 11:05 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 10:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Sep 16 - 10:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Sep 16 - 10:22 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 10:21 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Sep 16 - 10:14 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Sep 16 - 09:59 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 09:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Sep 16 - 08:22 AM
bobad 30 Sep 16 - 08:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Sep 16 - 08:20 AM
bobad 30 Sep 16 - 08:03 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM
Teribus 30 Sep 16 - 07:32 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 07:02 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Sep 16 - 06:43 AM
DMcG 30 Sep 16 - 06:22 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Sep 16 - 05:54 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 05:43 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 05:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Sep 16 - 04:57 AM
DMcG 30 Sep 16 - 04:45 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Sep 16 - 04:13 AM
Teribus 30 Sep 16 - 03:32 AM
DMcG 30 Sep 16 - 02:06 AM
Teribus 30 Sep 16 - 01:52 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Sep 16 - 06:43 PM
bobad 29 Sep 16 - 06:30 PM
Greg F. 29 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Sep 16 - 06:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Sep 16 - 05:37 PM
bobad 29 Sep 16 - 04:55 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Sep 16 - 03:08 PM
Teribus 29 Sep 16 - 02:14 PM
Teribus 29 Sep 16 - 02:11 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Sep 16 - 01:51 PM
Teribus 29 Sep 16 - 01:00 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM
Teribus 29 Sep 16 - 08:29 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Sep 16 - 08:19 AM
akenaton 29 Sep 16 - 06:46 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Sep 16 - 03:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Sep 16 - 01:35 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Sep 16 - 05:28 PM
McGrath of Harlow 28 Sep 16 - 05:12 PM
Big Al Whittle 27 Sep 16 - 02:41 PM
The Sandman 27 Sep 16 - 02:18 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Sep 16 - 03:22 AM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM
Big Al Whittle 26 Sep 16 - 04:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Sep 16 - 12:33 PM
bobad 26 Sep 16 - 07:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Sep 16 - 03:49 AM
Jim Carroll 26 Sep 16 - 03:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Sep 16 - 01:40 AM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Sep 16 - 08:21 PM
DMcG 25 Sep 16 - 05:21 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Sep 16 - 04:15 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Sep 16 - 03:10 PM
bobad 25 Sep 16 - 02:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Sep 16 - 02:32 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Sep 16 - 02:02 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Sep 16 - 12:41 PM
bobad 25 Sep 16 - 12:36 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Sep 16 - 11:29 AM
bobad 25 Sep 16 - 09:50 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Sep 16 - 09:31 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Sep 16 - 09:21 AM
bobad 25 Sep 16 - 08:47 AM
DMcG 25 Sep 16 - 05:33 AM
Big Al Whittle 24 Sep 16 - 11:19 AM
DMcG 24 Sep 16 - 10:05 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Sep 16 - 09:42 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Sep 16 - 08:38 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Sep 16 - 09:44 AM
Stanron 23 Sep 16 - 08:59 AM
The Sandman 23 Sep 16 - 03:44 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Sep 16 - 03:07 AM
DMcG 23 Sep 16 - 02:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Sep 16 - 01:45 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Sep 16 - 01:07 PM
Greg F. 02 Sep 16 - 12:55 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 16 - 12:22 PM
Teribus 02 Sep 16 - 10:28 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM
Teribus 02 Sep 16 - 09:17 AM
Stanron 02 Sep 16 - 08:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Sep 16 - 08:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Sep 16 - 08:02 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Sep 16 - 04:31 AM
akenaton 02 Sep 16 - 03:40 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Sep 16 - 03:30 AM
Stanron 01 Sep 16 - 09:54 PM
Stanron 01 Sep 16 - 09:46 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Sep 16 - 08:55 PM
Stanron 01 Sep 16 - 08:45 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Sep 16 - 07:56 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Sep 16 - 07:32 PM
Stanron 01 Sep 16 - 06:57 PM
Teribus 01 Sep 16 - 10:47 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Sep 16 - 08:37 AM
Teribus 01 Sep 16 - 08:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Sep 16 - 06:46 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Sep 16 - 06:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Sep 16 - 04:46 AM
Greg F. 31 Aug 16 - 09:16 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Aug 16 - 09:09 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Aug 16 - 07:55 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Aug 16 - 07:27 PM
Greg F. 31 Aug 16 - 07:25 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Aug 16 - 05:25 PM
bobad 31 Aug 16 - 04:46 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Aug 16 - 04:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Aug 16 - 04:03 PM
theleveller 31 Aug 16 - 11:20 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Aug 16 - 08:36 AM
Stanron 31 Aug 16 - 08:24 AM
DMcG 31 Aug 16 - 08:01 AM
Stanron 31 Aug 16 - 07:38 AM
Raggytash 30 Aug 16 - 01:22 PM
Teribus 30 Aug 16 - 01:00 PM
Raggytash 30 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM
Teribus 30 Aug 16 - 11:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Aug 16 - 09:36 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Aug 16 - 05:49 AM
Raggytash 30 Aug 16 - 04:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Aug 16 - 04:22 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 02:49 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 02:23 PM
Raggytash 29 Aug 16 - 02:12 PM
Greg F. 29 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Aug 16 - 01:39 PM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Aug 16 - 01:04 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 12:49 PM
Greg F. 29 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Aug 16 - 11:49 AM
akenaton 29 Aug 16 - 11:39 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 10:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Aug 16 - 09:38 AM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Aug 16 - 09:08 AM
Raggytash 29 Aug 16 - 08:04 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 07:39 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 07:19 AM
Teribus 29 Aug 16 - 07:09 AM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Aug 16 - 06:24 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 06:14 AM
DMcG 29 Aug 16 - 05:43 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 05:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Aug 16 - 05:23 AM
Raggytash 29 Aug 16 - 05:20 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 05:14 AM
Teribus 29 Aug 16 - 04:53 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 04:40 AM
Raggytash 29 Aug 16 - 04:14 AM
Teribus 29 Aug 16 - 04:03 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 03:39 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Aug 16 - 03:25 AM
akenaton 29 Aug 16 - 03:03 AM
Teribus 29 Aug 16 - 01:33 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Aug 16 - 05:22 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Aug 16 - 05:16 PM
DMcG 28 Aug 16 - 04:56 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Aug 16 - 04:53 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Aug 16 - 04:53 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Aug 16 - 04:37 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Aug 16 - 03:31 PM
DMcG 28 Aug 16 - 03:26 PM
McGrath of Harlow 28 Aug 16 - 02:24 PM
DMcG 28 Aug 16 - 12:03 PM
Teribus 28 Aug 16 - 11:24 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Aug 16 - 03:30 AM
Greg F. 27 Aug 16 - 08:36 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Aug 16 - 08:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 27 Aug 16 - 07:57 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Aug 16 - 06:22 PM
Greg F. 27 Aug 16 - 05:57 PM
Greg F. 27 Aug 16 - 05:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 27 Aug 16 - 05:23 PM
Greg F. 27 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM
akenaton 27 Aug 16 - 04:19 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Aug 16 - 01:23 PM
Greg F. 27 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Aug 16 - 12:53 PM
Greg F. 27 Aug 16 - 10:15 AM
McGrath of Harlow 27 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM
akenaton 27 Aug 16 - 09:14 AM
akenaton 27 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM
McGrath of Harlow 27 Aug 16 - 08:22 AM
DMcG 27 Aug 16 - 05:35 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Aug 16 - 05:28 AM
Teribus 27 Aug 16 - 05:10 AM
DMcG 27 Aug 16 - 02:05 AM
Teribus 27 Aug 16 - 02:02 AM
DMcG 27 Aug 16 - 01:46 AM
Teribus 26 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Aug 16 - 06:43 PM
Teribus 26 Aug 16 - 12:36 PM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 16 - 11:36 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 16 - 11:28 AM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Aug 16 - 11:02 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 16 - 07:38 AM
Teribus 26 Aug 16 - 07:14 AM
DMcG 26 Aug 16 - 06:26 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 16 - 06:09 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 16 - 05:45 AM
Teribus 26 Aug 16 - 05:23 AM
DMcG 26 Aug 16 - 02:17 AM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Aug 16 - 09:05 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Aug 16 - 08:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Aug 16 - 07:46 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Aug 16 - 08:56 AM
Teribus 25 Aug 16 - 08:26 AM
bobad 25 Aug 16 - 07:51 AM
DMcG 25 Aug 16 - 07:26 AM
DMcG 25 Aug 16 - 07:06 AM
DMcG 25 Aug 16 - 06:54 AM
DMcG 25 Aug 16 - 06:49 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM
Teribus 25 Aug 16 - 05:09 AM
DMcG 25 Aug 16 - 01:47 AM
Stanron 24 Aug 16 - 08:46 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Aug 16 - 08:39 PM
McGrath of Harlow 24 Aug 16 - 08:23 PM
Greg F. 24 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 07:41 PM
McGrath of Harlow 24 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 01:08 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Aug 16 - 12:30 PM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 12:00 PM
McGrath of Harlow 24 Aug 16 - 11:57 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 11:15 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Aug 16 - 10:03 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Aug 16 - 10:01 AM
McGrath of Harlow 24 Aug 16 - 09:22 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 08:06 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Aug 16 - 06:58 AM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 06:48 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 06:45 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 06:26 AM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 06:07 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 04:26 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 03:57 AM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 02:30 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 16 - 01:42 AM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 01:11 AM
Teribus 24 Aug 16 - 12:50 AM
DMcG 23 Aug 16 - 04:01 PM
Teribus 23 Aug 16 - 03:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Aug 16 - 03:38 PM
DMcG 23 Aug 16 - 02:00 PM
Teribus 23 Aug 16 - 01:53 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Aug 16 - 01:26 PM
akenaton 23 Aug 16 - 01:12 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM
Teribus 23 Aug 16 - 11:43 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Aug 16 - 10:08 AM
Teribus 23 Aug 16 - 10:00 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Aug 16 - 09:00 AM
Teribus 23 Aug 16 - 08:51 AM
akenaton 23 Aug 16 - 08:04 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Aug 16 - 04:57 AM
Teribus 23 Aug 16 - 04:00 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Aug 16 - 03:57 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Aug 16 - 03:23 AM
Teribus 23 Aug 16 - 02:34 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Aug 16 - 05:53 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Aug 16 - 05:36 PM
akenaton 22 Aug 16 - 05:08 PM
DMcG 22 Aug 16 - 02:22 PM
Raggytash 22 Aug 16 - 01:24 PM
akenaton 22 Aug 16 - 08:08 AM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Aug 16 - 06:55 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Aug 16 - 02:57 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 16 - 12:42 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Aug 16 - 12:17 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 16 - 11:51 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Aug 16 - 11:28 AM
akenaton 20 Aug 16 - 10:57 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Aug 16 - 10:03 AM
akenaton 20 Aug 16 - 09:45 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Aug 16 - 07:50 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Aug 16 - 05:40 AM
akenaton 20 Aug 16 - 04:00 AM
akenaton 20 Aug 16 - 03:23 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Aug 16 - 07:51 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Aug 16 - 05:08 PM
akenaton 19 Aug 16 - 04:50 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Aug 16 - 02:55 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Aug 16 - 02:16 PM
akenaton 19 Aug 16 - 12:08 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Aug 16 - 08:40 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Aug 16 - 08:33 AM
akenaton 19 Aug 16 - 08:11 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Aug 16 - 08:08 AM
akenaton 19 Aug 16 - 08:03 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Aug 16 - 04:19 AM
akenaton 19 Aug 16 - 02:43 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Aug 16 - 08:14 PM
McGrath of Harlow 18 Aug 16 - 07:01 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Aug 16 - 04:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Aug 16 - 03:46 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Aug 16 - 03:17 AM
Teribus 18 Aug 16 - 12:57 AM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 16 - 08:42 PM
Teribus 17 Aug 16 - 07:18 PM
bobad 17 Aug 16 - 04:43 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 16 - 02:44 PM
Greg F. 17 Aug 16 - 02:39 PM
DMcG 17 Aug 16 - 02:00 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 16 - 01:55 PM
bobad 17 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM
Teribus 17 Aug 16 - 12:54 PM
Greg F. 17 Aug 16 - 12:33 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 16 - 11:46 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Aug 16 - 10:59 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Aug 16 - 10:26 AM
Raggytash 17 Aug 16 - 10:22 AM
Teribus 17 Aug 16 - 10:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Aug 16 - 10:06 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Aug 16 - 10:00 AM
Raggytash 17 Aug 16 - 09:49 AM
Greg F. 17 Aug 16 - 09:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Aug 16 - 09:38 AM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM
Teribus 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Aug 16 - 08:59 AM
Stu 17 Aug 16 - 08:50 AM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 16 - 08:35 AM
Raggytash 17 Aug 16 - 08:00 AM
Teribus 17 Aug 16 - 07:17 AM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Aug 16 - 07:15 AM
Stu 17 Aug 16 - 07:13 AM
Raggytash 17 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM
Stu 17 Aug 16 - 06:00 AM
Teribus 17 Aug 16 - 04:33 AM
DMcG 16 Aug 16 - 10:10 PM
Stu 16 Aug 16 - 03:39 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Aug 16 - 03:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Aug 16 - 02:48 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Aug 16 - 01:53 PM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 01:33 PM
Greg F. 16 Aug 16 - 01:31 PM
Stu 16 Aug 16 - 01:27 PM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 01:22 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Aug 16 - 12:46 PM
Stu 16 Aug 16 - 12:45 PM
Greg F. 16 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 11:32 AM
DMcG 16 Aug 16 - 11:15 AM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 10:48 AM
Stu 16 Aug 16 - 10:38 AM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 10:14 AM
Stu 16 Aug 16 - 08:56 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Aug 16 - 08:27 AM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 07:44 AM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Aug 16 - 07:06 AM
Stu 16 Aug 16 - 06:41 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Aug 16 - 05:27 AM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 04:25 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Aug 16 - 03:48 AM
Teribus 16 Aug 16 - 01:46 AM
DMcG 16 Aug 16 - 12:43 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 16 - 07:05 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 16 - 05:56 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 16 - 05:55 PM
Teribus 15 Aug 16 - 03:56 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 16 - 03:32 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 16 - 03:28 PM
Stu 15 Aug 16 - 02:09 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 16 - 01:18 PM
Teribus 15 Aug 16 - 01:08 PM
Teribus 15 Aug 16 - 11:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Aug 16 - 11:19 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 16 - 11:09 AM
The Sandman 15 Aug 16 - 08:54 AM
Raggytash 15 Aug 16 - 07:25 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Aug 16 - 06:53 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 16 - 06:48 AM
Stu 15 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Aug 16 - 06:18 AM
Stu 15 Aug 16 - 05:03 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Aug 16 - 04:35 AM
DMcG 15 Aug 16 - 04:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Aug 16 - 03:30 AM
Stu 15 Aug 16 - 03:05 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 16 - 02:56 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Aug 16 - 02:40 AM
Frug 14 Aug 16 - 07:41 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 16 - 07:23 PM
Teribus 14 Aug 16 - 06:18 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Aug 16 - 04:00 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Aug 16 - 03:50 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Aug 16 - 03:44 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 16 - 02:47 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 16 - 02:40 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Aug 16 - 01:43 PM
Greg F. 14 Aug 16 - 01:19 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Aug 16 - 11:48 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 16 - 11:44 AM
Teribus 14 Aug 16 - 11:19 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 16 - 09:21 AM
Stu 14 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 16 - 08:49 AM
Stu 14 Aug 16 - 08:25 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Aug 16 - 08:20 AM
akenaton 14 Aug 16 - 08:17 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 16 - 08:05 AM
akenaton 14 Aug 16 - 07:56 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 16 - 07:40 AM
akenaton 14 Aug 16 - 07:19 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Aug 16 - 04:15 AM
Stu 14 Aug 16 - 03:44 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Aug 16 - 04:21 PM
akenaton 13 Aug 16 - 04:19 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Aug 16 - 03:49 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Aug 16 - 03:24 PM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Aug 16 - 01:50 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 08:39 PM

Don't respond, Jim. Give the mods the chance to sort this out.
Sorry, folks. Too late. You didn't seem to understand my request to get back on the subject. Yes, it's true that one side might be 60% right and the other 40%, but I see no good in trying to sort the thing out. There's just too much animosity floating around here, and none of the moderators want to bother wasting their time reading it. I know I must be right on this, because I'm getting flak from both liberals and conservatives who want me to declare one side right and the other wrong. As I see it, both sides are wrong if they engage in insults and combat in Mudcat threads.
As I often told my children, I don't care who's right and who's wrong - I just want the fighting to stop.
Thread closed. Feel free to start a new thread on the subject, but don't open old wounds. Talk about the frickin' subject.
To my mind, closing a thread is not a punitive action. It's just to give everybody a little breathing room before they settle down and get back to the discussion.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 08:28 PM

Bobad has used the term "Jew Hater"

Jew hater, anti-Semite all the same and I stand by it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 08:23 PM

I just need to swiftly correct something there. You did threaten to suspend me last June but not about religion. You did lay into me privately round about the same time about what you called my obsession with religion but that wasn't the source of the suspension threat. Apologies for that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 08:17 PM

My apologies for putting you on the spot once again Joe, but I complained about this situation fairly recently -
I'm sure you did your best and things calmed down somewhat, but now we seem to be back to square one - Steve and Greg have also been in Bobad's sights - none of us are responsible for the situation that has again arisen - Bobad has used the term "Jew Hater" around ten times on this thread alone and he regularly uses it on others - this is one of his early offering here
"Careful.........ha, ha, the little Irish Jew hating Nazi has been spewing his anti-Semitic vomit on here forever, MGM had him pegged too.".
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 08:09 PM

The job of tbe mods is onerous and some of us don't help at times. But it absolutely IS your business Joe, and let me tell you why. I don't hate Jews, I don't believe in conspiracy theories about Jews, I support the existence of Israel and I support the people of Israel. Not one post of mine on this board could be taken by any reasonable person to suggest otherwise. You have singled people out on this board for being vexatious, including me, Dave and, as we've been discussing, Greg. You threatened to suspend me because you didn't like me criticising organised religion, remember? I can't and won't argue with any of that. But if you and the other moderators on the other hand are prepared to allow foul lies about other members to stand just because you don't like us much, then you are to blame if the ethos of the forum collapses. I mean, what do you expect me to do if I'm constantly harassed by someone calling me a Jew-hater if you won't step in to help? Time and time and TIME again? No, really, do tell me. If in the face of that all you can do is tell us to "stick to the topic," then you are seriously letting the whole place down.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM

Can we sort out the situation where the automatic response to attempting to discuss serious problems is to spit out vitriolic accusations of antisemitism and refuse to substantiate them?
There can be little argument that this is the case with Bobad.
Up to fairly recently, this has also been the case with Teribus - there is proof enough of this in the long and still partial examples of that abuse, which now stretches back over several years.
It is somewhat unfair to select a posting of made in extreme anger and totally ignore far worse abuse dating back years - or maybe you have chosen to disregard yerars of insulting and abuse by these two.
I have no desire to wreck a thread (even though I believe this to have been milked totally dry) but I refused to be bullied into silence by schoolyard bullies
C'mon Joe - do you really believe me to be "Jew Hater"?
If you do, please feel free to give me a single example.
My offer to Bobad is extended to you - a generous donation to any charity you care to name if you produce one example of my attacking the Jewish People   
The behaviour of this individual is hate-mail, pure and simple - it is not what I have come to expect as tolerable by this forum.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 07:29 PM

Whatever the case, please get back to the subject of discussion and stop the personal animosity, or the thread gets closed. It's not our business to figure out who's lying about whom.
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 07:01 PM

Your intervention is timely, Joe. However, it isn't just personal attacks. It's downright lies. Bobad has told horrid lies about me twice since 01.45pm today in this thread. He has withdrawn one but the other remains and it is the same lie, levelled at Jim as well as me I should add, that has been his narrative since long before the rule-change prevented him from doing it anonymously. You may not care much for your usual suspects and we have ourselves to blame for that. But, in the name of trying to keep this place at least a little civilised, I would ask you to consider whether that sort of personal attack is really the kind of thing that should be indulged by leaving the perpetrator in place as a member of this forum. Thank you for listening, if you are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 06:32 PM

Thread #160410   Message #3836357
Posted By: Jim Carroll
02-Feb-17 - 03:47 PM
Thread Name: BS: Labour party discussion
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion

he's not as careful as you"
Prove it you racist scum
Jim Carroll




A number of you have crossed the line into the area of personal attack. Stop it now, or we'll close the thread. Stick to the topic of discussion, and stop the personal infighting.
Thank you.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 05:06 PM

Glad you enjoyed it, Keith and that you are back safe and sound. Shame nothing seems to have altered on here :-( Do you not fancy sharing your holiday experiences with us instead of going through all the same old arguments with the same people?

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 04:33 PM

Prove it

It just has been, you dolt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 03:47 PM

he's not as careful as you"
Prove it you racist scum
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 03:23 PM

I have never posted anything remotely resembling that comment, thank you.

I apologize for the mis-attribution. Checking back I see that it was your pal Carroll who made that comment - he's not as careful as you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM

Oh no Shaw you think you are so clever that anybody is fooled by your substituting "Israelis" for Jews when you post stuff like 'the Labour rightists got help from the Israelis with accusations of anti-semitism.'. Do you really think anyone believes you are including Israeli Arabs or Druze or any of the other nationalities that make up Israel when you post shit like that? Ge me a f***ing break.

I have never posted anything remotely resembling that comment, thank you. I'm very careful to focus my criticism on the Israeli regime and have frequently defended both the state and the people of Israel. And you don't deserve breaks, for your sexual pleasure or for anything else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 02:54 PM

"Filthy slanderous lies all - I demand a retraction."
Demand away - you'll get as much of a retraction as you have given proof of my antisemitism.
You said what you said and you are what you are - the proof of the pudding..... and all that
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 02:46 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 02:37 PM

Yes you did
You said Blacks lusted after white women and Britain was in danger of becoming a nation of half breeds because of them
You described women as second class and not knowing their place in society
So described homosexuals as perverted disease carriers.
Your most memorable description was of Arabs as a cultureless horde who had no legitimate right to anywhere on the planet - especially to land that had been given to the Jewish People divine right
Jim Carroll




Filthy slanderous lies all - I demand a retraction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 02:37 PM

Yes you did
You said Blacks lusted after white women and Britain was in danger of becoming a nation of half breeds because of them
You described women as second class and not knowing their place in society
So described homosexuals as perverted disease carriers.
Your most memorable description was of Arabs as a cultureless horde who had no legitimate right to anywhere on the planet - especially to land that had been given to the Jewish People divine right
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 02:09 PM

You have attacked Arabs,blacks, women and homosexuals here on Mudcat

You are a filthy anti-Semitic liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM

Not once on this forum have I ever blamed "Jews" for anything,

Oh no Shaw you think you are so clever that anybody is fooled by your substituting "Israelis" for Jews when you post stuff like 'the Labour rightists got help from the Israelis with accusations of anti-semitism.'. Do you really think anyone believes you are including Israeli Arabs or Druze or any of the other nationalities that make up Israel when you post shit like that? Ge me a f***ing break.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM

"So Tom Watson is a friend of Israel"
No he isn't and even if he was, what does anthis have anything to do with accusations of antisemitism in the labour party
Until charges are specified, there is no case to answer - simple British and natural justice.
Jeremy Corbyn isn't being accused of being a friend of Hamas - except by you trolls
You have attacked Arabs,blacks, women and homosexuals here on Mudcat - you have drawn your islamophobic information from sites like Muslim Watch, the BNP, and "White Supremacist"
Why should anybody take the word of someone like you?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:51 PM

So Tom Watson is a friend of Israel and Jeremy Corbin is a friend of Hamas and Hezbollah.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM

You need to stop telling lies. Not once on this forum have I ever blamed "Jews" for anything, and that thought has never been in my head.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:45 PM

All very well and good Keith but according to Shaw and Carroll it's Jews who are behind the anti-Semitism in the Labour party so by extension it's Jews who are the cause of the rise in anti-Semitism, which isn't really anti-Semitism at all according to them - it's just the way Jews use the charge of it to control media and governments. They have it all figured out you see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:45 PM

"Tom Watson "
"Nonetheless, supporters of Israel are bolstered by the arrival in the shadow cabinet of Tom Watson, the now hugely powerful deputy leader.
Mr Watson, who abstained in last October's vote and is a vice-chair of Trade Union Friends of Israel, is robustly anti-boycott. His stance was shaped by both his background in campus politics - Labour Students, in which he was a key player in the early 1990s, has long allied with the Union of Jewish Students - and his political apprenticeship at the hands of Ken Jackson, pro-Israel leader of the old AEEU union, and John Spellar, the West Midlands MP who leads Labour's right-wing traditionalists."
"He is Vice Chair of Trade Union Friends of Israel"
Expenses fiddler
"On 10 May 2009 it was revealed that since being re-elected to parliament in 2005, Watson had claimed the maximum £4,800 allowance for food in a single year. From 2005 to 2009, Watson and Iain Wright claimed over £100,000 on a central London flat they share.[25] Watson responded that a "pizza wheel" that appeared on a Marks & Spencer receipt he had submitted was given as a free gift after he spent £150 at the store. He added:
All claims were made under the rules set out by the House of Commons authorities. I fully understand why the public expects the system to be reformed. I voted for this last week and only hope that reforms can go even further as quickly as possible.[25]"

And still no description of the type of"Anti Semitism" Labour is accused of therefore there is no case to answer
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:40 PM

Dave, yes thank you, and we feel so much better for it.
Thanks too for your good wishes when I left.

Steve, the BBC considered it worth reporting, so what is your dismissal worth?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38836536


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

Unbelievable! 😂😂😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:23 PM

Hello Keith. Good holiday?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM

A report links Labour Party anti-Semitism to a sudden increase in Anti-Semitic attacks in UK.

Telegraph today.
"Anti-Semitic incidents within the Labour party contributed to a record rise in attacks on Jews in the UK last year, a charity report has found.
The Community Security Trust (CST) warned that anti-Semitism increased to "unprecedented" levels between 2014 and 2016 following a string of high-profile problems in Jeremy Corbyn's party.
The charity revealed its highest monthly total for attacks came in May last year, just days after Naz Shah, a Labour MP, was suspended from the party alongside Ken Livingstone the former London mayor.

Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader, vowed to fight against anti-Semitismin the party as a result of the findings, while MP John Mann said the report must act as a "stark warning that something must change".

The Jewish community was targeted at a rate of more than three times a day last year, the CST found. It recorded 1,309 anti-Semitic incidents nationwide during 2016. This was a 36 per cent increase on 2015 and surpassed the previous highest annual tally of 1,182 in 2014.
There was no obvious single cause for the record total last year, the report found, but it added that problems within the Labour party "may have contributed in a more indirect way". The party was forced to confront a series of incidents of anti-Semitism last year including remarks made by members on Twitter and at public meetings."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/labour-party-linked-increase-anti-semitic-incidents-according/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 01:19 PM

Bad week for Corbyn.

May's "Clueless" remark hit the target at PMQs and today he is reported as recycling Ed Miliband's old ideas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 12:43 PM

Perhaps I shouldn't invoke the name Farage here but he is going to get his own radio shock jock show and rant for big bucks


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 03:31 AM

I doubt if anybody with eiter sense or humanity will enjoy either Brexit or Thrump the thug's victory - though there are some who will reveli in the latter
I see the Klan are on the move again
Enjoy the attention
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 03:13 AM

It'll outlast us, ake!

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 05:47 PM

Not going to happen in the near future Dave, and by that time the EU will be long gone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:03 PM

It'll be even funnier when Scotland get independence and rejoin the EU won't it ake :-)

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 03:37 PM

Thanks Jim, have a good Brexit   :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:53 AM

"he disnae take any shite".
He talks a lot of it though
"Teribus has called me an "eejit" many a time"
Musty have forgotten his medication - don't take it too hard
"mobbing Keith and trying to intimidate him."
The branch of the Klan closes ranks - Keith's dishonest and persistent insistence in making a fool of himself makes him his own worst enemy.
You cannot abandon any shred of self respect in order to win arguments and not attract criticism.
His behaviour is a form of bullying and he's happy to call us all liars and muppets whenever the mood takes him
Whatever Teribus knows or doesn't know is immaterial - he refuses to qualify anything he claim so it's all a bit iffy - it is his serial abuse that has been a permanent feature of his postings and has now gone beyond the pale.
You accuse us of being a "team", but you lot stick together like shit to a blanket
You need to look at your own behaviour before you point fingers
Have a good inauguration
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM

Ake, like anyone else on this forum you have and are entitled to your own opinions. I am merely stating the things I observe. There was a time when Teribus' contributions were valid, even though I disagreed with some of them.

However in the past year or so he has become increasingly atagnonistic, vitriolic and in many, many cases downright nasty. (PS I know I'm no saint, but at least I am aware of that)

I can only presume this is due to a change of circumstances and I do hope he will recover from this and return to being a reasonable human being.

However I suspect I will be treated to a tirade of abuse.

Time alone will tell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:05 AM

Raggytash,I think you are being unfair. Teribus has always been rather blunt, as we say up here "he disnae take any shite".

I don't correspond privately with Teribus other than seasonal greetings, but I'm pretty sure he, like myself, has become sickened by Steve Jim and a couple of others mobbing Keith and trying to intimidate him.
We should be able to converse here without all the insulting labels,

Teribus has called me an "eejit" many a time and when I think about it he's usually right    :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:05 AM

"Well then Jom what term would YOU use to describe someone who says one thing in public about someone yet states the exact opposite in private?"
I now what I would describe someone who gets the wrong impression of someon at first then learns different as he goes along - capable of being educated by experience.+Every time you have ben given a kicking you have got more and more vitriolic.
Look at what's hapened to you in a few days - totally out of control
JIm Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 10:07 AM

That PM was sent in Nov 2015, at the time one particular posters was spouting nonsense and your posts displayed a greater knowledge which I acknowledged.

Since that time your posts have become increasingly vitriolic, aggressive, irrational and in many cases downright bloody nasty.

I don't know what has happened in your life in the past 14 months but whatever it is it has had a detrimental effect your both you and your posts.

Perhaps you should reflect on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 09:36 AM

Well then Jom what term would YOU use to describe someone who says one thing in public about someone yet states the exact opposite in private?

By the way what equipment did the British Government sell to Assad? You've been asked often enough to detail it along with substantive proof that anything was sold and delivered but so far over four years down the line you have been able to come up with S.F.A.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:05 AM

"As I said Raggy you are a hypocrite without one shred of honesty or integrity."
As I have said many times, you are a psychopathic coward who would never speak to people to their face the way you do from the safety of your anonymity.
Your behavior has become more and more manic of late, you haven't stopped throwing your toys out of your pram since you were presented with the facts about the Labour and Tory parties and have never really moved away from the time you proudly showed us your gun during one of our arguments (wasn't that when you were defending selling equipment to Assad?).
I sincerely hope they never ease the gun laws in Britain!
Give it a rest and start behaving like a rational human being.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 02:58 AM

Raggytash - 18 Jan 17 - 12:59 PM

"Sadly for you it is true, you behave like a moron. Beligerent, bullying, blustering, an uneducated buffoon of the first order."


Care to explain this one then Raggy:

"Hi Teribus, Firstly I know this may be a bit of a shock to you, so apologises for that.

You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum." - From Raggytash addressed to Teribus requesting advice and information on a subject related to WWI


Raggy are you normally in the habit of seeking advice and information from - Beligerent, bullying, blustering, uneducated buffoons of the first order?

As I said Raggy you are a hypocrite without one shred of honesty or integrity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 01:57 PM

"Ah but Raggy tell me which post came first"
THis one, if you want to play "he hit me first sir" "
"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean."
My chosen name here is Jim Carroll - not Carroll and your arrogant suggestion that I need to "learn" anything is what started this of -, you put it up.
It is typical of the manner in which you address people
Is that how you've been brought up to address people?
You are the most unpleasantly arrogant individual on this forum and you have the least reason to be
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 01:10 PM

My, you've led a very sheltered life.

I have indeed. Bus shelters, railway shelters, old air raid shelters. Wherever I could hide away for a smoke, can of beer or shag depending on what stage of puberty I was at.

Nowadays I know I used to enjoy them all but can't remember why...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 12:59 PM

Sadly for you it is true, you behave like a moron. Beligerent, bullying, blustering, an uneducated buffoon of the first order.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Ah but Raggy tell me which post came first

Jim Carroll - 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out."

Or

Teribus - 17 Jan 17 - 04:01 PM

"No Carroll only a moron states that somebody resigns from negotiations that have not yet started.

If Jim Carroll wants to throw names about he should fully expect the compliment to be returned - he certainly has no grounds for complaint. In that exchange Raggy strictly speaking no-one is calling anyone a moron, but it was you (gallantly rushing to defend Jim) who incorrectly stated that I initiated the exchange by calling Jim a moron. As I have proved quite conclusively above the first person to introduce the word "moron" was Jim Carroll.

Meanwhile you still remain a hypocrite totally lacking in honesty or integrity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 11:30 AM

"No Carroll, only a moron states thatsomeone has resigned from negotiations that have not yet started" Teribus 17th Jan 04.01pm

Will that do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 11:03 AM

"What Teribus has said is not in the same category as the language used by Jim, Dave and Steve.."Racist, Fascist, Homophobe are analyses of what has been said - only Teribus deals in personal insulting to the extent he does
Yoi fit all those terms by dinbt of what you have said.
"The Trump nickname thread is still up and running"
You really aren't defending an open racist who consorts with gangsters and is probably being blackmailed by Russia over his sexual behavior, are you?
We're talking about personal insults aimed at other members, not satarising politicians - are you that desperate in your support for that slug that you suggest that this is not permissible?
You certainly don't respond to the facts put up about him
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 11:02 AM

You didn't know there was a scale of insults Dave?   My, you've led a very sheltered life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM

Racist, Fascist, Homophobe. as twenty times worse than calling someone stupid of even moronic

Blimey. I didn't know there was a scale of insults that we had to work to! How do you rate "complete and utter fuckwit", "great whingeing wassock" and "village idiot" then?

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 10:13 AM

What Teribus has said is not in the same category as the language used by Jim, Dave and Steve......Racist, Fascist, Homophobe. as twenty times worse than calling someone stupid of even moronic.....but you don't realise how insulting your language is and moderators allow you to get away with it.

If, when President Obama was elected, someone had opened a thread to garner insulting nicknames, it would have been quite rightly closed immediately.......The Trump nickname thread is still up and running....and is contributed to by people who run this "unbiased" forum


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 09:16 AM

"I see, and no doubt others will have noted it as well, that at no time on this thread have I ever referred to Jim Carroll as a 'moron.'"

No doubt others may NOT have "noted it" because things like this are way too boring to "note."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM

"I ever referred to Jim Carroll as a "moron"."

a bit nit-picking for somebody who regularly insults somebody by referring to documented links as "made up Carroll shit" and talks down to everybody who disagrees with him.
Your arrogance and insulting behaviour is legendary, as is your refusal to provide documented evidence for your outdated and reactionary right-wing opinions
From your own cut-'n-paste
Jim Carroll - 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean." - Teribus
Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out.
In response to that I referred to Jim Carroll as a complete and utter fuckwit - which in my book he undoubtedly is."
You start of aggressively and react badly when somebody replies in kind.
Your latest list of aggression, which you choose to ignore, is a tiny tip of years of abuse you have directed at people - "fuckwit", "moron", "made up shit" and permanent talking down to people is long established
standard practice for you.
Nobody behaves like you on this forum - you are on your own in your insulting and abusive behaviour (I don't count Bobad and other trolls - they don't have the balls to hang around for any length of time)
It would help if you brought anything to these discussions, but what little you might have to say is swamped into nothingness by you ugly arrogance - you know nothing and attempt to cover up your ignorance with bullying - as all bullies do.
This latest has been because you were presented with a number of facts you can't deal with - a typical response of yours
I suggest we move on and allow you to stew in your own bile - this is not what these discussions should be about
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 08:04 AM

Hey Raggy, before you are forced into the uncomfortable position of admitting that you are wrong - read down through JOM's list detailed in his post of Jim Carroll - 18 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM - then cut'n'paste the bit where I have called him a "moron" - that is what you accused me of wasn't it?

I see, and no doubt others will have noted it as well, that at no time on this thread have I ever referred to Jim Carroll as a "moron".

You said that you found that unacceptable, "abusive in the extreme" you said. OK Raggy let us see how much honesty and integrity you possess - in his post Jim Carroll implied that I was a "moron" now let us see your post condemning him. Don't panic Raggy I know from your track record that you are a hypocrite and that you do not possess any honesty or integrity, so the response to my request will be silence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:21 AM

Well he makes the likes of us look like saints, Jim. Just a pity that I'm an atheist and don't believe in 'em...



Wait for it....🦆


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 06:12 AM

'Wonder whether there's a nice chap trying to get out...'
Not unless he's a complete schizophrenic with a grandmother locked in the basement (perhaps he is a "Norman".
This is one nasty piece of work - just what a debating forum needs.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:50 AM

I've spent all my life upclose with someone just like him, Jim. Goes off half-cock and desperate to shout anyone else down almost before they've opened their mouths. Very quick to pounce on what he sees as their technical errors but so full of bluster and aggression that he loses all focus. Wonder whether there's a nice chap trying to get out...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:21 AM

"My advice to you Raggy would be that if you cannot read posts and understand what is written in them and cannot remember who wrote what you should keep your inaccurate and ill-informed comments to yourself."
Classic!!!!
Seduced and abandoned - seems he has transferred his affections to you -I am devastated
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM

"Am I alone in finding Teribus' posts abusive in the extreme."
You most certainly are not Raggy
He appears to have not come to terms with the fact that he is the most arrogant, least knowledgeable member of this forum - his arrogance is an attempt to mask his ignorance.
Comes from having to serve greasy fry-ups to burly sailors, I suppose.
I started to put up his friendly thoughtful responses to argument some time ago - I stopped when I thought I had made my point - apparently I was wrong.
This is a selection from another thread - sometimes 2, 3 or four per posting - plenty more untouched ones.
There's no getting around a 'superior intelligence who debates with such a thoughtful passionate desire to pass on what he knows in a friendly manner!!
Jim Carroll

Ah Christmas after wading through your usual pointless and ill-informed waffle it becomes abundantly clear that you simply didn't bother reading Trevelyan's letter then?

your words Christmas - not mine

so can we leave the inaccurate, hysterical, emotive, histrionics at the door.

You might have read Christmas, but your only problem is that you don't understand what it is you are reading
What's the matter Christmas you seem to stuttering or frothing a great deal today?

Yes it was Christmas

Just how pathetic can you get Christmas.

Ah Christmas:

You might have read Christmas, but your only problem is that you don't understand what it is you are reading

Ehmm Christmas

I normally do not respond Christmas because what you write is normally a complete and utter load of B'll'cks.

If you wish to make a point you should at least take the trouble and pay sufficient attention to correcting your mistakes before pressing the submit button - Pardon me for not guessing what it was you actually meant to write.

Don't know about you Christmas

Christmas:

Your bias, bigotry and hypocrisy are showing again Christmas.

Christmas,

Apples to Oranges Christmas.

Christmas:

Christmas:

Contains not one single word written by you Christmas

Examples of your mealy-mouthed waffle in response to a fairly direct and simple question:

Are you totally incapable of making your mind up on anything?

You have provided no answers at all Christmas just pointless waffle.
You keep prattling on

More pointless, massive, self-contradictory, unattributed, cut'n'pastes then Christmas? Pity that you couldn't master the art of presenting them just a little bit better.

Nielsen Christmas?

Awwww Christmas!!!

Don't worry Christmas, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to back up that accusation

From this thread or any other for that matter Christmas

Ehmmmm Not exactly true Christmas - you have deliberately sought to misrepresent the situation once more.

So then Christmas taking all of that into account:

Now that would suggest to me Christmas

Stop wriggling Christmas

Ehmmmm NO Christmas

Any substantive evidence at all to back that one up Christmas?

When it comes ability related to reading things and understanding what they are saying, believe me I do not need help from anyone - wish that the same could be said about you.

Here's how it seems to work Christmas - you post a load of idiotic, far-fetched, emotive, hysterical crap, most of it just made up - and then I take you to task for it - I then pull you up further on it and then you call me nasty names and sulk.

Rule Book Christmas?? What on earth are you going on about?

Now Christmas as YOU have brought this up:

Given up on the preposterous accusations and claims of deliberate genocide put forward by your good-self Christmas #

Policies leading to the famine Christmas?

Ready for your next question Christmas

OK then Christmas just to get the terminology correct and make it chrystal clear for ANYBODY that is still following this farce:

Now then Christmas let us review what you think the British Government should have done


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 02:38 AM

Ehmmm Raggy care to point out where I stated that Jim Carroll was a moron?

I think that if you look through the exchange you will find that that was how he referred to me - try reading:

Jim Carroll - 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean." - Teribus

Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out.

In response to that I referred to Jim Carroll as a complete and utter fuckwit - which in my book he undoubtedly is.

My advice to you Raggy would be that if you cannot read posts and understand what is written in them and cannot remember who wrote what you should keep your inaccurate and ill-informed comments to yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:28 PM

No, you're not alone, Raggytash. But, if you have the time and to energy and are willing to flirt with insanity by taking him on, he's very easy to deal with, and instead of trying to engage in rational discussion, he allows himself to get more and more aerated, aggressive, frustrated, abusive, and, saddest of all, completely unable to focus on whatever argument he's supposed to be putting. Maybe one day he'll finally see it and give up. Who knows?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:48 PM

Am I alone in finding Teribus' posts abusive in the extreme.

He criticises one poster for alledgedly conducting a "personal slanging match" by referring to the poster as a moron and a "complete and utter fuckwit"

Hardly the response of an educated or erudite man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:01 PM

No Carroll only a moron states that somebody resigns from negotiations that have not yet started.

Sort of like stating that Kitchener was forced to resign when in actual fact he hadn't - That was one of yours wasn't it?

Only a moron states that the "magnificent seven" of 1916 did not collude with the Germans in the face of a stack of evidence as high as the bloody Matterhorn that they did - again one of yours.

I could go on but the list is endless.

As to the rest of your post - simply a personal slanging match - your usual default position, in short you Carroll are a complete and utter fuckwit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean."
Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out.
You need a mind to be a mind reader - - you fall at the first fence
Are you so stupid you can't recognise how stupid you look when you try and bully and bluster yiur way past questions you can't answer?
Happy to add to the list of examples of your doing so if that's what you want - years worth of your strutting and sputtering untouched.
Ypu're Mudcat's own version of The Wizard of Oz - the litle man with the megaphone hiding behind his screen trying to scare the shit out of people
Grow up, for fuck's sake
"You know, the one that controls governments, the world's banks and the media."
You said that, you cowardly little twot - not more
Got over your fright, I see!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 02:08 PM

"British ambassador resigns from European negotiations"
He was due to be part of them - I didn't say they'd begun"


In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean.

If you state that so-and-so resigns from whatever negotiations it DOES MEAN exactly that - i.e. that negotiations are currently in progress.

If you state that so-and-so resigns his position prior to the commencement of negotiations then negotiations have clearly not started.

we are not mind readers and can only respond to what you write in your usual slapdash approach accompanied by your usual total lack of attention to detail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 01:17 PM

Which begs the question what instigation from what foreign power?

You know, the one that controls governments, the world's banks and the media.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 12:11 PM

""British ambassador resigns from European negotiations"
He was due to be part of them - I didn't say they'd begun
Your insecurity is coming to the surface again
Neither Labour nor conservatives count north of the border
You have what has happened to Labour, you choose not to comment on the situation in your party
Take your arrogant ranting elsewhere if you have nothing substantial to say you pathetic little bully
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 11:28 AM

This is absolutely priceless!!!

"Hate to have to point this out to you Jim but to-date there have been NO negotiations related to the UK leaving the EU." - Teribus

"Who said there was" - says Jim Carroll indignantly - 17 Jan 17 - 04:27 AM


WHO SAID THERE WAS Carroll?? - YOU DID HERE:

Jim Carroll - 16 Jan 17 - 07:56 PM

"British ambassador resigns from European negotiations"


You may have the attention span of a goldfish Carroll others on this forum do not.

Oh by the way as to how the Conservatives are doing North of the Border? Damned sight better than Labour I think adequately describes it. Scottish elections 2011 to 2016 the Conservatives doubled their constituency vote while the Labour Party's constituency vote dropped by about 100,000.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:03 AM

Unfortunately, while Jeremy is leader the old guard in Labour, i.e. those two-time losing Blairites and Brownites, will always militate against unity in the party. Split parties are always doomed. I should like to predict that Jeremy will recognise this quite soon, step down gracefully and we'll see Keir Starmer take the helm. He's stayed responsibly loyal to the leadership yet doesn't have any of that New Labour taint. A shoo-in, I'd say. Not saying that's what I'd want but I can't see things staying as they are for very long. Corbyn's unspun integrity will never prevail against the current tidal wave of hubris, shallowness, populism and the tabloids, sad to say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 06:44 AM

"you must accept the darker side of the coin. "
You do thagt by exposing them for what they are, not by supporting them as you do
Your arrogant "educating the people" smacks of not so benevolent dictatorship which usually drops the "benmevolent" when they no longer have use for it.
Your stupid aggression towards liberalism is what makes you the fascist you are.
You don't "educate" people for changing society, you win them by standing with them on everyday problems - any political aprty I have ever come into contact with knows that - if yoiu were ecer parft of the CP, you know that that is what the "British Road to Socialism" was all about.
Your stupid, stupid, stupid suggestion that people will one day wake up and find that they need socialism - or whatever, is a guarantee thayt things will never change
The last thing people ned is like you who despises liberalism, despises civil rights, despises social services, despoises non acheivers and pours contempt on anybody who believes in lightening the load today rather than waiting for Pie in the Sky tomorrow
You are solidly on the side of the haves
JIm Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 05:40 AM

Jim, you don't seem to "get it", You don't blame bears for shitting in the woods   :0)


The capitalist system is based on profit making and wealth production.
If YOU want a "free" society with social "rights" for every weird minority under the sun and a benefits system for those who have been made redundant......just like your left wing "liberal" Utopia.....you must accept the darker side of the coin. It seems to me you have already accepted it, but just feel that you need to make the right noises to convince people that you are a real socialist.

Socialism is a must for the future as resources dry up and the population ages....but don't kid yourself it will be any kind of paradise...people will do as they are told, if they break the rules they will suffer, the wealth gap will disappear, but the poor will be no better off........it will be about survival Jim.

I will never see Socialism, but at least I understand it and see the way to move towards it......the road is called education, and "liberalism" is a six bar gate on that road.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:53 AM

I must admit that I do have a worry about the current leadership. Nothing to do with antisemitism or any of the tripe that the media are trying to use to discredit Corbyn, but his lack of action. The NHS seems to be being systematically demolished by the present administration but the opposition seem to be doing little or nothing about it. Junior doctors were presented as the bad guys in the recent dispute and, more recently, GPs are being attacked. And no one seems to be standing up for them.

Yes, the economy is vitally important and Brexit is taking up all the news but, let's face it, that is a done deal and neither the governing party nor the opposition can do anything about it. The opposition should however be fighting tooth and nail for the NHS and other social services to be not only saved but improved.

Just in my opinion.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:27 AM

"Good heavens:"
Pompously strutting as ever, I see
"If they do not wish to recognise that the country and the world today bears no resemblance at all to the one that existed when the Labour Party was created"
You mean back when we had industries and a future
The merging of the political parties has put a stop to that and taken away any chance of development - the British political system has stagnated and democratic choice has become meaningless - how could it be anything else when you are voting for the same policies in different clothes.
Politics has become a career move for politicians and has as little to do with democracy and working for the people as the church has for Christian philosophy
"and only 40 of them actually support the "Great Leader""
My point exactly - the leadership is totally out of step with its own membership, as the votes for Corbyn have shown - no party can boast about that - it takes a extremity right-wing moronic post -Tebbinite opponent to do that.
Antisemitism has been proven so firmly that those who claimed it have been unable to describe it or to quantify it.
Proof positive of its non-existence has been that the leading claimants on this forum have been our in-house Klanners - when they claim something, turn the stone over and look underneath
Unless, of course, Keith and his hangers on's herculean efforts to prove its existence are due to his love of Socialism and his concern for the people!!
"Strange thing to say about the world's fifth largest economy Jim."
Again - my point exactly
We have an unstable economy, no industry, are totally reliant on exports and we have just cut of our nose to spite our face by closing the doors on the possibility of those seeking work finding it elsewhere.
Our economy is geared to making the rich richer and in order to achieve that, working people have no voice in the workplace, no security or choice of employment - zero contracts and an accelerating gap between haves and have nots has become the norm - despite our being "the world's fifth largest economy"
Our greatest import is finance.
Labour has been wiped out in Scotland - doesn't that underline my point
Want to tell me how well the Tories are doing up there?
No- thought not!!
The economists have predicted that it will take at least a decade before the economy stabalises, and even then, it will have fallen considerably below that of pre-Brexit - it hasn't just stagnated it has fallen - no capitalist system, which depends on security and constant growth, can maintain itself in that situation.
The inability of past Governments, Labour and Conservative, to maintain a steady, growing economy has always been the greatest propaganda weapon of their opponents at election time - now insecurity and lack of predictability have become built-in aspects of the system
"Hate to have to point this out to you Jim but to-date there have been NO negotiations related to the UK leaving the EU."
Who asid there was - that has been the farce of Britain's leaving - no preparation, no proper discussion, no plans - just a flag-wagging display of "little Britainism" which is likely to turn into "Little Englandism" if Scotland and Northern Ireland leave The Union, which Brexit has now opened the door to.
Now, how about dropping the pompous belligerence and addressing some real facts - your strutting used to be amusing, now it is somewhat pathetic gesturing
Please don't my my joke about a "pecking order" a reality - discussion groups don't need such things.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:38 AM

Good heavens:

1: "Labour has decided to live up to the principles that it was first created for in order to give the electorate a genuine choice rather than the same policy under different names - takes a lot of courage to do that"

"Courage" or complete lack of common sense? If they do not wish to recognise that the country and the world today bears no resemblance at all to the one that existed when the Labour Party was created, that is their affair but in doing so they must know that they will not win any elections on that ticket.

2: "It has fought off a coup by right wing career politicians who wish to keep it as a meal ticket for themselves"

The Parliamentary Labour Party consists of 230 Labour MPs, of whom 172 of them according to Jim Carroll are "right-wing career politicians" and only 40 of them actually support the "Great Leader". What a strange party it must be.

3: "They have fought off dishonest accusations of antisemitism instigated by a foreign power, and supported by the career politicians and proved those accusations groundless - takes a lot of dedication to do that."

Instigated by the resignation of the co-chairman of the Oxford University Labour Club on the stated grounds that Jewish members of said club no longer felt safe enough to attend its meetings. Which begs the question what instigation from what foreign power? Unless of course Labour's own National Executive Committee are a foreign power because they were the ones that commissioned and empowered not one but two Inquiries into the matter, it was the NEC who suspended at least 50 members of the Labour Party {Tell me Jim has Ken Livingston been returned to the fold yet?} Suspended the activities of at least four Constituency Labour Groups/Parties and Jim, Shaw & Co., all want us to believe it was all over nothing - pull the other one.

4: "Now they have to win an electorate over for genuine change instead of the same old same old which has bankrupt Britain - let's see what happens."

Strange thing to say about the world's fifth largest economy Jim. The Labour Governments of Blair and Brown made the most concerted effort since the end of the Second World War to bankrupt the UK but fortunately they failed. Labour have been defeated in the last two UK General Elections, they have been wiped out in Scotland where the Conservatives now form the major opposition to the SNP, and under Corbyn Labour looks as though they will remain out of office until the "Great Leader" is replaced. To influence matters Corbyn's Union backers are flexing their muscle but all they seem to be achieving is alienation of the voting public.

5: The Conservatives called a referendum to honour a promise they made to the electorate of the United Kingdom in their election manifesto. To remain in the EU was the official stance of every single political party in the UK with the obvious exception of UKIP, which oddly enough formed no part in the main Leave campaign, made up of Eurosceptic dissidents from the UK's main political parties - Nobody therefore had what you call a back-up plan - why should anybody have to have had one? Everybody thought the electorate would vote to Remain - but they didn't did they? So it takes time to trigger Article 50 and thereafter there are at least two-and-a-half years of negotiations until Brexit becomes a reality (All of that was known before the referendum).

6: "Economic wobble"??

We are doing far better than anyone in the EU, especially those within the Eurozone. The Treasury along with Carney and the Bank of England have been forced by events to retract their pre-Brexit Referendum "doom'n'gloom" predictions.   

7: "British ambassador resigns from European negotiations blaming the heavy handedness of the "control freak" Prime minister - Britain left without a voice in European negotiation."

Hate to have to point this out to you Jim but to-date there have been NO negotiations related to the UK leaving the EU.

8: Your predictions as to how the next decade will unfold are uninformed and run counter to what most analysts economists think.

   


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:56 PM

"Recently Labour have got themselves in one terrible muddle trying to get to grips with what their voter base considers important"
Labour has decided to live up to the principles that it was first created for in order to give the electorate a genuine choice rather than the same policy under different names - takes a lot of courage to do that
It has fought off a coup by right wing career politicians who wish to keep it as a meal ticket for themselves, so they have had two leadership elections, each time winning a decision for change - it takes plenty of balls to do that
They have fought off dishonest accusations of antisemitism instigated by a foreign power, and supported by the career politicians and proved those accusations groundless - takes a lot of dedication to do that.
Now they have to win an electorate over for genuine change instead of the same old same old which has bankrupt Britain - let's see what happens.
On the other hand, the Tories called a referendum without a backup plan in case the decision was to leave Europe - an absolute shambles, resignation of a Prime Minister,,the appointment of a racist moron as foreign secretary, sharp rise of racist attacks,   economic wobble due to lack of planning and future uncertainty.
British ambassador resigns from European negotiations blaming the heavy handedness of the "control freak" Prime minister - Britain left without a voice in European negotiation.   
British withdrawal from Europe has not only put the future of the United Kingdom at risk, but it will probably take up to ten years for it to break with Europe and when it does, there are no contingency plans to replace the jobs that will no longer be available on the continent - the threat of rising unemployment due to the lack of a British industrial base is likely to destroy the lives of a generation.
The Government decides on a new runway for Heathrow, but have to put in on ice for fear of resignation of MPs.
The situation in the health service has now reached the stage of being described as a humanitarian crisis.
Nearly a year ago, leading members of the Muslim community accuse the Government of Islamophobia - in contrast to Labour's immediate action, the Tories did nothing, the charges have never been investigated.
America has elected a racist, misogynist thug into the White House with the help of Russia and already the establishment suck-holes are tripping over themselves to kiss his ring.
Now who should I vote for - eenie, meanie......?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:25 PM

Go to bed, Billy boy. It's way past your bedtime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:18 PM

Covered quite a lot in that last post Shaw. Might no accord with the ill-advised script you tend to follow - but that would come as no great surprise now would it?

It was you who held the rather quaint and naïve belief that MPs are better informed than anybody else wasn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 12:12 PM

Have you actually got anything to say about anything at all, Teribus? 😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 11:28 AM

That yet another example of the better informed and more knowledgeable group of people (MPs) that Shaw says are better placed to make decisions on our behalf?

Found that most of our current crop of "professional" politicians are only capable of carrying out the instructions given them by their respective whips and for the crowd in power that advice is normally centred around keeping the party in power so that their noses remain firmly stuck in the trough.

Recently Labour have got themselves in one terrible muddle trying to get to grips with what their voter base considers important, they have given up trying to keep track of the number of "U-turns" being made by the "great leader" on free-movement they now have a rev counter. And it apparently hasn't even registered that the political party now firmly in UKIP's sights is Labour not Conservative, if Corbyn stays on as leader the next General Election will be interesting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 10:48 AM

Your carefully unlinked claim was from an anti-Corbynite, right winger. Emily Thornbury, who supports the old guard and has a somewhat bizarre record of hypocricy and dishonesty – what else is such a person going to say?
Jim Carroll
Mugging claims[edit]
In March 2008, Thornberry claimed that almost every child in Islington had been mugged at some stage.[21] This was denied by the Metropolitan Police as 'speculation', pointing out that out of a borough population of 180,000, only 750 people under 18 had reported being the victims of mugging in 2007.[22] However, the comments were deemed a hindrance to Labour London Mayor Ken Livingstone's re-election campaign.[23]
Personal life[edit]
Thornberry has lived in Islington since the early 1990s. In July 1991 she married fellow-barrister Sir Christopher Nugee, of Wilberforce Chambers,[62] in Tower Hamlets, and they have two sons (born December 1991 and July 1999) and a daughter (born November 1993). Nugee later became a Queen's Counsel, then a High Court Judge, when he wasknighted (whereupon she became formally styled Lady Nugee MP, a title she does not use).[63] Since 1993 they have lived on Richmond Crescent, Barnsbury, where Tony Blairalso lived until the 1997 general election, moving in on the same day as the Blairs.[64] Thornberry also part-owns properties in Guildford and South London.[54][65]
In April 2005, it emerged that Thornberry had sent her son to the partially selective Dame Alice Owen's School 14 miles (23 km) away from her home and outside her constituency. The school was formerly based in Islington and still reserves ten per cent of its places for Islington pupils.[66] The Labour Party opposes selection and Thornberry was widely criticised over the issue as a result.[67] Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools said: "I celebrate her good sense as a parent and deplore her hypocrisy as a politician. When will those who espouse the virtues of comprehensive education apply the logic of their political message to their children?" Later, Thornberry's daughter also attended the school.[68]

In a September 2016 TV interview, whilst serving as shadow foreign minister, Thornberry was asked to name the French foreign minister. Thornberry confirmed that she was unable to name the minister,[49] and accused the interviewer of sexism. Thornberry then asked to discuss the situation of North Korea, so the interviewer asked if she knew who the South Korean president was, but Thornberry did not know, saying that the interview was descending into a pub quiz. Female journalists and politicians, including Isabel Hardman and Ruth Davidson, quickly criticised Thornberry for using an allegation of sexism to cover her own poor performance.[49] Thornberry then appeared on Radio 4 to say that the interview had been sexist because the interviewer had not asked such questions of a man because the interviewer assumed that a man would know the answer.[50] However, the interviewer had previously asked a man, Alan Johnson, comparable factual questions.[51]
Thornberry was interviewed by the British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS). She said: "I have actually quite a lot more experience than people might think I do. As I say I have a member of the armed forces I have a brother-in-law who's a general. I was actually made an honorary lieutenant colonel when I was doing court-martials [sic] when I was a barrister and so I have a certain amount of experience of the military there."[46] The Ministry of Defence denied this claim and Thornberry subsequently admitted she had thought she was made a colonel to have access to the officers' mess, not to appear in courts-martial.[47] During a Labour discussion about the nuclear deterrent, Thornberry admitted that she did not know what the nuclear defence rating, Defcon, is.[48]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 10:09 AM

1700!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 17 - 02:43 PM

Speaking on ITV's Peston on Sunday, Ms Thornberry said: "We're (Labour Party) not going to die in a ditch about it(free movement)."

Corbyn has said he would accept it and that immigration is not too high.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 17 - 01:05 PM

I don't know, but some Labour insiders seem to disagree with your version.

A former Shadow Cabinet minister told politicshome.com: "Being a backbench MP with no prospect of power wasn't really what Tristram signed up for. Good luck to him and God help the rest of us."
Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former communications chief, said Mr Hunt's departure from Westminster would be a "big loss," and tweeted: "So many MPs fear Labour going nowhere under Jeremy Corbyn."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 17 - 07:33 AM

"It is almost unheard of for an MP to give up Parliament for real work,"
Didn't Tory MP, Loise Mensch piss off to work in America not so long ago, citing the difficulties of trying to balance her family life with political commitments, which led to the Tories losing her seat to Labour in the Corby and East Northamptonshire, by-election.
Hasn't Stephen May just resigned from the Tories, stating openly that it was because of Theresa May's handling of Brexit?
MORE in the PIPELINE
Must mean the Conservatives are in a real bad way!!!
Still trying to make problems where there are none - "God loves a trier", as my mother used to say.
Give it a ****** rest Keith - you've tried everything and failed miserably
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 17 - 07:04 AM

Tristram Hunt is a highly-regarded academic who has just been offered his dream job, a once in a lifetime opportunity, at one of the world's greatest museums, so bugger off with your dark theories why don't you, Keith. As a matter of fact, he's quite likely a far better historian than he is a politician, having made a good number of blunders that he's had to explain away and with wacky ideas about public schools, and I'm not exactly sorry to see him go.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 17 - 04:42 AM

Steve, I do not read the Mirror but I try to use Labour supporting papers and there are few left.
Are you saying the Mirror made up the story?

It is almost unheard of for an MP to give up Parliament for real work, but two Labour MPs have in recent weeks.

Huff. Post,
Jeremy Corbyn has declared that he is "not expecting" any more Labour MPs to quit - despite losing two backbenchers within a month.
The Labour leader also denied that he had "lost control" of his Parliamentary party in the wake of the resignation of former Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 09:13 PM

Oi, I feel left out here! Nah then, mods, how come bobad gets the privilege of receiving a list of his deleted posts and not me!! Grrr, I tell you! Grr grrrr! Fukkity ferk! May a thousand Asian curses descend on ye all!


To be serious (not easy at this point), unless I've done one of my big diatribe posts that took me half an hour, I haven't a clue what posts of mine got deleted. And I care even less. The poor sods who have to deal with us argumentative buggers have enough on their plates without their having to account for our deleted posts. The shrug is the best strategy by miles. Highly recommended!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 05:18 PM

No - yours were, it put an end to your vitriolic vomit and I received a PM pointing out what had been removed

Lol, so did I and yours and Shaw's, which were the seeds, were removed too...... don't lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 11:58 AM

"Lord David Triesman"
"Baron Triesman, of Tottenham
Member of the Henry Jackson Society's Political Council
The think tank has been described as right-wing and neoconservative.
During its early years, the society called for maintaining "a strong military… armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach".
In 2014, Dr Nafeez, an executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development stated that the Henry Jackson Society courts corporate, political power to advance a distinctly illiberal oil and gas agenda in the Middle East.
In 2014, Breitbart's managing editor Raheem Kassam was an Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), where he headed up the Student rights campaign, the HJS-funded and based project which was widely criticised as anti-Muslim and right-wing.
According to the Huffington Post, some key Henry Jackson Society personnel, including associate director Douglas Murray, have made many statements that have led to accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry. Douglas Murray, the associate director of HJS, is the author of "Neoconservatism: Why We Need It" book and has been described as a neoconservative.
Marko Attila Hoare, a former senior member of the Henry Jackson Society, left the organisation in 2012 because of its "anti-Muslim" and "anti-immigration" views.
In 2015, the British Spinwatch group, SNP, Greens and human rights lawyer Niall McCluskey urged Labour leader Jim Murphy to sever his links with the Henry Jackson Society, which they accused of pushing an anti-Muslim agenda."
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 11:22 AM

Turn the record over, Keith. And find a better paper to read.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 11:08 AM

Daily Mirror yesterday,

"Labour faces a "big defeat" under Jeremy Corbyn, a former party general secretary warned tonight.
Mr Corbyn's two landslide leadership victories were "completely different" from winning a general election, Lord David Triesman said.

He told The House magazine: "I think the position for the party is genuinely very grim and I don't see any real point in trying to hide from the reality.
"Winning a majority in the party, as Jeremy did, is not anything like winning a majority in the country."

"He also hit out at the appointment of human rights campaigner Shami Chakrabarti to the Lords soon after her much-criticised report into alleged racism in Labour ranks.
"I think that many people, if they were offered a peerage in those circumstances, if there was something behind it or not, would have said not at this moment'," he said.
"I think I would have said perceptions can be very damaging to a politician, it doesn't matter if they're grounded in reality or not.
She could have relied on the fact that given her work and her reputation she would have arrived in the House of Lords eventually." "
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-course-bad-defeat-under-9612011


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 09:49 AM

Never expect to get the truth from bobad, Jim. Until the rules were changed his whole presence here was predicated on deception in order to to use such friendly forms of address towards us as "Jew-hater." Insulting remarks are only "ad hominems" if they come from people he disagrees with, never if they come from him!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 09:41 AM

ENOUGH KEITH - CAN SOME KIND FORUM FAIRY PUT A STOP TO THIS BEHAVIOUR PLEASE?
No - yours were, it put an end to your vitriolic vomit and I received a PM pointing out what had been removed - it did the trick
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 09:37 AM

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Do we really have to endure such childishness on an adult forum?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 09:24 AM

Anyone who compares the quote to your claim would agree with me

Really?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 09:18 AM

I will ask a forum overseer to intervene as I did with Bobad

And all your ad hominem posts were removed as a result - made the forum a cleaner place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 09:16 AM

No quote you have given has me saying what you claimed I said, so you lied about me.
Anyone who compares the quote to your claim would agree with me, so go ahead.

You also claimed that I lied in this and a concurrent thread, but did not produce any quote at all because it is not true.
Another lie Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 05:29 AM

I have just put up your exact quote - you lied about claiming you didn't make it
If you call my a liar once more I will ask a forum overseer to intervene as I did with Bobad
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 17 - 04:53 AM

Not a cross post Jim.
I ask you to quote me saying what you claim I did.
And quote the whole statement. Do not extract a fragment to alter my meaning.

JUsyave done both on this and the Theresa May thread

Then quote me, liar.

I is you who have lied consistently on both counts

Then quote me, liar.

Making lying claims is easy for a liar like you Jim.
You just can't back your lies with actual quotes , liar.

Prove me wrong, liar.
What is stopping you, liar?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 02:57 PM

"Then quote me, liar."
I assume this is a cross posting
I don't expect an apology
JUsyave done both on this and the Theresa May thread
I is you who have lied consistently on both counts
Now will you piss off?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:45 PM

Jim,
Finished here Keith - you claimed what I said

Then quote me, liar.

and you deny Farage's racism

Then quote me, liar.

Farage may well be a racist, in which case I share your contempt for the man.
I just need to see some actual evidence, and none of you can find any.

Dave,
Don't worry, Jim. The thread may have long gone but enough people remember it.

You were a major contributor to that thread Dave, but you found nothing from me to criticise at the time.

My only case on that thread was that there was an over-representation, not why.
Read it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:40 PM

This, from a debate on the causes of "massive over-representation of Muslims" in sexual crimes against underage young women in Britain
You may check the context on the "Muslim prejudice" thread.
I trust these are Keith's posts and that the Russians haven't hacked this website
Jim Carroll


Muslim Prejudice thread.
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us

Later
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:11 PM
I find it hard to understand your reluctance.
I have restated my case many times, and will do it again if anyone asks.
Alan, you have been following the debate.
Are you clear why Lox is certain there can be no cultural cause?
Lizzie?

Later
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:48 PM
I was just hoping that if no one else knows why you can not accept a cultural cause either, you might remind us.
You have said that you do not accept that there is a distinct BP culture.
Is that it?
You would not want to risk ridicule by saying that again.
Does anyone here know why Lox rejects a cultural explanation?
Dave, you have been more than fair in you comments on this debate.
Do you know?

Later
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:29 PM
"And Alan - by definition, a hypothesis which discriminates solely on the base of race/culture and which deliberately excludes all other factors is a racist hypothesis."
So, if we think that culture might be the explanation for the massive over representation, we must unthink it, because it is "racist."
No theorising is permissable, or you are a racist.
Stop the debate, or be guilty of racism.
You must not even imagine such a thing.
Quite liberal Lox.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

I'm sure they do, including Keith
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:05 PM

Don't worry, Jim. The thread may have long gone but enough people remember it.

D,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 12:00 PM

"you have put up no evidence, only your views of what was said and what occurred."
I have been putting it up since he said it - it as one of the most blatant pieces of racism anybody has put up on this forum
Whenever I mantioned it, he denied saying it, then he said he only said it becase somebody else did - an immediate admission of his lying
He has at no time ever given an example of anybody saying anything approaching such a serious charge against an entire race
He said that he believes "I now believe" that Muslim culture inclines all Pakistani males to desire sex with underage girls - that is statutory rape in Britain - that is what he claimed.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 09:23 AM

Wrong Jim..... you have put up no evidence, only your views of what was said and what occurred.

If there was any evidence I would not be defending him.....nor I am sure would Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 09:17 AM

Finished here Keith - you claimed what I said and you deny Farage's racism
You have consistently claimed nobody has put up proof - that is another lie and another example of your defending racism
Stop calling me a liar and move on
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM

Jim,
There you go again - first denying you said it, then saying you only said it because somebody told you it was true - make up your mind.

I deny saying what you claim.
I deny it was my opinion. I always acknowledged that I had no knowledge on which to base such an opinion.

Everyone is influenced to some extent by their culture.
All those people ascribed the offending to that culture.
I know nothing about that culture, so after dredging up a six year old debate, it contains nothing to justify your smear.

The fact that you still defend it is indicative that you still believe it to be true, which makes you a racist.

I do not defend it, but nothing has come to light to change the fact or give reason to stop believing them all.
Most of those quoted were of that culture so it is certainly not racist.

It is little wonder you spend so much time and effort defending Farage's racism.

Another lie Jim. You will never produce a quote of me defending any racism.
All I did was ask you to justify the accusation, and you could not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 05:16 AM

"Well if you actually quote verbatim what Keith A originally posted as opposed to what you think"
I've posted the quote, I've posted the whole posting, I've posred the quotes surrounding his posting and I've linked to the thread - dozens of times - it's my favourite quote on the forum.
Each time he starts out denying he said it, then saying he only believes it because somebody said it was true AS HE HAS DONE HERE
He has never at any time produced a public figure that has ever claimed a cultural implant to rape young women in all Pakistani males - not ever.
It would be illegal for any public figure to make such a statement publicly and anybody in the public eye would lose any position they held if they did so.
If you think I have it wrong, go find it and put me right, If you believe what he said - say so
You claim I have it wrong - again - you will not show my having done so - again
You are nothing, if not predictable
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 17 - 02:09 AM

Jim Carroll - 11 Jan 17 - 10:49 AM

"No public figure has ever said that all British Pakistani males were culturally implanted to have sex with underage girls - that was all your own work - you never reproduced anybody saying it, if they had said it it would have been liable to prosecution under the incitement to race hatred laws and whoever said such a thing is a racist, whether they are repeating something somebody told them or not."


Well if you actually quote verbatim what Keith A originally posted as opposed to what you think, or wish, he had said you will find that Keith A did give three sources quoting exactly what they had said, all those sources were members of Britain's Asian community with every right to express their views on a crime that at the time was, and still is, considered to be horrific in scale and in nature. Keith A merely quoted those sources and asked the question if anyone agreed with THEIR conclusions. You as usual got hold of the wrong end of the stick and have been worrying it like a terrier with a rag ever since - just one of your many "hobby-horses".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 10:49 AM

"Or did I just say that I believed them because they were in a position to know, as with a doctor or a weather forecaster?"
There you go again - first denying you said it, then saying you only said it because somebody told you it was true - make up your mind.
No public figure has ever said that all British Pakistani makes were culturally implanted to have sex with underage girls - that was all your own work - you never reproduced anybody saying it, if they had said it it would have been liable to prosecution under the incitement to race hatred laws and whoever said such a thing is a racist, whether they are repeating something somebody told them or not.
The fact that you still defend it is indicative that you still believe it to be true, which makes you a racist.
It is little wonder you spend so much time and effort defending Farage's racism.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 10:36 AM

You have not given one Jim.
you have said you only did so because somebody told you it was true

Did I?
Or did I just say that I believed them because they were in a position to know, as with a doctor or a weather forecaster?
Did I admit to not knowing anything about the issue myself?
Was it their opinion and not mine?

If so, how does that justify your accusation that I "set out deliberately to make immigrants a threat to our way of life, our safety and our children's safety in particulat -"

It does not. And you had to dredge up a six year old discussion and quote me out of context even then!

Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?
No, because there are none.
Just nasty smearing lies from a serial liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 06:50 AM

"Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?"
Done so enough times to make it pointless doing so again
Each time I have you have said you only did so because somebody told you it was true
C'mon Keith - you asked for an example - you got it
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 05:37 AM

No.
Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?
No, because there are none.
Just nasty smearing lies from a serial liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 05:24 AM

"Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?"
Will "cultural implants" do? - suppose not!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 04:45 AM

Jim,

No - instead, he has set out deliberately to make immigrants a threat to our way of life, our safety and our children's safety in particulat - far, far worse.


It would be if it was true, but you are just making up shit to smear me again because you can not argue against anything I really say.

Will you produce an actual quote of me suggesting any such thing?
No, because there are none.
Just nasty smearing lies from a serial liar.

GSS, I have answered your points on the Theresa thread because the Farage discussion took place there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 04:01 AM

"Keith has never advocated stopping immigration or racism of any kind."
No - instead, he has set out deliberately to make immigrants a threat to our way of life, our safety and our children's safety in particulat - far, far worse.
You have shared many of his views and taken it a step further and have insisted that there is nothing wrong with making them using identification insignia and have their homes be identifiable - a real "Brave New World"
Immigrants have been a benefit to our society and our way of life - they have shown themselves prepared to integrate, they are, by and large, law abiding and industrious, their children tend to do well in schools, and for those who are prepared to listen, they are fine examples of the fact that the planet is now the sole domain of W.A.S.Ps any more
It is those that refuse to accept strangers into our midst that is the problem, not the strangers.
Despite claims to the contrary, Corbyn has not changed his position, he has merely clarified it to combat those who would misuse it.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 06:13 PM

"As I have said on numerous occasions, the playing field is not level, most of the young male immigrants arriving here can live much more cheaply than a young British couple and can send money home where its value is many times than it is here."

As far as EU countries are concerned this is a blatant untruth. There is no EU country where the cost of living is many times less than here. Speaking of money leaving the country, I would also ask why you don't castigate billionaires who send their money offshore in order to avoid tax, or who live as non-doms for the same reason. What they rob this country of in tax revenue outstrips by a very large multiple any small amounts which are quite legitimately, with no intention of tax avoidance, sent to families outside the UK by people who are genuinely here to work. I haven't the energy to take on the rest of the complete bollocks in your post. I suppose that by bringing up a "proper family" you're not talking about same-sex couples, but hey ho.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 05:46 PM

Don....if you are trying to be ironic, I would suggest some lessons from the experts. Mr McGrath is an excellent exponent, others are less overt. :0)

Good irony should give the victim a nice warm glow, before the onset of Rigor Mortise.   :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 05:36 PM

Good Soldier, I think you are being extremely unfair to Keith.
Keith has never advocated stopping immigration or racism of any kind.
Of course we need immigration, but it must be on our terms, we need control over numbers and status of immigrants.

Surely you cannot believe that we can accept the present numbers for ever? As I have said on numerous occasions, the playing field is not level, most of the young male immigrants arriving here can live much more cheaply than a young British couple and can send money home where its value is many times than it is here.

Additionally the infrastructure of the immigrant's own country is being adversely affected by the loss of a young working age population. Who do you think is going to run public services, build houses and teach pupils in Poland and other eastern European countries?
I see no rush of young Brits to work in Eastern Europe.....why do you think this is the case?

When Free Movement is halted there must be compulsory training introduced to allow our young people the chance of a proper life with proper wages and a proper house in which to bring up a proper family.

An empty life on derisory benefits should not be an option, it is a real crime against humanity.

Back to basics, I also agree with the idea of closing the wealth gap, but given the current economic system this will be extremely difficult to implement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:59 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness

Because you can not challenge a word I have said, so better hide."
Keith I have met you in person and I have no desire to fall out with you, but I cannot accept your response when i challenged you about Farages xenophobia, I produced a copy and paste of a report of a speech Farage made in Grimsby.
your response was laughable, you resorted to trying to undermine the contents by asking if the student   was out of their teens.
Throughout this thread I have stated that not everyone who voted to leave was a racist but it is clear that Farage has used the race issue to win votes,
your comment "was the student out of his teens" insults those people who are 18 or 19 who are considered by the government old enough and responsible enough to vote legally.
when someone does respond to you politely, and you are clearly caught out you still will not admit you are wrong, so what is the point of anyone responding to you.
THE STUDENT IN QUESTION WAS IN HIS FINAL YEAR OF A BA HONS DEGREE, that means he is considered old enough and responsible enough top vote.14 March 2016       · by European Student Think Tank       · in ambassadors, articles and blogs, EU Foreign Policy, EU Policy Process, Eurocrisis, European Integration, Geen categorie, ISIS, Migration, Religion.       ·
By Matt Evans, British EST Ambassador. Matt is a final year BA (hons) History and Politics student at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK.

16486626570_7f070e3bc4_o

The upcoming June referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the European Union has once again increased the media's interest in the UK Independence Party, commonly known as UKIP. UKIP, formed in 1993 as a response to increasing European integration, are generally viewed as to the right on the political spectrum of the governing Conservative Party, advocating British withdrawal from the European Union and an end to what they view as "uncontrolled immigration".[1] Under the leadership of the charismatic but divisive Nigel Farage, the party has enjoyed recent electoral success, gaining the most seats and votes in the 2014 European Parliament election, marking the first time since 1910 that a party other than Labour and the Conservatives won the largest number of seats in a national election.[2] This article looks at a speech delivered by leader Farage when campaigning for UKIP in the 2015 UK General Election.

            As a part of the general election campaign the infamous Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, went to Grimsby Town Hall and urged the residents of Grimsby to vote for Victoria Ayling, a local councillor, as their next Member of Parliament[3]. This speech exemplifies a large part of Great Britain's scepticism towards the European Union. Given the situation as it was the general election and Farage was holding a speech in a town known for its fishing, it can be argued that he attempted to ignite a nostalgic and nationalist fire in Grimsby. He begins his speech by stating: "Grimsby used to be a great place"[4]. Already here, Farage is presenting a problem in the United Kingdom namely its lack of sovereignty. It can be argued that this problem is the overarching theme on Farage's agenda since, in his view, it is the root for the sinking fishing industry in Grimsby because of the Common Fisheries Policy, Great Britain's declining living conditions due to the Open Door Policy and the British debt due to the European Union membership.

            Farage gives a historical background of why Great Britain's sovereignty has declined according to his own view, which gives his audience an overview and general knowledge of the problem that Great Britain is currently in. Moreover, it is revealing that Farage had an understanding for his audience. This can be seen, for example, by his focus on the famous fishing industry in Grimsby which illustrates that the speech had a particular audience but also his aggressive quote that "Tony Blair can go to hell"[5] which was received by applause of the audience. He even says sarcastically that he misread the audience when he first mentions Tony Blair, indicating that he knows the audience.

First of all, by igniting the nostalgic and nationalistic fire in the audience, he manages to use the argumentative appeal of pathos. This can be tied into Aristotle's notion of emotions since Farage sparks dissatisfaction or even anger in the audience where Aristotle argues that if an item has importance, people will eventually get angry[6]. In this case, Farage is able to present a broken Great Britain and acknowledge it, which the residents of Grimsby are attached to. This indicates that the residents of Grimsby find an importance in Great Britain. Farage is able to direct that frustration and anger, and pinpoint the lack of sovereignty as the fundamental problem. This use of pathos can be considered rather successful since Farage's aim is convince the residents of Grimsby to vote for Ayling because belief and action are intertwined, according to Aristotle[7], and thus by making that certain belief a constituent part of emotion, Farage is able to gain more votes for UKIP.

            Another argumentative appeal is ethos, which he is able to portray through his view of Europe. By claiming that he is not against Europe as countries and people and that he, in fact, likes Europe, Farage is able to illustrate to the public that he is a concerned man of Great Britain rather than a fearful or discriminating man of Europe. In addition, he also presents himself as a moral character by telling the audience that the other politicians have been abusing him due to UKIP's "sensible" policies as he puts it[8].

            The last argumentative appeal is logos where Farage appeals to the rationality of the voters in Grimsby. This is illustrated when he makes the case that Great Britain should become like Norway and Iceland who have a booming fishing industry and are not a part of the European Union. Also, by giving a historical background of Great Britain's ties with the European Union, he also appeals to the rationality of the audience since they see a chronological timeline of the developing problem in Great Britain.

Farage uses contradictions in order to portray his policies as appealing. This can be exemplified by his view that controlling the borders of the United Kingdom "immigration once again becomes a positive in our country and not a negative"[9]. By using juxtapositions, Farage is able to make the audience differentiate between UKIP and the other parties, making UKIP more appealing to voters. It is also seen that Farage uses examples as inductions such as his argument for an increase in the defence budget that he compares to house insurance and the comparison that British debt is like maxing out a credit card. At the end of the speech, Farage states that he doesn't want to sell out nor have a ministerial car but rather wants to "drive the agenda of British politics the next five years"[10]. Here, an odd metaphor is applied in order to contrast what politicians want compared to what Farage want to do if elected but since it is the first metaphor that Farage uses in the speech, it also emphasises his goal of influencing British politics.

The hostility towards the European Union that Farage represents sums up the split in Great Britain. The latest opinion poll by Comres suggests that 49% of Britons want to remain in the EU whereas 41% wants to leave[11]. By analysing a speech by one of the leading figures of the British euroscepticism, we can clearly see that the charismatic Farage is able to adapt his rhetoric to different situations and the issues he touches upon are strong entities of British nationalism. Whether you agree with him or not, "[R]hetoric proves crucial when it comes to invoking discourses in the audience conducive to the claim made by the representative, and downplaying competing discourses"[12] and this is fundamental to the democratic ideals that Great Britain but also the European Union represent. Thus, it is important to acknowledge euroscepticism as a part of British political discourse since it illustrates the antagonism of views in British society.

All in all, Farage focuses on the particular audience by his examples and comparisons that are specific to the people in Grimsby, which helps igniting the nostalgic and nationalistic fire in Grimsby. Hence, the speech can be considered to be successful since it convinces the audience that the sole problem of British politics is its lack of sovereignty and UKIP can provide the solution to make Grimsby a thriving fishing town again.

[1] UKIP Manifesto 2015 "Immigration" p.10


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:09 PM

Has anyone on here actually heard or read the speech? From some of the comments above I would guess not. I found it rather disappointing in that he was rather non committal on a number of issues including immigration. Seems he is beginning to learn politics!

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 03:25 PM

There are means to manage and monitor immigrants. There are books about it. One can make immigrant shops obvious to the public with symbols. Special schools only for immigrants. Special purity laws and employment rules. Dynamic work complexes with security gates. The cheap labor there would enrich investors. Last but not least, special passport restrictions and exit fees and laws would make a profit.

No outsider would run toward a freedom that imprisons immigrants for getting in and getting out.

Sorry I think I over excited Ake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 02:14 PM

"Immigrants make a net contribution to this country."
Of course they do, and that's official
You cant be heard above the stamp of jackboots Steve
First these people claimed it has=d nothing to do with immigration, now it's about nothing else.
They refuse to even acknowledge the growing shambles.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 01:22 PM

if only Mr Corbyn had the balls to advocate opposing "free movement" before the referendum we could have saved our "liberal" friends much tear shedding and hand wringing.

Never mind, all's well that ends well as they say. The sad Democrats in the UK san use this as a template....."liberalism" does NOT rule the world, neither is it a progressive policy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

than from within


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

You can propose what you like. Immigrants make a net contribution to this country. More migrants come here from outside the EU from from within, which we have full control over, but we don't control it. We need the immigrants to work. If we didn't need them there would be hundreds of thousands of them out of work, but there aren't, and, pro rata, far fewer migrants claim benefits than UK nationals do. We do not train enough people for much of the skilled workforce that we need, let alone have enough people willing to do the essential menial tasks in hospitals, care homes and in agriculture. We are going to be ditched out of the single market, yet still have immigration in the hundreds of thousands for many years to come. The Tories have initiated a cock-up of the highest order.   Cameron's staggering incompetence and shortsightedness has doomed this country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 11:53 AM

It sounds like what Ake has been proposing all along - managing immigration rather than having an open door policy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 07:28 AM

As ever, just reporting the headlines does not give the full picture. If we look a little deeper we find actual quotes like

"Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle. But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European single market on which so many British businesses and jobs depend. Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations," he will say.

"Labour supports fair rules and reasonably managed migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU."

Corbyn will also say, however, that there will be no "false promises on immigration" and that his party will not echo the Conservatives by promising to bring the numbers down to the tens of thousands.

Instead, he will repeat an argument that action against the undercutting of pay and conditions, closing down labour loopholes and banning jobs being exclusively advertised abroad could bring down the amount of people travelling to the UK.

"That would have the effect of reducing numbers of EU migrant workers in the most deregulated sectors, regardless of the final Brexit deal," he will say.


Feel free to look up the rest of the speech yourselves rather than take the word of anyone here as to what it all means.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 06:57 AM

Well as I was saying yesterday that I was disappointed in Mr Corbyn's EU stance, I am pleased to see today that he must read Mudcat threads, as he has come out against "free movement of labour".
I hope he also takes on board my advise on forthcoming elections and concentrates on building a socialist movement.

Where this leaves our Mudcat quasi socialists I don't quite know, but using the sinking "liberal" ship analogy they must be very close to the top of the mainmast, but only a few inches above the waves   :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness

Because you can not challenge a word I have said, so better hide.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 01:47 PM

Can't, Jim. I'm halfway through doing my bacon and three-bean risotto. Only way I can persuade Mrs Steve to let me open a bottle on Mondays....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 01:09 PM

Don't respond Steve - that way lies madness
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Steve,
The only party whose "immigration policy" is clear is the one you have spent weeks doughtily defending, Keith, the racist UKIP

I remind you that you have failed to show that UKIP are racist, so just name calling again Steve.
And I have not defended them. I just asked you to back your claims about them.
You couldn't.

All four main parties are committed to reducing immigration, including Labour before Corbyn.
Maybe it still is Labour policy, or maybe not.
Who knows?
Not the Deputy Leader anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 10:13 AM

they are


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 10:11 AM

Well I actually support the aims of the SNP, Allan. As I say, though, that are in tactical limbo at the moment, desperate to get independence but knowing they can't win another referendum. They are in no position to get a different and more favourable brexit deal than anyone else but all they can do is make threatening noises.

The only party whose "immigration policy" is clear is the one you have spent weeks doughtily defending, Keith, the racist UKIP. The Tories are all over the shop with their confused take on the single market vs open borders, as with everything else to do with brexit, so don't try to come that one. And, my word, hasn't their policy been successful so far! "Down to the tens of thousands" my arse. Go on, blame the LibDems! 😂We all know that your mission in life is to punch holes in Labour at every opportunity. Well no-one important is listening to you, Keith. You are spent. Yesterday's man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 09:02 AM

Steve whatever one's thoughts on Scottish independence are, and I have no wish to go down that argument again on here, it is simply wrong to suggest that the SNP are being opertunistic over this issue. They are balancing the mandate they got from their own voters at the last Scottish and Westminster elections with the outcome of the last indie referendum and with the clear vote within Scotland to stay in the EU but throughout they have been consistent despite what sections of the media say.

At the indepedence election one of the main planks of the unionist argument was that only by staying within the UK can Scotland guarantee its place in the EU. The SNP at the last Scottish elections which was before the EU vote stated in their manifesto that although their long term aim is indepedence the election itself was not about that. It clearly states that they would only look towards another independence vote if one of two things happened. Either it became evident that a "clear majority" of the Scottish electorate wanted independence or if there was a significant material change. And the example it gives in the manifesto as a material change was if Scotland is taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish voters. Many people might not like that but that is the manifesto that gave them victory in the Scottish elections. To now ignore that commitment would mean that Sturgeon is just another politician who breaks their election promises.

That is why they have put are putting in place legislation to hold a referendum if it comes to that. However rather than rushing to another vote (which she probably wouldn't want in the short term as the polls are pretty much as they were on the indie vote day) they have said that if there is a so called soft-Brexit, or even if Scotland's place within the single market can be secured even if the UK as a whole has a hard Brexit, then there would not be another vote in the short term. Whether an agreement to that could ever be met is another thing of course but the main point is that she is sticking to her election pledge to her own supporters whilst at the same time at least attempting to find some solution within the UK without the need for another indie vote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 08:01 AM

I agree Keith, Mr Corbyn has boxed himself into the same corner as our friends on the left here in Mudcat. He is allowing himself to be ruled by ideology rather than be honest with himself.
He has always opposed the EU but thought there might be some political advantage of being on what he supposed to be the winning side in the EU referendum.
To me he has been disappointing in that respect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 07:27 AM

Steve, do people even know what he and Labour stand for?
Guardian yesterday,
Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, has effectively admitted that the party does not have a clear immigration policy, saying it was "unfair" to expect the party to have one when the government's own position on the issue was so vague.
In an interview with Sophy Ridge on Sunday on Sky News, he indicated his own personal support for abandoning the commitment to free movement for EU citizens, arguing: "For the Labour party what we can't support is the status quo."
But, despite being asked five times, he refused to confirm that the party as a whole had given up defending EU free movement. When pushed, he told Ridge: "It's unfair of you to ask what Labour's notional position is when we don't even know what Theresa May's negotiating position is on free movement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 17 - 07:09 AM

Corbyn IS a good guy and I'd vote for him again tomorrow. He has more integrity in his little finger than all the Tory and most of the Labour parliamentary parties combined. But he's doomed because he doesn't fit into the current political hegemony in this country. He is the most unpopulist person in this world of populist, soundbite, megaphone, race-to-the-bottom politics and he isn't going to change (thankfully). The worry is that the two-time losing big-hitters of the past will regain the reins. There would be no more chance of any of them guiding Labour to victory than if Jeremy stayed in post. I'm too much of a dyed-in-the-wool leftie to cheerfully advocate what has been clumsily called a progressive coalition. I can't stand the LibDems and regarded their deserved near-obliteration as the only good outcome of the last election. The SNP are waiting-in-the-wings opportunists who are currently drowning in tactics rather than clear policy and the Greens are just nowhere. It may be the only way, though. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster and May will come out of it very badly, so who knows?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 09:33 PM

Gentlemen: I received a complaint about this thread, so I took a look. The most recent part is filled with petty personal squabbles. I deleted thirty or so of the most recent posts, but there's still too much crap here to bother doing housecleaning.
Cut it out. It's boring. Get back on topic, or we'll have to close the thread.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 07:55 PM

Anyway Corbyn sounds like a good guy to me but I know no details.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 05:24 PM

I am afraid of what has crept into the box.

A deep penetrating anger and fear of terrorism, extremism and blind tribal reactionism. Not enough to effect routine but still effect interactions.

It is of course irrational. It would be more rational to fear the causes of heart disease or cancer.

There is a blunt wisdom of fighting fire with fire. I have been thinking about a process of fighting crazy with crazy. Some of us know the crazy projects of D ARP A to make the ultimate gun, the ultimate camouflage and ultimate soldier. Unlike the military my idea involves the dissolution of civil rights too, but not all the way to death or permanent injury. The idea is not entirely new but best left unsaid. For the idea please send me 50 million dollars in Krugerrands.



I wonder if it was Rap who said "the creepy cat crept into the crypt, crapped and crept out again."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 04:44 PM

What would you know, Iains? Just showing up for a quick snipe? That technique is lifted perfectly out of bobad's book.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM

The cat can be both alive and dead, but preferably the latter if associated with this thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 01:49 PM

But, if we can see outside the box, does the cat still exist?

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 01:42 PM

Jim you have thicker skin than Trump. You thought you had a hard time understanding my point of view but it took me weeks to understand where you were coming from. The whole time I was leery of your underlying motives.. We all have specific unique talents expertise and experiences. I believe you can make a more innovative approach to inform and most importantly find potential solutions to conflict. Maybe you prefer the attention of this anti-anti Semitic attack mode. I bet some people don't get it. Repetition won't help them.

I have sometimes seen spiteful comments , barbs and accusations in Parliament. Everyone there has an agenda, axes to grind and 3rd party promises to keep. In the microcosm of mudcat it is possible to do something better than repeat an archaic process.

There are people who NEVER can see outside the box but are still useful. Those people are trapped inside the box. Don't get trapped.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Don't understand a word of that Donuel?
Want to slim int down to readable English?
I suggest that if you were the target of the constant accusation of Anrisemitism you might think twice about letting Bobad be Bobad.
That you like or dislike him is down to your taste and nothing to do with what he is, à chacun son goût", as they say.
His viciousness far exceeds anything I have ever encountered and breaches one of the conditions we were all presented with on joining.
I joined up to discuss topics that interest me - I am neither interested in or qualified to deal with disfuncional children
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:30 PM

Let play not resume. Or, at least, not without a red card.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:13 PM

Let play resume.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 12:11 PM

How to play the boring game in this world of desperate need for dommon ground and insight and poor listeners.

First put some personal insults directed at you in quotes.

Second let you ego respond with the bile of your choice.

Third provide "proof" of your wisdom and the cause of your outrage

FOURTH Dismiss or ignore all other perspectives.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 11:57 AM

Perhaps you all enjoy the kind of banter one might hear in Parliament squabbling. It is a rhetorical game that requires life long practice beginning in school. Some play the game with wit and wisdom and some do not.

I do not play that game. I am outside of that game. My talents lie elsewhere in a perspective of large time scales, the slow evolution of the human psyche and the ability to allocate intellectual energy more efficiently and productively.

Jim, I do not challenge your facts and observations, I challenge your personal allocation of intellectual energy. You are in danger of becoming a one trick pony stuck in a loop which could make you appear to be an asset to a foreign power which is not your intention.

Let bobad be bobad. I will not blame the gamer, I blame the game
I like the man, I like you. Steve is charming in his friendly egalitarian way. Keith is wise, Teribus is a permanent landmark, Dave is mushy and clever, we are all a good sort. don't you think.
You spent your whole life being you so new perspectives may be slow.

What I see wasted is a great potential for advancement of perspective.

The example of a new perspective is a scientist who wittingly or not made a deadly weapon and decides that research into civil rights and equality science better suited him or her.

That pov change may not suit you but sometimes even a small change can make certain goals less boring and more spot on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 17 - 04:14 AM

"Jim, Steve is right."
Not quite sure of your point Donuel ((I assume you mean Bobad)
If you do, he is most certainly not right and never has been.
He claims an equality and democracy for Israel that does not exist, certainly not for non-Jews in todays Israel.
Comparisons with other examples of non-democracy is evasive and stupid.
Israel is now an extremist right wing state which has adopted an ethnic cleansing policy and is rapidly heading for fascism.
Bobad is the last to complain about dredging as he one trawled the web, drawin from the most extremist right-wing, racist sites, to produce one of the largest series of Islamophobic claims I have ever seen on this forum.
His vitriolic hate posts in response to any criticism of Israel that appears- in own antismitic accusation that any criticism of Israel is an attack on The Jewish People, make him the most unpleasant and cowardly poster on this site.
I assume that his slight 'toning down' is due to the fact that he has probably been warned of his behaviour - i he starts up again, I will make every effort to have him removed from this forum.
That is not the behaviour that should be tolerated on a debating site.
As far as I am concerned, the present Israeli regime has betrayed the Jewish people - they have turned the State into a persecutor of Arabs, as the German State became a persecutor of Jews.
I spent my twenties and thirties with Jewish People - all of whom were appalled at what Israel was becoming, even then.
My father fought in Spain alongside Jews who later became freedom fighters for New Israel - some came to his funeral.
I an not prepared to stay silent while a ranting cowardly little shit, from his anonymity, calls me an antisemite every time I express my opinion that these right-wing scum have destroyed the Dream I and my family always treasured.
The links I put up are indicative of what has happened to Israel - a state that is now interfering with British politics in the same way as has been revealed that Russia interfered with American politics.
If you or he believe that they are faked, fin, prove they are.
Do not tell me not to put them up.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:33 PM

"meaningless."

Totally!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:49 PM

Jim, Steve is right. Constant dredging brings up the muck no matter who you speak of. The US Confederates still want to avenge the South, the Irish are not amnesic, Israel is well aware of the holocaust training that has bred vicious defensiveness for the next 1000 years or more.
Need I mention the American racial strife?

torture and starve your dog and it will turn against you. We all know this already.

Finding ways to promote civil rights bottom up or top down will do more good for both sides. Your forever fruitless arguments will never bring the benefits of defeating even one right wing authoritarian war monster.

The end game is civil rights.

Jus sayin you're stuck in a loop mate.
Obsessing on hate promotes no love and no rights.



My dictator is Trump

All in all, he's just another prick - with a wall.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:00 PM

"meaningless."
About as meaningless as your response
Want some more examples of Israeli equality - just let me know!!
Jim Carr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:51 PM

Halibuts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:21 PM

One can troll the internet and find the same shit and worse about any country one wishes to demonize - meaningless.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:19 PM

What on earth does Ireland do with any of this Bobad
I am not Irish, I don't support their politics nor their human rights record
I am an active opponent on their treatment of Travellers
Are you suggesting that because a poor record that it excuses Israel?
You were thew one who brought up thise "equality" bullshit - not me
Pathetic - even by your trollish standards
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:13 PM

More Israeeli equality
EDUCATION
EQUALITY of TENURE
HUMILIATION at CHECKPOINTS
PERSUCUTION of PALESTINIAN CHILDREN
ABUSE of PALESTINIAN WOMEN
WOMEN and ELDERLY

ISRAELI SOLDIERS TESTIMONIES
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 03:07 PM

IRELAND'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD: State looked the other way as citizens suffered
Human Rights Violations in Ireland
Exposing the Gaps in Ireland's Human Rights Record
The UN decided Ireland's abortion law is a violation of human rights
Holding Ireland to account for violations of basic human rights
Ireland will be grilled on its human rights record at the UN today - and it might not be pretty
Human rights violations in the Irish Education system
Migrants face discrimination and assault, report finds
The Experience of Discrimination in Ireland


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 02:32 PM

"One can troll the internet and find the same shit and worse about any country one wishes to demonize - meaningless"
Even the Isareli press reports?
Don't you mean unanswerable?
That's your "equal" Israel Bobad
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 02:27 PM

One can troll the internet and find the same shit and worse about any country one wishes to demonize - meaningless.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 02:00 PM

INEQUALITY REPORT
GENDER INEQUALITY
FINANCIAL INEQUALITY
DISCRIMINATORY LAWS
BEDOUINS
RELIGIOUS DIVISIONS
CHRISTIANS
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 01:44 PM

Arab citizens in Israel have far higher unemployment, far lower pay, worse career prospects, poorer housing, worse schools, much worse public transport and are subject to random and uncalled-for restriction on movement around the country.

If that is the case there could be many possible reasons for it. Equality of opportunity is not one though as Israel has a law that prohibits the employer from discriminating between job applicants or employees on the following criteria:

    Sex
    Sexual orientation
    Pregnancy
    Fertility treatment
    Parenting
    Age
    Race
    Religion
    Nationality
    Country of origin
    Residence
    Political view
    Reservist duty

Prohibition of discrimination applies to hiring, working conditions, promotion, professional training or studies, discharge or severance pay and benefits and payments provided for employees in connection with their retirement from employment. The law was enacted in 1988,[2] and replaced an earlier 1981 law.[3]

Wikipedia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 01:25 PM

Incidentally, there is no equality in Israel today.

"Is Israel inherently racist, an apartheid state? Well, do you think that such a country would tolerate a person like myself getting to the position I am today? Forget for a second (BDS supporters would like you to forget permanently!) that 20 percent of Israelis are non-Jewish, have full rights, and are represented throughout society. It's one thing, after all, to have Arab politicians, Christian voters, and Muslim doctors – although we do have them, and quite a few at that.

But a non-Jewish army Major? Someone who has not only fought alongside Jewish soldiers, but now trains them too? Would a truly racist state allow me to play such an integral role in our nation's defenses?"

Major Alaa Waheeb...... Israeli Arab, and the highest ranked Muslim in the IDF.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 12:45 PM

Give yourself a breather and stop posting such arrant nonsense. Even Bibi is more worried about the long-term demographics than you are. So am I. It is a recipe for long-term instability and it is going to have to be addressed, whatever current ideology is blinding you to the reality. Incidentally, there is no equality in Israel today. I've posted the details of that more than once before and they are undeniable. Arab citizens in Israel have far higher unemployment, far lower pay, worse career prospects, poorer housing, worse schools, much worse public transport and are subject to random and uncalled-for restriction on movement around the country. Go and look it up for yourself. I'm sick of dredging things up repeatedly to cater for people with cloth ears. I'm making a casserole and I'm busy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:56 AM

One state will happen. It might take a hundred years. If it takes just ten, a lot of lives will be saved.

What you are wishing for the Jews is what they had in Germany prior to World War II - sure were a lot of lives saved then, weren't there?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:45 AM

One day there'll Jews and Arabs living together as equals.

There is that today in Israel.

There will never exist a situation where Jews are a minority in their own country, especially not a minority to a majority whose goal is their annihilation - get used to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:25 AM

Putting peace on the table in an impasse means compromise. You can, of course, put peace on the table on entirely your own terms once you've annihilated your enemy. That will never happen. Tiny Israel can keep on grabbing the land and making two states more and more impossible because the might of the US will always be behind them. Either the region is doomed to eternal conflict or there will one day be one state containing, eventually, more Arabs than Jews. If the Jews still want to be in power, they will become totalitarian. That will last no more than several years as western allies evaporate. Israel's claim for western protection as the only "democracy" (sure...) in the region will have lost its validity. If democracy is the goal, then the Jewish state will be no more. The demographics in the region dictate that Israel's continuing presence as a Jewish state is highly artificial. One day there'll Jews and Arabs living together as equals. Sounds good to me.

A two-state solution based on the demands of either side would be extremely unstable. Nothing would be solved. The conflicts would go on and on.

One state will happen. It might take a hundred years. If it takes just ten, a lot of lives will be saved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 10:01 AM

a two-state solution is not viable as long as settlement expansion continues

"It is ludicrous to argue that the settlements are an "obstacle to peace," because they were not an obstacle to offering the Palestinians a state on three separate occasions: (a) in July 2000 at Camp David; (b) in the Clinton Parameters six months later; and (c) in the Olmert offer at the end of the one-year Annapolis Process in 2008. Each time, the Palestinians rejected a state on substantially all of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem.

The real obstacle, as Michael Mandelbaum showed in his landmark essay in the May 2016 issue of COMMENTARY, "The Peace Process is an Obstacle to Peace," is the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state within any boundaries, much less defensible borders. Until the Palestinians endorse "two states for two peoples"–something the Palestinians have not yet done–the process will be stuck on side issues such as settlements. Until the Palestinians declare that a Palestinian state is an end-of-claims solution, and not simply a step in further prosecuting a specious "right of return," the Palestinians have not even put peace on the table."

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/its-not-the-settlements-stupid/2017/01/04/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:16 AM

Well it didn't work then and it won't work now. Israel's security has long been predicated on the billions per annum in US military aid. And you are refusing to address the point that a two-state solution is not viable as long as settlement expansion continues. It isn't the Palestinians doing that, is it? Are we looking for solutions or are you just going to keep chanting your view of the history and shouting ya-boo?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:11 AM

"No Rag. I was just correcting an error of fact from Jim."
You've ben given the facts in full
No nation has ever deliberately refused re-entry or forced exile on the people of a conquered nation other than Israel.
That woud have been ethnic cleansing, which is what his happening to the Palestinians


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 07:09 AM

So Shaw you think that due to the unacceptability of the Two State Solution to both sides the conflict will continue. The track record however is that the Jews of Palestine have always been prepared to accept such a solution the track record of the Arabs of Palestine is that they have never found such a compromise.

Your thumbnail sketch - "One rich state with a powerful military next to a much poorer state" - In other words the exact reversal of what the fledgling State of Israel faced in 1948, although their "much poorer state" faced numerous enemies not just one. Israel has advanced as a developed democratic state her former neighbours and enemies are firmly on the path to self-destructi
on.

So the conflict will go on - next time leave them to fight it out to the end.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 17 - 05:09 AM

Rag,
True professor,many Germans were ejected, but as I am sure you were taught at school two wrongs don't make a right.
Or do they in your world?


No Rag. I was just correcting an error of fact from Jim.
"So we shouldhave deposed the entire Geman nation in 1945
Don't be more stupid than you have already shown you are.
No conquering people ahs the right to depose those they have conquered."

Also, Israel was defending against conquest, not engaged in it.

Another stupid comparison which had nothing to do with a conquered people being driven out ot not being allowed to returned, as has happenef in Palestine

Yes. To Jews and Arabs.


"The Expulsion Of The Germans: The Largest Forced Migration In History"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rm-douglas/expulsion-germans-forced-migration_b_1625437.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 03:04 PM

"Actually millions, mostly ethnic Germans, were displaced after WW2."
Another stupid comparison which had nothing to do with a conquered people being driven out ot not being allowed to returned, as has happenef in Palestine
"The removals occurred in three overlapping phases, the first of which was the organized evacuation of ethnic Germans by the Nazi government in the face of the advancing Red Army, from mid-1944 to early 1945.[11] The second phase was the disorganised fleeing of ethnic Germans immediately following the Wehrmacht's defeat. The third phase was a more organised expulsion following the Allied leaders' Potsdam Agreement,[11] which redefined the Central European borders and approved expulsions of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.[12] Many German civilians were sent to internment and labour camps where they were used as forced labour as part of German reparations to countries in eastern Europe.[13] The major expulsions were complete in 1950.[11] Estimates for the total number of people of German ancestry still living in Central and Eastern Europe in 1950 range from 700,000 to 2.7 million."
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 12:29 PM

True professor,many Germans were ejected, but as I am sure you were taught at school two wrongs don't make a right.

Or do they in your world?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 12:01 PM

Jim,
No conquering people ahs the right to depose those they have conquered.

Actually millions, mostly ethnic Germans, were displaced after WW2.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 09:12 AM

Well. let's look at what two states might look like, Teribus. One rich state with a powerful military next to a much poorer state with one of two conformations: either an Arab state consisting in effect of enclaves within Israel, or a larger Arab state containing Israeli enclaves consisting of the current settlements. The former is completely unacceptable to the Palestinians for obvious reasons. The latter, though under Palestinian sovereignty, would contain clusters of much wealthier non-Arab people who would almost certainly insist on continued separation and who would fuel resentment among the majority Arab population. Two states based on 1967 borders is just never going to happen because Israel never has to give back.

Do you really think you can blame the Palestinians for not having the appetite for either scenario? Or the ordinary Israeli people, for that matter? How can you possibly deny that current Israeli policy is doing anything other then making a two-state solution less and less viable? Obsessively blaming Palestinians for walking away from a two-state solution is just absurd. The Israeli regime want it even less than the Palestinians, otherwise they wouldn't be doing things that, plain as the nose on your face, militate against it.

We can go on as now for ever, enduring conflict after conflict. Or we will end up with a single state in which the demographic will develop in a way that Israel will see as threatening. Israel would have to choose between ditching democracy or ditching the Jewish state. It will come to that because Israel's short-sighted leaders are making anything else impossible. They are acting against the long-term interests of their own people. One fine day the people might actually wake up to it and see that trying to be good neighbours might be better all round.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 08:29 AM

Should have been 100 4x4's of course but it is no 100 4x4's plus a unicycle...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 08:28 AM

10 4x4's!

D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 08:13 AM

If anyone thinks that the "Palestinian" leadership have any desire to negotiate for an independent homeland for the Arabs in Judea and Samaria they are seriously deluded. One only has to read the constitution of Fatah to see what their true goals are. The Israeli leadership is 100% correct when they say that there is no partner to negotiate with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 07:37 AM

The Israelis ahve refused to return land and refused to consider refugees returning
How can any "so called leadership" consider such an illegal position that entails such a situation?
The fact that you refuse to respond to this makes it clear that you are aware of that fact.
Whatever the Arab leadership is like, it is imminently preferable to one adopting an ethnich cleansing policy and attempting to set up an
APARTHEID STATE
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 07:16 AM

Steve Shaw:

"The fact is, Teribus, whether you like it or not, successive Israeli regimes have worked inexorably AGAINST a two-state solution"

The fact is, Shaw, whether you like it or not, since the Khartoum Conference of 1967 the Arabs of the region, and in saying that I mean their so-called leaders, have never had any intention, or interest, in pursuing anything that would deliver a "Two State Solution".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 06:19 AM

"They have consistently chosen war "
To defend their land from usurpation and the right for those driven into exile to return.
It takes a great deal of courage to continue for an impoverished State with a poorly armed untrained and ill equipped army,to fight a well armed (to the extent of nuclear) nation permanently protected from war crime charges by U.s. vetoes, for the right of access to what is theirs by birth and heritage.
It takes no courage at all to continue to oppress that State.
David and Goliath writ large
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:55 AM

If "Palestinians" are an invention then what are "Israelis?"

The fact is, Teribus, whether you like it or not, successive Israeli regimes have worked inexorably AGAINST a two-state solution, making it near-impossible to envisage an Arab state with contiguous land, by annexing large parcels of the West Bank for settlements. Negotiation means giving way to some extent. Compromise. The Palestinians may seem to you to be uninterested in a two-state solution, but that is because they know that compromise is never on the table. All talks have been a sham. Settlement land will remain settlement land. Why would Israel give any back, let alone stop taking even more? No need when you have the US behind you unconditionally. The abstention from the resolution, hardly unprecedented as I've shown, is no more than a mild warning shot across the bows. The US will never stop the military aid to Israel. AIPAC and co. will see to that. Israel only gives land back either in return for a sell-out to the West, as with Egypt, or because it's a basket case, as with Gaza. And the latter was hardly "giving it back" with good grace, was it? Seem to remember that they sent in the bulldozers first, then blockaded the whole place...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:28 AM

"Golda Meir was right on both counts -"
Arabs have occupied that land for millenia
" they chose war and they lost."
So we shouldhave deposed the entire Geman nation in 1945
Don't be more stupid than you have already shown you are.
No conquering people ahs the right to depose those they have conquered.
The stealing of land is still happening - that's what the UN condemnation is about.
"And they have given almost all of it back in return for peace."
January is a bit early for cuckoos, isn't it?
im Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:24 AM

"Predictions by the Treasury ahead of the Brexit vote have been brought into question by a study which says that leaving the European Union will halve net migration, give British workers a pay rise and help to solve the housing crisis.

The report from the Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge examined the possible future scenarios following the referendum decision to leave the EU."


Didn't Akenaton mention something similar - months ago? Carney has admitted that the Bank of England got it wrong as did the Treasury under George Osborne's prompting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:02 AM

Golda Meir was right on both counts - The "Palestinians" were invented by Yasser Arafat - Purely technically the Jews of Palestine are as much "Palestinians" as the Arabs of Palestine.

The Jews did not build or create refugee camps, what they did do was accept and take in over 820,000 Jews from Arab countries and allowed them to assimilate into the fabric of the Jewish State of Israel to become full citizens with a full stake in the future of THEIR country.

In 1947 the Arabs of Palestine had a choice - they chose war and they lost. They have consistently chosen war ever since and they have equally consistently lost. At some point THEY must wake up to the fact that they have to accept the consequences of and bear responsibilities of THEIR actions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 04:37 AM

thanks to Israeli predatory land-grabbing,

They only occupied land taken while fighting off predatory land grabbers!
And they have given almost all of it back in return for peace.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 04:18 AM

"No refugee camps in Israel Jim."
Who said there was?
Not me.
Doesn't alter the fact that, thanks to Israeli predatory land-grabbing, Palestinians make up the largest group of deposed refugees on the planet and their continuing action stands to add to that figure, should they be allowed to continue further.
The Egyptians and Jordanians, not a particularly wealthy people, "saw fit" to give some of these refugees shelter - as you rightly say, Israel never saw fit to extend that hand of charity to those they made homeless.
Having stolen the land, it would have been ludicrous for them to have done so.
As Golda Meir put it so succinctly on several occasions:
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed."
Golda Meir Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 02:48 AM

No refugee camps in Israel Jim.

Egyptians and Jordanians, latterly "Palestinians" saw fit to herd fellow Arabs, "Palestinians" at that, into camps in 1948 on "Palestinian" land and make sure they stayed there in poverty and a state of hopelessness.

I also think IIRC that there was some mention of 4th June 1967 "borders" in UNSCR 2334, as well as restraint, control and negotiation. One of Steve Shaw's contentions has been that Israel has never had to negotiate because of it's alliance with the USA, well one perception now might be that that has changed and that Israel is being forced to negotiate, the Arabs of "Palestine" and by that I mean their leaders however will not as they have no interest in negotiation and their backers will not permit them to. Any negotiation will be seen as a betrayal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:15 PM

It maintains the status quo regarding refugees and land already lost.
No responsible government would ever agree to that
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:12 PM

Looking back down through the thread I am amazed that none of those so keen to praise the adoption of UNSCR 2334 see that in it the UN's support and promotion of a "Two State Solution" which means recognition by PNA and Hamas of the Sovereign State of Israel. We all know that that is not going to happen. UNSCR 2334 does not solely constrain the Israeli Government it also makes demands and imposes constraints on the Arabs of Palestine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 07:26 AM

Jim,
suggesting that criticism of Israel is "antisemitic"?

No-one here has ever done that Jim. What is your point?

The Israeli regime has accused Jewish opposition to its policies as being by "self-hating" or "self-loathing Jews" - the very term is antisemitic by nature.

Ridiculous. Of course they don't. The opposition parties and free media constantly criticise its policies.

as far as this forum is concerned, we have the suggestion that there is a Jewish pact of silence in Parliament which has kept the details of the claimed antisemitism of the Labour Party from the eyes of the public 'for the love of the party'.

Are you sure? I never saw it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 05:59 AM

If my great-great anybody was Jewish, native Australian or Chinese I doubt that I would know and I definitely wouldn't give a fig. I have a feeling that I'm not descended from that race of aliens on Saturn because they have seven legs and I only have two (at last count). Yes I do think that conspiracy theories about Jews taking over banks, businesses and the media are antisemitic and, like Jim, I have never subscribed to them. Anyway, Tunesmith, I can't find anything about Murdoch being of Jewish descent, and I really don't care one way or the other. Whatever else he is, he's a complete twat. That's all I need to know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 04:35 AM

"And yes DtG perhaps those who flagrantly ignore the IHRA Working Definition should be reported to the police"
Does that include all those who accuse The Jewish People of being responsible for the atrocities of the Israeli regime by suggesting that criticism of Israel is "antisemitic"?
That, I believe is a breach of one of the items in the definition.
So far we have had a very much pick--'n-mix approach by supporters of the regime.
The Israeli regime has accused Jewish opposition to its policies as being by "self-hating" or "self-loathing Jews" - the very term is antisemitic by nature.
It is also classic fascism - placing the acrtions of the state ovr the opinions and wishes of the people.
Nearer to home, as far as this forum is concerned, we have the suggestion that there is a Jewish pact of silence in Parliament which has kept the details of the claimed antisemitism of the Labour Party from the eyes of the public 'for the love of the party'.
Claims of Jewish plots where one of of the weapons used to send six million Jews to their deaths.
Would we really like a member of this forum reported to the police?
This discussion has taken an extremely nasty and dangerous turn.
I don't know how many Jews make up our financial establishment, I don't care and I never have.
Discussing the beliefs and nationalities of those who exploit us should never be part of these debates - it is totally irrelevant - our businesses and financial institutions are now international and multi-cultural and have been for a long time.
Please leave it out.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 04:10 AM

Keith Rupert Murdoch:

"Australian Jews.... Hmmmm. Give us a minute here. Billionaire mogul Rubert Murdoch, maybe?

Well, it depends on who you believe. According to some out there, Rubert's great-great-grandmother, Caroline Jemima Sherson, was Jewish. But considering that research found that the young Jemima was baptized before she was one year old, we highly doubt those first-mentioned sources." - Source: Jew or Not Jew Website. Their Verdict Rupert Murdoch: Not a Jew


Hope that clears that one up once and for all.

And yes DtG perhaps those who flagrantly ignore the IHRA Working Definition should be reported to the police...... Perhaps tireless fighter against anti-Semitism Jim Carroll could take care of that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:43 AM

Tunesmith - 04 Jan 17 - 08:31 AM

"The British press is the main obstacle to Labour - and Jeremy - being elected!
Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.


An anti-Semitic post from Tunesmith according to the IHRA Working definition of Anti-Semitism adopted formally and recognised by the UK Government:

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

On even a cursory examination Tunesmith's post is also factually incorrect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:04 AM

Can't find any trace of that, Tunesmith. I'm honestly not that bothered, but I have looked into it. If you think I'm wrong, please elaborate. .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 01:48 AM

Oh dear, Murdoch is clearly Jewish via his mother's line.
Steve, do a bit more research, please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:39 PM

So it comes down to, as always, that nebulous, all powerful Jewish lobby that controls governments, owns the media and runs the banks does it? Thought so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 07:39 PM

Hmm. How odd that you should demand information from me whereas you can't comply, despite almost ten spluttering posts from you, with my simple request to point out which of those tweets were antisemitic and why. Are you scared that big ol' Stevieboy is coming to get you?😂😂😂

But I'm a nice chap really, so here you have it. Your sacred "definition" is derived closely from the long-discredited EUMC definition that was quietly ditched by the EU, never having been officially adopted at all, in 2013. The body that spawned that definition was "advised" almost exclusively by pro-Israel lobby groups. There was no balance. Look it up, why don't you? I've quoted it several times before but people like you and Keith with ears of cloth won't have picked it up. Go on, have a look, even though you know you won't like what you find. You want to regale us with a "definition" drawn up by a body unduly influenced by a bunch of partisans? Great! Personally, I'd prefer to have a definition drawn up by a neutral body with no axes to grind. Christ, how odd does that make me!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:55 PM

31 countries have been leaned on to accept a particular "definition,"

Here we go again, tell us by whom have they been leaned on why don't you. Oh, and do provide some evidence on who has done the leaning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:20 PM

"One" referred to the definition, not to one of the 31 countries, to be clear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 PM

Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. Comment is free but facts are sacred.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:09 PM

Nothing irrefutable about the fact that 31 countries have been leaned on to accept a particular "definition," one with a very murky history of excessive Israeli-regime influence. There are over 170 other countries, you know. When you tell me which remarks are antisemitic and why, and when I tell you why they're not, what you'll get from me is my unvarnished, measured opinion. You won't get me appealing to authority which is always, ALWAYS the first and last resort of you and Keith. Not a game, bobad. Are you in double-figure evasive posts yet since I first asked you this morning to tell me which remarks were antisemitic and why? Focus, don't spit!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 04:08 PM

Rupert Murdoch Jewish?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:47 PM

You may find this thread useful to you, Tunesmith. The link in the opening post is thought provoking and some of the posts following can be a bit of an eye opener to attitudes as well!

Mistrust the press

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:40 PM

Well, I can't get over the fact that there is a law which states that it is illegal to say that Jewish businessmen control the media.

Well, it can't be a unlawful to say that Jewish businessmen own most of the media in the UK... because that is a fact.

But do they control the editorial content?

Well, have a read of the following:

"In evidence to a House of Lords select committee in 2007, Murdoch even said that he acted like "a traditional proprietor" in regard to the Sun and the News of the World by "exercising control on major issues, such as which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:19 PM

Sorry Shaw you won't suck me into your pathetic little game of "it's not anti-Semitic by my definition". The fact that it is irrefutably anti-Semitic by the definition accepted by your country, your political party, your police forces and the 31 countries who adopted it is good enough for me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:06 PM

Stop flailing around, bobad. You may lose your focus but I won't lose mine. So tell me: which of those remarks are antisemitic and why? Tell me which ones and why and I'll tell you why they are not. There's nothing "irrefutable" except in your own head. Try to regain your cool, stop trolling, answer the question straightforwardly and honestly, or just give up. So, with icy coolness, tell me which remarks were antisemitic. And tell me why. I'll tell you straightforwardly and unemotionally why they are not. Nothing to be scared of. I'm a big fluffy bunny, you know. Not a scurrying little snappy dog, as you appear to want to show yourself to be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM

Good question DtG, maybe you should ask it of your local government rep. Maybe it's because a clear definition had not been in place at the time these statements were made but now that there is one anti-Semites are more circumspect with their wording, like in Shaw's advice to Tunesmith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:16 PM

I think I asked this question some time back but don't recall if there was ever a response. It seems to be generally agreed that there is a specific law about antisemitism. It is also well known that hate speech, including that against Jews, is a crime in this country. If any of the quotes given have broken that law then, surely, the people who made them would be under arrest and banged to rights for hate crime. How come they are not?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:10 PM

A couple more gems from Cllr Mullah:

believes Israel responsible for Sandy Hook school massacre

Zionist Jews are a disgrace to humanity


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:58 PM

And yet another: Shah Hussain


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:50 PM

And here's a Facebook post by another one who was suspended by the party for anti-Semitism: Salim Mulla


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:36 PM

And Keith, Shaw is just being his precious self and once again trying to misrepresent. Aziz's twitter posts are there to see and clearly anti-Semitic to anyone but perhaps him and his fellow travelers. He's just trying to obfuscate (as usual) by making the messenger the issue, a tactic favoured by him and Carroll when they are presented with irrefutable evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:31 PM

Mind how you step with this one!

That's it, get Shaw to teach you his personal definition of anti-Semitism and the right euphemisms to use to try and hide your true intentions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:13 PM

My last post was aimed at Keith, Tunesmith.

You're being pretty brave using that approach here, Tunesmith. I don't see any Jewish conspiracy to take over the media, though there is in general a pro-Israel bias in more outlets than not. There are powerful pro-Israel lobby groups, especially in political parties, which by no means consist of Jews exclusively, which make sure that anti-Israel sentiment gets shot down. It's worse in the US, by the way. Disproportionateness in representation within institutions is endemic in this country - top politicians/public schools spring to mind. Mind how you step with this one!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM

We've been through this Keith
Whather it is Antisemitic or not is a moot point, particularly regarding it's source being from a Jewish writer.
Iven if it were - that makes two out of how many members.
I'm sure if you dig around you might find others - the fact that there are antisemites in every section of society has never been disputed
You seem to be subjecting us to drip-drip-drip water torture
There is not a majoor problem, none of those claiming there is have ever come up with a serious problem
This particular lifeboat is long sunk.
If Israel continues to blame the Jews for their crimes and you talk about Jewish pacts of silence in Parliament, you are going to have to come up with more than two examples to make anything resembling a case
Keep on trying though - it helps lighten the tedium
HOW SERIOUS WAS THIS?
IS THIS NOT APPEASING ANTISEMITISM?
IS IT ONLY ANTISEMITISM THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM

Nope. You lied. You said he "merely exposed the comments." No he didn't. One glance at the offending page on his site reveals that he wrapped up the tweets in a torrent of abusive, biased, multicoloured, sensationalist headlines that make the Sun and Mail look positively demure by comparison. The trouble with you, Keith, is that nothing you ever say on this site can ever be relied on to have been honestly and straightforwardly delivered. Before you make any more miserable attempts to take this any further via intelligence-insulting diversions, please explain why you said that he had "merely exposed the comments." Why did you need to say that, Keith? What's wrong with you? I've told you not to lie to me. You are choosing the wrong person to do that to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 12:50 PM

Keith posted the following the following definition now adopted by British police and law,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

Well, now, that is very worrying and sinister! Talk about a gag on free speech.

Now, in the UK, Jewish businessmen do control the media ( well almost all of it) in the sense that they own almost all of the media.

And, there is no doubt that the media help - in a big way - to shape public opinion in the UK.

I think a person would have to be very naive to believe that the people who own - ie. control - the media would not have some say - i.e. a big say - in the editorial output.

It seems crazy to me that an almost total monopoly of Jewish owned newspapers is allowed in the UK!

Particularly, as previouslt stated - the Jewish population of the UK stands at 0.5%

Finally, when British Prime Ministers are fearful of getting on the wrong side of a newspaper owner, we should all be very concerned!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 12:40 PM

Fawkes did not "merely expose the comments." He wrapped them up in a tirade of negative and sensational headlines.

So ignore all that shit. Ilyas Aziz's tweets were considered anti-Semitic by your Party, and serious enough to suspend him for six months.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:55 AM

Fawkes did not "merely expose the comments." He wrapped them up in a tirade of negative and sensational headlines. Don't lie any more, please. You are trying it on with the wrong person. As for my being no judge of antisemitism, that conclusion is based purely on your own biased opinion and is unsupportable. And if you mention "the whole of the bloody NEC seeing a serious issue," one more time, you clown, I'll hurl the whole contents of this box of 144 ping-pong balls at my telly one at a time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM

Tunesmith, The Guardian is not owned by a Jewish businessman. It is owned by the Scott Trust which has no specific links with Judaism. Perhaps, coincidentally you may hope, the Guardian has probably been the national paper most accused of anti-Israel bias.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM

Tunesmith, from the definition now adopted by British police and law,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:41 AM

Fawkes merely exposed the comments.
You may not recognise the anti-Semitism but you have proved to be no judge of it.
The Labour Party found it sufficiently bad to suspend him for six months because of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:33 AM

Three things, bobad. First, I didn't defend Tunesmith. He's stating facts and has yet to propose a Jewish conspiracy, but he's making me feel uneasy. I thought I'd made that clear. He can speak for himself. Second, I asked you to tell me which remarks were antisemitic, with reasons. Shouldn't be hard for you as you're so quick to jump on these things. Third, you've shilly-shallied around since I asked you and you have still failed to answer. You can't, can you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:32 AM

No - I'm going by the fact that he (whoever he is) has come no nearer to providing either description nor numbers of this elusive "antisemitism"
His Wiki entry includes accusations of smears against Labour figures like Peter Hain, and past support for The Conras
He is a right-wing conspiracy blogger whose Wili entry includes
"Peter Hain[edit]
Staines has been credited with being the first blogger to "take the scalp" of a serving British minister, following the resignation for a period of well over a year of Peter Hain from the offices of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Secretary of State for Wales in January 2008.[44][45][46]
Smeargate affair[edit]
Over the weekend of 11–12 April 2009, Staines exposed in his blog that a series of e-mails had been prepared by Damian McBride, a political adviser working at 10 Downing Street, smearing a number of Conservative MPs which had been sent to Derek Draper for consideration for publication on the Red Rag blogsite.[47] This led to the resignation of McBride and expressions of regret to the MPs concerned from the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.[48] Staines provided copies of these emails to the News of the World and The Sunday Times and states that, contrary to the comments of his detractors, he did not receive any payments for this.[49]
His success in the McBride affair has occasioned serious criticism from him of the UK lobby correspondent system, which he believes has succumbed to the ethos of political spin.[50]
Leveson Inquiry[edit]
Main article: Leveson Inquiry
In late November 2011, Staines posted on his Guido Fawkes blog the Leveson Inquiry pre-submission of former journalist and Labour Party spin-doctor Alastair Campbell. All pre-submissions are given under strict and full confidentiality, and all core participants – including victims, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service – are also signatories. Staines stated that he had obtained the submission legally. Lord Justice Leveson immediately called him to the inquiry to make a statement under cross-examination.[51]
Staines gave written evidence denying any fault or breach of the Inquiry Act, when at the start of his oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry Alastair Campbell admitted sending his evidence to "two or three journalists" and some friends, the order for Staines to appear was quietly dropped.[citation needed]
In late December 2011, Staines was invited to give further evidence.[52]"
He is a right-wing conspiracy theorist with a long record of smearing politicians - not teh feller to eith buy a used car from or take home to meet your mother
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:24 AM

This is sinister craziness! Or stupidity!

It is a FACT that UK national newpapers are entitely owned by Jewish businessmen.
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
As are the TV companies.

It's also a fact that the media can - and has been - "King Makers".

It is a fact that when Blair and Cameron visited the States, they would always find time for a meeting with Murdoch ( I wonder why?)

The UK press is going to reflect the aims and desires of its owners.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:54 AM

Guido Fawkes Blog - for Christ's sake
Really bottom of the barrel time


You must have missed the copies of Ilyas Aziz's virulent anti-Semitic tweets posted on the site or are you pulling your usual ruse of trying to disparage the messenger when he gives you something you would rather not see?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM

so that I can tell you why they are not

By your definition, right Shaw, which is totally laughable considering the definition accepted by your country, your political party, your police forces and the 31 countries who adopted it. But do go on and tell us again why you are entitled to ignore what all these bodies accept as being anti-Semitic, as if we don't know why.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:44 AM

Guido Fawkes Blog - for Christ's sake
Really bottom of the barrel time
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:38 AM

No surprise that Shaw is coming to Tunesmith's defense, is it? Tunesmith, you will find yourself in the company of fellow travelers here but just like we do with them we will not let you get away with spewing anti-Semitic hatred.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:32 AM

Well, bobad, Guido Fawkes's blog is sub-tabloid, isn't it? Tendentious, incoherent, old news, nothing new, clutching at straws. And I can't find anything antisemitic in any of it. And please don't do your usual spitting back. Highlight the remarks that you think are antisemitic and tell me why so that I can tell you why they are not, and let's see how we get on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:23 AM

It is not antisemitic simply to state facts. It's how you use those facts. Your first step is to show that Tunesmith is factually incorrect. If he is, then his post smacks strongly of antisemitism. If he is substantially factually correct, then it's up to you to show that his motive in posting the information was antisemitic. Just three-quarters or less of the Israeli population is Jewish, but Jews run Israel almost entirely. Have I been antisemitic in saying that?

Having said that, I'm not sure that Tunesmith was wise to post those rather threadbare facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:52 AM

Tunesmith, it is unequivocally anti-Semitic to claim that the Jews control the media.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:49 AM

Steve and Jim,
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/guido-fawkes-exposes-another-anti-semite-in-labours-ranks/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:43 AM

Go to Seth Frantzman's website. Scroll down from the top a little. Not hard if you really want it.

Thanks. Found it.

"Is US abstaining unprecedented? It has been unprecedented under Obama, but other US administrations have regularly abstained from or supported UN resolutions against Israeli actions."
Really?

"In 2002 the US abstained on Resolution 1345. " which was not about Israel or the Middle East.

"The US abstained on UN Resolution in 1322 in 2000."
The original version of the resolution sought a strong condemnation of Israel. The United States, which abstained, threatened to veto this version, and the language was modified to remove mention of Israel by name.[6]

The rest are more than twenty years old so I lost interest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM

Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.
Also, I believe, that this is true for UK TV companies ( even the " neutral" BBC has been headed by a number of Jewish Director Generals)

This is amazing when one considers that Jewish people only make up 0.5% of the UK population.


Oh look another UK anti-Semite, surprise, surprise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:38 AM

Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then

antisemitic social media posts


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:31 AM

The British press is the main obstacle to Labour - and Jeremy - being elected!
Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.
Also, I believe, that this is true for UK TV companies ( even the " neutral" BBC has been headed by a number of Jewish Director Generals)

This is amazing when one considers that Jewish people only make up 0.5% of the UK population.
AND, Jeremy has been very outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

In the run up to the next election, the British people will be bombarded with negative headlines directed at Corbyn.

A free press?
Well,it is free to pick who runs the country!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 07:57 AM

"Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then, Keith"
Have patience - he'll put it up when he puts up examples of others calling one of Israel's leading Zionists a liar
All in good tuime (should we live that long!!)
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 06:03 AM

Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then, Keith. Back yourself up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 06:00 AM

Is that supposed to be debate, Keith? You quote all my statements, say for each one "no it isn't" and leave it at that? That's a joke, Keith.

Go to Seth Frantzman's website. Scroll down from the top a little. Not hard if you really want it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:36 AM

"Ilyas Aziz, an avid supporter of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who is listed as a manager of a Pakistani community centre in the East Midlands city, tweeted on 31 December: "Can resume my Labour Party activities now that my suspension lifted. Thanks to all who stood by me in difficult times."
Labour lifted the suspension of Aziz, who has been approached for comment, after political website Guido Fawkes revealed that he had written a string of anti-Semitic social media posts. He was subsequently suspended in May."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:27 AM

Momentum leader on Labour anti-Semitism,

"The founder of the grassroots group that helped propel Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership has condemned anti-Israel Jews who blame allegations of anti-Semitism on 'Zionists" – as he insisted he "can't see any good reason" why it's taken so long to determine Ken Livingstone's fate in the party.

Momentum chief Jon Lansman was speaking to Jewish News after taking part in two panels on his first visit to Limmud, setting out why Jews should support Labour under Corbyn.

While he acknowledged there was a problem of anti-Semitism in the party, he claimed the row had been "exaggerated" and there was a "gap between perception and reality". But he added: "I think the suggestion that the row about anti-Semitism has been organised by Zionists is completely wrong. Jewish anti-Zionists are entitled to their point of view about Zionism but are not helping Palestinian or themselves in claiming the row is part of a Zionist conspiracy. It is not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 AM

Steve,
Correct, though you forgot to say SOME US Jews.

Your own linked article make it clear it is the majority.

You have no evidence that a majority of US citizens, whether they favour Israel or not, think that the settlement expansion is fair.

I disagree.
The NYT link suggests that it's probably the other way round.


No it does not.
It is perfectly possible to strongly dislike the Palestinians yet condemn Israel for taking their land for settlements.


They were not asked who they "liked." They were asked who they "supported."

You can find a list of them on sethfrantzman.com.

I can't. More detail please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Ok, I'll make it as simple as possible. Just show me where anyone high up in in any US administration has ever declared that automatically vetoing resolutions criticising Israel is the official government policy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 09:29 PM

Erm.........policy does not equate to "law" or "constitution", but keep on trying to misrepresent, it only serves to confirm your dishonesty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 08:21 PM

some sections


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 08:20 PM

Something for bobad and Keith to chew over: the US has abstained on at least 20 UN resolutions criticising Israel and has even supported a handful. You can find a list of them on sethfrantzman.com. There is no US policy stating that anti-Israel UN resolutions must be vetoed. Implying or stating that Obama has gone against US policy in failing to use the veto is a downright lie. There is no such policy. There is outrage in some actions of the community for sure, as well as in Israel, against that move. But there has not been the slightest suggestion from anyone that Obama is in breach of the constitution or the law. Except from Keith. Still, as we know, Keith is right and the rest of the planet just makes up shit. As for Obama "going against the will of the people" in failing to support those SETTLEMENTS, prove it! I have till I die!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:32 PM

It's a simple thing to ask of such an ardent Israel supporter such as yourself, surely. Where is it written down in law or constitution that the US must always veto UN resolutions that criticise Israel?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:24 PM

Lol!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:15 PM

Stick to the point. I do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:09 PM

Ah yes, Shaw trying the old misrepresentation gambit which is getting pretty old by now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:50 PM

Stick to the point. Show me the policy, written into US law, or the constitution, that all UN votes criticising Israel must be vetoed. That's all I ask. Show me that Obama acted unconstitutionally. Come along now. I'm sure you can do better than an ancient quote from an ambassador.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:45 PM

Since when have ambassadors been owners of policy, bobad?

Owners??????

They are the conveyors of government policy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:23 PM

Well I'm not going to argue with you whether abstaining is "failing to use the vote."

Vote, veto, tomayto, tomato. Not my finest hour but the point holds.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:19 PM

Since when have ambassadors been owners of policy, bobad? Can you show me where the US constitution dictates that each and every UN resolution criticising Israel must be vetoed? Simple enough question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:15 PM

" US did not vote. The issue is that they failed to use the veto."

Well I'm not going to argue with you whether abstaining is "failing to use the vote." In fact, on this occasion it proved to be a rather devastating use/non-use of a vote. Take your pick. The effect was awesome! 😂

"US public opinion overwhelmingly favours Israel over the Palestinians, and US Jews feel betrayed over the withholding of the veto."

Correct, though you forgot to say SOME US Jews. And don't start bandying numbers because neither you nor I knows how many on each side. But this is irrelevant anyway. The vote was nothing to do with how many favour Jews over Palestinians. The vote was confined to condemnation of the settlements. Nothing else. You have no evidence that a majority of US citizens, whether they favour Israel or not, think that the settlement expansion is fair. The NYT link suggests that it's probably the other way round. It is perfectly possible to strongly dislike the Palestinians yet condemn Israel for taking their land for settlements. I really am trying to couch this in the simplest possible terms for you, Keith. But on and on you go, tunnel vision, blinkers on, hands clasped over ears. You can't face the truth. You're not addressing this, Keith. You keep on repeating things that we already know. Something wrong upstairs, Keith.

"I was right and you were wrong."

Idiot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 05:43 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

Er, what "change of policy" on Israel would that be, then?


U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright 1994:

"We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as 'occupied Palestinian territory.' In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. As agreed between them, those negotiations will begin not later than two years after the implementation of the Declaration of Principles."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:41 PM

Sweet Jesu, will the professor EVER grow up.

You are not in school now professor, for gods sake start acting like an adult.




Aplogies to those true Christians out there for the use of such language, I'm not even a christian


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:38 PM

OR FROM AN ISRAELI
INTERESTING ARTICLE on LAND STEALING FROM JEWISH INTELLECTUAL
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:32 PM

Steve,
You claimed that the president went against the will of the people IN A UN VOTE WHICH CONDEMNED ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

US did not vote. The issue is that they failed to use the veto.
US public opinion overwhelmingly favours Israel over the Palestinians, and US Jews feel betrayed over the withholding of the veto.
I was right and you were wrong.
If I have lied, quote it.
Good luck with that Steve!

Jim,
What about the dozen s or so linked one I've put up over the years Keith - made up?

Just propaganda sites. nothing reputable.
It is an uncorroborated claim by one man, so of course it is not accepted and you will not find it in on any reputable site.

Never mind that the one man did have an agenda, and did not make the claim until after BG's death some twenty years later!

Your reliance on such uncorroborated claims shows how weak, or non-existent, your case is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:07 PM

"No examples of people of anybody quoting it then - thought not."
What about the dozen s or so linked one I've put up over the years Keith - made up?
This is a one man band of your making - nobody disputes it was said - not anywhere
TRY THIS FOR SIZE IF YOU DON'T MIND JEWS WHO ARE CRITICAL OF ISRAEL
Now - any evidence from you?
No?
Thought not
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:05 PM

Lie upon lie upon lie, Keith. You claimed that the president went against the will of the people IN A UN VOTE WHICH CONDEMNED ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS. We have demonstrated to you that not only is there no good evidence that the people of the US are IN FAVOUR OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS but that, if anything, they are more likely in general to be OPPOSED TO THOSE SETTLEMENTS. I don't give a stuff about all your "proof" that they are "against the Palestinians." We know that already. Go and teach your granny to suck eggs why don't you. You are trying to use that to cover up your original lie, that he went against "the will of the people" in failing to veto a resolution CRITICISING ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

Once again, let me remind you, as you claim to espouse democracy (I'm beginning to have my doubts), that, in democracies, prime ministers and presidents are not, in any case, elected as delegates to slavishly "follow the will of the people." You appear to have a very shaky grasp of the reasons we have elections. That could be an honest defect in your education. Lying as you have been doing in order to "win" at all costs is far less excusable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

Jim,

No examples of people of anybody calling this man a liar then - thought not


No. He is just completely ignored and his unlikely quote never quoted by any historian or reputable commentator.


No examples of people of anybody quoting it then - thought not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 12:06 PM

Steve,
"On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

Completely irrelevant to my claim Steve.
My claim was about the will of the people on supporting Israel or supporting the Palestinians.
Not "Apart from the settlements" supporting Israel or supporting the Palestinians.

Guardian, " 59% of Americans say their sympathies lie more with Israel, as opposed to just 13% who say their sympathies are more with the Palestinians."

2015 CNN/ORC poll,
Thinking about the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East, please tell me whether, in general, you think America should be...?  (CNN/ORC, February 2015)
A strong supporter of Israel
27%
A supporter of Israel
26%
A supporter of the Palestinians
8%
A strong supporter of the Palestinians
3%

My point proved. I was right and you were wrong.

What do American Jews feel about Obama not using the UN veto to protect Israel over the settlement issue?

From your link Steve,
"But for others, even those who support a two-state solution and object to Israeli settlement policy, the decision by the United States not to shield Israel at the United Nations — which is widely viewed among many American Jews as hostile to Israel — was a mistake. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a Democrat with a large Jewish constituency, called the Security Council action unnecessary and inappropriate,"

"Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish movement in North America, said it was "a miscalculation in our minds. I think a majority of American Jews would agree, no matter how one feels about settlements, that the idea that the U.N. is an honest broker when it comes to Israel is laughable."
For Shira Greenberg, a public school teacher in Florida, Mr. Obama's rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu confirmed her worst assumptions about the president. "Throughout the whole Obama administration, people were trying to guess where he stood," she said after morning services at her conservative synagogue on Thursday. "At this point, it's pretty clear."
And at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, a large and politically divided congregation, Rabbi David Wolpe said Mr. Obama had "pulled the rug out from under people who said the president's intentions toward Israel was positive and strong."
The public display of rancor is unsettling. "Nobody in the community can be happy
when you have this public spat between the prime minister and the president, and the kind of language the prime minister has been using about the president," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who has served as the United States ambassador to both Israel and Egypt.
David Zwiebel, the executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, which represents ultra-Orthodox Jews, said that there is a general sense among Orthodox Jews, who tend to be more conservative, "that the outgoing administration is outgoing and should be outgoing, and it's time for an approach that is more openly supportive of Israel."

So, I was right that the will of the American people is pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. That may not be true of a majority of Jews but even they denounce Obama's withholding of the veto.

As ever, I was right and you were wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM

Correction to my last post lest the historian nitpickers besiege me: the army was not involved in the Battle of Cable Street, just the police, 6000 of them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:44 AM

No examples of people of anybody calling this man a liar then - thought not
Made up Keith shit then?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:20 AM

Jim, it is an uncorroborated claim by one man, so of course it is not accepted and you will not find it in on any reputable site.

Never mind that the one man did have an agenda, and did not make the claim until after BG's death some twenty years later!

Your reliance on such uncorroborated claims shows how weak, or non-existent, your case is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:25 AM

Israel has new embarked on censoring its own history - it began with the withdrawal access to many of Ben Gurion's papers
Wonder how they'll deal with the fact that Netunyahu has been cautioned by the police for illegally accepting money
Interesting days!!
How are we doing with those denials of Ben Gurion's statement Keith?   
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:08 AM

A classically-confected non sequitur here from struggling Keith:

"The settlements have been the main issue of contention by the Palestinians for years.
Numerous polls have shown clearly that US public opinion is strongly against the Palestinians."

From Greg's NYT link:

Steven M. Cohen, a research professor at Hebrew Union College and a consultant to a recent Pew study of American Jews, said that Mr. Kerry's speech represents the viewpoints of most American Jews. "On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/american-jews-john-kerry-israel.html


Reminds me of a quote from John Seymour's book that I've had occasion to mention twice in 24 hours, Bring Me My Bow:

The average English working man at the start of Hitler's war might not have had much time for the Jews but by God he was not going to see them being herded into the gas chambers.

Working people in east London might have been "against the Jews" but they came out in force to see off the army and police who were protecting the Blackshirts. You can be "against the Palestinians" but you can at the same time be revolted by the way they have their good land forcibly usurped for someone else's luxury villages. Your world view is simplistic, distorted and delusional, Keith, but the only person you're deluding is yourself. I doubt that even your fellow far-right travellers here aren't fooled.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 05:06 AM

"Yes they do. "
No they don't - produce a single disclaimer Keith
This is, to borrow your own phrase, "made up Keith shit"
If anybody, apart from you, disputes it, produce than doing so.
Mad as a bag of cats
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 04:56 AM

Jim,
Nobody disputes that Ben Gurion said what he said - only you

Yes they do. You will not find that quote on any reputable site.

Steve,
1. The will of the US people apropos of settlements has not been tested by plebiscite but what evidence there is suggests that they disapprove in large numbers, very likely by a sizeable majority, of Israel's settlement expansion.

The settlements have been the main issue of contention by the Palestinians for years.
Numerous polls have shown clearly that US public opinion is strongly against the Palestinians.
Once again, I was right and you were wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 01:46 PM

We are getting classic Keith wriggling and squirming in this thread. He will never admit the truth. What a way to run your life.

1. The will of the US people apropos of settlements has not been tested by plebiscite but what evidence there is suggests that they disapprove in large numbers, very likely by a sizeable majority, of Israel's settlement expansion. See Greg's link.

2. In any case, presidents are not elected to carry out "the will of the people" (as if there is any such thing) like sheep. They are leaders, there to lead, expected to be far more expert in foreign affairs and with far more access to intelligence than ordinary citizens and to have far more detailed dealings with foreign leaders. They are not delegates. President Obama is not Pontius Pilate. We call this "democracy," Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:54 PM

"Goldman was a critic of the Israeli government and therefor Ben-Gurion according to your own link."
So what - so are millions of other Jews - then and now - does that make them all liars as you have always claimed?
Nobody disputes that Ben Gurion said what he said - only you
Some apologist have said he meant something else - YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE IN MY EXPERIANCE TO HAVE CLAIMED HE TOLD LIES - LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANYBODY, IF NOT, YOU ARE MAKING THINGS UP TO DEFEND ISRAEL - NOTHING NEW THERE
I ask again - who else has accused this veteran Zionist of lying
Failure to answer is answer itself - none - it is all your own work.
And you were given a dozen or so more quotes from Israeli establishment figures - can we assume you challenge none of them?
And you call me a fanatic - you are insane.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:44 PM

Progress at last ............ Sadiq Khan has now gone from Pakistani to Muslim ................

although I suspect both are terms of derision in some twisted minds.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:39 PM

1500.
Greg, sanity is the opposite of madness (insanity).
Clear now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:35 PM

Keith, and the sooner you accept it the better it will be for your sanity.

Sanity? Errrr...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:28 PM

You lied in your teeth when you said that Obama was going against the will of the people in abstaining from a vote which was on SETTLEMENTS.


No. I said that failing to use the veto was against the will of the people.
He no longer cares about the will of the people, but when he did he used the veto on the issue of settlements and everything else to do with Israel.

The poll results show that the Palestinians have little support among the American people. What makes you think they support them over settlements? The hard evidence is that they do not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:19 PM

Jim,
Goldman was a critic of the Israeli government and therefor Ben-Gurion according to your own link.
His claim contradicts every known statement by Ben Gurion on the subject.
He alone claims that Ben-Gurion said it, and he waited twenty years until BG was safely dead to claim it.

If your case relies on such "evidence" it is too weak to even consider.

Compare that with your disbelief that anti-Semitism is a serious problem for Labour.
I quoted publicly made statements from the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, the (Labour, Muslim) Mayor of London, the entire NEC and others saying it is, yet you deny it!!!

Why do you believe your man without question but refuse to believe all those??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:13 PM

Keith, old bean, the UN resolution that you took exception to was about SETTLEMENTS. Greg's information on people's attitudes was about SETTLEMENTS. You lied in your teeth when you said that Obama was going against the will of the people in abstaining from a vote which was on SETTLEMENTS. Stop trying to pretend otherwise to in order to shift the goalposts to make it about Israel in general. None of us are trying to pretend that the people of the US don't support Israel. Even I support Israel, Keith. But I do not support the existence or expansion of SETTLEMENTS. I know this is the sort of thing you always do, but you really have lost this round, Keith, and the sooner you accept it the better it will be for your sanity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:06 PM

"Who? How"
You know bloody well who - you dishonest little man
Nahum Goldman - the man you have been calling a liar over the "stolen land" quote
Is there not a shred of honesty and self-respect in you
You call him a liar, suggest he is an enemy of Israel and say he made up the quote
This really is a single handed exercise on your part - there is not a shred of evidence to back your fanatical claims up
You are mad
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:00 PM

Guardian 2012.
"Americans line up solidly behind President Obama in their support for Israel"
(So now he does not need their votes he has betrayed them)
"A new poll from CNN/ORC demonstrates that the president represents the majority position in the US: 57% of Americans believe that Israel is justified in "taking military action against Hamas and the Palestinians in the area known as Gaza", while only 25% feel it is unjustified.
Americans side evenly more heavily with Israel on the broader issue of the Israeli/Palestinian issue at large: 59% of Americans say their sympathies lie more with Israel, as opposed to just 13% who say their sympathies are more with the Palestinians.
There are some who argue that President Obama and the American government are either too supportive or not supportive enough of Israel, but the polling says Obama is striking the right balance. A Pew Research poll from earlier this year found that 46% of Americans believe US support for Israel is "about right"; 22% say America is too supportive, and a nearly equal percentage, 20%, say America is not supportive enough."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/us-public-opinion-israel-palestine-gaza

So I did not lie Steve.
As ever, I was right and you were wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 11:50 AM

This is from the Jewish Virtual Library, but I am sure you will not dispute the poll figures given.
OK Greg?
OK Steve?

The best indication of Americans' attitude toward Israel is found in the response to the most consistently asked question about the Middle East: "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?" The organization that has conducted the most surveys is Gallup. In the most recent poll, reported by Gallup in February 2016, 62% sympathized with Israel, just below 2013's all-time high of 64%. This exceeds the level of support (56%) Israel enjoyed after the 1967 war, when many people mistakenly believe that Israel was overwhelmingly popular. Meanwhile, only 15% expressed support for the Palestinians.
In recent years Gallup has noted that many Americans have moved from "no preference" into the pro-Israeli column. Even when support for Israel dips, as occurred during Operation Protective Edge (July 8-August 26, 2014), when the NBC/WSJ and Pew polls found a decline in support to 46% and 51%, respectively, support for the Palestinians does not increase (it was 14% in both polls). Moreover, support for Israel inevitably bounces back as evident from the 2015 polls.
In 87 Gallup polls going back to 1967, Israel has had the support of an average of 48% of the American people compared to 12% for the Arab states/Palestinians. The results are similar (48%-12%) when all 251 polls asking similar questions are included. Americans have slightly more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Arab states, but the results of polls asking respondents to choose between Israel and the Palestinians have not differed significantly from the other surveys.
Overall, support for Israel has been on the upswing since 1967. In the 1970s, the average level of support for Israel was 44%, in the 1980s and 1990s, it was 47%, including the record highs during the Gulf War. Since 2000, support for Israel is averaging 53%. In the 46 polls conducted during President Obama's term from multiple sources, support for Israel has soared to an average 55%, continuing an upward trend since the 1980s, while sympathy for the Palestinians has sunk to 12%, continuing a downward spiral that also began in the 1980s. On average, in all polls, Israel is favored by more than 4 to 1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 11:41 AM

Jim,
Now you are calling him a liar

Who? How?

Steve, if it is not the will of the people, why has every administration done it on every occasion since Israel began?
Explain why it is a lie to say that.
There is nothing in Greg's post that suggests otherwise.

I do not lie Steve. You lie about me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 10:21 AM

Cheers, Greg. So you lied, Keith. You keep asking us to show that you lie. Well there you are, old son. "Will of the people" my arse. Unsubstantiated, uncalled for, unjustified, unsupportable, untrue. A great big Keith porky! Yee-hah! Keith's made-up shit! You lose!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 09:54 AM

The "will of the people" in the US apropos of Israel has never been tested...

There is some pretty good preliminary data, Steve- see 30 Dec 16 - 10:13 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 09:51 AM

"I pointed out that even if true he was just giving the Arab view."
Now you are calling him a liar - do you have anybody else making such a claim - no thought not !!!
Mad as a ****** hatter
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 08:57 AM

Labour Party's position in the polls is now so "awful" that even Corbyn's oldest and most loyal supporter has turned against him.

Et tu McCluskey?
Yes mate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38487571


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 08:52 AM

Jim,
When you first put this up, you claimed it was said in a broadcast speech!

I pointed out that even if true he was just giving the Arab view.
I also pointed out that it was the claim of one person only, and not made until twenty years after the supposed event!
He was an "adversary" of Ben-Gurion and even your own link says "he was a critic of official Israeli policies."

So a most unreliable source, and what we know for a fact that Ben-Gurion said contradicts Goldman's unlikely claim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 08:27 AM

Keith
Your attitude to this historical statement has now reached the stage of historical insanity
When I first put it up you accepted it but tried to give it a different meaning to what he actually said – he was paraphrasing what the Arabs would say.
Now, you are calling a leading Zionist, totally respected by modern Israel and an undisputed leading light in Zionism – a liar.
Your defence of this shower of murderous thugs has driven you mad.
Who elsew calls this man a liar
Feckin' mad!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 07:26 AM

Steve,
I know how annoyed you must feel as an apologist for that rotten regime in Israel.

I am not. All I have ever done is to put their side of the story.
What is your objection to that?
Is it because their version is much more believable than the propaganda you spout, and is indeed believed by all decent democratic governments?
They may not approve the settlements, but they know there are no massacres, atrocities or war crimes.

There is no policy in either party's constitution that states that all UN resolutions concerning criticism of Israel must be vetoed.

No. They have just always done it.
Why? Because the people would kick them out of office if they did not.
Why else would they?

. Things didn't go your way so you set about demonising perfectly legitimate government actions and calling the president you now hate a dead duck

I do not hate Obama at all. A good man. Dead or lame duck is a term usually applied to outgoing Presidents.
Perfectly legitimate? Not illegal maybe. Previous Presidents have worked hard for a smooth handover not because they are legally obliged to, but for the good of the country.
Obama chooses to behave differently.

It's about time you stopped making things up as you go along

I have made nothing up, and I do not lie.
Unless you can quote an example, you are back to smears and personal abuse. That really is "disgraceful and disreputable."

Jim,
- you have the documented statement from an impeccable source

Not true Jim. He was no friend of Ben-Gurion. He was an opponent.
He is the only person in the world who claims to have heard it, but only twenty years later!

It is a completely unconfirmed claim by one man with a grudge, and it is contradicted by all confirmed statements.

If that is the kind of "evidence" you rely on, it proves you have no case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 06:26 AM

"No. It is widely used by enemies of Israel to falsely represent Israeli history, as you have just done again."
Prove it Keith - you have the documented statement from an impeccable source
""he(Goldman) was a profound critic of official Israeli policies.""
He was for the Jewish people not the Isreali regime - so he is a liar.
That seems to be how it works for your twisted mind.
All you give in return are denials
Every statement I put up is sources - all sum up the Israeli regime's attitude to the Palestinians, you choose to deny one and ignore the rest.
" You have to trawl the dregs of the internet to find anything at all."
The "dregs" include Jews, Israelis and their press - you expose your dedicated bigotry and antisemitism every time you post
The importance is not a single statement but the overall attitude.
Not playing that game any more.
Maybe you have decides to come out of the closet for the new Year and totally abandon you pretence of concern for the Jewish People!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 05:53 AM

More lies. The "will of the people" in the US apropos of Israel has never been tested via plebiscite so don't talk gibberish. There is no policy in either party's constitution that states that all UN resolutions concerning criticism of Israel must be vetoed. In abstaining in the vote the US representatives at the UN were in breach neither of any official US government policy nor of any express Democratic Party policy. Neither the US at the UN nor Obama has put a foot wrong constitutionally. Things didn't go your way so you set about demonising perfectly legitimate government actions and calling the president you now hate a dead duck. Too bad. It's about time you stopped making things up as you go along. People like you bring this forum into disrepute by persistently lying so that we have to keep correcting you instead of getting on with civil debate. Your behaviour is disgraceful and disreputable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 05:03 AM

Steve,
I should also like to remind you that the US did not vote in favour of the UN resolution.

No need to remind me of anything. I should like to remind you that the policy of every Democrat and Republican administrations for the last 70 years has been to use the veto to protect Israel because that is the will of the people. This dead duck President has shown his contempt for the people who disobeyed his voting instructions and whose vote he no longer needs.

Until then he has the same full mandate to carry out whatever legal acts a US president is entitled to carry out as he has had for the last eight years. President-elect Trump's mandate does not kick in until his inauguration. That's the way it works.


No it is not. All previous outgoing Presidents have worked with their replacement for a smooth handover, for the sake of the nation.
No previous President has behaved like this.

Jim,
It is a well known quote, widely available and the source, which I have also linked to, is impeccable.

No. It is widely used by enemies of Israel to falsely represent Israeli history, as you have just done again.

Only one person in the world claims to have heard him say it, so it is not authenticated at all, and it contradicts what he said in authenticated statements.
Goldman kept quiet about it for twenty years until Ben-Gurion was safely dead. That is why no respectable publications give it any credence at all. Just anti Israel propaganda sites.
From your link,
"he(Goldman) was a profound critic of official Israeli policies."

Your reliance on such discredited evidence shows just how weak your case is. You have to trawl the dregs of the internet to find anything at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM

Nice to have Trump described as a victim
A new Year brings something new
A guid New Year to nearly all of you
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 06:55 PM

Trump IS a huge mess, Ake - he could start by cleaning himself up, as well as his his cabinet of reprobates.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

Er, what "change of policy" on Israel would that be, then?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:08 PM

Obama was elected to be president until the next president is inaugurated. That is some weeks away. Until then he has the same full mandate to carry out whatever legal acts a US president is entitled to carry out as he has had for the last eight years. President-elect Trump's mandate does not kick in until his inauguration. That's the way it works. All the rest is the politics of democracy, Keith, which you purport to be a staunch defender of. I'm really happy to be able to explain this extremely elementary stuff to you, Keith, really I am. I should also like to remind you that the US did not vote in favour of the UN resolution. Gosh, I know how annoyed you must feel as an apologist for that rotten regime in Israel. But, in this case, in spite of your whingeing, no-one has done anything wrong. So tuff titty, Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 03:53 PM

It seems to me that the Democrats are making as much mischief as possible before they are turfed out of office, leaving a huge mess for Mr Trump to inherit.

The allegations regarding Russia and the change of policy on Israel are designed for that purpose and no other.

This is the man who met Mr Trump after the election and promised to do everything he could to make the change over as easy as possible.
"It's just the American way".......aye right!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 03:05 PM

"What is the evidence that he said it Jim?"
It is a well known quote, widely available and the source, which I have also linked to, is impeccable.
It is dishonest to question it (you have actually denied it in the past) without proof - if it is inaccurate it is your job to disprove it.
Now what are you saying - he didn't say it, he didn't mean it - it has been made up by a leading Zionist - what?
Now - your proof - or do we have to take the word of the Israelis again - I have no reason to disbelieve it to be genuine - why do you question it ?
Once more you call me dishonest, yet you provide no proof of anything you claim and you admit you are only putting the other side - the claims of a war criminal.
You are going to end this year as you began it - defending atrocities and lying
Nothing new under the sun.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 02:10 PM

Steve,
Obama is the current president and he has the same mandate as he's had for the last eight years. This really isn't hard to grasp, Keith.

I grasp it Steve, but his Party just lost the election.
He has no genuine mandate from the people any more.
Just a technicality.
Why has he always used the veto to protect Israel for the last eight years and only changed that policy now?
Because he will never need the people's vote again so up them.
Revenge served cold.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 02:04 PM

Jim,
Going to break a N Y resolution Keith
Prove it
There, that's an end to it
He said theuy stole the land


What is the evidence that he said it Jim?
Only the word of someone, who was no friend of his, that he once said it to him alone, with no other witness, and he never mentioned it for twenty years, by which time Ben-Gurion was dead and could not deny it.

On the strength of that you assert that it was a fact and post it without any reservation or disclaimer.
You are a dishonest man Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 01:52 PM

Yeah - read them all - none of those people said any of them things - all made up
All the quotes are well known and sourced - none are challenged in any of the links, all the links are untraceable but obviously pro Israeli regime at a time when Israel is spending billions on propaganda
Who is a girl to believe?
Is that the best you could com up with?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 12:55 PM

The anti Israel hate sites are full of them as Carroll well knows.

Fake Zionist Quotes

Exposing Fake Zionist Quotes

More Falsified Ben Gurion Quotes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 12:51 PM

'Sall right Steve
Helps to digest all the stodgy Christmas pud.
God Jul!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 12:39 PM

"Waste of time Steve - if it puts Israel in a bad light it is either a lie or wrong
Don't you understand the David Irving school of history?"

Damn. Sorry, Jim, I forgot. Must be the fug of all this festive cheer. 🍷🍷🍷😉


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

Some more examples of not stealing land - lies or anti-semitism or what?
Jim Carroll

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- Moshe Dayan, April 1969, Ha'aretz; quoted in Edward Said, 'Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims', Social Text, Volume 1, 1979, 7-58.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971                
                
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)                
                
"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
                
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.        
                 
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 11:30 AM

SOURCE of DAVID BEN GURION QUOTE - a rabid antisemitic Jew Hating Anti Israel liar, no doubt!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM

Waste of time Steve - if it puts Israel in a bad light it is either a lie or wrong
Don't you understand the David Irving school of history?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM

"It is just that, up until now, none ever has taken advantage of that window of un-mandated opportunity."

Obama is the current president and he has the same mandate as he's had for the last eight years. This really isn't hard to grasp, Keith.

"As you say, it is only an unwritten rule that has been violated."

Don't lie, please. I said that there is no unwritten rule. 30 Dec, 06.28pm. Nothing has been violated. You are behaving in an extremely undemocratic way. You are making up rules that do not exist in the US constitution because you disagree with the US's refusing to hold back from criticising the Israeli regime. Sour grapes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 10:17 AM

"Your Ben Gurion quote is unlikely to be true,"
Going to break a N Y resolution Keith
Prove it
There, that's an end to it
He said theuy stole the land
The maps say they stole the land
Human rights organisations say they stole the land
Jews say they stole the land
The United Nations has now been able to say they stole the land now the U.S. veto has been removed
They stole the land - simple as that
"that's the kind of lie Jew haters.... "
Personally, I'd rather take their word rather than a pair of rabid, anti-Semitic, serial atrocity deniers any day.
Why not try a New Year resolution yourself and show a little common sense, compassion and humanity, instead of supporting mass murder and ethnic cleansing by a fascist state?
Jim Carroll
Too much to expect at this stage, I suppose


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 09:28 AM

You're right Keith, that's the kind of lie Jew haters cling to to justify their hatred, right up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 09:14 AM

Jim,
Your Ben Gurion quote is unlikely to be true, as you well know because I have explained it to you many times before.
It is dishonest to post it as if it was accepted.

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural, we have taken their country." In fact, according to Nahum Goldmann, Ben-Gurion allegedly said this to him. Goldmann was an adversary of Ben-Gurion, and he came out with this alleged quote, verbatim, in his book published two decades later (The Jewish Paradox, 1978), five years after Ben-Gurion died. There was no recording of the quote, and Ben-Gurion was no longer around to dispute it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 09:06 AM

Thanks Steve, but I was aware of the peculiar US system of changing administrations.
It gives the opportunity for an outgoing president to do something that his people do not want because he will never need their votes again.
It is just that, up until now, none ever has taken advantage of that window of un-mandated opportunity.
As you say, it is only an unwritten rule that has been violated.

Sadly, a new precedent has been set and I fear what Trump may do with it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 08:55 AM

"Of course Israel has not stolen any land from anybody that is just your typical anti-Semitic trope."
Then the Father of Israel was an antisemite
"I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
David Ben Gurion
Ben Gurion also insisted that the Jews did not wish to drive the Arabs from their land
We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.
The mindless repetition of "antisemitism" doesn't get away from the fact that the Arab lands have been reduced to little more than ghettos
Israel continues to steal land and ETHNICALLY CLEANSE the Palestinians and Bedouins and in order to do so, their regimes have turned Israel into a FASCIST STATE
They have done more to dewstroy the Jewish dream than the Nazis could ever have done.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM

Err, Keith, US presidents are elected for a full four-year term. Obama is the president and Trump is not. He will not be the "outgoing president" until Trump is inaugurated. There has been no change of policy. It is not written down anywhere that the US has a policy of automatically vetoing resolutions on Israel. Tradition does not equal policy does not equal mandate and we should applaud Obama for recognising that. Takes courage, actually. There is no express mandate to treat Israel in the same way whatever happens. The trouble with you, Keith, is that you cheerfully embrace democracy when things are going your way but when things look a little adverse, though no less democratic, you come out with a pack of lies. Sour grapes with knobs on sums you up nicely.

So Farage won the popular vote. Can't argue with that statistic. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million. Hardly the "rejection" you lyingly claimed in earlier posts. Can't argue with that statistic. She was nobbled by an electoral college system that sorely needs sorting out. Let's hear you arguing with that. And a bit less of your "rules are rules" guff. It's a debating forum, remember?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 08:21 AM

Of course Israel has not stolen any land from anybody that is just your typical anti-Semitic trope.

Shimon Klein nails the reasons why there is no peace agreement and none forthcoming in the foreseeable future:

Kerry failed to enlarge on the reasons why negotiations failed.There are no partners for peace negotiations. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas has its hands tied by Hamas, who is against any form of negotiation with Israel. They view Israel as occupied territory since its establishment. If Abbas signs a peace treaty with Israel it will be "off with his head" as in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,

Apart from that, all that Abbas can do is to utter hostile rhetoric against Israel on its intransigence. By doing this, he can drum up support against Israel and thus save his own skin by not signing any peace treaty with Israel.

Meanwhile both Hamas and the PA are raking in the cash from foreign donations for the Palestinians into their leaderships' foreign bank accounts. They plead poverty blaming Israel for its intransigence and lack of progress while they themselves are becoming wealthy under the occupation. This is their livelihood. The eternal negotiator since the Madrid Conference of 1991, Saeb Erekat, is a professional negotiator and not doing badly out of it financially.

John Kerry seems to be devoid of reality and this reflects in his departure speech. He said the right things that are true and really indisputable. He condemned terror in general terms as if it's the settlements that promote it.

Even if there were no settlements in the occupied territory as was the case prior to the June 1967 War, an excuse will be found as it was then to destroy Israel. The problem between Israel and the Palestinians is existential. One needs to read the hate propaganda against Israel even before the Six Day War of 1967 to understand that. The Palestinian education system is full of anti-Israel hate as well as being anti-Semitic. The conflict is not only about land but about religion as well. In this respect, Daesh and Hamas share similar goals. It is unfortunate that Kerry did not touch on this subject in his speech as it really is the root course of the conflict. The settlements in the occupied territories is an added factor of course but the basic hate for Israel even existed before the occupation.


Conflicts in the Middle East


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 07:55 AM

Fairy nuff. Still looks to me like stuff the Obama does that fits in with tarring the Labour party as bad is deemed acceptable yet when he does something that the US should have done years ago he is demonised. But, as you know, that is just a whim from an empty head...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 07:53 AM

Steve,
The US electorate did not reject Clinton.

Under the rules and the system accepted by all parties, Clinton lost the US election and Brexit won the UK referendum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 07:48 AM

Dave,
So, to take me on to page 30 in this discussion, can I ask why it is OK for Obama to have a go at the British Labour party yet, when he refuses to veto a resolution about Israel, he is breaking 'an unwritten rule'?
Just wondering like...


He was expressing his personal opinions about Labour and making comparisons with his own Party. Anyone is entitled to do that.

The other thing was a dramatic and contentious change in US government policy from an outgoing President with no mandate to make such a change.

UK government has criticised the old administration over this.

"Theresa May rebukes US for 'inappropriate' attack on Israel "

"We do not… believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex," Mrs May's spokesman said.
"And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/29/theresa-may-rebukes-us-attack-israel/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM

All the "peace proposals" that have been rejected by the Palestinians have entailed maintaining the situation where land stolen by Israel remains in Israeli hands and those millions of exiles stay exiled.
There has never been a situation in modern history where those driven out by invaders should remain exiled and those who drove them out should retain their property.
Registered Palestinian refugees are calculated at 5 million; those not registered are incalculable.
No sensible Government would accept that position
SOME ****** AGREEMENT!!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:30 PM

So tell us in words (of one syllable if you like) what those objectionable principles are, bobad.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:28 PM

There is no unwritten rule. Obama acted properly within his powers as the elected president. The US electorate did not reject Clinton. Two of Keith's delusions. You loved it when the popular vote won the referendum, Keith. You won't accept that Clinton won the popular vote by a country mile though, will you, Keith? Where's Teribus with his sauce for the goose when you need him? 😂😂😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:19 PM

It is interesting that Kerry's principles for a peace agreement are pretty much what has been proposed several times and soundly rejected by the "Palestinian" leadership:

Kerry did not break new ground it is not possible for us to recognize a Jewish state

Riyad al-Maliki, "Palestinian" foreign minister.


Kerry's principles are not something we could agree with

Mustafa Barghouti, PLO Executive Committee member.

The Obama administration is totally clueless about the "Palestinian" leadership demands for statehood.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:52 PM

So, to take me on to page 30 in this discussion, can I ask why it is OK for Obama to have a go at the British Labour party yet, when he refuses to veto a resolution about Israel, he is breaking 'an unwritten rule'?

Just wondering like...

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

Well you see, bobad, yer man in the link fails to realise that THE problem in the Middle East is not "Israel" but the fact that the Israeli regime is happy to be the proxy West in the region and more than happy to have a massive amount of US military and political aid. The upshot is that the Russians have adopted Islamist states in the region as their proxy. The place is a powder keg, not least because Israel has nukes, and Israel is in the thick of it. There will be no peace in the region until the Israeli regime is brought to heel, made to realise that Israel is a tiny country in a diverse region of very big neighbours. The UN has targeted Israel time and time again simply because the US has protected Israel from condemnation time and time again. Open your eyes. And I'd point out to you that yer man is in vehement disagreement with both you and Keith:

"In truth, I believe Israeli settlements to be illegal under international law, built on occupied land, and that Netanyahu has been uncooperative while in office..."

He is also deluded about a future Palestinian state which contains Israeli settlements. The settlements are on the best land and their occupants would be by far the wealthiest in the new state. Anyone who thinks that is viable, from either side of the argument, is in cloud cuckoo land. The region is heading inexorably for a single state. Ultimately, as I heard someone saying today, the choice for Israel will then be either to give up democracy or give up being a Jewish state. Israel's hubris-filled leaders are being incredibly short-sighted. A two-state solution requires settlement land to be handed back. That's the reality whatever your personal ideology tells you. And reality also dictates that it will never happen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 03:04 PM

"I defy you to quote me doing it."
You said the Jewish members of Parliament would not take their accusations further because of the love for their party
I've put this up twice already and have referred to it at least ten times - you have never denied it - you are not really going to start now, are you?
"Why will you not discuss the issues instead of just attacking me?"
I must have put up several dozen links, all pertaining to our argument - those you haven't dismissed as propaganda you have ignored
You, in return, have put up nothing.
I don't lie - you have never proven a lie by me - it has become your standard defence, just as Israel's has become "antisemitism"
You are a very stupid man to deny something that you have put up for all to see.
You are a dishonest, reactionary bore
I really do think we have finished here (unless, of course, you would like to put up proof of the Antisemitism you have claimed)
Go live with your Christian concience Keith - I'm damned if I could
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:31 PM

Jim,
you are the only one to have openly stereotyped Jews in an antisemitic manner - the only one - I defy youto produce another example.

I defy you to quote me doing it.
Like everything else you accuse me of, just another lie.

Why will you not discuss the issues instead of just attacking me?
Because you can't Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:31 PM

There are horrific injustices all over the world, including and especially in the Muslim world, but those are ignored by an institution obsessed with Israel.

Why Did Obama Pander to the UN's Stunning Anti-Israel Bias?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 10:13 AM

Yo, Bubo!! Apparently the majoity of U.S. Jews are serlf-hating anti-semites by your definition!

***

"There's a very clear values clash going on," said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T'ruah, a rabbinical human rights organization. "On the one hand, we have a small but vocal minority of American Jews who believe that supporting Israel means supporting the right-wing agenda, the current government. And on the other, there is a larger percentage of American Jews who are committed to Israel and committed to democracy and want to see it as a safe place that reflects our values."

"These days the right wing has a louder voice in Israel, and, in some ways, it also has a louder voice in America, because the people who are most actively and publicly Jewish, sectarian Jewish, share the right wing point of view, and are very pro-settlement," said Samuel Heilman, a sociology professor of at Queens College specializing in Jewish life. "But it's not the mainstream point of view."

Steven M. Cohen, a research professor at Hebrew Union College and a consultant to a recent Pew study of American Jews, said that Mr. Kerry's speech represents the viewpoints of most American Jews. "On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/american-jews-john-kerry-israel.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

By the way,
Will you please stop saying I do not want to know the other side of the story
I grew up in a household that was devoted to the dream of Israel (I know Mike G. M. grew up with the same dream)
Both of us came to the same conclusion that what has happened under various right-wing regimes has destroyed that dream.
Israel has fallen into the hands of people who are behaving just like those who sent six million Jews to the gas-chambers.
The basic difference between you and me is that your support is for those people while mine is for the welfare of the Jewish people as a whole.
I don't believe in the "self-haring Jew" slogan Israel has adopted   - you accused me of inventing it – now you just ignore it
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:39 AM

"Why do you not want to have their side of the story given Jim?"
I have read their side of the story - it sums up as "we didn't do it"
You do not give their side of the story - you dismiss everything that contradicts what they say as "propaganda"
That is not debate - it's stonewalling.
"You accuse us of antisemitism,"
At one time or another, you, Bobad and Teribs have accused me and others of antisemitism, yet you are the only one to have openly stereotyped Jews in an antisemitic manner - the only one - I defy youto produce another example.
Jewish plots of the type that accuse Jews of keeping silent over the type of antisemitism that is claimed of being carried out by Labour Party members is comparable to the Nationalist Socialists of Germany's depiction of the Jews as a secretive threat to their country - that is how you have described Jewish parliamentarians - suppressing the facts of antisemitism.
You choose to put the well-being of the Israeli regime above that of the Jewish people as a whole.
I don't tell lies Keith and I'm sick and tired of being accused of doing so by two people whose track record of dishonesty is breathtaking.
Debate decently or stay away - you wreck threads in your desire to say "You lose, I win" - that is not what this forum is about
If you think this is lie - go count the numbert of times you have said it.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM

"I am not. I just put there side of the story."
What's the difference?


Why do you not want to have their side of the story given Jim?
Because it is far more believable than all that stuff you find on propaganda sites!
Who believes all that stuff. Not any decent democratic government however much they disapprove of the settlements.
Just some of the most despicable regimes in the world.

You accuse us of antisemitism,

No. I merely pointed out that some of your statements are anti-Semitic by the accepted definition.

Once again, everything you say about me in this latest, vile, personal attack is a lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 07:15 AM

"I am not. I just put there side of the story."
What's the difference?
You have consistenly denied every scrap of evidence of their crimes, when you were presented with dozens of links to evidence - from Human Rights organisations, from Jewish Groups, from newspapers like Haaretz and even the Times of Israel, you dismissed them as "propaganda"
You are an arch supporter of State Terrorism
You accuse us of antisemitism, yet you blame British Jewish politicians of refusing to speak publicly on antisemitism "for the love of their party - 'Jewish plots' such as you claim exists in Britain ate typical of antisemitism.
Your interest has always been the extremist - on its way to being a FASCIST regime,
PART TWO
You are happy to vilify Jews who don't share your affection for this extremist state
Your blind faith in these thugs has become legendary on this forum.
And now you are besmearing a man who is probably the most liberally fair man to have ever served as head of a Western state because he thinks that Israel should stop stealing the land one of Israel's early leaders admitted to stealing:
Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?.
You are really prepared to wade through sewers for these people
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 04:45 AM

Obama told the electorate to vote for Clinton.
He told them it was "her turn" to be President.
He told them Trump did not have what it takes to be president.
The electorate rejected all that and elected Trump instead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:04 PM

The electorate rejected Trump by three million votes. Not one sinlgle vote was cast against Obama. He wasn't on the ballot psper.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM

...their side..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 02:38 PM

Steve,
Your attitude as an apologist for the extreme right-wing regime in Israel is just sour grapes.

I am not. I just put there side of the story.
What is wrong with that?

And what's this nonsense about his being rejected by the electorate? Last I heard, Obama wasn't on the ballot paper

Obama told the electorate to vote for Clinton.
He told them it was "her turn."
He told them Trump did not have what it takes.
The electorate rejected him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:48 PM

A shameful act by a petulant president who wouldn't stop the genocide in Syria but sees fit, in a final act of revenge against Netanyahu and Trump, to allow to pass, by a notoriously anti-Israel UN, a resolution to deny Jews houses on their ancestral land. Here's what the hypocrite had to say on the issue of UN resolutions against Israel during his previous re-election campaign:

Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us --- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM

And what's this nonsense about his being rejected by the electorate? Last I heard, Obama wasn't on the ballot paper. 😂😂😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:43 PM

The controversial thing was the routine and unconditional veto that the US, which does not even value the UN, gifted Israel every time there was condemnation from the rest of the UN. That controversy has now been resolved, not once and for all obviously, but it's the right move. Morally right, Keith. Morally right and bloody overdue. Your attitude as an apologist for the extreme right-wing regime in Israel is just sour grapes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:41 PM

Allying toerags except you and Israel eh
I agree about the u.S.being the only one to change its mind - the rest of the civilised world has always thought Israel shit, which is why they nave NEVER defended her
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:48 PM


Err, Keith, he hasn't instigated anything controversial.


Of course he has, silly!
Have you not listened to any world news recently?

This is the first time USA, including under Obama, has failed to use its veto to protect Israel.
A highly controversial policy instigated by an outgoing President rejected by his electorate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:44 PM

Jim,

So not only are you declaring for Trump (good to know) but you are condemning all the other democratic countries of the same cynical opportunism?


No.
USA is the only country that has changed its view on this, and outgoing Presidents are not supposed to do that.
How does saying that make me "declaring for Trump?"
Just another lie about me Jim.

It may be an unwritten rule that outgoing Presidents do not behave like that, but none previously has.

like your Labour antisemitism, it doesn't exist

According to the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan, the leader of the Scottish party and many others, it does exist Jim.
Why would anyone take you seriously against all that Jim?
You make yourself ridiculous.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:36 PM

Err, Keith, he hasn't instigated anything controversial. He's made things LESS controversial by finally aligning his country with the rest of international opinion about settlements at long last. I'm really glad that he's removed that particular controversy and only sorry that he didn't do it earlier.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:28 PM

"In short I view it as cynical opportunism."
So not only are you declaring for Trump (good to know) but you are condemning all the other democratic countries of the same cynical opportunism?
Hope you have the same respect for all the other things Trump promised - as I have no doubt you do.
Can you show us the "unwritten law" - whoops, sorry, it hasn't been written, so, like your Labour antisemitism, it doesn't exist so a decent retiring President was able to do the right thing .
Sorry Keith
Your boat's well and truely sunk
And you call be obsessed!!!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

When Obama commented on the Brexit debate, you all thought it highly relevant!
This thread is a discussion about the Labour Party, and of course views expressed by the President of the USA on that subject are relevant.

Jim,
Care toi comment on Obama's refusal to veto Israel's condemnation in the U.N. - did he get that right or wrong?
No comment eh?


Yes, I am happy to comment Jim.
I think that he has broken an unwritten rule that after an election old Presidents to not instigate anything controversial, and/or against the views of the President elect.
I also think that before the election he would never have made a move so unpopular with the electorate.

In short I view it as cynical opportunism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM

Keith's Crusade appears to have hit rock bottom Steve
Want to see bet whether he says Obama is and expert on British politics and knows nothing of Israeli politics, or whether he chooses not to respond
I think the betting shops are open today!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:30 AM

Well said, Jim. Yes Keith. Obsessive in dragging up absolutely anything that you think could cast Labour in a negative light. Boring, Keith. You're yesterday's man. Just stick to defending Farage with your mates Teribus and Ache. You're on safe and cosy ground there. It is brilliant that Obama has finally stuck one on Netanyahu isn't it. A bit too little, a bit too late, but Trump had better be careful not to polarise US opinion if he really means it about Israel. I wonder whether he really cares. Or knows anything about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:16 AM

Ah - but did he mention or explain Labour's Antisemitism
You say you are not fanatical Anti-Labour yet you dredge up a comment by the President of the United States
Wonder what the Preident of Mongolia thinks?
Feckin' obsessive, I call it
Care toi comment on Obama's refusal to veto Israel's condemnation in the U.N. - did he get that right or wrong?
No comment eh?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:07 AM

Corbyn's leadership has been slated by President Obama.
"Jeremy Corbyn has been forced to defend his record after Barack Obama said he is further to the left than Bernie Sanders and as distant from centre ground politics as Donald Trump's Republicans.
Mr Obama indicated that Mr Corbyn had become Labour's leader after it "disintegrated" following election defeat and that the British party is still in a "very frail state".

"Mr Obama said he was not worried about the potential  "Corbynisation" of the Democrats in the wake of their defeat at the hands of Donald Trump."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-jeremy-corbyn-interview-labour-disintegrate-corbynisation-a7497011.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 10:20 AM

Your "friend" is deluded. There is no appetite on either side for a two-state solution and never has been. There has not ever been one minute's-worth of meaningful talks in that direction. The reason for that is that Israel never has to negotiate, never has to consider giving a single inch. Successive Israeli regimes and their supporters complain that the Arabs have missed opportunities to attain their state, yet it's they who constantly work against its possibility. The settlement expansion into occupied territory has the aim of breaking up the land that a separate state would require. In order to create that situation, Israel would need to give up the settlements, otherwise a contiguous tract of land would be near-impossible to achieve. The settlements are on the best land, and Israel will not give them up. The people who live in them would not want to be part of an Arab state in which they were by far the wealthiest citizens. The Arabs would be none too keen on that either. Have a little word in your "friend's" shell-like and tell him to get real.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:55 AM

I also note you did not respond to the link I placed, I wonder why.

Personally I have no particular axe to grind in this debate, there are many wrongs on both sides of the argument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM

My friend, Fred Maroun's take on the resolution:

When will the UNSC finally denounce Palestinian settlements in Israel?

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution, shamefully unopposed by the United States, and even more shamefully supported by the United Kingdom and France, denouncing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, known for much longer as Judea and Samaria.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, justified the U.S. position by saying that, "One has to make a choice between settlements and separation". This logic is mind-boggling. Why is the presence of Jews in what may become one day a Palestinian state an obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state? Wouldn't a Palestinian state be able to handle the presence of a minority of Jews?

The suggestion that settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are an obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state is particularly absurd considering that not a single Jew lived on those lands between 1948 and 1967 and yet no Palestinian state was created.

Although the UNSC will never admit it, we all know that the only reason there is no Palestinian state is because Arabs decided long ago that they would never take a step that would enshrine the existence of an Israeli state. Creating a Palestinian state next to Israel would be such a step.

Saying that "one has to make a choice between settlements and separation" is just as absurd as saying that the presence of Arabs in Israel is an obstacle to the existence of Israel. If the U.S. feels this way, why does it not introduce a resolution at the UNSC denouncing Palestinian presence in Israel? That would be a stupid resolution, but it would not be any more stupid than the resolution that the government of President Barack Obama refused to veto.

Such a resolution would of course be rejected, not only because the U.S. would not present it, but also because no one else would support it, and rightfully so. No one would support a resolution that forbids a minority from living on a land, especially a land where their ancestors have lived for generations. No one would support such an extreme case of ethnic cleansing. Or would they? After all, they just did exactly that!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:38 AM

but I think you will find your quote is somewhat selective.

It is not at all - it is you being selective in what you want to believe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:30 AM

Not at all Bobad, but I think you will find your quote is somewhat selective.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:26 AM

To quote from his speech: During the past ten years I have argued that we must never accept the bias against Israel within UN bodies

What part of that did you not understand or are you just lying because he says something that you don't want to admit exists?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM

He does not say that those resolutions, reports and conferences are erroneous merely that there are many of them.

DUH!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:02 AM

Your headline is not exactly what he says in his speech, is it.

He says there is a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and conferences criticising Israel. He does not say that those resolutions, reports and conferences are erroneous merely that there are many of them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM

Oh dear, oh dear ............... Is even the UN Anti-Semitic now?

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Admits UN Biased Against Israel


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:20 AM

If he is so inept I wonder why the right wing press are so intent on trying to destroy his reputation? Fear that he may move the country a little more to the left after all? If he was so useless I would have thought they would have welcomed him with open arms but I suspect that they think he may have something after all. Just my 2p.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 07:02 AM

Jeremy Corbyn a politician with marked anti-imperialist leanings.

Anybody told this dinosaur that it has been a long, long time since we had an empire. But this is the man who has a stated aim in clearing Trotsky's name and restoring his reputation to such an extent that he's left the Labour Party to navigate on autopilot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 05:15 AM

BDS SMEARS
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 04:52 AM

Sigh
If you care to go through the forum you will find that posters address numbers of people on a single posting - that is why I put up Keith's quote and replied to it
That is how it is done around here, please get used to it.
Best wishes to you too
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM

Your post : 23 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

Bit in red nothing to do with me. The top part is. Therefore the thread is mixed.

Anyway not going to argue the toss.

I wish you a happy Xmas and health, wealth and happiness for the new year.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:54 AM

INCIDENTALLY
Have a good one y'all, d'you hear
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:22 AM

Iains
Try moving up a posting and read what I have just written.
I put forward the point that Israel has now decared that all criticism of its policies towards Gaza are Antisemitic, and it is possible that this is the antisemitism the Labour Party is being accused of - in which case, there is no basis for those accusations - people, Civil Rights organisations, churches, humanists...... Jews, Israelis included - and non Jews alike, are appalled at the behavior of Israel, comparing it to that of the Nazis.
These attacks on Labour began within a matter of four weeks of Jeremy Corbyn announcing his intention to support the boycott of Israeli goods - a coincidence?
The accusations died down and no proof had been found of a major problem with antisemitism, but where renewed again when a Labour delegation, led by the vice-chairman of 'The Friends of Israel' returned from a visit there - another coincidence?
Israel is spending many millions in a propaganda campaign to combat the boycott B.D.S. - it is now recognised (again, within and without Israel, by Jews and non-Jews) that the accusations against Labour are part of that propaganda campaign and have been since Jeremy Corbyn made his announcement.
At no time has anybody proved a major problem, nor have they described the form that this antisemitism has taken.
The Israeli has had all the facts of the enquiries into antisemitism in the Labour party via leaked reports, yet they haven't specified what this antisemitism is.
We can only conclude that it is 'critiscism of Israel'
The only reason Israel hasn't been tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the International courts is that the United States has prevented charges being brought by enacting many United Nations vetoes.
"I think you are getting your threads confused"
I think you are nor reading what has been written
If you will look, I put up, in inverted commas, "Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave", which was a quote from Keith.
Any remarks I made in my posting regarding Israel were addressed to him, not you.
Try to keep up.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 01:54 AM

Oh dear, oh dear ............... Is even the UN Anti-Semitic now?


UN Ruling


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 03:07 PM

Jim

"Now - you said you had explained why The Jewish members of parliament did not go public by describing the antisemitism they had been subjected to on this thread
Can you link me to it please?"

I think you are getting your threads confused

I keep my vies on Israel strictly to myself. I do not discuss the subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:56 PM

"Your case is that they are all lying to destroy their party and further the aims of Israel!"
And to nail yet another of your lies
I actually said that Israel has moved the goalposts and declared that to criticise their policies is "Antisemitic"
Some Jews go along with that - if that is what the Labour Party is being accused of, we need to know - as far as I am concerned, that is a misinterpretation of the term antisemitic
Do not make up yet more lies - you have enough to answer for as it is.
Do you really want to celebrate the birthday of the baby Jesus with all these lies hanging over your head!!
Now - WHY DID THE JEWISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT NOT GO PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT KIND OF ANTISEMITISM THEY WERE BEING SUBJECTED TO?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

"Jim so sad you feel insulted."
Please don't be upset on my behalf - I live by the golden rule that says, before beeing insulted, always take into consideration the person insulting you.
I didn't say I felt insulted - I said you insulted me and then whinged about Dave (probably the least insulting person in this discussion insuting you.
From the first time we encountered each other, you have implied I am ignorant, or naive, ot believe anthing I am told, or fail to look at both sides of the argument..... in fact, a whole string of insults and talking down to (happy to dig them out for you if it will help jog your memory.
You insult and whinge about being insulted - which makes you a hypocrite and you use your insulting in place of responding to the points put before you (particularly about your support for Assad's crimes against humanity), which makes you dishonestly evasive.
I really have no problem insulting or being insulted by someone who behaves like that.
I have no recollection of calling you a misogynist - I don't even recall the subject coming up, so feel free to remind me and if I did so unjustly, I will apologise.
"Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave."
Then prove those reasons wrong by disproving them - simple as that
Now - you said you had explained why The Jewish members of parliament did not go public by describing the antisemitism they had been subjected to on this thread
Can you link me to it please?

Please don't tell me you already have - you haven't
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:05 PM

Iains - Not getting at you or Jim here. Honestly. But your last comment reminded me of something I say over and over again. It does not matter who started the fight. It is the one who ends it that will be seen as the better person. Who is it to be?

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:56 PM

Jim so sad you feel insulted. I feel insulted at being labelled a misogynist and Assad supporter. Do not label people erroneously and perhaps they would not feel the need to draw attention to your own shortcomings. You started this pathetic little game, perhaps you should stop.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM

Rag, you resort to personal abuse and lying smears because you can not defend your case intelligently.
You lose.

Jim,
You have ben told why they considered it serious - why will yopu not respond to that fact

Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave.
I believe they were being honest about what they see as a serious problem for their party.
Your case is that they are all lying to destroy their party and further the aims of Israel!
Do you not see how deranged that theory is Jim?
Do not expect anyone to take it seriously. Not even Steve and Dave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM

Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?.

Can't be arsed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

"Since trolling is the only counter argument you appear to offer. "
You have just whined about being insulted by Dave - the remark about my "trolling" is extremely insulting
Are you reserving the right to insult people for yourself?
"Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?."
Probably for the same reason you refuse to answer points put to you and try to bury them with waffle
A supporter of Assad's torture like yourself is very insultable
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:38 AM

D the G.
a splendid effort. I enjoyed reading your put down. A first class effort

Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:26 AM

" just quoted members, senior officials and the leadership."
You have ben told why they considered it serious - why will yopu not respond to that fact
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

There is so much wrong with your last post Iains that I don't know where to start. Firstly, Grieg's Troll king had a hall full of Trolls, Goblins and Gnomes (No, I wasn't there). The slide show in your link seems to pay far more attention to Tolkien's Moria which had a Dwarf king. Very poor attention to detail and lazy imagery. Secondly, trolling is not arguing with you, it is deliberately goading someone into an argument to provoke a reaction. Something that I have noticed far more from yourself than the others. Finally, neither Trolls, Dwarves nor Gnomes skip anywhere. If you are going to insult people make sure you get it right.

Thank you :-)

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:58 AM

For Steve and Jim

A little festive music. Since trolling is the only counter argument you appear to offer. Here is a little toon to skip along home to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLp_Hh6DKWc


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM

Whatever professor, you are not worth the time (and slight) effort.

You have been proven beyond any doubt, and on so many occasions, to be prejudiced, a racist, a liar, dishonest and utterly devoid of any integrity.

Bye Bye.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM

"No I have not."
Yes you have - and you deliberately distorted what was being said, or


If that is true, produce an example.
Good luck with that Jim!

The fact that you have never at any time produced examples or numbers of people hasn't stopped you from persisting in your claim

I HAVE NOT MADE ANY CLAIM!!
I just quoted members, senior officials and the leadership.
I do now believe them. Do you claim they all lie??

Did you not claim that the Jewish members refused to describe antisemitism because of the love they held for their party?

No. I said the reported it to the leadership of the Party to deal with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:15 AM

"No I have not."
Yes you have - and you deliberately distorted what was being said, or refused to accept the track records of the people making those claims in order to do so.
The fact that you have never at any time produced examples or numbers of people hasn't stopped you from persisting in your claim
You broke your arse trying to prove Labour had an antisemitism problem and wereonly able to produce people with their own agenda - anti Corbyn right-wingers or those who were part of the Anti BDS movement.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR PARTY - THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THE ACCUSATIONS THAT THEE WAS - THAT WAS ESQUIRED INTO AND DEALT WITH
YOU WILL NOW CONTINUE TO CLAIM THERE IS
(hope the bookies is open!!)
"No I have not. I"
Did you not claim that the Jewish members refused to describe antisemitism because of the love they held for their party?
Please say you didn't.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:55 AM

Sorry,

Jim,
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny,

No I have not. I have merely quoted a number of members including the leadership who state that it is a serious problem for Labour.
I do think that proves the case though.

you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.

You keep repeating this lie Jim.
They revealed it to the Party leadership to deal with.

You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.

I have made no claims.
I just quoted members and leaders saying it was a serious problem for Labour.
Unlike you, I doubt they are all lying. Why would they?

Rag, do you not care how stupid you make yourself?
Your attempted attack on me had not one point you could make stand up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:53 AM

Jim,
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny,

No I have not. I have merely quoted a number of members including the leadership who state that it is a serious problem for Labour.
I do think that proves the case though.

you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.

You keep repeating this lie Jim.
They revealed it to the Party leadership to deal with.

You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.

Rag, do you not care how stupid you make yourself?
Your attempted attack on me had not one point you could make stand up.
I have made no claims.
I just quoted members and leaders saying it was a serious problem for Labour.
Unlike you, I doubt they are all lying. Why would they?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:21 AM

Like I said you deny it.

To quote one of your irritating phrases .......... YOU LOSE!!!! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:15 AM

"Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity."
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny, and have posted claim after claim that this happened without producing a single hint of "a serious problem" or an example of that antisemitism
When you were unable to do so, you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.
You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:05 AM

Rag, I am not prejudiced so of course I deny it along with all the other names I get called by people who can't reply to what I actually say.

Steve, in what sense did Rag's silly string of posts sum me up?
Every one of his points has been flattened.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:58 AM

Well professor you have often been accused of prejudice and I think you will find that you deny it. Vehemently.


Are you perhaps coming clean and admitting your prejudice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:51 AM

Rag,
Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity.

No, but this thread is for discussing the Labour Party, and a group of you keep denying that certain problems exist.

It would seem reasonable that if you feel so strongly about such issues that you should also castigate other political parties if they were guilty of the same "offence"

Sorry, but I do not feel strongly about such issues.


If, as you suggest, the Conservative Party are not making any efforts in this regard you should vilify them to an even greater extent.


Sorry again, but I never suggested any such thing.
The member I quoted was clear that they are making more effort than Labour.
Is there any reason to disbelieve him?

Merely reporting the words of a third party in this instance is meaningless unless you have a point to make.

The point I was making was that here is yet another member accusing Labour of prejudice. Something that many here keep denying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:40 PM

"are you another Shaw? a case of do as I say, not as I do!"
You really aren't going to respond to the facts , aren't you?
This is all just bluster - you are answering nothing.
Doesn't matter anyway - who wants to know what somebody who supports the atrocities committed by this monster thinks?
Another aspect of debating is that failure to respond is answer enough.
MORE FACTS to IGNORE
Jim Caarroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:26 PM

Good job then that you're not one of those sandal-wearing pinko leftie teachers, Iains. My reports were generally written by guys who knew what they were talking about.

Good post, Raggytash. You've got Keith perfectly summed up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:44 PM

Well Steve if that is your best effort at a riposte you disappoint me.
Your report card for this term will be "must try harder"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM

Why?

Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity.

It would seem reasonable that if you feel so strongly about such issues that you should also castigate other political parties if they were guilty of the same "offence"

If, as you suggest, the Conservative Party are not making any efforts in this regard you should vilify them to an even greater extent.

Merely reporting the words of a third party in this instance is meaningless unless you have a point to make.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:04 PM

Very tiresome that, Iains. You're beginning to sound like you have an inferiority complex. Try not to demonstrate that it's justified.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM

Jim

That's the way adults debate – neme calling doesn't enter into it.

If that is the case why accuse me of being a misogynist and when that does not work trying to correct my grammar and punctuation.
The fact I do not agree with most of your postings does not give you the right to give me an insulting label as the one above. And you are a fine one to talk about grammar, spelling and punctuation.

are you another Shaw? a case of do as I say, not as I do!

Stop the name calling and I will continue with the debate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:12 PM

I was hoping you could enlighten the assembled company to the efforts the Conservative and UKip parties where making in the same regard.

Why?

Perhaps they are not making any efforts, if this is the case I would hope, in your strenuous efforts for justice for all people, you would castigate them in the same way as you would the labour party.

I have not castigated Labour over this. I just quoted a black Labour member who did.

Perhaps the Tories are not making any efforts, but the same member was quite clear that they are making a lot more effort than his party.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:06 PM

I've no idea professor, I was hoping you could enlighten the assembled company to the efforts the Conservative and UKip parties where making in the same regard.



Perhaps they are not making any efforts, if this is the case I would hope, in your strenuous efforts for justice for all people, you would castigate them in the same way as you would the labour party.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM

No I could not Rag, but the author of my linked piece is aware of some.
Do you think he is lying Rag?
Why would he?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:58 AM

Perhaps professor you could enlighten us about Conservative or UKip Policies to bring more BAME minorities into the decision making process.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:07 AM

Steve,

Well I suggest that anyone reading Keith's misleading post, with a quote that is completely unrepresentative of the article, should follow the link and read the whole thing.


I hope they do and see which of us has more honestly represented the piece whose title was, "Labour's proud record as a home for bame voters is at risk."
Me I think.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:25 AM

Oh, and I'm sure Omri Boehm is one of your self-hating, anti-semitic Jews, right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM

Alan Dershowitz, Bubo? Really? You're going to give me Allen Fricking Dershowitz???

That quote from him, considering his statements and actions over the last 25 years is a bigger whopper than anything Trump has EVER come up with.

Yet you actually believe him, apparently.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:33 AM

Well I suggest that anyone reading Keith's misleading post, with a quote that is completely unrepresentative of the article, should follow the link and read the whole thing. It's a well-written, constructive and very supportive piece offering a view on the direction the party should be taking in a changing world. Incidentally, at the bottom of the piece there's a link you can follow to an article which addresses the idiotic Sajid Javid on the matter of the proposed oath. It's a nice sideswipe at Tory self-interest and discrimination which knock Labour's imperfections in those departments into a cocked hat. Keep the leftie links coming, Keith, but do try to put a more honest gloss on them. I know it's hard for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

Left Foot Forward today.
"The Labour Party has led the way on race equality but the Conservative party has done more to improve BAME representation in the last two electoral cycles than Labour has done in more than two decades.
Labour must take urgent action to eradicate any discrimination in its ranks,"

http://leftfootforward.org/2016/12/labours-proud-record-as-a-home-for-bame-voters-is-at-risk/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

Iains, his house built on sand, is indulging in similar behaviour in the climate change thread, unfortunately, having pops at people for what he sees as their lack of comprehension when they don't agree with him and indulging in sarcasm. He has a good teacher here, hasn't he?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:30 AM

Iains
You really haven't got the hang of this, have you
You put up evidence of your claims – we discuss it
I put up evidence of my claims – we discuss it
We either reach a level of agreement or agree to disagree
That's the way adults debate – neme calling doesn't enter into it
I suggest you stick to Tolkein
Dont ring me, I'll ring you
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:33 AM

Jim
I am beginning to think your grasp of the "big picture" must be because a 5 year old kiddie's colouring book was used as your template.
I see you are resorting to the red paintbrush and the blue paintbrush again. Was there not a song about toothbrushes that probably matches your mindset?
You remind me of a conversation by Aragorn in Lord of the Rings where he is saying that certain people in the Shire disparaged him, little realizing just what was occurring just outside their borders. You strike me as being one of those hobbits. I have yet to decide if you are merely a halfling or a halfwit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 09:19 PM

Yo Greg, re your smear piece by the Israel hating Omri Boehm:

A Times opinion piece fabricated and erased the positions of American supporters of Israel, including Alan Dershowitz, in order to link Zionism to the alt-right

On November 20, the Zionist Organization of America, a small hard-right pro-Israel group, held its annual gala. To the chagrin of many in the American Jewish community, Donald Trump's newly-appointed senior strategist Stephen Bannon was scheduled to attend. Outside, scores of Jews protested. And inside, celebrated Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who had been scheduled to speak before Bannon had been invited, took the opportunity to issue a pointed warning to those in attendance.

"There is an equally disturbing trend that you might not be as happy to hear about, and that is the anti-Muslim and often bigoted extreme right that is pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist," the Harvard Law professor said. "I'm a little worried today that there are Jews in many parts of the world that are being seduced by the hard right. We must not become complicit in bigotry, whether it is from the right or the left… Being pro-Israel can never serve as an excuse for bigotry against any other group."




Why Did the New York Times Publish Fake News About Trump, Zionism, and Alan Dershowitz?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:21 PM

"Jim you are living in a cocoon."
Not me Bro
If you are going to dismiss reports as propaganda you have to provide proof - not accusations of naivety
You have had the reported facts from organisations like Amnesty (don't think I've ever come across anybody who has accused them of being prejudiced).
Now - if you want to disprove those, and in fact what we were watching on our T.Vs not so long ago - show us where we have gone wrong with your own set of facts
You really are new to open debating, aren't you/
This is really second form debating stuff you are coming out with
WHY SHOULDANYBODY ACCEPT YOUR CLAIMS OTEHRWISE
TIME
GUARDIAN
THE RECORD
DAILY MAIL
VANITY FAIR
Any more for the Skylark - this is getting reaaaaaaly booooring
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:56 PM

BTW - You have not even addressed the fact that I have already said If there was any criticism at all it was for use of the tactic by anyone. Do you just not realise what that means or are you deliberately ignoring that fact when you say I have not levelled the criticism at anyone else?

D.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:52 PM

I am sure Teribus is capable of fighting his own battles. If he thinks I have criticised him I am sure he will say so. For the record, I have no gang, little or otherwise, but even if I did, I have also chosen to ignore Teribus' criticism of me as detailed earlier. Does that make him part of the same 'gang'? Now, Keith, will you please stop harping on about your own incorrect interpretation of what I actualy said. I am sure it is boring everyone else as much as me. If you feel so inclined continue by PM but don't expect me to add anything further to what I have already said.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM

Keith, for the last time, I was not criticising any individual. Using personal stuff in a debate is a distraction and may be wrong

It is wrong, so accusing of it is a criticism whether you realise that obvious fact or not.

Of course you are entitled to criticise anyone you want, but it tells us something about you that you ignore a far worse example of personal attack from a member of your little gang, while posting about a comparatively miniscule infringement from Teribus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM

Jim you are living in a cocoon. I suggest you get about a bit and see how the real world operates. I suppose in your rose tinted world "human shields" and "collateral damage" do not occur and I suppose you subscribe to the view point of good and bad terrorists as well.
And I suppose using depleted uranium munitions in Syria by the illegal coalition airstrikes are quite legitimate in your book. Giving rise to nano sized particles with a half life of 4.47 billion years (without reckoning in U235 contaminants) getting ready to dance about in the slightest breeze to be inhaled by all and sundry. It is quite acceptable in your book to use these weapons of mass destruction because they are being used by the "goodies"
Your simplistic world view is wrong, dangerous and pathetic. Typical armchair posturing by a person that knows nothing of reality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:20 PM

D the G you can always light the blue touch paper and run, or see if the remote control will operate a tasar!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM

Amen to the grey area point, Iains. I guess you can see that there is merit in what most people say on here and truth in most of it as well. But like I said on the thread about the press, the truth being presented is not always the whole picture. We need to accept the points of view and differing truths of many people and then decide which, on balance, rings the truest with ourselves. It becomes very frustrating when you can see both sides of an argument and want to step in but, as I have learned to my regret, it is not something you can do without the risk of getting hit by both sides :-( We can but try.

Cheers

DtG

PS - Like the taser idea. Should sharpen up the debate :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

"You also seem to have a blind faith in accepting anything publicised by amnesty Int. "
As far as I know, Amnesty it totally neutral and have never been shown to be otherwise - you might like to enlighten me.
Apart from their reports, Assad's history is fairly transparent and well covered elsewhere.
Even if that were the case, the butchery of the citizens of Homs, that was covered by the world media says when needs to be said - and then there is the use o chemicals on civilians - and now we have accounts of refugees fleeing Aleppo being cut down by Government forces and Russians
Are you really writing off all this as 'propaganda' - good luck with that one!
You say you are not defending Assad - what else are you doing?
Sorry - we have nothing to say to each other - don't thinks that matters too much to you - you have a soul mate in our resident Nazi
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Jim. You take anyone rejecting your mindset on Syria as being an Assad supporter. That is an absolute distortion as you well know. You also seem to have a blind faith in accepting anything publicised by amnesty Int. They have about as much independance as the so called white helmets. All funding comes with attached agenda, it would be rather naive to believe anything else. Even greenpeace have their flaws.
Many UN agencies are a waste of space. They are very good at parking their brand new landruiser 4x4s outside 5 star hotels and living high off the hog inside. I have seen it firsthand in a number of countries.
What their mission is, apart from squandering money, escapes me.
As I have said I do not believe Assad is an angel but neither do I accept that he is automatically guilty of all the atrocities he is accused of.
I feel confident the Arab Spring was both organised, funded and encouraged by external forces. The same ones responsible for the ongoing war in the country.
    There are no heroes and no angels in Syria and sadly modern urban warfare creates a human tragedy on a massive scale. Furthermore it is occurring all over the middle east in a number of countries and I have no doubt the next intended domino is Iran.
Like Libya, Syria was a fully functioning country where any street was safe to walk down any time of the day or night. Instead of reiterating the same old tired mantras perhaps you should study why all these middle eastern countries were destabilised_ who by, and for what purpose? There are no absolute answers on offer therefore it cannot be painted in black or white responses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:15 AM

I recommend a thorough tasering for every evasive response.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:11 AM

"As I have said to you before, your take on events is either black or white"
Good job I don't take a supporter of mass murdered Assad too seriously then Iains
Have I said we get the Government we deserve - must have been on the Poitín that day!
As they never fulfil the election promises they make at election time, we have no choice in what government we get - we vote for one thing and get the other.
If we live under "democracy" somebody should start explaining how it works - buggered if I can work it out
"Yet the electorate just sit blindly in front of the TV and allow the circus to continue. "
That is incredibly patronising - the electorate are willing enough to participate when they see something happening on their behalf
After decades of that not happening and having no voice to change it, they have become cynical
If they took to the streets with banners demanding their say, people like you would be up on your chairs screaming - what was Maggie's phrase - "The enemy within".
We can't win, with you people
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 10:55 AM

I've just as a brilliant idea. Stemming from Iains' idea of dragging ministers to the TV studios to be grilled on a weekly basis we could turn it into the sort of media circus that everyone seems to love nowadays. A sort of cross between question time, strictly come dancing and the I'm a celebrity. Maybe a group of MPs are each questioned over vital issues every week and the public votes as to which ones lose their jobs. The losers could be sent to an island where they are fed a diet of Ant, Dec and witchery grubs while the winners go on to perform the Rumba with Teresa May or Jeremy Corbyn.

Yea, I can see it all...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 09:16 AM

Jim. As I have said to you before, your take on events is either black or white, mine is more the acceptance of shadows in shades of grey. I do not believe there is any form of true democracy in the world. I do not think what we have now is significantly worse than what went before.
The early forms of so called democracy in the UK had a very restricted section of society that could vote. It is also true to say they were of a similar class, education, aspiration, sex and outlook. Today the electorate represents all sectors of society yet many feel disenfranchised because the elected government apparently ignores them.
Yet the electorate just sit blindly in front of the TV and allow the circus to continue. The poll tax riots towards the end of Thatchers reign were the only time in decades that people got off their backsides to protest. In France the farming lobby brings the country to it's knees with thousands of tractors on the least whiff of a rumour that something may happen they do not like.
I believe you recently re quoted(jefferson) that we get the government we deserve.
Unfortunately that is very true. To have true democracy there is a need for healthy riots now and again to clearly demonstrate what is acceptable to the people and what most definitely is not.
The media is the ideal medium for holding government to account. Yet since the days of Robin Day public interrogations of ministers have had the impact of damp lettuce.
Besides babbling in the house answering prepared questions the Prime Minister should be dragged in front of our tv screens and grilled on a weekly basis by fully trained terriers.( perhaps Paxman on steroids or a younger beast of bolsover) If we make no effort to force government to be accountable, then by what magic will change ever occur?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Keith, for the last time, I was not criticising any individual. Using personal stuff in a debate is a distraction and may be wrong but people have done it for ever. the first public debate I went to (1969 De La Salle 6th form society) I have no idea what the debate was about but it was won by the person who found out his opponent had had pretty peach body lotion rubbed into his chest by a girl from Adelphi House. If there was any criticism at all it was for use of the tactic by anyone.

If I may quote Teribus on this - Are you honestly stating that you know what I think better than I do myself? Utterly preposterous, your ignorance and arrogance is beyond belief.

On top of all this, it is perfectly acceptable to criticise or not criticise anyone or anything should I so chose and anyone is allowed to criticise me. In fact, I was criticised by said Teribus for "ruining good threads by your incessant tag-mobbing of Keith A of Hertford, as well as the deliberate and obtuse misrepresentation of practically everything posted by Akenaton and laterally bobad and Iains" but I do not see anyone, nor do I expect anyone, to bring up the issue on my behalf. We are all capable of fighting our own battles. I think.

Now can we please get on with a politcal debate, something that Iains, Jim and I seem to be trying to do, rather than discuss personalities?

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:11 AM

Jim,
I take it we've finished with you "smear and lie"/

No.
It was a smear and a lie like everything else in that disgusting post.
You try it every time you lose an argument.

DtG,
To say someone in a debate is using personal stuff instead of the issues is to criticise.
Sorry, but it is.
Why do you ignore Jim using personal stuff instead of the issues?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:10 AM

"Jim if that last rant was aimed at me perhaps you should study yourself closely in a mirror. and clean up your spelling and preferably your language." - Iains

Elicited the following response from Jim Carroll:

"Since you have had the bad manners to mention it, typos (of which I make a few due to my idiosyncratic keyboard) are usually used to avoid points people cant handle and my language is my own ****** business and not yours." - Jim Carroll

Still lashing out blindly I see Carroll, anyone who disagrees with you or criticises you, but it does show rather good justification for the advice proffered by Iains above.

As far as the Labour Party goes:

Is it true that Diane Abbott has only given Corbyn 12 months to turn things round (Tories with the greatest lead over Labour ever?).

The Trades Unions, Labour's, and Corbyn's biggest backers are winning hearts and minds right, left and centre down South at the moment.

Is it true that the Party under Corbyn's leadership is totally out of touch with traditional Labour voters?

Nice to know that Jim Carroll over there in Miltown Malby is "supporting" Corbyn, joined the Labour Party yet Jim? Or is your "support" merely empty waffle?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM

"Democracy is a delicately poised beast as it is"
As far as British politics are concerned, democracy doesn't come into the equation.
It requires a voice for all - Mrs T silenced the one that people like us had which had ben fought for over a couple of centuries.
Now, we are at the mercy of those we elect, who are not committed in any way to fulfilling the reasons they gave for electing them
We live under an elected dictatorship which, of late has discovered the convenience of populism - the cynical use of peoples fears.
Add the power of the media to this and you have Government by Murdoch - hence Brexit and Trump - and much more of the same to come.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM

I cannot argue with any of your respective suggestions. Making an MP more accountable to their electorate has definite merit, as also making candidate selection a local responsibility (no helicoptering in anointed ones)
Ensuring the electorate is capable of understanding the election process is a worthy ideal, but a method of implementation that meets universal acclaim would be some challenge.Perhaps a multichoice series of topical questions on screen to validate capability and further on screen interrogation to prove ID after prior registration.
There would be unhappy bunnies whatever route was taken. But should an election outcome be dictated by a sector of society that some would say is both functionally and educationally illiterate?
That is a quagmire to enter and could generate many unintended consequences and could easily lead to the rebirth of eugenics.
As I said above the idea has merit but the dangers of it being hijacked by special interest groups would steer me well away from the idea. Any restriction of voting rights, no matter how innocently intended, could open a Pandora's box. Democracy is a delicately poised beast as it is, introducing any constraints could aid it's destruction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:49 AM

I don't think I would disagree with any of those, Iains. May tweak one or two and add my own. Thanks for the reply.

Just of the top of my head

1. While employed in government, no further employment that may cause split loyalties.

2. Hold MPs accountable to their constituents above the parliamentary party.

3. Do away with general elections every 5 years. Elect 25% of MPs each year on a 4 year cycle.

4. Educate voters on what they are voting for. If they fail a test on it, they are not allowed to vote! (Bit extreme but I am sure we could come up with something)

I am sure there will be more to come :-)



DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate