BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 01:50 PM

Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?
..............................

The latest court finding would apear to mean that the NEC could perfectly properly retrospectively bar from voting everyone who has joined the party after any date it chooses to name. Strange.

One thing that strikes me is that the manoeuvre by which recent members were barred from voting - waitng enough of those who would have opposed it has left the room before tabling the motion - was just the kid of "Trotskyite" ploy that Militant were always being accused of. I rather suspect that all those kind of tricks were very much part of theculture of Labour (and other parties) since they were founded.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 03:24 PM

Good move Mac
Promise I won't nause up this one - won't happen here.
This morning's newspaper tells that the cout decision will disbar 100,000 new embers from voting in the forthcoming election
Not that I'm a great Trotskyist supporter, but I only wish it were true that there were that many people committed to making the world a better place - no matter how idealistic.
The Labour party competition is little more than a fight between the Left who jettisoned any idea of a genuine change, and a possible light at the end of the tunnel that hopefully might not be a train.
God knows, the Party and the country could do with a change of direction and a new broom.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 03:49 PM

It is unlikely to do more than reduce Corbyn's majority a bit.
What happens next will be interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 04:19 PM

If Mr Corbyn wins, I'm afraid the careerists will slink back and wait for another chance to turn a real alternative into a bad copy.

I have always believed that in a capitalist society Labour's job is as a relevant opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 04:21 PM

The dishonest thing is the chorus of people MP protesting they only joined in the coup because they love Jeremy, And like his policies, but think he is unelectable.

The only chance they had of getting elected in the snap election that's coming was to get behind Jeremy and the mass membership, and they've blown it.

There won't be a centrally organised purge. But there are going to be an awful lot of fresh faces standing for Labour in the election. The trouble is there'll probably be a bunch of spoilers as well, deselected former MPs aiming to split the vote and ensure a Tory victory, as revenge.b

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 03:44 AM

I think it's time for a new party that truly represents the progressive left. Labour is to divided and self-absorbed to be an effective opposition and our democracy needs that now more than ever, particularly in the wake of the Brexit vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 04:15 AM

"but think he is unelectable."
Wellllll!!!
One of the problems facing all political groups wanting to bring genuine change is that they believe that the only way to do so is by watering down those policies to the point that they are so anodyne as to become useless,,,,, and then what?
Blair was typical - someone who started out full of reforming zeal who was sucked into the Parliamentary career machine and turned into a monster of the right, removing the Labour Party of its Socialist principles as he went.
Here in Ireland, The Labour Party learned the hard way; it threw in its lot with an establishment party and totally self-destructed, setting the Party back decades, maybe permanently.
Luckily, here we have a P.R. electoral system which allows for smaller, limited-interest groups to maintain some degree of checks and balances, along with a wafer-thin majority between the two major parties - so we get some of the wrongs righted.
This could never have happened under a first-past-the-post system.
Corbyn's leadership offers a (slim) chance of change - he strikes me as someone with his political heart on the right (left) side of his body.
Maybe those on the right who are trying to remove him are more "electable", but what difference will their being elected make to the present mess, if their policies are indistinguishable from those in charge?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:19 AM

What is the "progressive left"....That is the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:40 AM

It might indeed be time for a new party that truly represents the progressive left. But the electoral system we've got makes that virtually impossible. And unfortunately the left within the Labour Party is unable to grasp that reality, and recognise the tactics needed to achieve a change to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:56 AM

If by tactics you mean a move in the way of presenting our ideas as all singing all dancing.....then they will fail.
We need to be honest and explain that socialism will mean sacrifices not just by the rich but by the whole of society.
It will be a long journey and it won't always be pleasant, we have become used to a benefit culture which tells us that we may abdicate responsibility for anything which befalls us; but people must be made aware that in the long term there is just no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:05 AM

I mean a one off electoral deal to elect a short term government pledged to bring in a better election system, and resign the same day, so we can get on with real politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:17 AM

I think that would be counter productive if the intention was to install a socialist system
Socialism is a state of mind.

Proportional representation would result in the usual ineffective talking shop.....we are rapidly running out of time.
The electorate requires a hard dose of reality and some political education.
I think Mr Corbyn has made a fairly good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:20 AM

Explaining an idea before putting it in to operation is doomed before it is even considered.
Any party worth its salt has two objectives - first thing is to fight to improve the lot of people living under the present system; in doing so, you not only manage to ease the burden but you win their respect for your efforts on practical matters.
Altering the system itself is either a matter of evolution or revolution.
The idea of winning hearts and minds for a political system has never been tried and is doomed to failure.
"benefit culture" is a piece of right wing jargon designed to turn entitlements in benevolent gifts.
Any civilised society has to create a safety net to cater for those who are unable to cope, for whatever reason.
That there will be those who will dishonestly take advantage of entitlements is as inevitable as there are crooked and greedy bankers and corrupt and incompetent politicians.
Pointing the finger at the dishonest among the less well off is dong the right's job for them.
Any society that refuses to cater for its less fortunate members is a one that has reverted to barbarism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:25 AM

"But the electoral system we've got makes that virtually impossible"

I wonder though. Labour's infighting and lack of cohesion at a time of crisis has (and is) costing the country dear, and I think there is a need for a party promoting compassionate, humanist policies based around fairness and equality. The LibDems are a busted flush, UKIP have done their job and are now redundant except for the odd disillusioned tory and assorted right-wingers and were never interested in compassion or equality anyway, and their protest vote will probably drift back to the new more right wing tories.

So perhaps there will be room for a more radical left of centre party that represents the people rather than the establishment (as all the other parties do). Whilst I like Corbyn, I don't think he's a natural leader and that's what we need now. A new party might give that person (whomever that may be) a chance to shine and lead us out of this Tory/UKIP/Brexit dystopia we are facing and thus leave Labour to the unions and Blairites to scrap over ad infinitum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:49 AM

A new party might get a good few votes, but precious few seats. After all the Greens got a million votes and one seat, Ukip got three million and one seat.

In Scotland the SNP was able to break out because of PR in the Scottish national election, provide an effective government, and then wipe out the Scottish Labour Party on its right (which got 50% of the vote, and one seat in Parliament on a first past the post system).

This isn't a marginal issue, it's crucial. We get impressed at how the radical left has achieved stuff in Spain and Greece - in Britain they'd just be squabbling fringe political grouplets.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM

But this is my point: we don't have an effective second party.

Is it possible the Labour movement has run it's course? With globalisation, a population of workers that are totally detached from unions and the likelihood that without the EU to temper the tories worst excesses, worker's rights are going to be slowly whittled to insignificance, we need a new sort of politician that understands how this affects the ordinary working folk of this country.

We're not going to change the voting system in the short term and Labour didn't show much enthusiasm for it last time as they supported retaining FPTP. Time to get rid of these old world politicos and let a new generation lead us out of a potential disaster for working people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:21 AM

Electoral reform is in fact a short tem thing. You have to put other things aside to achieve it. Think longterm and it doesn't get changed. Labour's failure to get behind the Alternative vote in the referendum on it was cynical stupidity, which has probably landed us with a Tory government for the rest of my life and well beyond.

They rightly saw that AV would see the existing Labour party break in two, and saw that as more important than anything else. They still do.

The best hope is that a break-up of the United Kingdom might force a Constitutional Convention that changes things.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:19 AM

Labour has painted itself into a corner that it can't get out of.

The Labour Party membership elect "The Leader", come any General Election he naturally will be the Prime Minister should Labour win that General Election. If the majority of those who have flocked to become members of the Labour Party are hard left "Socialist Workers Party" then "their" man wins the Leadership election. Unfortunately the 670,000 members of the Labour Party cannot get their man into Government for that they need the votes of those who traditionally vote Labour and at the moment under Jeremy Corbyn those "traditional labour voters" will more likely as not vote for UKIP or "Independent" candidates if "Momentum" deselects good existing constituency MPs because they challenged Jeremy Corbyn's "leadership".

Kevin if you end up with a Conservative Government for the rest of your life it is because the Labour Governments of the past have failed to do anything that they promised the electorate. In general in elections, political parties in opposition don't win elections, sitting Governments lose them because they have failed to deliver.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:44 AM

If I have a Tory government for the rest of my life an immediate reason is because we didn't get electoral reform. There's a majority for left of centre government in England just as there is in Scotland. Squabbles on the let, however messy, don't alter that.
......................
If MPs find themselves deselected it will be because they didn't have the political intelligence of newts. The outcome of the referendum gave Labour an incredible opportunity. The Tories were in a shambles, the fact thay Jeremy, like the overwhelming mass of Remain voters was not overenthusiastic about the EU, meant he was the right leader to help win back those Labour voters who had gone for Leave.

So they chose their moment to mount a ludicrous coup, in the face of overwhelming opposition from party members all over the country.

Crazy politics. And they have the nerve to talk about "electability"?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:48 AM

In the last few days the split has become even deeper and even nastier.
Reconciliation has become impossible now, so what next?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM

Well Teribus is correct traditional Labour voters have been left with no constituency, they see Ukip actually achieving something which affects their lives in a "progressive" way the removal of the UK from the EU
The war which has smouldered for years between socialists and the traditional Union backed Labour voters the people who promoted Blair because he could get them power, seems to be flaring up again.
Labour people who see membership of the EU as beneficial to our own young and working people are kidding themselves......they conflate social policies with political policies......let these rebel MPs go to their natural home in the Liberal Party and leave the Labour Party to sink or swim......my bet is that in a couple of years we will have our country and our self respect back.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 01:19 PM

have our country and our self respect back.

Who's holding them hostage?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 01:43 PM

"Labour voters have been left with no constituency,"
Traditional Labour voters would not touch Ukip or any other racist-based party with a barge-pole anti-racism and anti-bigotry was a founding principle of Labour.
That Labour, Conservative and Liberals have been swept up in the Anti Immigrant/refugee hysteria is the result of media scaremongering inspired by right-wing policies rather than party shortcomings - the old reactionary ploy of setting one group of working people against the other evidenced by the Brexit fiasco and the trail of wreckage it has left in its wake.
No doubt there will be those who blame the infux of foreigners for the results of that fiasco - you can't keep a good bigot down.
One of the unwritten rules has always been that whenever there is a crisis out come the bigots - never more so than at present.
I can never remember the race card having been played to the extent as it is being used at present - not ever.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 02:40 PM

If "traditional Labour voters" means people who in previous elections have voted Labour, I'm afraid there is ample evidence that plenty of them have voted for Ukip.

The fact that anti-bigotry might have been a founding principle of the Labour party doesn't guarantee that it still is a guiding principle for all around the party. After all, so was socialism...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 02:47 PM

The policy of "Free movement of Labour" was what set one group of workers against another, nothing to do with racism bigotry or anything else, simply an age old capitalist "ploy" to make cheap labour available and drive down wages for those competing for jobs.

The most ridiculous and short term policy ever devised, they had not the sense to work out what the effects of this policy would be on infrastructure like housing, public services, health etc.

Bloody good riddance!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 03:44 PM

The elected leader has said that the elected deputy leader (not part of any coup), "is talking nonsense – and he knows it."

There is no coming back from that.

Watson hit back on Saturday night, claiming the evidence was "incontrovertible". He said: "The overwhelming majority of new members joined the Labour party because they want to build a fairer and more equal society. But there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that a small group of Trotskyite activists have taken leading roles in the Labour party or are seeking to do so.

"They are also explicitly targeting Young Labour and Labour student clubs with the aim of recruiting new members. That is beyond dispute. We can't deal with this problem until we acknowledge it exists."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 03:50 PM

was what set one group of workers against another,
It most certainly was not - 1.2 million Brits were living and wotrking in Europe - in 2015, at least 30,00 Britins were drawing unemployment benefit there
It was a two-way street that has now been closed - one thing is certain - there will be no jobs for those forced to come home to return to
This is really basic Ukip-BNP propaganda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 04:00 PM

30,000 Brits of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 06:18 PM

in 2015, at least 30,00 Britins were drawing unemployment benefit there
It was a two-way street that has now been closed

Those 30,000 Brits will continue to draw benefit in 2016 and possibly 2017 and possibly 2017 and in 2018 - tell me Jom what street has been closed? The clock doesn't start to tick until the UK formally triggers Article 50 and thereafter it is at least a minimum of two-and-a-half-years before we leave.

Believe ne as far as Brexit goes, people will do what is in their mutual best interest - it would be madness for them to do anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:23 PM

My experience of people is that we are frequently likely to fail to do what is in our best interests, individual or mutual. That's not "madness", it's human fallability.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Frug
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:41 PM

Just for interest .....How many people posting on this and other threads about the Labour Party have actually got first hand knowledge of Jeremy Corbyn ..... if not how did you formulate your opinions of him?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 02:40 AM

I don't wish to re-cover ground already somewhat unpleasantly covered, but, as I see it, Britain finds itself in danger of falling in line with the distinct move to the right that is taking place in the world today.
Britain exited from the E.U. purely on the basis of a racist campaign - stop immigration and block the refugees - Ukip based its entire campaign on those slogans, and the rest of them followed suit to one degree or another
The narrow Brexit victory has already proved an economic and political disaster, a forced reshuffle of our government, replacing it with one that has appointed a racist into the position of Foreign Secretary - a disturbing shift to the right.
The predicted economic consequences of Brexit have already appeared and, it is reckoned, it will be at least ten years before the economy can possibly re-stabilise.
Extremist right-wing groups in Europe have taken the cue from Britain and are attempting to stage similar exits - no doubt, with similar consequences to national economies - the Right in Europe are on the march again, once more using racism as a basis for exit - our nearest neighbour, France stands to have one of the Le Pen in charge in the near future and AUSTRIA narrowly avoided electing a Neo Nazi.
EUROPEAN RIGHT
Further afield, the U.S. is now facing the possibility of a blunedring, loud-mouthed moronic right-winger who makes George W. look like Mahatma Ghandi, into the White House
Not a comfortable world to hand on to our kids.
The Labour Party seems to have weathered a rather vicious attempt to label it antisemititic, probably instigated by the right-wing Israeli regime attempting to off-set the boycott of its goods in protest of its war crimes in Gaza.
The party now faces a leadership contest between a relatively inexperienced, but, it appears, principled socialist and a candidate supported by the New Labour followers of the possible war criminal,Tony Blair - he who plunged us into the Oil Wars.   
It seems to me that we need a bit of real opposition to what's happening based on principle and compassion rather than political Parliamentary gain.
"Jom what street has been closed?"
Not while the adults are talking if you don't mind Teribus.
I have no intentions of re-opening a quadralogue with our three resident rights here - especially the bullying ones, incapable of shedding the open aggression
I won't be responding to you or your two extremist mates.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 02:56 AM

The trouble is Mr McGrath, that we very often have conflicting interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:05 AM

Ah well, they've all turned up. Another thread down the pan.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:30 AM

The Labour Party seems to have weathered a rather vicious attempt to label it antisemititic, probably instigated by the right-wing Israeli regime

Probably not!
That is a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Israel has other preoccupations than our Labour Party!
All the accusations came from lifelong Labour people, like Sadiq Khan, not Mossad agents.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 04:12 AM

"How many people have first hand knowledge of Jeremy Corbyn?"

The same question could of course be asked or Cameron, or May, or Gove or any other politician. But what is certainly the case is that Corbyn has spoken at more open rallies with 1000+ attendances than any politicians I have known. I have spoken personally to him, but only for about three minutes. Even so, that is 100% more than any other potential prime minister I have been asked to support.

As to how I form my opinions, it is based on his track record. Many commentators see a history of rebellion against the party leader. It is as easy to see it as a solid adherence to a set of principles. Now, whether that is realistic or idealistic is a matter of judgement on our part.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 04:35 AM

"Ah well, they've all turned up."
Even you Stu
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 05:03 AM

"Even you Stu"

Yeah, whatever. Another thread wrecked. Off you all go now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:18 AM

"Yeah, whatever. Another thread wrecked. Off you all go now."
We could wreck it equally quickly by arguing with each other Stu - waddya think
Please give it a rest and let's get on with the discussion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

"The Labour Party seems to have weathered a rather vicious attempt to label it antisemititic"

Again? There's more the Labour movement than this. You've dominated one thread with your constant bickering over this subject, now you're going to wreck this one too.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:48 AM

"I don't wish to re-cover ground already somewhat unpleasantly covered"

An excellent maxim, Jim. It would make for a much more useful discussion if we all stuck to it. The other thread is still there for being hyperactive.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:53 AM

"The other thread is still there for being hyperactive."
Nah - been immmunised
"You've dominated one thread with your constant bickering"#And nor you are attempting to dominate it with yours
I'e just resolved to rid myself of three pests - pease don't become one of them while we might have something to say to each other
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 07:25 AM

"Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?"

Could I remind people that this was the OP from McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 08:54 AM

I am a recently joined member of the labour party, I am not a trostkyite, or a member of any other organisation.
IMO WATSON IS REMINSCENT OF BILLY BUNTER AND PAT RABBITE, one always waiting for the next postal order and the other a careerist andself serving fat cat

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 11:09 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if being a regular at the Mudcat might count as belonging to a proscribed organisation...

How do you join a politocal party without being an entryist?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 11:19 AM

According to Wiki,
"Entryism (also referred to as entrism or enterism, or as infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being "entered" is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are an organisation in their own right."

Just joining for genuine reasons does not make someone an entryist.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 11:22 AM

"Britain exited from the E.U. purely on the basis of a racist campaign - stop immigration and block the refugees - Ukip based its entire campaign on those slogans, and the rest of them followed suit to one degree or another"

Our open doors policy on immigration introduced by Labour under Blair was a mistake that even they latterly admitted was wrong.

The one constant reference to immigration throughout the EU Referendum from those campaigning for the UK's exit from the EU is better summed up as - "Stop uncontrolled immigration" and regain control as to who is granted admission to our country.

UKIP neither directed or ran the Leave part of the Brexit Campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 01:08 PM

"The narrow Brexit victory has already proved an economic and political disaster"

Well not according to the examination of the Remain Campaign's predictions of "doom'n'gloom" in todays press. Fact is that that "narrow Brexit victory has" resulted in very little change. All it proved was that the Labour Party as Her Majesty's Opposition lacked any real leadership at all and that when history looks back at this highly significant time of change for both the United Kingdom and Europe it will record the fact that instead of overseeing the change and pushing the Government of the day - Labour was locked in a highly divisive and bitter internal argument over leadership of their Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 01:18 PM

A genuine reason for joining a party is that you can see the potential to make it a better organisation for fighting for fairness for working people, the sick, the disabled, ethnic minorities, children, the elderly and those unable to find work. In other words, to change the party. You don't just join a party because you think everything is just hunkydory the way it is. Entryism is is an invention of the right in order to demonise the Labour Party. Since time immemorial people have at various times joined (or at least supported) the Tories in droves out of sheer self-interest. Wanna call that entryism too? The right are very good at inventing unpleasant attributes to ascribe to their adversaries, a bit like "human shields" when you're invading another country. Entryism is one such.

And thank you Stu for complaining that "they've all turned up" before I turned up. Nice to know that I'm not among your persona non grata! 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 02:09 PM

"Fact is that that "narrow Brexit victory has" resulted in very little change."

Certainly has made a difference in science.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:28 PM

So if a Quaker joins the Labour party with the hope of encouraging it to resist pressures to wage war, that's rightly to be denounced as entryism? How about a feminist committed to opposing sexism? Or is it just if you're a socialist?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:32 PM

My point is, everyone has views on political issues which they bring with them, which they share with some people in the party, and not with others. Having views on political issues is why people join parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:56 PM

Back in the day Corbyn was a supporter of Militant Tendency when they attempted to infiltrate the Labour Party. Today Corbyn welcomes similar entryists in the form of Corbyn activists in Momentum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 05:55 PM

That's a pretty poor do from our resident self-appointed history expert if I may say so, Teribus. Not only are you completely neglecting the long evolution of left-wing factions within (yes, WITHIN) the Labour Party, you are also parroting out the usual right-wing sloganising nonsense about infiltration and entryism. Don't think that just because everyone is trying to keep the thread nice that you can perpetrate the usual Tory bullshit with impunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 05:56 PM

Corbyn was opposed to the purge of people associated with Militant. He was never himself a member of Militant.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 07:05 PM

Cheers, Kevin. A littl accuracy never comes amiss.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 12:43 AM

"Inventing unpleasant attributes"


Can I add "Corbynista" to that? I have met very few people who support Corbyn as such. They do, however, support the principles he espouses, and believe that he is exceptionally good at explaining them in a mature way, providing youare prepared to listen as maturely, rather than rely on 10 second sound bites. By adopting that term it suggests a level of unreasoning hero worship in a smallish but passionately committed group. That is a distortion of what I see, but it happens to be a distortion that both Tories and Blairites are happy to encourage.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 01:46 AM

I was unaware that I had ever stated that Corbyn was a member of Militant Tendency, here's what I said just to clarify:

"Corbyn was a supporter of Militant Tendency when they attempted to infiltrate the Labour Party"

Looking up the term "entryist" it seems to date back to those times. And back then you had the same bullying, intimidation and corruption at CLP level that we have seen just recently. So we are seeing history repeating itself, doesn't matter a jot whether or not it is from without or within. If it is indeed the latter all that means is that the clear out last time wasn't thorough enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 03:48 AM

Isn't it about time people looked at the 'entryism' claim in factual detail?
'Trotskyist' Militant, now 'Socialist Appeal' can heve no more than a couple of thousand members -
The left part which has had the largest membership in Britain since the middle of the twentieth century was The Communist Party, with 32,000 members at its peak, the majority of the card-carrying only otherwise inactive.
The number of people who are going to be deprived of a vote, thank's to this latest legal technicality being used against Corbyn has been stated to be 100,000
The Trotskyist 'entryists', given their present numbers, don't have enough members to 'Enter' a queue at the local fish and chip shop.
New Labour is the product of a right wing coup which took place in the Labour Party in 1996, led by righitist, Tony Blair (potentially a war criminal who dishonestly committed Britain to an illegal war that is still going on) and Alastair Campbell. a soft-porn journalist who published for a 'Penthouse' magazine spin-off, who was unelected and was co-opted as a publicity guru; they were supported by the dreadful Gordon Brown and the equally dreadful Peter Mandelson.
The theoretical base of New Labour was, Anthony Crosslnd's revisionist socalism theory, which abandoned all the 'social' aspects of real socialism and split the Labour Party off from its original creators, The Trades Union Movement.   
After appalling performances in Government, genuine socialist members of the Labour Party began to leave in their thousands and those voters who had regarded the party as an alternative to Conservatism rather than the 'Soft Thatcherist' party it had become, stopped voting for them - or anybody.
The present right wing aspirants to leadership are Blair's detrius worms.
The advent of Corbyn inspired thouands to reejoin Labour in the hope of a return to a real alternative - they are 're-entryists' - not a media created Trotskyist plot.
As Mac suggested, Mudcat members supporting decent left policies would be describes as 'entryists' if we caught their notice.
The idea that Brexit hasn't brought about a disaster is not worthy of comment, and giving the opportunistic Remain mob as proof that it has is risible - go look at the actual direction the economy has taken in the short time since the decision to leave was confirmed - see what the economists are saying - at present, disastrous, in the long term, uncertain - and we all know, business abhors uncertainty just as nature abhors a vacuum
HORSE'S MOUTH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 04:25 AM

As previously stated Labour Party Members, associate members, etc, will not and cannot get Labour elected into office - for that you need "Labour Voters" and as long as Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party that will never happen. Labour has completely lost it's base in Scotland to the SNP and the Conservative Party are now the largest "opposition" Party. Labour have lost touch with their "traditional" Labour voters, it was they who swung the vote in the EU Referendum and secured the Leave result

While some may pour scorn on Tony Blair as far as winning elections goes, he, without doubt has been the best performing Labour leader EVER. And I dare say that many who pour scorn on him now actually voted to get his Labour Governments elected three times.

The HORSE'S MOUTH link is typical of the person who supplied it - A BNP Paribas release {Hardly impartial} from 1st July 2016 {Weeks out of date}.

Try these they are a bit more up to date:

How Many Predictions Came True


How did the experts get it so wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 05:27 AM

Daliy mail and telegraph opinions - try the Financial Times
Announced this morning -
Corbyn has won support of 85% of the constituancy parties
His lead has doubled since his election
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 06:41 AM

Terbius is concentrating on economics, and there's more to the economy than the predictions of city institutions. Brexit has already proved a real issue in science as scientists in the UK find themselves left off grant applications for EU funding and therefor out of very important collaborations. Science is truly international, and the integration of UK science with our EU partners had become seamless and very productive, driving the sort of innovation the UK will need to stay competitive in the global marketplace.

My own university is already trying to mitigate the effects of Brexit on it's research groups, but many long-term projects are already off the table as including UK scientists will mean their grant applications could well fail because of long-term uncertainty regarding how collaboration will work.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 07:06 AM

Maybe it as well to point out that "BNP" in this context doesn't mean British National Party but Bank Nationale de Paris.
..............

The collapse of Labour in Scotland is nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of failure by Corbyn. It reflects the failure of a rightwing party at "national" level (meaning Westminster, which isn't "national" in Scotland) and a rigid bureaucratic organisation at local level, together with a rise in national awareness. It's not going to be reversed.

To form a government Labour is going to have to ally with the SNP, and use the opportunity to reform the voting system to counter the imbalance that would be likely to mean a permanent Tory majority based on a minority vote if/when Scotland opts for independence.
........
Opinion polls do indeed indicate scepticism about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister - reflecting the storm of hostile comments in the whole range of media. But they do not indicate the same disagreements with the policies he stands for, from bringing railways back into public transport to scrapping Trident. The task of the Labour Party is going to be to find ways of making it possible for people to have a chance to vote for candidates who support these policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 07:44 AM

So Europe will turn its back on projects like the Hyshot III scramjet engine Stu?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:27 AM

"Maybe it as well to point out that "BNP" in this context doesn't mean British National Party but Bank Nationale de Paris."
Thanks Mac - meant to do that.
As Stu said, the consequences go far beyond city finance, and the social consequences are so far incalcuable, especially in terms of racial relations.
The old "uncontrolled emigration" myth is a good-old standby.
All immigration is controlled other than illehgal immigration, which will not be affected one way or the other anyway - unles Ms Mayfly jups in her van again and travels the streets telling those who shouldn't be in Britain to go home - a measure of the mentality of these people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:56 AM

"So Europe will turn its back on projects like the Hyshot III scramjet engine Stu?"

There is more than one project involved here, you do realise that?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 10:14 AM

"Maybe it as well to point out that "BNP" in this context doesn't mean British National Party but Bank Nationale de Paris."

I suppose that there might be some people who are ignorant enough to require that clarification Kevin but I would have thought that the "Paribas" tacked onto the BNP might have just given the game away. Perhaps you fear the almost Pavlovian effect of the initials BNP cause left-wing attack dogs to cease reading and commence mouth frothing. Best not let them in on the secret that BNP Paribas is a Multinational Bank Kevin or else more mouth frothing would result.

Also find it rather strange that one poster can post biased and out of date predictions without comment from you Stu, whereas I have provided two links that are not only up to date but simple statements of what was predicted matched against what has actually happened. Most of the "doom'n'gloom" predictions of the "Remain" Campaign have been proved false.

Of course I realise that there is more than one project involved Stu, but could you tell me why you didn't see fit to answer the question? Are the European participants going to walk away from it because the UK has voted to leave the EU? - Don't worry Stu, no need for you to seem to break ranks it is a rhetorical question - you know damn well that they will not - it will go ahead already a done deal.

EU funding the only source of funding for British scientists Stu? Did the UK formerly contribute to those EU funds (The UK is when all said and done the EU's second largest contributor) and are we still contributing towards them? Present indications are that Article 50 will not be triggered until 2019 which puts our earliest departure from the EU some time in 2022. If we are putting money into that pot then we have a say in what happens to it.

"Science is truly international, and the integration of UK science with our EU partners had become seamless and very productive, driving the sort of innovation the UK will need to stay competitive in the global marketplace."

Yes Stu science is truly international - unfortunately the EU is not it is extremely Eurocentric and protectionist.

The UK has always been extremely good at innovation getting out of the EU makes it easier to collaborate with the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 10:38 AM

"Yes Stu science is truly international - unfortunately the EU is not it is extremely Eurocentric and protectionist."

You're not getting this are you? The EU facilitated science without borders, which is how science should be practiced, and how we're lucky enough in the UK to have been practicing. Our research institutions are integrated via individual scientists, funding bodies and publication at a fundamental level, and it works (or worked) brilliantly.

Politics aside, Brexit has endangered that free movement of people and information and already UK science (and science as a whole as a consequence) is experiencing the effect of that right now. As we speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 10:48 AM

"Brexit has endangered that free movement of people and information"

Hell as like, alarmist claptrap, we'll see as and when it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 11:15 AM

Stu said "my own university..." so is saying "as and when it happens" is already happening in his case. Are you personally involved in science projects as well, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 11:32 AM

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM

Are you personally involved in science projects as well, Teribus?

"We'll See" = translation: "No. I was just blowing smoke up your a**."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 12:45 PM

"Hell as like, alarmist claptrap, we'll see as and when it happens."

Hold on a mo. One of the voting points of Brexit was to restrict the free movement of people from the EU, that was a major part of the campaign. This doesn't discriminate between people based on their professions and applies to all folk crossing our borders. In the case of scientists this means they don't come to our institutions to work, and we don't go to theirs. This restricts access to overseas research groups and the wider network that make up the research community.

Scientists don't want these restrictions as it gets in the way of the science, plain and simple. Without EU grants the science suffers (UK Science was a net beneficiary of EU funding), plain and simple. ANYTHING that restricts this flow is a barrier to research and innovation, plain and simple.

It is happening now, as we discuss the matter here, we have 1,000 staff and 2,000 students from the EU, and these people move freely and without restriction. For future staff, students and research partners there will be issues with visas and funding and therefore collaboration, the very essence of effective research. This uncertainty has already meant a change in the process of long-term funding applications and collaborations for UK scientists as others in the EU cannot include them for fear of rejection due to the uncertainty about how the government will deal with this.

Paint me a liar if you wish Terbius but at least be man enough to come out and say so; personal incredulity doesn't count as informed opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 12:46 PM

Nice to know I'm not the only one he tries to talk down to - must be a cultural implant
Dates odf links are unimportant unless something has radically changed - nothing has.
The dominoes are still falling (interest rates last week) - all that can be hoped for is they stop falling.
"The EU facilitated science without borders,"
Juts as free movement across borders came with membership - all gone, no more tomorrow.
There is no reason why a privilege that went with membership should be extended to non-member competitors.
One of the unknowns being debated here is whether we will have to pass through re-established checkpoints to travel from the South to the Six Counties.
This all seems to be a classic case of having your cake and eating it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 01:22 PM

"One of the voting points of Brexit was to restrict the free movement of people from the EU, that was a major part of the campaign. This doesn't discriminate between people based on their professions and applies to all folk crossing our borders."

Tell me Stu, if you wished to go to Canada, the USA or Australia - are you free to do so? Yes you are, all of these countries will let you enter without any great difficulty on the basis that you and your skillset will bring something to the party. Australia has operated on this basis for decades. They all restrict entry to their countries and yet all have seemed to have survived, even their Universities.

As it stands at the moment it is the EU that dictates who enters our country, by leaving the EU that changes and it is then up to the British Government to decide who enters and who does not - so your "This doesn't discriminate between people" is about as wrong as you could get it.

Wow which University in the UK has 1000 staff all from the EU? Any of them upped-sticks and left since the 24th June?

By the way the answer to the question about being involved in any science projects? No thankfully I am retired, how many are you involved in DMcG? Am I allowed to hold an opinion on a load of alarmist claptrap spouted by people who deliberately lied and attempted to completely mislead the British people during the run up to the EU Referendum? Damn right I am.

What Stu is describing does not equate to the end of the world - not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 01:27 PM

Going back to the Labour party, one of the major let downs during the campaign was their lack of cohesive arguments against. The fight against the wilful ignorance of the right appears to have been abandoned utterly, with Labour also resorting to the sort of worthless waffle that the likes of Farage and Johnson get away with constantly. This is due in part to the continuing dumbing down of society (aided and abetted by the media) that sees the promotion of the "we've had enough of experts" idiocy that is propagated buy creationists, climate deniers and a whole host of other movements that reject empirical evidence, but this should be thundered against as it seeps into all parts of society.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 01:31 PM

Bang on, Stu - and here in the U.S. as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 01:33 PM

"Dates odf links are unimportant unless something has radically changed - nothing has."

Dates of links are very important if you are trying to argue today that the predictions made in them have become reality. Evidence of the direst predictions show that none of them have.

"Juts as free movement across borders came with membership - all gone, no more tomorrow."

Oh doom and woe, the world probably will end before the end of the month - "no more tomorrow" INDEED - alarmist claptrap.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 01:53 PM

"Dates of links are very important if you are trying to argue today that the predictions made in them have become realit"
As I said - not unless things have changed - if anything, the predictions have proved correct so far
"alarmist claptrap."
Again - only if you can think of a reason why Britain should have its cake and eat it
Brexit was sold on the basis of our being allowed to close our borders to foreigners
Foreigners are sure to coninue to allow us free access across their borders
- sure they are!!!
There is no reason whatever why European countries should open its borders to outsiders - Britain is no longer part of the setup
Brexit was nodded through with total disregard of what economists were warning - any sacrifice was worth getting rid of Johnny Foreigner.
Our new foreign secretary has all the diplomatic skills to pull that one off!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 02:48 PM

The fact that Brexit hasn't kicked in yet (apart from informal stuff like more racist incidents) is no reason for downplaying the importance of the effects that are looming ahead a couple of years down the road.

The best hope is that we end up with a Norway type settlement, with minimal impact on free trade, and free movement, and the same level of payments into the EU, and so forth, but without a British wrecking squad in the places where things get worked out. Best of both worlds.   Of course the Brexit lot won't like that, but by that time you'd probably find it hard to track down too many people who'd admit to having voted for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 03:01 PM

" but by that time you'd probably find it hard to track down too many people who'd admit to having voted for it."
"Bregrets, I have a few"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 03:39 PM

"Wow which University in the UK has 1000 staff all from the EU?"

You have no idea what you're talking about - I haven't made this figure up. This is one reason why science has flourished because of EU membership; things are far, far easier when people can go where they want to live and work. I can understand that you have zero experience as a researcher but your hysterical dismissing of this information this as "claptrap" is not an argument, it's an insult and a pretty poor one at that.


"Tell me Stu, if you wished to go to Canada, the USA or Australia - are you free to do so?"

What's that got to do with anything? It simply doesn't work the same, if it did then why vote against the free movement of people for the EU? The freedom of movement the EU gives us facilitates collaboration in science, in fact so much so it's not an issue when we work with our European partners.


"What Stu is describing does not equate to the end of the world"

You said it was the end of the world, not me. I said it was very possibly the end of seamless and effective collaboration between scientists working across the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 10:10 PM


By the way the answer to the question about being involved in any science projects? No thankfully I am retired, how many are you involved in DMcG?

Two at the moment, but that is irrelevant. Stu asserted his university was affected, you ignored that and asserted the impact was none or negligible. I asked on what first hand evidence you based that. As you see, whether I have or haven't any first hand evidence myself is of no relevance to the question.

And being retired is a bit of a cop-out as well. I am not, my father in law retired at 65 but was still active, writing, involved with universities and consulting on an informal basis for the next 20+ years. So it is perfectly possible to be retired and have first hand knowledge. Still, it raises the question of whether you were personally involved in such scientic research before you retired since you seem quite certain how it all works.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 04:33 AM

All scientific research and collaboration will come to, or has already, come to an end because the electorate of the United Kingdom exercised their democratic right and voted to leave the EU - oh dear.

My prediction is that it will be nowhere near as bad as Stu and obviously you DMcG predict.

Good luck with your scientific projects DMcG, as yours seem to be running so well perhaps you could throw one of them Stu's way to see him through these terrible times. Rest assured I will thoroughly enjoy my "cop-out retirement" after working for 50 years, I will now devote what remains of my time on this planet to doing as I please whenever I want to do it, not really giving a toss whether it meets with your approval or not.

MGOH - The one thing you forgot to mention about the deal Norway has with the EU - it complies with EU law where it suits (Only 17% compliance to EU rules) and they can ignore what does not suit them. When it comes to balance of trade Norway sells more to the EU than it buys from them. The deal that will be brokered between the EU and the UK does not have to follow any precedent.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 06:00 AM

"All scientific research and collaboration will come to, or has already, come to an end because the electorate of the United Kingdom exercised their democratic right and voted to leave the EU - oh dear."

Another straw man. Really T, get a grip son. Read the posts, try to comprehend the problem and perhaps even have enough humility to accept someone knows more about a subject than you. Of course your validation is not needed to make something true, so in this respect your opinion is irrelevant, but it'd be good to have an intelligent conversation.

I've no dog in this race as I've given up on party politics, but as a scientist I care very much about how the work of my colleagues is affected by events like the Brexit vote. The UK will be at a disadvantage if the free movement of people is stopped, and this means as a society we loose out too. We face intense competition from India and China in applying our research commercially and this is going to increase as the years pass; our seamless links with Europe via the EU meant we acted as one community and shared resources without boundaries.

We can't let the narrow-minded, regressive nationalist agenda dictate the way science works as the thinking of any nationalist is blinkered by notions of 'nationhood' and whatever crap comes with it. This is the best thing about science as it recognises no borders, religions or nationality; if everyone wants to work together they should be able to.

It's the only way forward for us as a species to gather empirical data and collectively use that data for the common good. Brexit threatens that, and that should be thundered against.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

"Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?"

Looks like the time for a reminder of the above as the usual trend seems to have started.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:13 AM

Sorry Raggy. I'll shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:15 AM

Drifting that way, Raggytash, but still mostly on the civil sde. But in some case they read like they are trying to tempt responses that cross the line.

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

No Stu - you need to get a grip.

You are running about like a headless chicken wailing about things that have not yet happened and more like as not will not happen.

Key point from your last post upon which your entire "Doom'n'Gloom" scenario is based:

"The UK will be at a disadvantage IF the free movement of people is stopped"

That is one very big IF and as such it has not yet happened - time that you acknowledged that.

In the time that we have been IN the EU, as far as trade deals go a medium sized country {Switzerland} and a tiny city state {Singapore} have out performed the EU by a factor of five in what they have accomplished. There are no EU trade agreements with either the Chinese or the Indians.

What "narrow-minded, regressive nationalist agenda"? The decision to leave the EU and the main attraction of leaving the EU is that it frees us up to engage with and trade with the world, which oddly enough for the last three years has been our major trading partner. Areas outside the EU are growth areas the EU's economy is stagnant, common sense should tell you which areas we should be trading with.

Scientific ties and co-operation are undoubtedly valuable and as such they will be recognised as such - people will not jettison them lightly.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:00 AM

Stu, the reminder was not particularly aimed at you. I'll go no further.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:35 AM

The fact things like "free movement" haven't been stopped is essentially relevant. The aim of those who voted for Brexit was that it should be stopped, and that is what the government is working to achieve.

I'd love it if that doesn't happen, but the remaining Brexiters will be spitting blood if that were to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:50 AM

Yeah, but I rose to the bait. Just passionate about science so feel I have to defend robustly!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:59 AM

"Yeah, but I rose to the bait."
Easily enough done Stu - we'v all been there.
People like this are really not worth the effort - you can usually spot it from day one with their arrogant contempt for you and everything you have to say.
"No Stu - you need to get a grip. You are running about like a headless chicken wailing about things that have not yet happened"
There oyouhave it - no need to heed the experts you use your own ecperience or common sense - just ask the oracle and all will be revealed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM

Yes indeed "There you have it":

1: - Tell me, what EU rules have been rescinded since 24th June 2016? - Please feel free to correct me - but the answer to the question is not a single one.

2: - Tell me if any negotiations or talks at all have taken place - Again please correct me if I am wrong but no talks have taken place Jean-Claude Juncker has expressly forbidden them - And yet there are people posting on this forum telling us what the results of these talks will mean to the UK - they haven't even taken place yet so how utterly ridiculous can you get.

Meanwhile today's Corbyn Story:

"Jeremy Corbyn was this morning confronted by two female Labour members who said they no longer feel "safe" in the party.

A young Labour member told the Labour leader she would feel more comfortable going to Conservative party conference as a Labour supporter, than going to Labour conference as an Owen Smith supporter.

Another woman revealed her Jewish friends resigned the day he became leader, because they didn't believe it was "safe" for them stay.

It came during a heated debate between the Labour leader and his leadership rival Mr Smith, who launched a fresh attack on Mr Corbyn for failing to crack down on anti-Semitic and misogynistic abuse within the Labour Party."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM

Teribus's comments about things not being so bad are a bit like the man who jumped from a skyscraper who was heard to say "all right so far" as he passed the thirteenth floor...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:38 AM

Google,

UK unemployment claimant count falls after Brexit vote
The Guardian-4 hours ago
Fears that a Brexit vote would trigger widespread job losses failed to materialise last month, with the number of people claiming jobseeker's ...
Unemployment figures: Unexpected fall in joblessness post Brexit vote
The Independent-4 hours ago

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:45 AM

Looks like T and The Professor jumped off that skyscraper holding hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:49 AM

The unemployment figures were from April to June BEFORE the Brexit vote.

Sheesh

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:00 AM

You have been responses to the salient points - over and over again - the rest is smoke and mirrors.
Your (deliberately) unlinked article came from that champion of democracy, The Daily Telegraph.
It is probably the vagues, uncorroberated piece of journalism I have ever come across, but both the claims - about women and Jews, are obviously linked to the Israeli campaign to offset criticism of its behaviour in Gaza, and the Labour Leadership contest.
None of the statements are detailed, referenced or the contributors named - they come from Enily Ashton, the editor of 'Buzzfeed/Muckrack' an unsavoury gossip outlet with a reputation for plagiarism and the political editing-out of contributions that criticise their advertisers - it is described as anunreliable source of information.
If you have any evidence of actual threats against women's safety in the Labour Party - feel free to link us to an undiluted version of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:06 AM

Rag,
The unemployment figures were from April to June BEFORE the Brexit vote.
Sheesh

No they were not Rag.
Sheesh.

Guardian 5 hours ago,
Fears that a Brexit vote would trigger widespread job losses failed to materialise last month, with the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance unexpectedly falling."

The claimant count fell by 8,600 to 763,600 in July, compared with expectations of a rise of 9,500, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It was the first monthly fall since February 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/17/uk-unemployment-claimant-count-falls-after-brexit

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:10 AM

"Your (deliberately) unlinked article came from that champion of democracy, The Daily Telegraph."

Not exactly true Jom. The Newspapers verbatim coverage of the Labour Leadership debate between Corbyn and Smith on BBC Two's Victoria Derbyshire Show.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:22 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37105028

A link to the BBC News article, people can make their own judgement on what it and the figures actually mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:26 AM

Well, Keith, as Teribus points out (quite rightly 😂😂😂), the big desertion has yet to be triggered and it'll be years before we are out. Crowing about a tiny shift in the numbers at this stage is premature in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:59 AM

"The Newspapers verbatim coverage of the Labour Leadership debate between Corbyn and Smith on BBC Two's Victoria Derbyshire Show."
The quote is about being afraid if given as being from Ashton.
Immaterial anyway - it is unqualified and as such - unreliable.
You pair are still thrashing around trying to proce something for which theer is no tangible evidence - and no logic in a party dedicated to opposing antisemitism and fighting for women's rights.
You want to prove either - produce examples and figures - otherwise, it is fairly obvious that both claims are related to anti-Boycott propaganda and a dirty leadership fight.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 11:46 AM

And anonymous and untraceable tweets, which could have come from anyone, with any motivation, don't add up to any kind of evidence against Corbyn or those who share his views. (Except that those who send them clearly do not share Corbyn's views on sexism, racism, anti-semitism or abusing others.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:33 PM

And anonymous and untraceable tweets, which could have come from anyone, with any motivation, don't add up to any kind of evidence

And here I thought "Social Media" (Farcebook, Twatter et. al.) was going to save the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:54 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM

"Teribus's comments about things not being so bad are a bit like the man who jumped from a skyscraper who was heard to say "all right so far" as he passed the thirteenth floor..."

Not really Kevin and besides even if that were true, you could never accuse the man of being a liar.

I think that when it does come down to negotiation neither side is going to cut their nose off to spite their face.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM

And here I thought "Social Media" (Farcebook, Twatter et. al.) was going to save the world.

Don't forget Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 01:55 PM

I'd never call you a liar, any more than the man in question.

I'm hoping we don't cut off our nose to spite our face, and that free movement will indeed be preserved. But the chances aren't too great. I doubt very much if the EU will budge significantly on this issue.

There could be some kind of fudge which the British govenment will try to present as a negotiating triumph, the way there was with Cameron's "EU reforms". I'm sure the Sir Humphreys could cobble up something of that sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:00 PM

I presume your last paragraph, Teribus, is about Brexit - which is not the subject of this thread - rather than Labour, which is.

If it did refer to Labour, it seems to me both camps have got the point that they ARE prepared to cut off their own noses. Unfortunately both sides are passionately convinced they are right - the Blairite are not simply opportunists, they believe wholeheartedly their way is the only way to save the party. So even if/when Corbyn wins again, I have little doubt the battles will carry on as now for a long time. And then resurface in force after the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:39 PM

Don't forget Mudcat.

OK if I forget YOU, Bubo?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:44 PM

If the position of the opponents of Corbyn is that they don't disagree with the policies he stands for, but that it's just a question of them not having confidence in him, that's not a real problem. If the mass of the Labour party demonstrates that it does have confidence in him, the MPs just need to have the good sense, good manners and personal humility to accept that judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 04:43 PM

I love you too Greg.......kiss, kiss!

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

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Aug 16 - 02:44 PM

Corbyn will undoubtedly win the leadership election, so none of Labour's problems will be resolved. Where in your reading of the situation are Labour voters views taken into consideration? They are the people who have lost confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:42 PM

If the Labour Party electorate vote for Jeremy Corbyn, members of parliament should recognise that is the view of the party nationally, and in most cases at the level of their own constituency. (The overwhelming majority of constituencies have registered support for Jeremy, including most of those who supported other candidates in last years leadership election.) If they feel unable to accept the view of the party, they should resign from the party.

I believe in that situation they should act similarly to the two Tory MPs who defected to Ukip last year, and should resign from Parliament and seek re-election. This would provide a opportunity for the public to indicate their views on the matter.

If they choose to stay in Parliament as Labour members, they should obey the decision of the membership, and cooperate fully with Jeremy. If they are unwilling to do that they may weell be inviting reselection.

It's basically all about democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 12:57 AM

The only problem with that answer of yours Kevin is that you are still only talking about members of the Labour Party - they number in the hundreds of thousands. To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions (roughly 9.5 million) These are the people represented by the Parliamentary Labour Party. These are the people who have realised the fact that seems to have escaped the vast majority of those members of the Labour Party, particularly those who support Corbyn, you can spout on about and pay lip service to whatever guiding principles you like, you can pontificate in broad-brush terms ideology and policy - to translate those into anything you have to get elected into office, and the electorate knows, and the Parliamentary Labour Party knows that as long as Corbyn is leader that is never going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 03:17 AM

"To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions "
No they don't - does it say that in the rule book - utter nonsense?
What party is so democratic it has to win nationwide support to elect leaders?
None
That would require an ideal by-the-book Communist-based system to produce such a situation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 03:46 AM

"To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions "
No they don't -

Yes they do (to get elected, silly).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 04:27 AM

Yes they do (to get elected, silly).
Of course you are right Keith - I misread (and I have no doubt that much will be made of my misreading!).
What I intended to say is that it is the duty of the Labour Party to serve the interest of the people as a whole rather than the privileged and better off few - it is a grass-roots party created by working people to address an imbalance in society.
The nearest it ever came to doing that was in the 1940s when it adopted measures designed to create a genuine "home fit for heroes to live in".
That was fiercely opposed and eventually dismantled by the Tories and the ideal was abandoned by self-servers who saw politics as a career rather than a way to achieve a better world.
Holding office has become more important than bringing about real change.
The Tories have never pretended to do more than represent the wealthy and privileged - the best of them adopted a benign superiority in the belief that the rest of the population might survive from the crumbs of the right-mans table - this present pack of savages regards the less well-off as a hindrance, and a drag on their objectives - work and war fodder lazy benefit scroungers - little else.
It makes little difference to the people of Britain if Labour is elected with the same objectives.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 07:01 AM

No I didn't ignore the existence of the voters. It's their decision when it comes to voting. But the decision about the leadership of the Labour party, as a way of determining the overall policies of the party, rests with the membership together with members of affiliated unions and registered supporters.

Basically it's a matter of saying "this is what we are, and this is what we believe, and this is why we think you should support us".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 08:14 PM

And it's the last bit that's the uphill struggle. Blair and company did it via masterly spin. They had Murdoch on their side too. Tactics were everything, substance mostly nothing. All helped by the Tories proving how adept they were at choosing useless leaders. But the current Labour leadership have none of that. Loose cannons who say unwise things are gleefully pounced on and their issues become issues for months. There is a lack of discipline in some quarters which I'll freely admit to. Worst of all, the two-time losers in Labour who effectively imposed Cameron on us for two terms refuse to cooperate with a democratically-elected leader with a strong mandate. Labour have no mainstream media on their side, an understatement to dwarf all others. It's all a bit of a bugger but Kevin's last sentence is spot on. And read it again. Despite the darkly nonsensical Keithisms and Teribusisms we read here about Labour's cancers and near-terrorist qualities, there is a good dash of honesty coming to the fore. Let's hope it lasts. If it doesn't, and Owen Smith beats the odds, not only will it all evaporate in a spiralling whirl back to New Labour, the most spent of all spent forces, but we will STILL not get another Labour government next time, nor probably the time after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:43 AM

Teribus and Keith are correct in my opinion.....It will take many years for socialism to replace the system of financial aspiration which rules our lives at the moment, but there is simply no alternative in the long term .....our wasteful use of resources and labour cannot carry on forever, and at least in Mr Corbyn we have the chance to hear a real alternative to the capitalist narrative.

The young folks who's lives have been curtailed by the process may be more amenable to change than the spoiled generations which went before them when all the ingredients required to make capitalism work were available.

Turning Labour back into something like Blair's New Labour, means no change and a futher move towards the corrupt US form of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 04:19 AM

"Teribus and Keith are correct in my opinion.....It will take many years for socialism to replace the system of financial aspiration which rules our lives at the moment"
Theyu have never been "correct" anbout anything -0 though they are certainly RIGHT
Neither are the slightest bit interested in Socialism or have the slightest idea what it is (nor are you, in my opinion)
This is not a discussion on socialism - it is about how to make the best of what we have got with today's Labour Party and assist it to help clear up the present mess caused by the crownd in control - and **** Brexit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:03 AM

"This is not a discussion on socialism - it is about how to make the best of what we have got with today's Labour Party"

You are Sooo right Jim!! (irony alert)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:08 AM

How would YOU know?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:11 AM

Wow! I wish I could have thought of a response like that! :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:33 AM

"You are Sooo right Jim!!"
Don't get your point on irony at all, I'm afraid
It is incredibly patronising and arrogant to pronounce what the British people will and will not accept, as you have done on several occasions.
They/we took to the socialist measures introduced in the post war years like ducks to water.
Nationalisation was fully accepted as a legitimate system until is was undermined by underinvestment and denigration by the Tories - didn't hear howls of protest from people being 'forced' to travel on publicly owned trains, or burn nationalised coal, or by British produced steel goods....
I don't remember any public outcry about having to live in Council-owned property rather than stay tenets of the Rachmanns of this world.
It took Thatcherism (the nearest Britain has ever come to a Fascist administration) to kill those off - and please dont tell me what support she had from the British people - so did Hitler - a little bit of propaganda goes a long way in this twisted world..
Despite intense media pressure, the miner's strike was supported by large numbers of the British people
The only reason we still have a public health service is because it would reduce the country to near-revolution is your lot tried to remove it.
It is not the people who will not accept socialism - it is people like you, who claim to speak on their behalf.
You claim to be a socialist, yet you dismiss one of the great and only social perks ordinary people have as "benefit dependency" - putting yourself in the category of your two right-wing friends who regard working people as natural scroungers who cannot be trusted not to abuse a basic right.
Socialist my arse!!   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:40 AM

"so did Hitler - "
Should read "from the German people" of course - it was only the establishment who offered Hitler any support in the form of appeasement.
The British people paid the consequences for that appeasement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:08 PM

Jim, you misunderstand me. To be immersed in the "benefits culture" is bad for people.....As I keep saying to be happy and fulfilled people need a purpose.....why do you think so many immensely wealthy people are deeply unhappy.
Socialism provides people with a purpose all contributing what they can to the Common Weal, but it takes years, generations to break the hold of the main driver of capitalism......personal financial aspiration. When all the necessities of the system are in place, it is a tremendous driver but in Western developed countries it has become unsustainable......just look at todays young people, huge expectations, but no chance of fulfilling them...saddled with debt from higher education onwards....look at the urban underclass the horrific drug problems, all symptoms of society in decline.
Look at the entertainment industry some of the "reality" stuff they are putting out is simply exploitative pornography.

We need to give back some sense of right and wrong to our people and socialism fits the bill

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:16 PM

"To be immersed in the "benefits culture" is bad for people."
There is no such thing as being immersed by "the benefit culture".
Benefit is an entitlement paid for by workers - an insurance.
Those who use it do so as an entitlement - those who 'abuse it' do so in the same way the better off do by seeking legal loopholes to avoid paying tax.
Both may be reprehensible, but when placed against the other, who is the most - a worker who manipulates benefits in order to lift his family out of poverty, or someone who can afford to pay expensive lawyers in order to save many thousands in tax.
Jobseekers allowance at present in Britain stands thus:

Age                                 JSA weekly amount
18 to 24                          up to £57.90
25 or over                          up to £73.10
Couples (both aged over 18)         up to £114.85

Measure this against the amount taken from Britain by tax evasion.
BENEFIT FRAUD v TAX EVASION
You choose to castigate a worker who attempts to better the lot of his family while ignoring the rich who won't pay tax.
Says everything that needs to be said.
You want to stop benefit fraud - pay a living wage - the pittance handedout is hardly going to obtain too many second hmes otr holidays abroad!
Your arguments are those of the rightest of right Tories.
Or perhaps you would like to suggest an alternative?
I really don't know what you are ranting about with your Reality TV.
The British working man is not a revolutionary by heart - that was avoided by the success of The Empire in exploiting our colonials and keeping wages just above starvation level on the profits.
Improvements were hard fought for while we had a voice in Britain - now we haven't - take a look at the rapidly accelerating gap between the haves and the have nots.
There might become a breaking point where people will say "enough is enough", but not in my lifetime.
In the meantime - there is no reason on earth why wealth sharing measures might not be brought about by a socialist enough Government.
You choose to attack workers and their rights on every level - as benefit scroungers, as exploiters of the National Health Service....
You are arrogant enough to tell us what we will accept and what the won't, but you carefully avoid responding to the facts of what they have responded to in the past.
Establishing "Right and wrong" across the board is a revolutionary concept - but you are talking about just instilling it into working people.
Coupled with your intolerant attitude to asylum seekers, refugees immigrants and homosexuals, you (along with your chosen buddies) are the most extreme right-wing people I have ever encountered - disturbingly so.
If you are a Socialist/Communist - my jack's a kipper!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:55 PM

I really would like to know what solution you propose to your "benefit culture" Ake, or is that going to be another undisclosed secret of the right, along with where to house the army of franticly peddaling itinerant workers looking for jobs in places where there are no homes to rent?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 04:50 PM

For f's sake Jim, I'm not talking about "benefit fraud", in fact this system is based on fraud so why would I single out the poor?
I was talking about "benefits" as an alternative to work which contributes to the wellbeing of society.

This system is happy to keep people on derisory "benefits" rather than retrain them or bring back apprenticeships......that is where the pool of Eastern European workers come into the equation.
The Govt say that these people are better motivated than British workers, but the British workers would be just as motivated if their wages were worth three to four times their face value.
A large proportion of money earned here by immigrants from Eastern Europe (who are mostly young males) is sent back home where it is worth almost four times what it is worth here.
That is why the pitch is so slanted, capitalist economics pure and simple.

You have an extremely simplistic attitude to debate Mr T and Keith have very different views to me regarding politics and economics, but on most social issues I agree with them fully.
You must understand that socialism has little in common with the excesses of media inspired "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 05:08 PM

And it's about time that you understood that your views have nothing to do whatsoever with socialism. Call yourself something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 07:51 PM

"I'm not talking about "benefit fraud","
If you are not talking about fraud, what on earth is wrong with claiming your rightful due from a fund we have all paid into?
"an alternative to work which contributes to the wellbeing of society."
You mean like the community service sentences they hand out to criminals?
You would criminalise being unemployed - worse and worse.
What do you suggest - having the unemployed sweep the streets.
Lack of apprenticeships the fault of Eastern European workers - are you completely insane?
We have no apprenticeships because we no longer have industries - Thatcher and her acolytes made sure of that.
Far easier for you Ukip clowns to blame foreigners
What new apprenticeships are there to be created?
You really are a sewer-level racist.
Keith is a racist and "Mr T" (wasn't he a black actor who wore a lot of bling?) is an openly declared fascist
'You can tell the man who boozes by the company he chooses,
And the bleedin' pig got up and walked away"
As the song goes.
I thought the other two where bad - you are crudely inept
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 03:23 AM

Sorry Jim, you don't seem to have any interest in what anyone says regarding this subject......you are simply being disingenuous.
I don't think it is beyond you to conduct a debate, but you prefer to throw words like "Racist" and "Fascist" around.

It's just boring.

Do you really think that everything the so called Left does is wonderful and everything conservative is evil?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 04:00 AM

Just a final word Jim, I have worked in the construction industry all my life and know that there is a massive housing shortage.
The larger firms in our area very rarely take on apprentices....it's years since I actually saw one at work.
That is just one facet of the economy.....there are dozens of others.

As I said in another post, the playing field is on a cliff face, Young people in the UK simply cannot afford to live on the wages accepted by immigrants as the immigrants wages are worth three times more in Poland or Romania.

Do you remember the story I told you of the young Polish chap with a wife and two children in his own country, who had saved enough in five years to build a house in Poland?
He had achieved that while working on the MINIMUM wage...not the LIVING wage.    How many of our young people would find that possible?

Unregulated immigration was a short term economic policy which has damaged society gravely.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 05:40 AM

It is not immigrants who determine the low wages they are paid. It is employers. British ones. We call it capitalism. You have chosen the wrong enemy, as you always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 07:50 AM

"Sorry Jim, you don't seem to have any interest in what anyone says regarding this subject"
Yes I have - I'm not particularly interested in your blaming immigrants and "benefit dependency" for the ills of society - that's the old Tory line and it's worn a bit thin down the decades
If you have an argument - put it and don''t accuse me of refusing to understand an argument you have not put.
I asked you to qualify your "benefit dependency" crap - what do you offer as an alternative to unemployment - forcing people to take menial jobs and lower wages with which they can't feed their families - that seems to be your argument.
If it isn't exactly what do you propose to end "benefit dependency?
You - like the other twerp with his "get on your bike" philosophy refuse to talk your extremist proposals through to their practical conclusion.   
"I have worked in the construction industry all my life and know that there is a massive housing shortage."
I damn well know that - I've probably worked in the building industry every bit as long as you - what the hell has that got to do with immigrants?
There are, in fact, probably sufficient houses in Britain to house everybody, when you count those that are left empty because it is more profitable for the owners to leave them so rather than modernise them - the North of England has always been full of them.
Your Mrs Thatcher created a situation where property ceased being homes and became investments.
The answer to lower wages is not to drive out people who accept them, but to establish a legal minimum wage based on peoples' requirements to feed and clothe themselves and their families.
You are blaming the workers instead of putting the onus on the employers and the government.
This is an age-old argument that goes back at least as far as the middle of the 19th century when hordes of starving Irish, fleeing from The Famine, were exploited by coalowners and millowners, who used their plight to drive down indigenous wages.
Then, the workers blamed the starving Irish - now, you people are blaming immigrants.
We exploited the world for many centuries, and to a degree, still are, by flooding our shops with goods made by workers working in appalling conditions and being paid little more than slave-level wages.
Add to this, the oppressive regimes imposing these conditions are Britain's allies - we support them, we arm them and we keep them in place because it suits our economy and our politics - oil being a priome example.
You are the first on your reactionary soap-box to sneer at efforts of the people in these countries when they try to improve their lot.
What do you expect these people to do - accept their lot in silence as long as they stay away from our little England???
These people are welcome to Britain - they come and add to our culture and to our economy - by and large, their communities are trouble-free other than when your friends in the BNP make their Paki-bashing sorties, or start pointing their fingers about "cultural implants" and "inferior brains (that last from none less than our Foreign Secretary
You are one of those weird people who has said "charity begins at home" - not in my world, it doesn't
Charity begins where it is most needed.
I've asked this before of others and never received an answer - lets try you.
Given the situation the people of Britain found themselves in in wartime Britain, do you think it would have been acceptable to refuse to take the Jews fleeing from Nazi Europe - if the answer is no, how do you justify your attitude to those fleeing the wars we have helped start that are taking place in countries like Syria - whence the difference.
There were tears in this house over the last few days when we saw the photograph of the little Allepo lad, just as there were when we saw the body of that drowned refugee being lifted out of the sea a few months ago - how did you and yours react - "serve them right for coming here" maybe?
You people are devoid of common sense and common decency
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 09:45 AM

Economic migration depends on the real value of the currency being out of balance.....do you see British
labourers builders etc heading for Poland or Romania en masse?
As I said already these people are mainly young males, here for a short period around 5 years; most of them are roughing it and saving as much as they possibly can........I don't blame them they have a duty to their families, but our government's first duty in to the long term welfare of the people who elected them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 10:03 AM

Why this sudden obsession with young Polish men - have they turned you down too along with Hilary?
You carefully avoid commenting on the plight of the refugees thought they have been the permanent target of your attacks - how dishonest of you
You also refrain from offering your solution to "Benefit Culture" how dishonest of you.
Your arguments are dishonest and totally lack humanity in any shape or form.
Brexit was passed on the basis of stopping emigration - you supported that cause and refuse to justify that support.
You are not debating - you are using this thread as a platform for your bigotry
I think my point is made.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 10:57 AM

In this part of the country Jim, economic migration is almost exclusively from Poland and Romania, I accept that in other areas the nationalities involved may be different.....but that doesn't make a whit of difference to my argument against mass immigration as an economic driver.

I notice that you have fail to address even one of the points I have made......What about the lack of workers to service the Polish infrastructure?
What about the lack of training for our young people?

Do you believe the parasitical use of immigrants to service our economy is moral, or even sensible?

You just haven't a clue when it comes down to realities.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 11:28 AM

"In this part of the country Jim, economic migration is almost exclusively from Poland and Romania,"
So - keep your parochial bigotry to yourself
"I notice that you have fail to address even one of the points I have made.."
You have yet to begin yo address any of mine - how dishonest of you.
Im my world, workers are not appendages of the State, to be moved or left standing like chess-pieces.
They are free to work where they choose and not be moved or rooted at the behest of Government.
Are you seriously promoting a world where workers are forbidden this choice?
In 2013, 158088 British workers chose to work in Europe; in 2014m there were a total of 5.5 million Britons living and working abroad, that's around 7-8% of the UK population.
Is that the parasitical use of British immigrants?
No matter how they are used by employers, they choose to live and work where they do.
You are not going to respond to any of this - your crocodile tears about "parasitical use" is bullshit, and we both know it.
All you and yours are concerned about is getting rid of these foreign johnnies.
You haven't a shred of honesty or humanity - your world is one of workers as pawns of the State, and we know what that it!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 11:51 AM

"In 2013, 158088 British workers chose to work in Europe"

Just one question Jim, how many of that 158088 are working for wages which cannot sustain citizens of these foreign countries?

Are the wages they receive worth three to four times back in Britain than in the foreign countries?

Don't think so Jim, the sloping playing field only slopes one way
No unskilled British labourer wants to go to Eastern Europe as an economic migrant......that's a bit like joining the circular firing squad......no?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 12:17 PM

"Just one question Jim, how many of that 158088 are working for wages which cannot sustain citizens of these foreign countries"
No idea Ake - do you?
And what exactly does that mean
Britons are working in some of the richest and the most impoverished countries.
I have no doubt that they haven't bothered to find out if they are taking local jobs
"Are the wages they receive worth three to four times back in Britain than in the foreign countries?"
So you object to people who come here because they desperately need to - how human of you.
Admit it Ake - you don't give a toss about jobs for Brits - you would have them sweeping the streets for half nothing if you had your way
Your objection is that they are foreign
It's mnot that long ago you were ranting about them affecting our way of life - just like the little bigot you are,
"No unskilled British labourer wants to go to Eastern Europe as an economic migrant."
Of course they do - what a stupid thing to claim
They based a long-running TV series on it not so long ago
There were 33,000 Brits claiming dole in Europe alone in 20,15
"Don't think so Jim, the sloping playing field only slopes one way"
How the **** do you know - you had no idea of these figures up to half an hour ago - now, all of a suddenn, you are an expert on immigration
You are making this up to suit your bigotry.
Incredible!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 12:42 PM

I'm getting bored with this Jim, you are blethering.

I have a dog running at Harlow tonight, so I'm off to study form.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 16 - 02:57 PM

"I'm getting bored with this Jim, you are blethering."
Still the brave, honest up from character you always where
You have not answered one of my points and in the true tradition of the Terrible Trio - now you do a runner
No matter - you made clear what you are, which was the object of the exercise.
I hope you treat your dog better than you treat human beings!
Ewan put it quire appositely, I thought
Have a good night now!!
Jim Carroll

NATION OF ANIMAL LOVERS
We don't pretend we're perfect but we have endearing features,
We're honest and we're always kind to God's four-footed creatures;
Dogs and horses, hamsters, rabbits, little furry things -
Lousy Europeans can't appreciate the pleasure that a little kindness brings.
We're a nation of animal lovers.

When Greeks were being tortured then we always held our peace,
We used to like to spend our summer holidays in Greece;
Cats and ponies, budgies, moths and hairy caterpillars -
Lousy Europeans can't appreciate the pleasure that these little creatures give us,
We're a nation of animal lovers.

When there's hangings in South Africa we just avert our gaze,
But we're tender-hearted to a fault with alley cats and strays;
Remember how the nation nearly had a nervous spasm,
Breathlessly anticipating giant panda's pleasure in a cuddly orgasm,
We're a nation of animal lovers.

When there's rioting in Brixton we're impressively impassive,
But be cruel to a horse and our reaction then is massive;
Guinea pigs and painted terrapin, tropical fishes -
¤ Lesser races cannot understand the simple fact that it would meet with all our wishes
If there were no human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 16 - 06:55 PM

Mind, in my experience it's among animal lovers you tend to find some of the strongest advocates of human rights.
...................
"No unskilled British labourer wants to go to Eastern Europe as an economic migrant."
Of course they do - what a stupid thing to claim
They based a long-running TV series on it not so long ago

I take it you mean Auf Wiedersehen Pet - but pedantically I point out that Dusseldorf in Westphalia where it was set doesn't really count as Eastern Europe. And the building workers involved were not unskilled, but highly skilled, though unable to find work at home. Which is of course also true of most of those who've come here from Poland and other places.

Build the social housing we need, and there'd be plenty of work for skilled builders from home or abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 08:08 AM

The whole problem is systemic Mr McGrath, houses are looked upon as financial assets and that is what drives most housing "booms".

To find and spend the money required to provide social housing there would have to be a different ideology ...a different driver.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 01:24 PM

I think they were called council houses, the sort of house I was brought up in.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 02:22 PM

Well, I am pretty conflicted because I think it will turn out badly either way, but I've just voted for Corbyn. I can't say I am impressed with his ability to learn how to handle the press and think the PLP will continue to be as bad as ever, but I don't see Owen implementing the sort of changes required.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 05:08 PM

Well done D.....I'm not a Labour party member, but if I was I would certainly have voted for Mr Corbyn.

I'm afraid that even if he wins the vote it wont be the end of this charade......the Blairites are threatening to form a Party within a Party to circumvent the socialist agenda. I still think the end result will be a split with the Blairites claiming to represent the ordinary Labour voters and demanding to be recognised in that role as the official Labour Party.

Mr Corbyns group may be marginalised by the National Executive and the media......he is really up against it!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 05:36 PM

The National Executive should be a different animal following recent elections which voted in six new members who indicate support for Corbyn's views.

But the rift with MPs remains. It gets written up as a clash between the MPs and Corbyn as leader, but the truth is, it's a clash between MPs and the party membership, and that's much more fundamental.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 16 - 05:53 PM

Well done, DMcG. It won't surprise you to know that I've just voted the same way as you and with the same qualms.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 02:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 19 Aug 16 - 02:55 PM

"........is that going to be another undisclosed secret of the right, along with where to house the army of franticly peddaling itinerant workers looking for jobs in places where there are no homes to rent?"

No secret Jom? You finally gave me an answer to what you did when you left to come South to London to find work - You moved in with Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger for a month. Where did this bit come from that you just tacked on the end there in your usual "shifting the goalposts" manner - "looking for jobs in places where there are no homes to rent?" - but you found your way round that didn't you Jom - It was also a solution that I offered in answer to your daft question at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:23 AM

Stupidly evasive as ever
You really shouldn't post after closing time!!
And another one bites the dust
You rack 'em up, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:57 AM

On the other hand, why be ungracious
I suppose that is the nearest we'll ever ger to a withdrawal and an admission that your stupid statement was agenda-driven stupidity
Apology accepted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 04:00 AM

Directed at anyone Jom or just simply more inane magpie chatter?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 04:57 AM

Your failure top answer - what else?
We could have all moved in with the MacColls - of course
Feckin SS eejit!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 08:04 AM

Come on Jim, you can hardly blame T for abusing or killing the thread, almost every one of your responses to me have contained insults regarding racism, Fascism or homophobia, allegations of ignorance and stupidity, claims that I am a secret "right winger"....all personal stuff to avoid a proper discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 08:51 AM

Ake, in another thread Carroll was stating that it was impossible for people to move in order to find work, particularly if that person was moving from the North to the South-East. I pointed out the fact that he himself had done that very thing, but he still insisted that it was impossible for people to do it and he kept on challenging me to state how such people could find accommodation. I gave him three likely scenarios:

1) As a temporary measure you stay with friends or relatives (I have done that when working abroad twice)
2) You rent a room as a lodger or find a cheap B&B (I did that when working in the North-East of England, in Glasgow and up in the North-East of Scotland)
3) You rent within commuting distance of your work where rents may be cheaper.

Jom was having none of it - yet in the current MacColl thread he told us that when he first moved down to London to look for work he stayed with Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger - so Jom went for solution No.1.

Talking about apologies Jom where is mine regarding your incorrect snipe about the Labour Party needing the votes of the electorate?

Teribus: "To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions (roughly 9.5 million)"

Jim Carroll: 18 Aug 16 - 03:17 AM

"To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions "

"No they don't - does it say that in the rule book - utter nonsense?"

Of course Jom's knee-jerk reaction and default position meant that he either didn't bother reading what had been said, or he did read it and just plain didn't understand it - he does that on far too many occasions for it to be an exception.

When Keith A pointed out his error Jom did apologise to Keith - Now how about me Jom? Or am I still really the person that never gets anything right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 09:00 AM

You could well be. Don't tempt us.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 10:00 AM

So far Shaw I've been right about a damn sight more things than you clowns have.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 10:08 AM

You're certainly on the far right side of things, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 11:43 AM

How drearily predictable Shaw, that really the best you can do?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM

God no. But I have to cut the grass.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 01:12 PM

Well it does seem to me that Teribus is much better informed and has a much rounder life experience than you who profess left wing ideals but seem to have absolutely no idea of how socialism may be attained or even if it would be in your interests.
You are really just "liberals" a means of producing a dampening effect on wealth creation.

I prefer people like Mr T and Keith who are certain of their political views and live by them. They know they are right because they have seen capitalism rise and rise again ....we are all certainly better off than at any part of my life.
They are correct and I've said it before that the Conservative party runs the capitalist system in the UK in the most efficient manner.


My stance is that capitalism has become unsustainable and that we must learn a completely different way of survival as a society.
I respect people with different views providing they are sincerely held and the holders have a reasonable understanding of their own ideology and the views of others.

You people lack the necessary respect to conduct yourselves in debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 01:26 PM

Teribus's suggestions are pretty shaky. None of them are any good to anyone with a family wishing to move to London for work. And even for people on their own, by no means everyone has friends of family with room to put up an extra person for an indefinite time. That's even more true in the wake of the bedroom tax.

As for cheap B & B, decent ones are far and few. And "cheap" doesn't mean the same as it used to. Renting a bedsit in somewhere in commuting distance would set you back about £100 a week if you were lucky, and commuting fares are expensive.

You'd need to be in a well paid steady job for solutions like that to be available.

The system is broken. And the people who broke it are very much in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 01:53 PM

MGOH could you please tell me exactly when staying with someone temporarily = " to put up an extra person for an indefinite time"

You are the last person to talk about their arguments being "shaky"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 02:00 PM

As an example I stayed in a b+b in Southampton as an alternative to a 6 hour daily commute for around six months when I changed job. That cost £56 per day or a bit over £1000 a month (out of income after tax). Simultaneously I was paying a mortgage on the house my wife was in. That wasn't easy on a good salary. Doing it on the median salary would have been impossible (and the six hours commute wasn't a cheap alternative either)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:38 PM

If the length of the stay isn't fixed in advance, it is an indefinite stay. What else would you call it?

And if it's going to last until the visitor has a steady job, and decent accommodation at a fair rent, it's only to likely to be pretty extended.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 03:42 PM

DMcG you were working in Southampton for a limited period? Or did you eventually move down there. The latter case is what we are looking at, at least it was in Carroll's case, he moved down to London to get work and stay there. Wages higher in London?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 04:01 PM

I moved down there, as we were discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:50 AM

So you did manage it then DMcG, as did Carroll, only thing is he reckons it's impossible for anybody to do - but out of the three of us the success rate at the moment stands at 100% - strange that isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:11 AM

Latest Corbyn Stunt: "The Train Journey"

"Mr Corbyn's seemingly uncomfortable journey to Newcastle to attend a hustings with Owen Smith, his rival, afforded the Labour leader a golden opportunity to reprise one of his themes – the renationalisation of the railways. How could we allow a state of affairs to continue, he asked, where people have to sit on the floor for a three-hour journey? It's not the fault of the train staff who were, of course, "absolutely brilliant" being working people; it was the system that was wrong. There were too few trains and as a result they were "ram-packed and incredibly expensive". Could there be a better case for taking the railways back into public ownership? The Guardian stated that "Jeremy Corbyn, famed for standing up for his principles, sat down for them".

Only it was all a sham. The Labour leader did have a seat on the train and in CCTV footage released by Virgin, the train operator, he can be seen occupying it. The man who has supposedly brought us the "new politics" turns out to be just as a shameless an exponent of the media stunt as all the others, only less competent. Doubtless this will make little difference to his band of Left-wing disciples for whom the ends justify the means. {Pssst That's you Shaw, Carroll, Raggy, DMcG and anyone else daft enough to vote for this prat} There will also be many commuters travelling into London with Southern Railway who recognise the problem of overcrowding, though they mainly have the RMT union to thank for that."

What better example of inept misrepresentation could you be shown, wonder if his pal Seumas Milne had anything to do with the orchestration of this farce?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:42 AM

You don't read very carefully, Teribus. I was making two related points. Firstly, b and b was a lot more expensive than had been suggested and, as I explicitly said, it was only possible because my salary was far above the median.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 02:30 AM

DMcG that would be the B&B that you selected. Please point out where I said such accommodation would be cheap - I didn't.

None of which detracts at all from the fact that people can move to find work - they do it all the time.

It is not the Government's responsibility to guarantee anybody a job on their doorstep.

It is not the Government's responsibility to guarantee anybody a job for life.

Things that happen in life are not always somebody else's fault. In a free society the individual is largely responsible for himself or herself and it is the duty of the parents and the education system to make every single child in their care aware of that and prepare that child for those future responsibilities. Do anything other than that and you are doing that child a grave disservice that will disadvantage it for the rest of his/her life.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 03:57 AM

No you didn't say it would be cheap but you did say it was an option. I merely point out that due to cost it may not be. Equally your option of saying with friends and family wasn't an option for us as there weren't any.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 04:26 AM

"None of which detracts at all from the fact that people can move to find work - they do it all the time".

A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one. I know lots of people who have found a job elsewhere and then moved to it - I have done so myself many times. I know a handful of people who moved to London without a job in the hope of finding one. None of them managed it, though one had seven zero hour contracts simultaneously in the hope of making enough to live. Didn't work out.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:07 AM

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 04:26 AM

"None of which detracts at all from the fact that people can move to find work - they do it all the time". (Teribus)

A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one. I know lots of people who have found a job elsewhere and then moved to it - I have done so myself many times. I know a handful of people who moved to London without a job in the hope of finding one. None of them managed it,

Thereby proving to age-old saying - "Look before you leap".

Also common sense should tell anyone that planning and preparation tend to pay off in any enterprise undertaken. Tell Jim Carroll about it, in me, DMcG you are preaching at the converted.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:26 AM

I'm not preaching to anyone, unless it is a plea for more care in constructing arguments. Don't say things are options if in many cases they aren't. Don't talk about moving to find work if you mean finding work and then moving and don't declare things "impossible" if you would readily admit it is perfectly possible if you have plentiful resources. Jim, I am confident, would say such moves are perfectly possible if you are a premier league footballer or daddy buys you a house. His "impossible" had unstated caveats as most readers would understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:45 AM

Anyway, back to Labour. (We do tend to drift).

Corbyn is a politician, not a God. As I said above when I said I had voted for him, I am not impressed with his ability to learn how to handle the press. This train mess up is a prime example: he had a valid point - train overcrowding - but by inept handling that has been lost in a debate about his honesty. It was interesting to hear on Newsnight that if he if he had said this was the sort of thing you could see most days they would have been content: it was the statement that day was one such day that has caused all the furore.

Now, Teribus said this would not disturb people like me much. And he is quite right, but not because I follow Corbyn blindly. It is because I had factored such messes into the decision already. And there will be more, I am certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:48 AM

Tell me DMcG what it is it that makes it impossible for people to do a bit of research and look for a job before making a move? What resources do you need to do that? Certainly none that require a premier league footballer's wages, in fact they are freely available to all at any Library, Citizen's Advice Bureau, or Job Centre.

Mind you, no wonder you and your pals think life is so difficult for the common man, the person you want to lead the country, couldn't organise a bottle party in a brewery and gets out of a perfectly serviceable seat on a train to sit on the floor, in an attempt to convey the impression that the trains are overcrowded but is dumb enough to be caught on CCTV doing it.

Perhaps you should all be walking round with labels on your necks.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:58 AM

Well, mess-ups are all part of being in the public eye. Boris messed up on piccaninnies and call-me-Dave messed up shagging a dead pig's head. Prince Harry messed up by letting someone take a pic of his bare wagging arse as he gave a girl a standing-up one from behind. Naz Shah messed up by agreeing that Israel could be moved to the US. Call-me-Dave messed up by calling a referendum he was certain he would win, then losing it. Michael Foot messed up by not dressing up posh enough at a time when such things mattered. Gordon Brown messed up by forgetting that his mic was still on and over old-age pensions. I could go on. Just a small corrective to anyone who wishes to make capital out of Corbyn's train gaffe. Anyone old enough to remember Jennifer's ear?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

I have a policy as I have said before on this website that I am happy to debate but try to avoid pointless arguments. I have said all I intend to say on the question of moving for work unless something of significance is said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:06 AM

Any views on Owen Smith's idea of using a general election to approve the results of a Brexit negotiation. It seems to me to be a truly terrible idea. A second referendum would be bad enough but at least would not conflate the results of a negotiation with who governs us for the next parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM

A second referendum would be justified once the details of our exit deal are clear. We should never have had the first one, of course, with an electorate making a choice based on ignorance and the manipulations on both sides of the argument, but we are where we are. General elections should never be predicated on nominated issues. That is not what they are for.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 09:22 AM

Teribus did actually suggest that someone coming to London could find "a cheap B&B", in so many words.

It's easy to get confused about stuff like that, and I assume you weren't intentionally telling a porky, but I suggest you check what you've written, T, before saying you never wrote it.
.........
As for the train, it was clearly crowded since other people were having to sit on the floor.
Reserved seats aren't vacant seats, and nor are seats with bags on them. Obviously Corbyn wouldn't accept being upgraded to First Class while others were still without seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:01 AM

He was a twit for making an issue out of it. He sorely needed a good spin doctor with him. Ignore it and it'll go away. He made a pig's ear ear of the whole thing, which is at least better than a pig's...oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:03 AM

(Ear ear? You're not in the House now, Shaw me lad...)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:15 AM

The main problem with a second referendum is that it is almost certain the "It's not good enough" contingent would win and there will be a demand for things to be included that were never part of the negotiation. If in a subsequent negotiation these were granted it is likely something else would have to be traded away. We could get onto a neverendum very easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:57 AM

The trouble with the kind of referendum Owen Smith seems to be calling for is that it's not clear what,d be on offer. Basically there are three ways to go - there'd be aceepting whatever cobbled up deal the government might manage to get ( if in fact suchh couLd be obtained), there'd be going for pure Brexit, no dealls, and there,d be 'let's call the whole thing off", and staying in the EU.

I suspect that last would probably be the option of preference for most people - but it doesn't seem likely it'd be on offer.

If I had my choice I'd go for a fresh in out vote, but this time with EU imigrants having the same right to vote as Commonwealth immigrants, and a vote for 16 and 17 year olds. Both of which they had in the Scottish independance vote. After all, those are the two groups with most at stake in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:00 PM

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

And somehow DMcG I get the distinct impression that the only person who you will ever recognise as saying "something of significance" is yourself.

But I did notice you could not answer, or dismiss, any of the points put to you. I will ask again why does it necessarily require someone to be on "above median salary" to do the ground work to look into getting a job before one moves? Rhetorical Question as I have grown used to "socialists" not answering the hard questions put to them - Nothing At All - Just application of plain good common sense - an attribute sadly lacking in our country today it would seem.

Akenaton is perfectly correct most of those calling themselves "socialists" today are nothing of the sort they are a "liberalist" wrecking crew.

As for Brexit negotiations - the Labour Party cannot even organise it's own bloody leadership election without making it a three ring circus - or hasn't that struck home yet, plain and obvious to the rest of the British electorate.

Steve Shaw - 24 Aug 16 - 08:45 AM

"A second referendum would be justified once the details of our exit deal are clear."

If the details of our exit deal are clear numbnuts, that means that Article 50 has already been triggered and we are leaving ( That is not according to me that is according to your pal Jean-Claude Juncker), a second referendum under such circumstances is a complete and utter non-starter - we would have to reapply to join the EU, which would now mean that we would have to ditch Sterling and take on the Euro.

DMcG - 24 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM - I take it that that was something of significance was it?

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 09:22 AM - The man was caught making a complete and utter arse of himself - live with it. IF he ever wanted to take the episode further Sir Richard Branson would make complete and utter mincemeat of him - hopefully, unlike you, Seumas Milne will realise that and put it to bed as quickly as possible and bury it even quicker.

Shaw seems to be obsessed with this pig's head thing - tell me Shaw, I take it that you did go to university - while there Shaw, did you consider yourself to be in the public eye?? Oh hang about, you are just vain enough to believe that you were.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 11:57 AM

You forgot your most important condition for your second referendum Kevin - those likely to vote "Leave" are not entitled to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:30 PM

So it's ok to shag a dead pig's head as long as you do it in private....😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:08 PM

If, McGrath, the referendum were on whether you wanted option a, b, or c then we could get the whole thing over relatively quickly, though with massive arguments on what a, b and c are, and whether d should be on the list as well. But the real danger lies in a yes/no referendum, because a vote of 'no' would put us in a very difficult position where the EU and negotiators had agreed the exit terms but the country had rejected them. Heaven only knows what would happen then.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

About as democratic as the rule they had this time, which was that those two categories of people, the ones most likely to vote Remain, were excluded.

In these days when commercial interactions are taken to be the only really acceptable way of managing things, there'd be a good case for the kind of protection customers are meant to have. If you buy something on the basis of demonstrably false claims about what it can do, the deal is void. And if you sign up to a deal and rapidly realise you were foolish in doing so, you have a period of grace during which you can cancel it.

Apply those terms to the Brexit vote...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:41 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 24 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

"About as democratic as the rule they had this time, which was that those two categories of people, the ones most likely to vote Remain, were excluded."

Complete and utter BS Kevin there is no Option (a), (b), or (c). The choice is "In" or "Out" and when they held the referendum those who were thought to vote most likely to remain didn't - traditional grass roots Labour voters.

The referendum was about whether or not the UK electorate wanted to remain in the EU or not - EU citizens living and working in the UK did not and quite rightly should have had no say whatsoever in that vote, it was a vote for the electorate of the UK and for them alone. EU citizens after all do not get to vote in our General Elections do they?

The referendum has been held the result was that we are leaving - live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM

Mr T, you're an obnoxious idiot. Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:23 PM

True, EU nationals resident in the UK do not get to vote in natiinal elections. (Apart from English, Scots, Welsh and Irish). Citizens of Commonwealth countries resident in the UK do get to vote in national elections. So long as people are 18 or more.

But in local elections all EU residents get to vote.

That's how it is. That's "the UK Electorate". Nothing particularly logical or consistent about that. Nothing set in stone. It will change when we leave the EU, because the EU residents, even if allowed to stay, will lose their vote in local elections.

I'd prefer the way they did it in Scotland for the independence referendum - everybody got to vote, from 16 up. I'd see that as a significantly more democratic electorate.

The vote was whether Britain should stay in the EU. Not allowing EU residents a say in that wasn't a matter of "of course". It was anti democratic and shameful. More so because all the parties colluded in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:39 PM

"The referendum was about whether or not the UK electorate wanted to remain in the EU or not...it was a vote for the electorate of the UK and for them alone..."

Yep. And just under 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave. Live with that. Just over one third of the electorate dragging us out of the EU. Wow. Democracy in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:46 PM

Steve Shaw wrote: Yep. And just under 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave. Live with that. Just over one third of the electorate dragging us out of the EU. Wow. Democracy in action.

100% of the UK electorate had the option to vote. 29% chose not to vote. What's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 01:47 AM

The question I asked people's views about was Owen Smith's proposal for a SECOND referendum or using a general election to confirm whatever had been agreed. Just a reminder so as not to confuse this with referendum that has taken place, as some of the posts above seem to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 05:09 AM

DMcG - 25 Aug 16 - 01:47 AM

Jean-Claude Juncker - "There will be no talks or informal discussions between the EU, or member states of the EU, and the UK until after the UK has invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty".

Taking that at face value that would mean that by the time all the details of the Brexit deal are known we will be on our way out of the EU and will not be in any position whatsoever to renegotiate the terms of our leaving, so what exactly having a referendum on the terms does I cannot imagine, so I agree with you it is a terrible idea - but generally the Labour Party do keep coming up with terrible ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

Well why take him at face value? He's a politician! And they don't want us out, remember. Plenty of water to go under the bridge before Article 50 is invoked and you can bet your life that the water is already flowing. And the most terrible idea anyone has come up with was come up with by a Tory, who came up with the idea that we should have a referendum on a matter that we elect governments to deal with. And he did it for terrible reasons, namely that he was running scared of his own right wing and running even more scared that Farage would nick Tory seats. And the most terrible thing of all is that he was certain he would win. Now it's going to take an exceptionally terrible Labour government in power to come up with a more terrible idea than that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:49 AM

I agree, Steve. I see Owen's comments as being more about the leadership election toon and positioning for the next General Election than genuinely being about the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:54 AM

Don't know why the phone threw a 'toon' into that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:06 AM

Ah, Steve, you meant Juncker rather than Owen, I think. Apologies. But I stick to my remark that I think Owen is being tactical rather than straightforward.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:26 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:51 AM

100% of the UK electorate had the option to vote. 29% chose not to vote. What's the problem?

The vote didn't go his way and he's still sulking.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:26 AM

Steve Shaw - 25 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

Referendum on EU membership was promised in 2010, unfortunately the Lib-Dems blocked it as part of the price to form a Coalition Government. The Conservatives stated that the previously promised referendum would be held if they won the 2015 election. I know that you are a Labour Party supporter and member and used to your chosen political party failing to honour it's election promises, but could you explain what is actually wrong with a political party living up to the promises made to those who voted for them?

No problem with the EU Referendum back in 1975 then Shaw?

1975 voter turn out 64.62% resulted in a YES for EU membership by 43% of the total electorate - 17,378,581 votes
2016 voter turn out 72.21% resulted in a NO to EU membership by 37.44% of the total electorate - 17,410,742 votes

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:56 AM

I've realised I mistated the situation as regarding voting rights for EU citizens resident in the UK. Citizens of two other EU countries have full voting rights - Malta and Cyprus.
So a Greek from Cyprus gets the vote, whereas a Greek from Greece doesn't.

It's really a bit of a dog's dinner of an electorate really. Someone who'd spent years fighting the British in Ireland or elsewhere gets the vote, a Ghurka from Nepal who'd been in the British army, doesn't, but Sikh from India who's done the same does.

But the Cypriot who can vote is still liable to be deported along with the Greek if the government's bid to use EU immigrants as bargaining counters comes unstuck...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM

I did not agree with the referendum in 1975 either. We elect politicians to get themselves knowledgable enough to make responsible decisions on our behalf. We do not elect politicians to be in dereliction of their duties in leaving the most crucial decisions to an electorate who are far less informed than they are and who are, in consequence, vulnerable to the kinds of lies peddled, for example, by both sides in the recent referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:46 PM

I think that's a pretty rosy view of elected MPs, Steve. In practice we elect MPs to do what the party decides, and in practice that means what the party leader decides.

Of course the Labour Party at present is playing by different rules, and that's not working out too well either, with the MPs standing out against the party members and the party leader they appointed.

Refererendums do have some merits in comparison. I've come to the conclusion they should run them on a best out of three basis. First time vote to make a provisional choice, second one a week or so later to confirm that, or to reject it. If it's rejected, a third one a couple of weeks later, to settle things.

That's the way we settle all kinds of things in real life when we toss a coin, and make it best of three. Always seems a lot fairer that way, which is why we do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:19 PM

Well we actually elect MPs to run the country. To run the schools, the health service, welfare, the police, housing, employment, the roads, taxation and emptying the bins. That sounds awfully busy to me and they have my respect when they do the job well. I don't expect any MP to be a specialist in any field at the outset but I do expect them to grow rapidly in competence in the policy area they've been landed with. That's why we don't elect people who wear chicken suits or who put cardboard boxes on their heads. They should be making all the big decisions based on their expertise and should not be passing them on to a far more ignorant electorate (good job you didn't have to pass a test about Europe in order to vote, eh?) We should never, ever have referendums. It's a job that the vast majority of people are not equipped to do. That is a dereliction of democracy, not "democracy in action."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 09:05 PM

Well MPs don't do those things do they? Most of them get done at a much more local level by people who are much more likely to know how. The Principle of Subsidiarity should apply, with matters being organised as locally as possible, and that's supposed to be the ruling principle in the EU.

In practice MPs are very limited in their ability to control the government. Much of what happens in Parliament is a kind of charade, with the decisions being made by a non-elected executive, basing it's power on a parliamentary majority dependant in practice on the votes of a tiny proportion of voters in relatively few constituencies, voting in a electoral system where very few of these members were actually the choice of amajority of those who voted, let alone the ppoplulation as a whole.

Worse systems exist. But it's quasi-democracy at best.

Referendums have serious problems too, even if in some ways they are closer to a democratic system. The problem with them is that the very size of the population puts rational debate and decision making out of reach. Mobs are not democratic.

A system that would overcome some of those problems and make for a more genuinely democratic process would be a kind of jury system, in which the temporary decision makers would have been selected at random to represent those who were not selected. They would have the responsibility of learning the facts, debating them, and deciding. Not a new idea - it goes back to the origins of democracy in Greece.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 02:17 AM

I would not go quite as far as Steve.   Referenda are generally an abdication of responsibility but occasionally they are appropriate. The one I think I is most defensible is the one on the Alternative vote. It would seem a bad idea if the government could just change the voting system at will. However, as Steve implied. it was hardly a glowing example of a well informed electorate taking a considered decision after suitable contemplation of the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:23 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 25 Aug 16 - 09:05 PM

"Well MPs don't do those things do they? Most of them get done at a much more local level by people who are much more likely to know how."

Thank you for pointing that out to Mr Shaw - saved me the trouble.

The Principle of Subsidiarity should apply, with matters being organised as locally as possible, and that's supposed to be the ruling principle in the EU.

While it may well be what is supposed to be the ruling principle of the EU it is in fact the opposite of how they run the show, one of the very good reasons for getting out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:45 AM

I'd already replied to McGrath but my post didn't take. Of course MPs don't run everything directly. They delegate. But the ones who run departments are in charge. The manager of Bude Morrisons isn't a butcher but he is in charge of the the fact that meat sold in the shop must conform in quality, price and standard of display to company policy. It doesn't mean that he cuts the chops himself but the buck stops with him if sloppy butchery standards end up poisoning people or if blood drips all over the yoghurts in my trolley. The butcher in turn is accountable to him, and can't just swan off down the road with a wad of readies from the till to buy cheap beef at the farmers' market.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:09 AM

All referendums in a democratic country are abdications of responsibility. You hand over, every time, the decision-making to millions of people who are far less informed on the detail of issues and far less aware of potential consequences. It's like getting the schoolkids in Bude Junior to pick their new headteacher from a set of photos and just a little bad advice. In the system we have I want parliament to make the big decisions every time. If I don't like their decisions I'll vote for someone else next time in a GENERAL election. The alternative vote referendum was a cynical con to keep the gullible LibDems onside, certain to be thrown out. The efforts to inform the public as to what they were supposed to be voting about were pathetic. In the recent referendum there was a good deal of heat and very little light coming from both sides. Already we're facing a weakened currency and a probable recession, unless we keep on printing money, of course, and those are just the warning shots before anything to do with leaving has actually happened. Cor, who'd have thought it? Not little Englanders like Teribus, that's for sure. It was all going to be so easy, wasn't it? But now even Teribus is trying to soothe us by telling us that, don't worry, it'll be years before very much happens. In the words of Jim Royle, referendums my arse. Even the one in 1975.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:26 AM

I'm not saying the AV referendum was well done, or not a sop to the liberals. But it was a vote about how Parliament works rather than what it does, and it doesn't seem right that those sorts of decisions have no checks and balances. The fixed term parliament is another, somewhat milder, example where parliament changed how it worked without anyone but themselves being able to question it. But it could just have well said ten years between elections and there is nothing in the formalities to stop that. (We have had long parliaments in the past, after all)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:14 AM

Steve Shaw - 26 Aug 16 - 06:09 AM

"All referendums in a democratic country are abdications of responsibility."

And that is why we have so many of them isn't it Steve?

There have only been THREE UK refereda held. Others have been held in the constituent parts of the UK making a massive total of 11 since 1973 - none before then. Ever heard of something called perspective Shaw?

As to our "dire" economic state:

"whatever damage was done to consumer and business confidence in the UK in the days after the referendum result, was a short-term shock that has been quickly overcome.

The simple fact is that if consumers are buoyant, then business and investment should expand to serve their needs.

Moreover, the dire predictions from the International Monetary Fund, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Her Majesty's Treasury and others that a Brexit vote was the greatest threat to global economic recovery also has proved wrong.

Yes, all the pre-existing problems of stagnation in Europe, the dire state of Italian banks, a slowdown in China and geo-political turmoil are still putting the brakes on the expansion of the international economy. The threat of Brexit, however, has mysteriously vanished from the business lexicon."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:38 AM

What has my opinion on referendums in general got to do with "perspective?" You don't half talk twaddle at times.

As for the upshot of the leave vote, well there's plenty of time for more things to go wrong. Every little negative comment from European leaders that no, we're not getting a "special deal" unless we leave our borders open (which we already knew, but which was played down in the campaign) will knock a few more cents off the value of the pound. You were the cheerleader here for saying that the world would come falling at our feet offering favourable deals, that trading with the world would be a cinch (even though we don't actually make much to trade). Ain't happening, is it, and it's no use blaming the chilling world economy. We knew about all that yonks before we had xenophobic, manipulating dickheads like Johnson, Gove and Farage persuading us to leave. No irony in an extremely undemocratic campaign persuading us to leave the "undemocratic" EU, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:02 AM

The fact that central government might have some role to play in relation to the kind of things you mention. steve, does not imply it hould be seen as having ultimate control. Society as a whole has a role in relation to how children are treated in the family, and this involves a role for central government in laying down regulations and resources - but in no sense are families franchised branches of government.

The same in principle should be recognised in other contexts. In many ways the UK, and particularly England perhaps has gone too far in inappropriate centralising. The principle of subsidiiarity is very much marginalised, and it needs to be central in all things.

Insofar as the EU has been guilty of the same thing, that was the key criticism that it deserved. Brexit will just makes it harder to change this, both inside the truncated EU and in the UK, or whatever portions of that remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:28 AM

Well I agree with all that, but central government provides the dough. We do have a unfair council tax system, of course, to make us feel that we have a stake locally. I did like the old Liberals' notion of a local income tax. Generally, if you are allocating the money for health, education, security and policing and environmental matters, you have a considerable degree of control. Remember rate-capping, supposedly the brainchild of the party of small government? Maggie used it to control leftie councils. We are still living with the aftermath. And, last time I saw an estimate, over three-quarters of local government spending money comes from the Treasury.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 11:36 AM

I do take your point, DMcG. But if you put the question of how parliament should run to a referendum there is still no escaping the fact that a crucial question is being put by the far more informed to the far less informed. That is my problem with all referendums. Were that our politicos all honest Johns who could put all facets of issues simply and neutrally to the people. As we saw in the last referendum, which saw a squalid disgrace of a campaign on both sides, it's more likely that pigs will fly. Referendums my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM

Central government certainly does not "provide the dough".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 12:36 PM

"You were the cheerleader here for saying that the world would come falling at our feet offering favourable deals, that trading with the world would be a cinch (even though we don't actually make much to trade)."

Don't think so Shaw, certainly not in those words. What I did say was that it would now be easier for the UK to enter into bilateral trade deals with countries throughout the world (Who have been our main trading partners for the last three years). Oh and I think we make a damned sight more than you obviously think we do.

Perspective Shaw - you yammering on as though referenda were a monthly occurrence in the UK - nationwide we have had three in the last 43 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:43 PM

Actually you could say three in the last 1000 years or more...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 07:44 PM

You, Kevin, could, you actually might, no idea of course why you would want to say that as the frequency of an event can only be established from when the first event occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:46 AM

the frequency of an event can only be established from when the first event occurred

Not at all. The frequency of an event can be determined from any frame of reference that is relevant. It would be perfectly appropriate to talk about the frequency of occurrence of some event involving Scotland since the Act of Union, for example.

I think you are straying into maths and science again, Teribus, and last time I asked you didn't claim any specific background.   Formally the definition of frequency of an event is the number of occurrences in a given period, but there is no requirement to define the period in any specific way: frequency like that is always contextual.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 02:02 AM

Either way DMcG it still refutes the impression Shaw attempts to give that referenda are common - they are not, which was the point I was making - but then I think you appreciated that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 02:05 AM

Yes, I did appreciate that was the point you were making to Steve. I don't think it was the point you were making to Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:10 AM

Strange then DMcG that the example you give defines the start of your selected "given period" to an event as opposed to merely the date.

To say that we have had only three nation wide referenda in the last 1000 years is both meaningless and ridiculous for a whole host of reasons. But to say that since referenda have been used in the UK we have only had three nation wide referenda clearly shows the frequency they are adopted - seldom and only ever on issues where free choice is offered completely uncluttered by the demands of Party Politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:28 AM

I have made no comment on the frequency or otherwise of referendums. You two are floating up shit creek without the paddle that Teribus lost yonks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:35 AM

*smile*, ok, Steve, I know you didn't, so we needn't continue this. But, as i am sure you are aware, my comments were actually about the subtext, not referendums.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:22 AM

You appear to have taken my remark as hostile, Teribus. Honestly it wasn't.

Actually there is rhetorical logic to using the longer time frame. There's probably a Greek term for t, there generally is. It serves to emphasise that the 43 years is not a period during which referendums were infrequent, but rather the reverse,

Local referendums about local issues are more readily justified.

The only countries where referendums on national issues are relatively common are Switzerland, where there have been over 600 since the mid 19th century (many on a canton level), and Ireland since the 1940s. These seem to work out well enough, with populations which have become accustomed to them. The English seem to panic at anything unfamiliar - hence the nonsense that was talked about how complicated Alternative Voting would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM

Actually, I agree with Teribus. One thousand years ago we did not even have recognised government so how could we have held a referendum/   That's just daft.

There must be a reasonable time frame when discussing these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:14 AM

Anyway, the deed is done, Brexit will be brought about.
Mr Farage has triumphed against all odds.....we all love an "outsider"...don't we?

Personally I think he deserves some recognition......Sir Nigel Farage has a nice ring to it. I'm sure when the EU finally implodes we shall all be down on our knees thanking him.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM

I'm sure we can all think of a few "outsiders" who were very successful for a time who we most definitely do not love.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 10:15 AM

Nigel Farage, Trumpist Arsehole has a much better ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 12:53 PM

"Anyway, the deed is done, Brexit will be brought about."
If that's the case, it's thanks to arseholes like you.
Farage's support for Fascist Trump puts this decision exactly where it belongs -
"Sir Nigel Farage has a nice ring to it. I'm sure when the EU finally implodes we shall all be down on our knees thanking him"
as does your deification of him put you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:14 PM

Hey, Ake!- here's a profile of Trump's people. I suspect Farage's are much the same.


The Dumbed Down Democracy
-Timothy Egan
Aug. 26, 2016


I give you Texas. A recent survey of Donald Trump supporters there found that 40 percent of them believe that Acorn will steal the upcoming election.

Acorn? News flash: That community-organizing group has been out of existence for six years. Acorn is gone, disbanded, dead. It can no more steal an election than Donald Trump can pole vault over his Mexican wall.

We know that at least 30 million American adults cannot read. But the current presidential election may yet prove that an even bigger part of the citizenry is politically illiterate — and functional. Which is to say, they will vote despite being unable to accept basic facts needed to process this American life.

Trump, who says he doesn't read much at all, is both a product of the epidemic of ignorance and a main producer of it. He can litter the campaign trail with hundreds of easily debunked falsehoods because conservative media has spent more than two decades tearing down the idea of objective fact.

"There's got to be a reckoning on all this," said Charlie Sykes, the influential conservative radio host, in a soul-searching interview with Business Insider. "We've created this monster."


Whole Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:23 PM

Meant to add
Nice to see things haven't changed
"Of course Jom's knee-jerk reaction and default position meant that he either"
Still relying on mistakes, even when they have been acknowledged and withdraw
Always amusing to see small minds growing even smaller!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:19 PM

My use of "outsider" was of course racing parlance Mr McGrath.

Greg... Mr Farage's intervention was to highlight the fact that Mr Trump may fracture the cracked US political system which you have all been complaining about, without that fracture you are damned to another couple of decades of failed foreign interventions and US warmongering.......Mrs Clinton has made it clear that she will return to a "Cold War" stance, but the circumstances are now very different, the US is no longer the worlds bent policeman......the power base has shifted.
Several years ago I said that if political change was to come, then it would have to come via the right (social conservative)socialists and centrists can mould that change in their own image, but it is imperative that the powerful social conservative movement takes the initiative. Mrs Clinton is a crook and a phoney....who appears to have in thrall people who should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:38 PM

See Ake, now there's a classic example of your delusion.

Trump has stiffed creditors, screwed his contractors and workers, run a phony university to bilk money out of people, wrung as much money as he can out of properties and then declared "bankruptcy", refused to rent/sell to Persons of Color, has slimy criminals running his campaign, is a darling of the KKK and the "alt-right" arseholes, is a quintessential corporatist, cannot open his mouth without telling lies out of both sides of it, is a billionaire who pretends to be "a man of the people" &c...........

....and to you Clinton is a "crook" and a "phony".

You are evidently just about as intelligent and educated - or possibly a little less so - as the folks referenced, above, in Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:23 PM

What are these last posts doing in a thread about Labour, when there's already a thread about Trump where they'd be at home?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:42 PM

Farage & Trump two peas in a pod, and apparently now buddies, Kevin. Be that as it may, if a MudElf wants to swap them to the other thread, fine by me!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 05:57 PM

...or delete 'em. Also fine by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 06:22 PM

Yeah, it would be nice if someone DID delete Trump and Farage!

I'll get me coat...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 07:57 PM

Now if you said that in some internet circles, that would definitely be seen as a death threat, Stu.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:27 PM

Steve, actually. Yes, I know. Why do you think I was in such a hurry to get me coat?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:36 PM

that would definitely be seen as a death threat

Rather like the one Trump made - in a public forum - against Clinton, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 03:30 AM

"another couple of decades of failed foreign interventions and US warmongering"
Trump has proposed the use of nuclear weapons in current military conflicts on three occasions - it doesn't come any more threatening than that.
America has always resorted to foreign interventions when it comes to their own interests - that is the nature of the beast.
There is no reason to believe that they will change and certainly not under a Trump administration.
"AMERICA FIRST"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 11:24 AM

I see that the Labour Party is calling for Sir Richard Branson to be stripped of his knighthood. The actual reason being that he exposed "The Leader" as a liar and made him look a complete and utter prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 12:03 PM

However you look at it, John McDonnell was pretty silly to say anything that could be interpreted like that now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 02:24 PM

What McDonnell seems to have been saying that a systen that gives honours to tax exiles like Branson needs to be scrapped, or radically overhauled. Who can disagree with that? Though in the light of Sir Jimmy Saville, why should anyone see a knighthood as an honour they wish to receive?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 03:26 PM

You are right, Kevin, and in only mirror article I can find on the subject has he is talking about Sir Philip Green and BHS. I didn't buy the Sunday mirror and so haven't seen the original, but would have expected to see a more direct reference to Branson in the online if it was there.


But that doesn't alter the fact that they need to be much more media-savvy. They need to at least ask themselves as a matter of habit "how will the media interpret this" and even if the talk was entirely about Green it is obvious the media would say it is about Branson really.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 03:31 PM

"The actual reason being that he exposed "The Leader" as a liar and made him look a complete and utter prat."
Do you think he's going to share that one with the rest of us - you're certainly no - you don't do that sort of thing!!
In fact, the truth of the matter is that the call was made because Branson, as one of Britain's super-rich has, after making his money in Britain, done a runner in order not to pay taxes to the country that has made him rich.
"'It should be a simple choice for the mega-rich. Run off to tax exile if you want. But you leave your titles and your honours behind when you go,' says Mr McDonnell"
Not a thing that bothers State arse-licking "patriots" like yourself
Rule Britannia, as long as wwe don't have to pay for her upkeep - eh what!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:37 PM

Not true Jim.
Here is the Mirror headline,
"Labour calls for Richard Branson to be STRIPPED of his knighthood after Jeremy Corbyn Traingate row"

Here are the opening two sentences,
"Labour is calling for Richard Branson to be stripped of his knighthood following his bid to humiliate Jeremy Corbyn over Traingate.

Writing exclusively in the Sunday Mirror, Shadow Chancellor John ­McDonnell slams the Virgin billionaire as a "tax exile who thinks he can try and intervene and ­undermine our democracy"."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:53 PM

No Keith
McDonnell makes it clear he believes that tax dodgers such as Branson should have no say in State affairs
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/28/john-mcdonnell-richard-branson-stripped-of-knighthood-traingate
He also targets freeloaders like Sir Phillip Green
As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn was quite right anytway - I've travelled on one of Branson's cattle trucks and have found them appallingly overcrowded.
Their excuse is that there aren't enough trains - maybe Branson can afford to put on a few more out of the taxes he doesn't pay!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:53 PM

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up, Keith. Logical fallacies are your stock in trade, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:56 PM

The onlinearticle needs careful reading, Keith, but it APPEARS to me to be a commentary written by the Mirror staff and then some paragraphs by Labour. And there is nothing in the Labour text to directly support the headline: it is all supposition about what John M really meant but wasn't saying.

But as I said I haven't seen the original, so I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 05:16 PM

And it IS the Mirror, fer chrissake. Bumwipe incorporated.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 05:22 PM

You're wasting your time talking to a closed mind lads - first antisemitism, then misogyny... yayya, yattata -
Child abuse next, no doubt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:33 AM

As far as I am aware Sir Richard Branson has no say in State Affairs.

But would like to add that he, like everybody else, is entitled to an opinion.

And he and those who work for him and 100% entitled to defend the company they work for when blatant lies are reported about the service they provide based upon an idiotic and totally inept PR stunt that went spectacularly wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 03:03 AM

Correct Teribus, but a "storm in a teacup" surely.....could we not get back to a discussion of the Labour Party and what, if any, future it has?
Seems to me there are political movements at work all over the world.
Interesting times.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 03:25 AM

"And he and those who work for him and 100% entitled to defend the company they work for when blatant lies are reported "
He has the right of a taxpayer - whoops - he isn't one of those, is he?
Otherwise, he has no rights other than those afforded by law.
He milks the country for profit and has not paid taxes on those profits for over three years, just as many, many others of his ilk.
He has a knighthood for 'services' to Britain yet takes far more out of it than the "scroungers" you people have targeted - his knighthood needs to be questioned.
Are the claims made about Virgin Trains blatant lies?
Not in my experience.
It would be a neglect of duty for any leading politician not to draw attention to the conditions in which people travel - it's refreshing when a politican does his job.
This thread has become a microcosm of what is happening in Britain at large - Labour has the making of a half-decent leader wo could possibly provide an opposition to the mess the country is in - the press, the state machine and its lackeys are on him like a pack of jackals - Antisemitism, incompetence, unelctability (if that made the slightest difference to the rest of us), misogyny - and now a politician "telling lies" - horrors of horrors - that has long been part of the job description of a place in Westminster and has come to be expected
REMEMBER THIS ONE?
That campaign not only led to a Government which produced a massive rise in unemployment, but produced an administration which was the nearest we have ever had to a Fascist-led country which impoverished millions, took away our rights to a say in our work and decimated British industry.
Where was the outcry by our 'democratic' press when that lie was told?
"PR stunts' - if that's what Corbyn is about, he's still in his infancy among the masters of the art.
Branson's trains are overcrowded - what a nasty, unwarranted thing to say to a multi-billionaire!!!!
TSK-TSK
An E-mail from a Virgin executive.
"However, leaked emails reveal that the managing director of Virgin Trains East Coast told staff that the controversy had highlighted how crowded services can be, and that finding seats could make customers anxious and stressed.
David Horne also admitted having to stand by a customer toilet for a journey of approximately 130 miles, from Newark to London. He said that was during Virgin's " hot seat week", when directors and managers are banned from travelling in first class in order to "take a hard look at our standard class offer".
On Friday, he wrote: "Putting politics aside, this incident demonstrates just how busy many of our services are, those in the middle of the day as well as at peak times."
Methinks, the lady doth protest too much, me little Teribusum!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 03:39 AM

Sorry - forgot the link, in case Teribus attempts to pass off the facts as
"MORE MADE-UP CARROLL SHIT"
Makes interesting reading
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:03 AM

Tell us all Jom, what are the "Rights of a Taxpayer" when they are at home?

Do you have to prove that you have paid taxes in order to voice an opinion? When did that come into being.

Virgin Group, the holding company for all of Branson's 400 different business ventures is located in London therefore liable to UK Tax on it's profits

That Richard Branson eh what a bastard he provides employment for 50,000 people who all seem to like working for him and who all, I presume, pay tax and for whom their employers pay N.I. or equivalent, what a dead beat eh Jom what a drain on our resources.

Basically Jom I couldn't give a toss what your experiences of travelling on any mode of transport are. But when a politician goes out of his way to falsely depict and portray conditions that do not exist then by any standards that man is lying to the public and should be ridiculed and censured for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:14 AM

"goes out of his way to falsely depict and portray conditions that do not exist then by any standards that man is lying to the public and should be ridiculed and censured for it"

This of course doesn't apply to Teribus and Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:40 AM

"Tell us all Jom, what are the "Rights of a Taxpayer" when they are at home?"
Piss of - you clownYou totally ignore the misrepresentations that you have admitted politicians are prone to, yet you throw a hissy fit when a multi- billionaire tax dodger is questioned
Life would be much rosier if you took your nose out of the arses of the wealthy
You have the truth of the "false depictions"
- you choose to ignore them too
Not very good at this, are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:53 AM

Raggytash - 29 Aug 16 - 04:14 AM

Well no Raggy it doesn't unless of course you can provide any examples of me having done so.

Jom you mentioned something called the "Rights of the Taxpayer" I asked you what they were, why no answer? Could it be that in reality there aren't any that don't apply to anyone? Or in other word words you high dudgeon and indignation are based on a false premise and that you are talking out of your arse as usual.

Corbyn made a complete and utter idiot of himself and was caught on camera doing it - no need to worry it will not be the last time he will do it.

By the way where is your proof that Virgin Group has not paid any taxes?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:14 AM

" I asked you what they were, why no answer? "
Why should anybody who never gives proof and never repies toquestions get an answer on anything
Tell yuo what - you respond to the remarks on overcrowding made by the Virgin executive - and all the other points I've made in my last few postings and maybe- just maybe, I'll bother my arse by replying to an establishment arselicker
Your defence of the super-rich really is touching
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:20 AM

Oh where to start ?

Both of you provide so many examples, of which the other protagonists are so well aware, it's difficult to pick one in particular.

Oh course you will deny that you have EVER made false claims because that's what people like you with little education do. They don't believe anyone will remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:23 AM

The Mirror is a Labour supporting Paper and always has been.
The online article is the same as the one they printed.

McDonnell makes it clear he believes that tax dodgers such as Branson should have no say in State affairs

He should not, and does not.
All he did was defend his train company against Corbyn's lie that he had to sit on the floor because there were no seats when there were seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:29 AM

Interesting to read in this morning's Times business section that Virgin has failed to prevent its competitors from introducing low cost fares on the London to Edinburgh route, but has been granted the right to appeal the decision
A company that really cares about its customers, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 05:43 AM

The online article is the same as the one they printed.

Perhaps. The online article appears, as I say, to be Mirror staff commentary followed by something McDonnell wrote. It may be that the printed version uses fonts or background to make it clearer that these are separate things, or to show where one starts and the other stops even if the text is identical (which I don't know either, but am prepared to take your word for.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 06:14 AM

"The Mirror is a Labour supporting Paper and always has been."
The Mirror is a supporter of the established Labour right-wing
There is a leadership battle between left and right at the present time.
Work it out for yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 06:24 AM

So it is not enough for a paper to support Labour, it has to support the correct faction!
Other Parties do not have that problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

They certainly do. The Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun all ran plenty of stuff that was very hostile to David Cameron.
.....

I think this thread is vvery much in danger of slipping into the pattern of slapdash pointless personal abuse that marred the other thread about Labour, and led me to start this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:09 AM

Raggytash - 29 Aug 16 - 05:20 AM

Ah so Raggy I take it from that, that you can produce no such examples, why not just say so. Just more empty and meaningless waffle, like your pal with his "Rights of the Taxpayer" {Do you know what they are Raggy?}.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:19 AM

"Other Parties do not have that problem."
Most parties don't have factions - they have no dividded loyalties between self interest and duty to the people who they are supposed to represent - their loyalties are overwhelmingly to themselves and the privileged - the people may go stuff themselves.
The Labour Party, down the years, has moved further and further to the right; Blair, a possible war criminal, with the help of a couple of self-serving idiots and a soft-porn journalist, confirmed that rightist position with his 'New Lablor' coup.
A principled leader, Corbyn, presented the possibility of returning the Labour Party into a decent, honest part, which now has the establishment running around like headless chickens, trying to bring him down, which is basically what this is all about - why should a pair or extreme rightists like you youd your pontificating friend bother your right-wing arses about what happens in the Labour Party otherwise.
So far, you have failed on every count, just as you are floundering here.
If you think in-fighting doesnt take place in other parties
DREAM ON
AND ON
AND EVER ON
AND SO ON Ad INFINITUM
What planet do you live on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:39 AM

"I take it from that, that you can produce no such examples,"
Once again you are demanding things you refuse to supply yourself
You've just been given a load which you will ignore - plenty of others to ignore where they came from
What a pair of Tory tossers!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:04 AM

Oh there are plenty, however I've got much better things to do with my time than argue with an uneducated oaf like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:08 AM

Throwing out remarks like "an uneducated oaf like yourself" is the kind of thing that I was expressing regret about in my last post.

It requires going back over previous posts even to understand who it is directed at. Even if accurate it would be irrelevant, since there is no connection between oafishness and lack of education.

It is perfectly possible to express strong disagreement and point out failures of logic and innacuracy without getting personal, and in that way providing the people with whom we are arguing with an easy get-out from responding to the actual point being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:38 AM

Kevin,
They certainly do. The Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun all ran plenty of stuff that was very hostile to David Cameron.

That is true, but no-one here has ever rejected something reported in such papers because they support the wrong faction of the Party, as Jim just did about the Mirror story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 10:12 AM

"That is true, but no-one here has ever rejected something reported in such papers because they support the wrong faction of the Party,"
That's because there aren't too many Tories around here Keith - it's not rocket science.
There is a massive split in the Tory Party - one of the results being that Britain has a racist for a foreign secretary.
Nobody rejects statements on a factional basis, on the contrary, the fact that these reports appear in Tory bum-wipes are a confirmation that they are true.
LEAVE-REMAIN SPLIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 11:39 AM

" and in that way providing the people with whom we are arguing with an easy get-out from responding to the actual point being made."

Come on Mr McGrath that is a touch patronising......of anyone here Teribus would be the last to need an "easy get out", he is well informed and posts detailed explanations of his views.

He is quite correct on Mr Corbyns faux pas and I am dismayed that he attempted something so bloody clumsy.

I saying that, the whole sorry episode has been blown up by our lovely media.....surprise surprise.

Seriously though we should be big enough to admit our failures when they are pointed out, if we don't, we end up defending the indefencible......like the EU or Hillary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 11:49 AM

I don't care who the Daily Mirror "supports." It isn't my idea of a serious newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM

I don't always agree with Kevin and I he certainly doesn't always agree with me, but on this occasion I think he's perfectly in order in asking that this thread be kept relatively civil. We have another one for the banging of heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM

indefencible......like Hillary Clinton.

Give it up, Ake. Your BS is getting tedious.

Patronising is a descriptor of Mr.T nine-telths of the time, certainly not Kevin.


(By the way, which fence are you talking about?)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:49 PM

"of anyone here Teribus would be the last to need an "easy get out","
No - he just does a runner when the going gets tough
"He is quite correct on Mr Corbyns faux pas and I am dismayed that he attempted something so bloody clumsy."
Oooo you communists!!
You are sooo predictable in taking sides - and youi have ignored every point here - including the admission by Virgin'r executive that the ****** trains are overrowdwd
"we end up defending the indefencible.."
The truth - at last an admission!!!
"like the EU or Hillary Clinton"
Still can't get into her knickers?
Freud would have had a lot to say about you hang-up over this poor lady
It now takes on the characteristic of stalking - and what with your "gay plaguers - you really are a mixed up disturbo.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:04 PM

I intentionally didn't name any names. The point was a more general one - how many times, both here and elewhere, do we see someone use pointless insults as an escape card, and a way to avoid the real issues.

Actually, isn't that just what has been happening refently with all the hoohah about personal abuse and so forth in Social Media in the context of the disputes in the Labour Party? Personal abuse in a discussion always hepls the other side, even wwhen that isn't the aim in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:39 PM

- including the admission by Virgin'r executive that the ****** trains are overrowdwd

Not just Virgin trains, but Corbyn's train had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because the train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM

personal abuse and so forth in Social Media

Say it ain't so! "Social media" is a blessing, not a curse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:12 PM

Mr McGrath,

Many, many apologies. I forgot myself and the opening post.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:23 PM

"but Corbyn's train had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor"
If that's what he did - that's what all politicians dohatsthe system we live under.
The statement was a fact - Virgin trains are overcrowded.
Do you think Thatcher's "Labour Isn't Working" dole queues were real?
She went on to produce the highest unemployment rates Britain had ever seen.
She lied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:49 PM

This is Virgin's stated policy on how many people it will allow on a train.

"Virgin trains admit overcrowding safety measure is that "train can't move"
By Fraser Clarke - August 26, 2016 0 87
VIRGIN trains have admitted their safety measure against overcrowding is that the train is too heavy to move.
In a series of tweets with customers, the company was asked to explain its upper limit for passengers.
The company eventually admitted there was no limit on the number of people it would squeeze into a carriage, adding: "If the train reaches a certain overall weight then the train would come to a stop."
Virgin statement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:22 AM

The statement was a fact - Virgin trains are overcrowded.

The statement was that it was "ram-packed" when in fact there were empty seats, which means it was not even overcrowded.

Rag, your apology should be directed at the victim of your abusive outburst.

300!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:42 AM

My apology was to the OP, McGrath of Harlow, as he requested that such posts should not occur here. I am correct to apologise to him. I make no apology to the other party as none is merited.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 05:49 AM

"The statement was that it was "ram-packed" when in fact there were empty seats,"
The example given in the e-mail from an executive was of someone who spent a 150 mile jouney standing up outside a lavatory
Filling trains to the extent that they can no longer move, which is Virgin's policy - is "ram-packed, by any description.
Virgin's attempts to prevent competitive lines from encouraging customers to use their trains is an indication that they are happy to see travellers treated like cattle, as long as it is on their trains.
Sir Richard is no more than a tax dodging profiteer using the British people to add another billion to his fortune - and pay no tax while doing so.
The Labour Party has him bang to rights.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 09:36 AM

Corbyn's train was not ram-packed.
It had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:07 AM

Raggy of course under your rather warped reasoning no apology should be made for your unnecessary, insulting remark made from a position of pure and total ignorance of fact. I would expect nothing else from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM

No, no apology is required for an aggressive, belligerent, bellicose, argumentative bully who lacks even a basic education and believes if he shouts loud enough and violently enough he will "win" an argument.

Life ain't like that ....... fortunately.

Sorry Mr McGrath but it had to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:00 PM

I'd back my education against yours any day Raggy judging by what you have posted so far. Anytime you have attempted to challenge me on facts (Remember "conscription" and the "Derby Scheme" you have come off decidedly second best.

The following comment is based upon total ignorance - ".....who lacks even a basic education" - is what Raggy posted about me on this thread for all to read.

This however is another of his comments about me:

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

That is what you said to me in private wasn't it Raggy?

You are a two faced hypocrite Raggy and as such beneath contempt, so henceforth I will call you "Kipper" - two faced and gutless.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:22 PM

Champion, I like kippers.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:38 AM

So the polls are saying that Jeremy Corbyn will get 60 plus percent of the vote. What happens next? Split or splints?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:01 AM

I dont know about the polls but it is worth checking the bookies' odds. You don't win much betting on a Corbyn victory.

My guess is that there will not be a split but the sniping will continue especially if Corbyn support has fallen (even if is only a few percent and still miles ahead)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:24 AM

There's a lot I don't get about it all. The main one is they don't appear to care about getting elected, so what's the point?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:36 AM

"It had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda."
Virgin policy is to pack their trains to the gunnels until they can no longer move - they have admitted that fact.
That Corbyn chose to use a 'politicia's' method to underline that point is immaterial - that's how politicians work.
It would be "lying" and "hypocritical" if what was drawing attention to was not true - it is, and the fact that you choose to not comment on it is a sign that you know it is true - making you a liar and a hypocrite.   
Simple question - is this not the stated policy of Virgin
No answer - you are a hypocrite
A denial - you are telling lies.
Game over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: theleveller
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 11:20 AM

"Corbyn's train was not ram-packed.
It had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda."

If you had the honesty to look closely, you would have seen that most (if not all) of the seats that were unoccupied had reserved tickets on them. I assume that you don't travel much on Virgin Trains. I do. If you buy a ticket in advance, some fares require you to have a seat reservation. You can't use the ticket without the reservation and you can't sit in someone else's reserved seat without the appropriate ticket and reservation. This is the bane of anyone who travels regularly with a season ticket. Some conductors are more relaxed about this, some aren't. I don't think the headline "Corbyn took my reserved seat" would have gone down well. The fact is, it was Virgin who staged its illegally-posted video.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:03 PM

It would be "lying" and "hypocritical" if what was drawing attention to was not true -

Other trains may be crowded, but his had vacant seats so the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda.

There were many reserved seats, but he himself admitted there were empty, unreserved seats but he wanted two together!
He decided not to mention that while sitting alone on the floor, so the video was lying political propaganda which you people would not defend if it was by anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:39 PM

Give it a rest, Keith. You're making a fool of yourself. Nobody cares any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:46 PM

Nobody cares any more.

Except you it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 05:25 PM

I'm only trying to help Keith out of his problems, you know. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:25 PM

Nobody cares any more.

Apparently YOU do, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:27 PM

"Other trains may be crowded,"
Which was the point of the exercise - prove beyond any doubt by the admission of Virgin executive statements.
Never mind Keith - i'm sue there will be other occasions when you will be able to defend the good name of billionaire tax dodgers
Are you on commission from Virgin- my a season ticket to a square foot of free standing room for a year on one of their trains!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:55 PM

And apparently Jim does!

Jim, his train had seats.
His train was not "ram-packed"
The video he staged of himself sitting on the floor of his train, supposedly because his train was "ram-packed," was lying political propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:09 PM

Are you a parrot, Keith? Or is it just lack of imagination? You appear to be repeating yourself an awful lot on TWO threads now. Beats debate, I suppose...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:16 PM

Awwrk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 04:46 AM

Just stating facts Steve.
They are not debatable, as Corbyn himself has acknowledged that they are true.


Give it a rest, Keith. You're making a fool of yourself. Nobody cares any more.

All my posts on the subject have been in response to posts form you and Jim supporting or denying Corbyn's lying.
You would not do that for anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:24 AM

"Jim, his train had seats."
Back into repetitive Dalek mode again Keith.
Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded
Virgin's policy encourages that overcrowding
Virgin's attempts to quash opposition means that are happy with their cattle transporter attitude as long as the cattle-trucks are theirs
Richard Branson is a tax dodger
WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS IS UNTRUE?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:46 AM

If Corbyn has really been on an overcrowded train, it would not be lying political propaganda for him to pretend to be on one.

According to you, he should have had no trouble finding one.
I have no opinion on Branson or Virgin although their trains have to carry many more people that there predecessors ever did.
All our services and infrastructure are being overwhelmed by our ballooning population.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:11 AM

"Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded
Virgin's policy encourages that overcrowding
Virgin's attempts to quash opposition means that are happy with their cattle transporter attitude as long as the cattle-trucks are theirs
Richard Branson is a tax dodger
WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS IS UNTRUE?"
Jim Carroll

"Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded" - WHAT??? ALL OF THEM?? - Idiotic generalisation completely demolished by the CCTV of Corbyn on his trip to Newcastle.

"Virgin's policy encourages that overcrowding" - What policy? That rolling stock is matched to services based upon average utilisation by the public. Never known commuter trains to be anything other than crowded at peak times and that goes back over decades to when the Railways were in public ownership.

"Virgin's attempts to quash opposition means that are happy with their cattle transporter attitude as long as the cattle-trucks are theirs" - Attempts? So they haven't been successful then? So what is your point?

"Richard Branson is a tax dodger" - Untrue, he's way and by far, far too high profile to be a tax dodger. Is he resident in the United Kingdom? No he is not. Is he domiciled in the UK? No he is not. So who and where is he dodging tax from? Having scuttled off to the west coast of Ireland Jom does that make you a tax dodger? You do pay UK tax on your UK pension don't you Jom? I mean you did get the maximum pension didn't you?

Stand by for the usual multi-coloured spittle-flecked rant in response.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:37 AM

"WHAT??? ALL OF THEM?? -"
Vigtin's policy is to ram pack all of them to the point they can't move.
V"irgin trains admit overcrowding safety measure is that "train can't move"
By Fraser Clarke - August 26, 2016 0 87"
Branson is a tax exile - his tax evasion goes back to the 1970s when he was "quickly caught, confessed and put on probation; promising to pay the taxes over the following three years."
Horse's mouth confession
As far as I am concerned - I paid tax all my working life - I retired and moved to Ireland, though I continue to pay the relevant demanded taxes here (community charges based on the value of our home and water charges)
My state pension (£135 per week) is below the amount I am required to pay tax.
Next!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 10:47 AM

Ah but Jom:

1: Was the plain simple statement that "Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded" - they are not your statement is an idiotic generalisation that is untrue, which is what you asked.

2: "Virgin trains admit overcrowding safety measure is that "train can't move" - Again untrue the safety measure is based on total carriage weight so does not necessarily have anything to do with passenger numbers, as it would be based upon individual passenger weigh + the weight of their luggage.

3: Branson is a tax exile Ah so he is now a tax exile NOT a tax dodger as you originally stated so I was correct in pointing out to you that your original contention was UNTRUE thank you for admitting that error on your part. Nothing wrong at all in him being a tax exile, he paid tax on his UK earnings and apparently still does according to the article you linked to, which by the way Jom made no mention of him evading tax as your post seemed to imply.

4: Sir Richard Branson pays what tax he has to as do you. Technically you are no different. Sir Richard Branson has to watch and keep track of how much time he spends in the UK, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:57 PM

It's all gone quiet again so how about this;

Do all you dedicated lefties support the proposed 5 day strike by the junior doctors, and if so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:32 PM

Well you tell us first what a "dedicated leftie" is when it's at home. Alternatively, try to grow up, and see the issue squarely from both sides of the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:56 PM

" they are not your statement is an idiotic generalisation that is untrue"
You've had company policy.
If they aren't overcrowded then the company is inefficient, because that's what they aim for - fill 'em till they can't move.
"Sir Richard Branson pays what tax he has to as do you"
Branson has moved abroad to dodge paying tax - he continues to profit by overfilling his trains in Britain - he is depriving Britain of the tax on what he is making - he is a predatory prick whether he a "Sir" or not
If one of us did it we'd be one of your "scroungers, ruining Britain"
Your double-standards are what has created te ever increasing gap between wealthy and poor - the rich predators get a knighthood and the less well-off are told to "get on our bikes" by cap-doffers like you "yer 'onour".
Long live patriotism eh?
"junior doctors", are facing pay cuts of over %30
They and those who work in the Health service are entitled to what they can get in the unfair society we live in.
The fact that their work is important to Britain should be a reason why their living standards should not be eaten away - instead it is given as a reason why they should not defend their livelihoods and take whatever their employers choose to dole out - seems a bit arse-about-face to me.
If their job is important, that should be reflected in their pay and conditions and not be at the mercy of whatever this appalling society throws at them.
Good luck to them.
Maybe Virgin, Starbucks and Apple, Shell, British American Tobacco, Lloyds Banking Group, Vodafone, SABMiller, AstraZeneca, Facebook....... and ALL THE OTHER PREDATORS can contribute from the money they're saving by not paying tax
Patriots - who'd have 'em?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:45 PM

Jim Carroll wrote: "junior doctors", are facing pay cuts of over %30

Junior Doctors are now being paid more for working less hours than they ever had to work before. The only way they could earn 30% less is because they are now no longer required to work 90 hours a week. It's gone down to 70 something hours a week. One of their complaints is about overtime pay. When you look at their basic pay it's way above the police and teachers and police and teachers don't get the oportunity to do massive amounts of overtime. Doctors have special allowances and conditions and they still want more.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:55 PM

Cor, only 70 hours a week! Lazy bastards!

What planet are you on? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 09:46 PM

Back in the seventies I worked as a scaffolder. It was target based work. You got paid for the amount of scaffolding you erected. It was commonly known that the jobs that had the best conditions and the best opportunities to earn money went to the men who had families and mortgages. It wasn't hidden. It was positive policy. I agreed with it.

My point is that it was possible to earn 70 hours plus if the conditions were right and no one argued with family men with mortgages getting the best jobs. No one could earn 90 hours a week. If I had had the opportunity to do that back then I would have had a go. People are representing 70 or 90 hours a week as a penalty but doctors are being paid fot this. They are getting paid the money.

On my less than £7000 a year state pension I might dream of such wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 09:54 PM

And these are 'junior' doctors.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 03:30 AM

"Junior Doctors are now being paid more for working less hours than they ever had to work before."
So - is not their contribution worth it?
The world we have had created for us is a dog eat dog one - why complain when working dogs manage to fight to retain what they have gained.
Change the world and you may have a point, but don't turn on the ones who do make a contribution to our lives.
I can recall exactly the same arguments being put forward about the "overpaid" printers working in the media.
They did well for themselves though being well organised, so their bosses, with the aid of the politicians, managed to turn the public against them.
Don't let it happen here.
The greed is at the top of the heap and it will stay there while they manage to focus the attention away from that fact.
"Cor, only 70 hours a week! Lazy bastards! "
My feelings exactly.
I started as an apprentice working five and a half days a week - 49 hours in all minus dinner break, back in the mid fifties.
Gradually and with a lot of hard, bitter argument, that was knocked down to 44 and then 40.
70 hours per week is medieval.
It's not as if their jobs aren't vital to our well-being.
To say their jobs at too important to allow them to take industrial action is crude blackmail and has been used against train and bus drivers... and virtually every group of workers who give a public service.
When bankers greed cocked up our economy, not only was the damage to the state paid for from our taxes, but the cockers-up paid themselves obscenely massive bonuses to put right the damage they had done.
It's a fine old world if you were born with enough silver spoons in your mouth!
More power to their elbows!
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 03:40 AM

Spoken like a true capitalist Jim.   why do you profess socialism?

I never hear you promoting a change in the socio economic system

I think you are just a "liberal" living in a fantasy world.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 04:31 AM

"Spoken like a true capitalist Jim.   "
No I don't Ake - I speak like someone who demands the best for all workers under the prevailing society and will do so as long as it remains.
"I never hear you promoting a change in the socio economic system"
You are joking, of course.
I have said from the beginning that the society we live under is "no loger fit for purpose" and needs changing - you, on the other hand, say it will never happen because "the British people will never stand for it".
Your "socialism" is a national one, with all the historical implications that brings.
Until society s changed, workers living under capitalism have a right to anything they can get
The idealists of this world believe they should sit on their hands and take what is given until "we educate them" (strange patronising attitude for a "socialist" to take) to think differently.
You really need to sort out your bizarre view of the class structure
By the way - a "capitalist" is someone who lives solely from invested capital, it's not a philosophy, it's an economic system in which none of us here are part of (to my knowledge) - you should know that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM

Yes Stanron, they are junior doctors. I strongly suspect from that comment that you don't know what that means. It doesn't mean recently fledged ex-student medics, guys and gals still in in their twenties, apprentices, trainees or probationers. I suggest that you inform yourself before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:02 AM

The Huffington post describes Erdogan as "an elected dictator."
That is not "uninformed" or "a lie" but a view widely held by people who know a lot more about it that you two.

The Guardian,
"The attack on the judiciary is especially worrying in the light of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's contempt for human rights and the rule of law."
That is a description of a dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:12 AM

So sorry!
Wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:56 AM

Steve Shaw wrote: I suggest that you inform yourself before posting.

Why so tetchy Steve? I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers. There was no suggestion that they were not actually doctors. My point was that in the seventies there were loads of people in the building trade who would have welcomed earning that much overtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:17 AM

Good explanation of the dispute

"I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers." - spot on Stanron - Tell us all Shaw what was it that you used to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

""I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers." - spot on Stanron - Tell us all Shaw what was it that you used to do?"
I presume this is irony!!
Well done Mr Quelch!!
On to the stupid step with you Shaw Minor
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

Sarky my arse. The post was a straightforward suggestion that he checked the facts about what he was going on about before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 10:28 AM

Great pity then Shaw that you don't follow your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 12:22 PM

Stop copying bobad. Cheap sniping is beneath you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 12:55 PM

Cheap sniping is beneath you.

Mr T? Bwaa-haa-haa-hah-ha-ha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 01:07 PM

It is perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour. Forcefully made points and criticisms of the political views of others are totally legitimate, personal attacks are not.

Anybody disagree with that quote from the Labour Party's new policy statement on netiquette? I suggest we should try doing it that way for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 01:45 PM

Yes please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 02:17 AM

So we get to the eve of the results of the vote and things are looking as many predicted. It seems the only doubt about a Corbyn victory is how large it will be. Owen Smith and last night Liz Kendall on Question Time are both saying how important unity is and they will work for it, while simultaneously refusing to work with Corbyn and making it clear the only unity they are interested in is unifying around the position they hold.

Looks like we continue as we are, then, until candidates are selected for the next election. Unless you think differently?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 03:07 AM

Hopefully Corby will walk it.
I believe that, if he doesn't the Labour Party will have gone the same way the Irish Labour Party has gone.
They threw their lot in with the worst of the other main parties in order to win seats and when the voters rejected the establishment policies, Labour sank like a stone, throwing away decades of progress and hard work.
The level of nastiness and dishonesty by Corbyn's opponents, backed by the sewer press, is a reasonable indication that he might be the new broom needed to clean up the farce that claims to be 'democracy' - inexperienced or not.
Britain doesn't need 'strong leaders' at present - Mussolini and Pinochet were 'strong leaders'.
We need principled and compassionate policies introduced for the well-being of all British people - not juts the already over-privileged.
Fingers crossed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 03:44 AM

I agree,Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 08:59 AM

We'll know tomorrow. Everyone says he'll win. But that's the same everyone who got the general election results so wrong.

I'm not a Labour supporter, (then again I am over 30) but I can see a bad leader and entry-ism when it dances all over my TV screen.

Can't you?.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 09:44 AM

"Can't you?."
Nope
I can see where a group of people who were driven out of the Labour Party when it was distorted in into New Labour by a possible human-rights criminal, a soft-porn journalist and a couple of careerist no-marks, returning in the hope of turning it back into the principled party it once was.
If Corbyn manages it he will have done the country, which at present has a racist as foreign secretary, a great favour - if not, we can look forward to a situation where we continue to drive the refugees from wars we have helped create into the war zones they have fled for their lives from - go count the increasing number of RACIST ATTACKS in Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 08:38 AM

Suppose everybody's out toasting Corbyn's magnificent victory
Let's hope he lives up to the trust that people have put in him and turn Labour back into a genuine alternative party rather than the establishment nodding dog it became.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 09:42 AM

Amen to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 10:05 AM

I hope so, too. But all this talk of unity is a bit suspect since it is not clear what is being united around. I have heard quite a few who voted for Owen calling for unity but none I have heard have said they will support Corbyn now. The next few days will be telling.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 11:19 AM

Jeremy Corbyn

https://soundcloud.com/denise_whittle/jeremy-corbyn-song

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 05:33 AM

A bit under 24 hours, but I think the Tory response is already clear: there have been a quite a lot of references to 172 MPs passing the 'no confidence' vote. If that isn't a major note of the next election campaign, I'd be very surprised. And I can't say I blame them - it is a heck of a thing to try to argue against. Replace all the 172? Long knives and a hard left takeover. Keep them and they vote with Corbyn? All self serving and without conviction. Keep them and they vote against? Party is disunited. Keep them and free vote? No leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 08:47 AM

The media in Iran, a state that supports and funds Islamist and anti-Semitic organizations Hamas, Hezbollah and activities of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are openly celebrating the victory of Jeremy Corbyn. Exactly the friends the Labour Party wants and Britain needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 09:21 AM

That's going to further this discussion no end Bobad - well done
I strongly suggest this piece of Trollism be ignored
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 09:31 AM

I know forums from which he would be banned or suspended for that intervention alone, let alone for his track record of secret multiple identities, lying and name-calling from behind a wall of anonymity. Still, we'll no doubt get a mod complaining about our insulting behaviour instead, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 09:50 AM

Ah yes, let us not consider inconvenient truths that make us uncomfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 11:29 AM

Well you should be feeling bloody uncomfortable with the truths I've just told about you, you charlatan.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 12:36 PM

I can see why someone would choose to post anonymously with sick, obsessive stalkers like you around. I would fear for my life if you knew my identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 12:41 PM

Jim, from your link,
"The police linked the spike in hate crime incidents immediately after the June referendum directly to the vote, saying people had taken the vote to leave the EU as a licence to behave in a racist or discriminatory way. Offences had been mainly harassment and threats of a racist nature against "visible minorities" as well as people from eastern Europe.

Amber Rudd, the home secretary, went further when she discussed the figures with MPs on the home affairs select committee on Wednesday, saying that the level was back in line with 2015.

"There was a spike in crime after 23 June. I am pleased to say it has now gone back to levels comparable to last year. We are watching it carefully. We will continue to combat hate crime however we can," she told MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 02:02 PM

So?
What else is the government going to say?
This is about the Labour Party, not how the Establishment justifies a decision taken on racist lines
Bearing your own request in mind - "Yes please."
Don't feed the troll Steve
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 02:32 PM

You think that the government could make shit up and the people who produce the figures not notice?
Hardly, on such an emotive subject.
Anyway, it was in your link.
Why am I a troll just for quoting from your link Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 02:40 PM

Keith, a troll to those two is anyone who posts anything that challenges their ideologies or that they don't want to hear. They are unfamiliar with the concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 03:10 PM

"Why am I a troll just for quoting from your link Jim?"
Who said you were?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 04:15 PM

Surely everybody knows what first rule about responding to trolls? "Don't do it." So why do it?
..................

So far as I can see those hostile to Corbyn within the Labour Party all seem to say that on pretty well all domestic issues they agree with the policies he espouses, which are in no way extreme "hard left".

Insofar as there are differences on foreign policy, notably on whether the retention of Trident is common sense or insanity, these critics should accept that they are out of line with the mass of the Labour Party membership. For a generation those who share Corbyn's position have had to live with the fact that they are out of line with the party on that issue. Now it's the turn of the nuclear suicide bombers to do the same.

There's no rational basis for failing to pull together. That doesn't rule out voting against the party on points of principle, as Corbyn has been attacked for doing (in most cases, if you examine the record, "with the benefit of hindsight" most Labour MPs would probably agree he was right). What it might rule out is stabbing him, in the back. The point being that it's not just Corbyn they would be attacking, it would be the membership who make up the party, including their own constituency party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 05:21 PM

There is agreement on the overall policys, I agree, Kevin, but the major theme of the campaign was that it wasn't about policy, in the main, but leadership skills and presentation. I don't fully buy that, since there were quite a lot of differences between what the policy meant in detail, including timing and financial aspects.

But listening to Heidi Alexander today, she was in no mood for anything other than Corbyn ceding the election of the shadow cabinet completely to the PLP for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 08:21 PM

Perhaps enough of them will manage to curb their peevishness and grow up. Stuff about leadership styles is irrelevant, Jeremy Corbyn is the choice of the party, is trusted by the party, and it doesn't matter whether they like him or not. Most of us in the course of our lives have to buckle down and work under bosses we may, rightly or wrongly, not think are up to the job.

If they can't do that they should face reality and resign as MPs, not try to sabotage the settled decision of the membership which makes up the party. Without the Labour Party none of them would have been elected.

Having the shadow cabinet elected by MPs in normal circumstances could work well enough, but when you've got the MPs at daggers drawn to the party's chosen leader it doesn't make sense. As and when these petulant politicos can grow up it might be fair enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 01:40 AM

"Why am I a troll just for quoting from your link Jim?"
Who said you were?

You did Jim when, referring to my posts specifically, you told Steve not to "feed the troll."

Are you now withdrawing the smear?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 03:19 AM

"You did Jim when, referring to my posts specifically,"
I really am not going to enter into a dialogue with you and **** up another thread Keith
If you read what I wrote (and maybe get somebody to explain it), it was addressed to Steve's responding to troll Bobad, which he had done - that way be dragons for this thread.
The world really doesn't revolve around you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 03:49 AM

Thanks for clearing that up Jim.
The rest of your post was all about me, and then you said "don't feed the troll."
I doubt if I was the only one who assumed you were still talking about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 07:29 AM

......and **** up another thread Keith

You already have.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 12:33 PM

In all the upset about online abuse it,s been interesting to note how completely different types of hostile language havve been jumbled together and denounced as if they were the same. So it's implied that political insults, such as "traitor", or "Tory" or "Trot" are every bit as much to be abhorred and denounced as vile sexist or racist insults or threats.

So is it suggested that the Red Flag, with its "let cowards fkinch and traitors sneer" should be shunned?

I'm with Corbyn in preferring to avoid even those kind of essentially political insults, as unhelpful and needlessly provocative, but I don't think they should be outlawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 04:19 PM

Theres certain phrases i really wish Jeremy would ask his followers to leave behind 'Blairite scum', 'riding the gravy train', 'backstabbers'

They recur again and again and they are highly inflammatory - not to say insulting to people who admittedly have a different view, but in many cases have served the party for years, as well as they could.

We need to bury that shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM

He has very clearly and repeated nade it crystal clear that he is against all that kind of stuff. I'm not sure what more he can do. After all it doesn't help any.

I continue to suspect that some of the stuff that has been reported, especially the violent woman-hating specimens, may have been planted rather than being from genuine Corbyn supporters. Nothing to stop that kind of thing, that's how the Internet works. Either way the people responsible are nuts. There are plenty of those on the Net.

But I distinguish between that and the directly political abuse, though I don't like those either. From what I've seen looking at Labour List or comments in newspaper sites, the Corbyn haters are Pretty much in evidence there, though not much seems to have been said about it. The media story is that it's all one way, which is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 03:22 AM

Hi Big Al.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:18 PM

I admire Jeremy Corbyn, I think renationalisation of the railways is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:41 PM

Hi there keith! very saddened by the recent death of MGM. he was a very special sort of chap. I visited him at his house near cambridge and we went to the local pub for dinner. Witty, donnish, incisive. He asked me to come again, but with denise being ill so much of the time I never made it.

still doing the occasional gig. still don't really feel up to the waspishness of Mudcat. something to do with getting older I suppose.

Anyway best of luck to you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:12 PM

Jeremy's speech to Labour Conference was pretty good, I felt. And it was interesting to see the Red Flag and Jerusalem stuck in at the end of the speech, and a lively rendering rather than the way it normally gets tucked away at the end in a very embarrassed way. (Speech and songs both on YouTube).

Now if only the silly buggers could get over themselves, stop having tantrums, and get together. The trouble is there's a faction who actually seem to want a defeat in order to get rid of the threat of what Corbyn stands for - democratic socialism. Corbyn winning an election would be seen by the likes of Mandelson as the worst outcome, and they are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.   But I don't think that faction is as powerful within the Labour Party, even the PLP, as it thinks - though of course it's the
way pretty well all the media is slanted, including the Guardian and even the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:28 PM

That's exactly how I see it. And the naysayers need a massive dose of humility in recalling that they were responsible for inflicting Cameron on us twice over. Two-time losers. On their own they'll never win anything. They need the Corbyn dose of fresh air!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:35 AM

On their own they'll never win anything.

They won 3 elections under Blair. The far left have never won anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 03:58 AM

"They won 3 elections under Blair. The far left have never won anything.
Led by a war criminal who illegally involved Britain in oil wars which are still bringing British young people home in body bags.
The General election following the war introduced socialist policies what altered the face of Britain, social housing, a National Health Scheme which, for all its faults, is the envy of the world, unemployment and hardship benefits, a voice in the work[lace.... all paid for by sharing the profits brought about.
All these were violently opposed and all but destroyed by Conservative Governments and the move away from Socialist values by later Labour politicians led to a return to the dog-eat-dog system we now live under.
No period in history has ever produced such radical beneficial changes for the people of Britain than those introduced by the post-war Labour Government.
Extreme right wing policies such as those forced through by Thatcher, the self-declared fascist, led immediately to a steep rise in unemployment which continues to fluctuate, a loss of voice in the workplace, a sharp divide between rich and poor, insecurity of tenure in our homes, and the destruction of our industries, some of them which had taken centuries to build.
Right-wing politics have brought Britain nothing but hardship, insecurity and a dependence on foreign imports.
The largest export from Britain today is FINANCE which benefits only the wealthy.
Corbyn has promised a break with that rotten, out-dated system, and haven't the privileged rats run round in circles trying to stop him - throwing at him everything from misogyny to antisemitism.      
Let's hope he doesn't go 'the Way of all Political Flesh' and lives up to his promise to introduce genuine socialist policies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:46 AM

Jim, what is the point of introducing socialist policies into a global capitalist economic system? It just does not make sense, you put the cart before the horse.
I do not expect Mr Corbyn or anyone with a real socialist agenda to be elected to office in the next decade

Our society has become contaminated, everyone is to blame for our failure to sustain great services like the NHS, which is exploited by everyone. We need to educate our population into accepting the need for sustainability......that will take generations and at the end huge sections of the population will be less well off financially...not an easy policy to push, is it?

It may be acceptable to committed socialist, of which I am one, but the population in general will take more convincing....just look how many people play the lottery.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 08:19 AM

"Jim, what is the point of introducing socialist policies into a global capitalist economic system?"
It was done in 1949 and it improved the lot of British people
What do you suggest in practical terms as an alternative - that we send missionaries out to educate the people and sit and our hands and wait, allowing the situation to remain the same?
I have no intention of arguing this with you at any length Ake - we've been here before.
You're not unlike the sailor standing outside the wedding with the albatross hanging around his neck.
Given the situation, what do you suggest should happen to change things?
Hearts and minds are won over by action, not ideas and, in the meantime, it is possible to alleviate at least the worst of the problems that this system brings with it.
In the meantime, unless we place the blame really where it belongs and not, as is your tendency, at the Poles and the refugees and the National Health "abusers" and the "dole scroungers" and the "lack of values", the people who benefit the most from this system will be laughing all the way to the Stock Exchange.
We live now and here, not in some Utopian Cloud-Cuckoo Land when one day everybody will wake up with the scales fallen from their eyes.
Practical suggestions please?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 08:29 AM

"socialist policies what altered the face of Britain, social housing, a National Health Scheme which, for all its faults, is the envy of the world, unemployment and hardship benefits, a voice in the work[lace.... all paid for by sharing the profits brought about." - Jim Carroll

Ehmm No, all paid for by US Marshall Aid plus an additional loan of $4 million from the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

"Ehmm No, all paid for by US Marshall Aid plus an additional loan of $4 million from the USA."
I don't accept for one minute that this continued to be the case, the Americans gave $12 billion to rebuild Western Europe after the destruction of the war, Britain got about %26 of that.
The Martial Plan ended in 1951, at the time of the Korean War - Joe McCarthy's America would not in a million years have stood by while it's donations were being used to introduced Socialist measures into Britain.
Had it been down to the Conservatives, not a penny would have been spent to better the lot of the ordinary person - that was down to a Labour Government who adopted a very limited Socialist policy of sharing out what wealth there was at hand.
The Tories opposed all the measures bitterly, The National Health Scheme included - eventually, under funding and right-wing antipathy killed of the benefits there were, and the greed of the privileged destroyed our industrial base.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:00 PM

Not really interested in what you would accept because oddly enough when it comes to historical documented fact what you are prepared to accept is irrelevant.

As far as spending Marshall Aid goes the Germans got it right, not through Teutonic efficiency and ruthless pragmatism, they didn't have much choice. Instead of spending their dosh (They got $1.7 billion the UK got $2.7 billion) on creating a "Welfare State", they had to spend it on infrastructure and machinery in order that they could get their population working. With a population working it meant that they could be taxed and it was their taxes that built the German "Welfare State". Because our dosh did not go towards rebuilding our industrial base, once the Germans got going in rival fields their industries were at a considerable advantage, they were more efficient because their equipment was modern while ours were old and worn out.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:51 PM

"Not really interested in what you would accept "
And I'm not really interested in what you're you don't accept
You never back up what you claim anyway.
Creating an all inclusive society giving people a statke and a voice in Britain could have achieved what the Germans did had it been let run its course.
Labour (then) saw the interests of the people in the form of Housing, Health and insurance against hardship, as a priority.
It's not as if the ordinary people of Britain would ever have prospered under your lot - even at the best of times, their interesteds wer put at the bottom of the pile.
British industry as a whole was systematically destroyed, not because it was "crap" or because teh peole were "lazy scroungers", as you "patriots" have suggested, but because it was ore profitable to go elsewhere.
That would have been the case had Britain spent all the money available rather than on its poorer sections.
Labour chose to put people before profit
It has my gratitude, but there again - I despise greed, not worshop it, as you do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 02:11 PM

Could we have that again in English?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 02:14 PM

The "anti-Semitism" row continues to rumble on with calls from those within the Labour Party for the permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 03:08 PM

"Could we have that again in English?"
Convenient dyslexia
Not sure I can manage it in words less than two syllables, but here goes.
The Labour Party decided
that, rather than return to the society that gave us appeasement to "Herr Hitler", the Great Depression and mass poverty, they would, in a very limited way, attempt to reward those who bore the brunt of the war by introducing affordable and secure homes, a health service paid for out of the taxes, and a voice in the workplace.
In other words, rather than return to the pre-war status quo, they attempted to make everybody a beneficiary of being British.
The Right fought all attempts do do that tooth and nail
How difficult was that.
"permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker."
Quite right too - this bastard has proposed that instead of remembering the Jews who died, that the remembrance should include the Gypsies, the homosexuals, the Trades Unionists and active opponents of Fascism and those considered mentally deficient , all of whom suffered a similar #ftr   
"In terms of Holocaust day wouldn't it be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced holocaust..."
How Antisemitic can you get!!!!
She should be flayed to death - expulsion is too good for her.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 04:55 PM

She says that she accepts David Schneider's definition of anti-Semitism, a definition which some of our posters and Labour party supporters should read and reflect on.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 05:37 PM

Holocaust Day is in fact supposed to be about all the other victims of genocide as well as the Jews who were killed by the Nazis. This tends to be ignored, which is what Jackie Walker ( herself of Jewish descent) was pointing out.

The slur of "antisenite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic. Using it in this way is disrespectful of real victims of antisemitism, both in the past and in the present. It devalues the very term to use it in this way,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:04 PM

Hear hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM

And of course, Kevin, Bubo uses it in EXACTLY this way, and always has.

Same as it ever was............

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:30 PM

Of course calling it a "political weapon" is also used as a justification for anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:43 PM

Why? Just for once, try explaining yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 01:52 AM

"The slur of "antisenite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic. Using it in this way is disrespectful of real victims of antisemitism, both in the past and in the present. It devalues the very term to use it in this way" - MGOH

Now read again what I posted:

The "anti-Semitism" row continues to rumble on with calls from those within the Labour Party for the permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker.

So the problem as far as some within the Labour Party are concerned is that anti-Semitism exists and that "The Leader" is doing nothing about it. That is what has been pointed out to the loyal Labour members of this forum. Never ever having been a member or supporter of any political party in my life means that perhaps I am less "blinkered" in my political outlook than they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 02:06 AM


The "anti-Semitism" row continues to rumble on with calls from those within the Labour Party for the permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker.

So the problem as far as some within the Labour Party are concerned is that anti-Semitism exists and that "The Leader" is doing nothing about it.

That's a misreading, in my view. But let's clarify your view first. Do you think Jackie Walker is the one who is being anti-Semitic, or those calling for expulsion, or that none of them are but that some Labour people think expelling Walker is a way of stressing they won't tolerate anti-Semitism?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 03:32 AM

As far as the Labour Party and the presentation of political parties in the UK is concerned what I personally think is beside the point. Address the message DMcG not the messenger.

Goes back to what was said earlier in this thread, it would appear that everybody gets a say in what constitutes "anti-Semitism" except the Jews who can have absolutely no say in the matter, apparently because their views are by nature biased and controlled by the Israeli regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:13 AM

"So the problem as far as some within the Labour Party are concerned is that anti-Semitism exists "
Depends oon who the "some" are
So far, they have turned out to be Israeli supporters campaigning to halt the boycott and right-wing opponents of Corbyn
o evedence of a serious problem has been found, unless you accept the "guilty by accusation" style of justice.
The Jackie Walker nonsense just about sums up the quality of the evidence.
Her suggestion on Holocaust Day is spot on and long overdue
"it would appear that everybody gets a say in what constitutes "anti-Semitism" except the Jews"
The Jews, like the rest of us, have no doubt what Antisemitism is - a direct attack on the Jewish people
TheIsraelis have extended that to include criticism of Israeli political policy
Those Jewish People who disagree have been deemed "self hating Jews"
Many Jews are the harshest crittics of the present Israeli regime - "Antisemites all".
For the record, this is a rough total of those who died as a result of the Nazi policy of deliberate extermination.
Number of Deaths
Jews: up to 6 million
Soviet civilians: around 7 million (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figure for Jews)
Soviet prisoners of war: around 3 million (including about 50,000 Jewish soldiers)
Non-Jewish Polish civilians: around 1.8 million (including between 50,000 and 100,000 members of the Polish elites)
Serb civilians (on the territory of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina): 312,000
People with disabilities living in institutions: up to 250,000
Roma (Gypsies): 196,000–220,000
Jehovah's Witnesses: Around 1,900
Repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials: at least 70,000
German political opponents and resistance activists in Axis-occupied territory: undetermined
Homosexuals: hundreds, possibly thousands (possibly also counted in part under the 70,000 repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials noted above)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:45 AM


As far as the Labour Party and the presentation of political parties in the UK is concerned what I personally think is beside the point. Address the message DMcG not the messenger

As I have said elsewhere, I am not going to enter into rows that I think are unnecessary. But what you think is crucial, since it is people's views that need to be understood before they can be addressed. It is of limited value if we completely eliminate what "we" see as antisemitism if "you" see something else entirely as antisemitic. We cannot decide what to do about anti-Semitism in any group unless we know what we mean by the term - and it is obvious there is disagreement here - and who we think is guilty of it. And here it is complicated by all sorts of issues that don't really have anything to do with antisemitism, like trying to sound the note "Corbyn is a weak leader" without caring too much about how you do that.

So, yes, I do think it is appropriate to ask you to clarify your views because that is what enables a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:57 AM

The accusations are not from enemies of Labour, or even enemies of Momentum.
BBC,
"But a spokesman for Momentum, the left-wing grassroots organisation set up in wake of Jeremy Corbyn's 2015 election as Labour leader, said: "Members of Momentum's steering committee are seeking to remove Jackie Walker as vice-chair of the committee." "


"Manuel Cortes, general secretary of the TSSA union, which backed Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, said on Thursday he was "deeply saddened that a fellow member of our Labour and trade union family holds such anti-Semitic views" and said she should not be allowed to "remain active within our party".
"I am asking Jackie that in the interests of unity she resigns at once from our party and also as vice-chair of Momentum.
"If she doesn't, both the Labour Party and Momentum need to act to get rid of her at once.
"We would seriously need to consider our union's support for Momentum if she is still in post by this time next week." "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37513813

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 05:28 AM

"a fellow member of our Labour and trade union family holds such anti-Semitic views""
What a pity those views aren't Antisemitic - or are they?
Surely, if someone has been accused of expressing Antisemitic views, we have a right to know what those vies are.
Nothing produced so far come anything near that description - maybe Mr Cortes knows something we don't?
What is this "antisemitism" she ha#s advocated?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 05:43 AM

Jackie Walker's difficulty in finding a definition of Antisemitism she can work with seems to be one many people are having since Israel decided to move the goalposts to include criticism of Israeli policy in their own definition.
Most accusations seem to be related to criticism of Israel rather than attacks on the Jewish People
Mac of H put it in a nutshell above when he wrote:
The slur of "antisemite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic. Using it in this way is disrespectful of real victims of antisemitism, both in the past and in the present. It devalues the very term to use it in this way,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 05:54 AM

If you express hostility towards Jews or discriminate against Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS you are antisemitic. You simply can't use that word for any extended definition, and the people who do so (who are far from all being Jews) are just as ignorant in their remarks as are the alleged Labour miscreants. It's fine in debate to try to defend the actions of the Israeli regime, (though be prepared for a good scrap if you do), provided you're honest enough to admit that that's what you're doing, and not doing it whilst hiding behind a false definition which you're using as your backstop. It is simply not right that those of us who disagree with the policies and actions of a regime have to constantly tread on eggshells lest our opponents lazily and ignorantly throw the antisemite slur at us. That is precisely what has happened in the Labour Party, and those who refuse to see why it happens are both disingenuous and blinkered. It's simple. The opponents of Corbyn want him out and the antisemitism ploy is just one tactic. There has been some pretty unprincipled behaviour, taking Ruth Smeeth's and John Mann's stage-managed and shabby charades as examples. And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false. To say that I'm "antisemitic" if I criticise the theft of land for settlements, or because I condemn the building of an apartheid wall, is both ignorant of the proper meaning of the term, dishonest and is absolutely NOT in the interests of Jewish people. In fact, degrading the definition makes it all the harder to attack real antisemitism where it does occur, which, sadly, it does, a lot. And it is simply a lie to assert that "the leader has done nothing about it." He is a lifelong opponent of racism, he publicly condemns antisemitism, he has criticised the members of his party who indulge in aggressive behaviour towards Jews and other minorities and he set up an enquiry which has reported but which, unfortunately, will never keep some people happy short of having mass executions in the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 06:22 AM

And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false.

As it happens, I totally agree. But any form of progress in discussion depends on people recognising their shared ground and where they differ and then seeking a way forward. Peace processes, and all that. I don't think two groups simply declaring the other is wrong gets us very far.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 06:43 AM

Israel decided to move the goalposts to include criticism of Israeli policy in their own definition.

They have done no such thing Jim. They have a free press that criticises Israeli policy every day, and an opposition whose very purpose is to criticise Israeli policy.
Why are you always making false claims against Israel Jim?

The slur of "antisemite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic.

Is it? Should antisemitism not be challenged and attacked because it might harm the political careers of the antisemites?
I think antisemites have no place in politics, and I do not believe it is all a conspiracy against Corbyn.
That is a delusion and proved so by the statements of pro Corbyn people like those in my BBC link.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 07:02 AM

"They have done no such thing Jim."
Israeli Justice Minister
Theyr have declared that Jews who criticise Israel are "Self hating"
"Is it?"]
If it is applied to critics of Israel, it most certainly is
If it is applied as a means to defend Israel it is Antisemitic, as it implicates all Jewish people in acts of terrorism, human rights abuses and possible war crimes carried out by the Israeli regime.
Anitsemitism certainly does have a place in politics unfortunately - extreme right-wing politics.
So far, there is no evidence that it has a place in Labour Party politics, and never has had.
Historically. the Tory Party can't make the same claim
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 07:32 AM

"But what you think is crucial, since it is people's views that need to be understood before they can be addressed"

As someone who is not particularly interested in any political party in the UK what I think is irrelevant, the people whose views you have had your attention drawn to are all members of the Labour Party who think that there is a problem, those are the "people's views that need to be understood before they can be addressed".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM

Surely it is essential to know what those complaints are before you can judge whether they are valid?
That is the missing ingredients in all these arguments
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:03 AM

Her suggestion on Holocaust Day is spot on and long overdue

There's a reason why those who co-opt the Black Lives Matter movement with White Lives Matter are racists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:20 AM

Jim,
Theyr have declared that Jews who criticise Israel are "Self hating"

No they have not. You quoted one single person, who does not say that anyway.
Why do you keep making these false claims against Israel Jim?

So far, there is no evidence that it has a place in Labour Party politics, and never has had.

That is a really silly statement Jim.
There is lots of evidence in the form of statements from prominent members, MPs, officials and the entire NEC!


Surely it is essential to know what those complaints are before you can judge whether they are valid?

Yes, and those who have made that judgement do know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:20 AM

Her suggestion on Holocaust Day is spot on and long overdue

There's a reason why those who co-opt the "Black Lives Matter" movement with "All Lives Matter" are racists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:22 AM

Jim,
Theyr have declared that Jews who criticise Israel are "Self hating"

No they have not. You quoted one single person, who does not say that anyway.
Why do you keep making these false claims against Israel Jim?

So far, there is no evidence that it has a place in Labour Party politics, and never has had.

That is a really silly statement Jim.
There is lots of evidence in the form of statements from prominent members, MPs, officials and the entire NEC!


Surely it is essential to know what those complaints are before you can judge whether they are valid?

Yes, and those who have made that judgement do know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 09:41 AM

"No they have not. You quoted one single person, "
I have quoted several, including a report that Neteyahu has endorsed it publicly
Why do you keep ignoring what you have been given over and over again?
You damn well know this is true - that is why you refuse to respond to the statement made by the Israeli justice Minister - if you can't answer i, ignore it, seems to be the way you work.
"There is lots of evidence in the form of statements "
If you mean accusations there are no such things from the NEC, who have examined the charges and found there is no case to answer.
They have treated the matter seriously and found there to be no major problem.
No-one here, or elsewhere has specified what exactly what those accusations are other than criticisism of Israel - these do not amount to Antisemitism by any definition
It is utterly Kafkaesque to accuse somebody of something and refuse to specify what you are accusing them of.
Unless you start answering these points, I am no longer going to respond to your dishonesty - there really is no point talking to someone who has defended every crime and atrocity Israel has ever committed.
Apart from anything else, it ***** up threads
Put up or go talk to someone else - I really am not interested.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 09:59 AM

"And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false."

"As it happens, I totally agree. But any form of progress in discussion depends on people recognising their shared ground and where they differ and then seeking a way forward. Peace processes, and all that. I don't think two groups simply declaring the other is wrong gets us very far."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:14 AM

Sorry about that. I'll try again.

"And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false."

"As it happens, I totally agree. But any form of progress in discussion depends on people recognising their shared ground and where they differ and then seeking a way forward. Peace processes, and all that. I don't think two groups simply declaring the other is wrong gets us very far."

It is not possible to find any shared ground with people who have a dishonest agenda. The efforts to broaden the definition of antisemitism to include attacks on the policies or activities of the Israeli regime come under that category, because they have nothing to do with defending Jewish people against attacks based on their ethnicity or perceived personality traits and everything to do with preventing criticism of the Israeli regime, no matter what they get up to. No-one is forced by such ploys to hold back on criticism of Britain's role in the Middle East or America's role in Vietnam, and we should likewise be free and unfettered in attacking the Israeli regime. The attempt to widen the definition degrades the proper definition and makes it harder to tackle the issue of real antisemitism. That actually disadvantages Jewish people severely, so when Jim accuses people like Keith,Teribus and bobad of antisemitism he's absolutely right, and it's time they ditched the dishonesty and got on the side of the ordinary Jewish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:21 AM

Can we finish with some of this dishonesty once and for all?
Keith can work his way through this at his leisure
Not going to bother bllue clickying it

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4591891,00.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/30/the-self-hating-jew-a-critique/

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.664162

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/criticising-israel-is-not-the-same-as-being-anti-jewish-1.2631721

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/211763/black-lives-matter-and-self-hating-jews

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Curbing-the-self-loathing-Jewish-defamers-of-Israel-403470

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/04/26/the-phenomenon-of-jewish-self-hatred/

http://www.wrmea.org/2009-november/israel-and-judaism-attempts-to-silence-critics-of-israeli-policies-as-self-hating-jews-a-failing-strategy.html

http://www.metroeireann.com/news/652/im-no-self-hating-jew.html

http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/anti-zionism-anti-semitic?print

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/No-holds-barred-Anti-Israel-speakers-and-Jewish-self-hatred-344156

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfbS2nubivI

http://jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/article2366.html?articleid=432

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-political-zionist-accusation-of-self-hating-jew/5512218

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/oct/05/self-hating-jew-antisemitism

https://www.bustle.com/articles/32836-is-jon-stewart-a-self-hating-jew-i-asked-the-daily-show-host-and-heres-what-he

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:22 AM

Jim, the headline on that article you linked to from an anti Israel propaganda site was,
"Israeli Justice Minister: It's Anti-Semitic To Ever Criticize Israel"

That was a lie. She has never said any such thing and nor has any minister.
The story was lifted from here,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/04/israeli-minister-criticizing-israel-is-the-new-anti-semitism/

She said that some antisemites had found that their attacks were more acceptable if directed at Israel instead of Jews.
That is not the same as saying that only antisemites criticise Israel, and certainly not "It's Anti-Semitic To Ever Criticize Israel" !!!

Neteyahu has endorsed it publicly
Let's see it then Jim!!

If you mean accusations there are no such things from the NEC, who have examined the charges and found there is no case to answer.

No. I mean this,
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party"
" The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue "

It is utterly Kafkaesque to accuse somebody of something and refuse to specify what you are accusing them of.

That is not me or Teribus. We are just the messengers.
Take it up with those prominent members, MPs, officials, the entire NEC and those pro-Corbyn activists I quoted today. They make the accusations, not us.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:29 AM

Steve,
The efforts to broaden the definition of antisemitism to include attacks on the policies or activities of the Israeli regime

What efforts by who Steve, or is this just another of your vacuous assertions?

Jim, Please identify one link that has evidence of an Israeli minister claiming, "It's Anti-Semitic To Ever Criticize Israel"

You know that no-one will spend an afternoon going through your silly list of web addresses.
Stop obfuscating and give us the killer evidence.
Confident prediction, you can't!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:47 AM

You've had it Keith and you will only ignore it again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 11:05 AM

http://themessinglink.com/Anti-Semite

Addressing increasing boycott calls, he called for Israel to "fight back" and "delegitimize the delegitimizers."
"I think that it is important that the boycotters be exposed for what they are, they are classical Anti-Semites in modern garb," Netanyahu said.
He said Israeli is fighting BDS both by exposing the boycotters and with its booming high-tech sector.
"The most eerie and disgraceful thing is that people on the soil of Europe are talking about the boycott of Jews. That is outrageous," he said. "The boycotters make their goal clear: to end the Jewish state."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 11:56 AM

Are you going to respond to those "self-hating Jews" links Keith?
You claimed I made the phrase up, now you have claimed I only produced one.
You will now refuse to acknowledge both - it's what you do
Your dishonesty appears t have no limits.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 12:20 PM

"The efforts to broaden the definition of antisemitism to include attacks on the policies or activities of the Israeli regime..."

"What efforts by who Steve, or is this just another of your vacuous assertions?"

Quite possibly your silliest post to date.

Not much chance of common ground with this bloke, eh, DMcG? See what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 12:31 PM

That should be "by whom".

Are there no depths to this man's ignorance?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 12:38 PM

You've had it Keith and you will only ignore it again

If that is true, shame me by repeating it.
How can I ignore it in front of all the contributors on this thread.
You are just squirming and wriggling because your claim is ridiculous and you are unable to support it.

In your quote of Netanhahu, he does not claim that it is antisemitic to criticise Israel, only that some critics of Israel are motivated by antisemitism.

You claimed I made the phrase up, now you have claimed I only produced one.

I did not claim that you invented the phrase, and you did initially quote one person, now two, neither of whom have claimed that it is antisemitic to criticise Israel.

And, why are we even discussing Israel Jim? You are obsessed!

Steve, I only asked you to justify your assertions.
That is a reasonable request. If you are incapable of supporting your wild claims, that needs to be exposed, and yet again it has been.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 01:13 PM

"How can I ignore it in front of all the contributors on this thread."
Pretty much the same as you are ignoring the facts of the "Self Haring Jews" statement now, which you originally describd as "made up shit"
THread drift - you have to be joking!!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 01:20 PM

Looking at that Washington Post articcle quoting the Israel Justice Minister does seem to confirm that she was seeking to identify those who criticise Israel as anti-semitic

"In the past, we saw European leaders speaking against the Jews. Now, we see them speaking against Israel. It is the same anti-Semitism of blood libels, spreading lies, distorting reality and brainwashing people into hating Israel and the Jews," Shaked said in an interview with The Washington Post.

She said supporters of movements such as BDS, which, according to its website, calls for putting economic and political pressure on Israel in a bid to force it to comply with international law and gain rights for Palestinians, are "using the same kind of anti-Semitism but instead of saying they are against the Jews, they say they are against Israel."

Even something as elementary as boycotting Israel is seen as anti-semitic. Was it anti-white to boycott South Africa?

Antii-semitism is a vile thing. But to identify it with boycotting a regime in an attempt to influence it to cease breaking the law is to santitize the term. It's inviting people to say "Well, if that's anti-semitism, I must be an anti-semite".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 02:21 PM

So the Israel Justice Minister is saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. No caveats, no ifs, no buts. That is pretty clear evidence that the new definition, enshrined in her argument, is fully intended to proscribe all criticism of Israel. Which is what Jim and I and others have been saying all along. Perhaps our opponents would like to distance themselves from the Justice Minister...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 02:28 PM

Hear, Hear, McGrath. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:04 PM

McGrath conveniently leaves out one of the principle goals of the BDS movement, that is "Israel ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands" which to them includes the present state of Israel. That is delegitimization of the legal state of Israel which is considered by most fair minded people as being anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:07 PM

23 reasons why BDS is antisemitic

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 06:03 PM

The minister was not limiting her comments to any particular organisation, but to the very principle of boycotting Israel.

A few years ago any time I was buying oranges, for example, I'd check they weren't South African. Now I always check they aren't from Israel. My reasons are precisely the same. They are in no way expressions of antisemitism.

The illegitimacy of apartheid South Africa was undermined by the fact that it's formal democratic structure - general elections, parliament etc - was founded on the exclusion of the African population, and the system under which they were said to be citizens of Bantustans.

Those who challenge the legitimacy of the present South Africa do so on the basis of a different but parallel narrative. While Palestinians who were able to stay on the territory of what became Israel, have been allowed to vote, the far larger number who fled into exile have at all times been refused permission to return - which is not consistent with international law. This is the justification for the view that the existing state of Israel lacks legitimacy. In spite of what it is so frequently accused of being, it is not an inherently antisemitic position,

There is an alternative position held by many critics of Israel which involves treating the question of the legitimacy of Israel as being settled. It is seen as a historical matter, analogous to the history of other countries such as the USA or Australia, an injustice to the previous inhabitants that cannot now be reversed. These critics focus on the two-state solution, and their criticisms of Israel are founded on the way in which progress towards that has been reversed, notably by such things as the continued establishments of settlements, in defiance of international law.

But even criticisms and actions such as boycotts based on this position position is in practice denounced as antisemitic. The Israeli minister of justice appears to endorse that accusation, in the light of that article.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM

Sorry - spot the unintentional slip in that post - here is the corrected version.

The minister was not limiting her comments to any particular organisation, but to the very principle of boycotting Israel.

A few years ago any time I was buying oranges, for example, I'd check they weren't South African. Now I always check they aren't from Israel. My reasons are precisely the same. They are in no way expressions of antisemitism.

The illegitimacy of apartheid South Africa was undermined by the fact that it's formal democratic structure - general elections, parliament etc - was founded on the exclusion of the African population, and the system under which they were said to be citizens of Bantustans.

Those who challenge the legitimacy of the present State of Israel do so on the basis of a different but parallel narrative. While Palestinians who were able to stay on the territory of what became Israel, have been allowed to vote, the far larger number who fled into exile have at all times been refused permission to return - which is not consistent with international law. This is the justification for the view that the existing state of Israel lacks legitimacy. In spite of what it is so frequently accused of being, it is not an inherently antisemitic position,

There is an alternative position held by many critics of Israel which involves treating the question of the legitimacy of Israel as being settled. It is seen as a historical matter, analogous to the history of other countries such as the USA or Australia, an injustice to the previous inhabitants that cannot now be reversed. These critics focus on the two-state solution, and their criticisms of Israel are founded on the way in which progress towards that has been reversed, notably by such things as the continued establishments of settlements, in defiance of international law.

But even criticisms and actions such as boycotts based on this position position is in practice denounced as antisemitic. The Israeli minister of justice appears to endorse that accusation, in the light of that article.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 09:07 PM

Again, thanks Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

Two threads on the Labour Party and both now hijacked and turned into yet more threads about Israel.

Kevin and Steve,
It is not antisemitic to criticise Israel, and no-one here or in Israel's government has ever claimed that it is, and it has not been an issue in Labour antisemitism.

Antisemitic bigots will obviously be hostile to Israel, but not all critics of Israel are antisemites.

"In the past, we saw European leaders speaking against the Jews."
So they were antisemites.
"Now, we see them speaking against Israel."
Yes, because they can not get away with blatant antisemitism any more.

When BDS began, Assad's regime had an infinitely worse human rights record, so why not boycott him?
Russia and Iran have appalling civil rights records, and are daily committing atrocities in Syria. Any boycott planned.
China? N.Korea?
Why is Israel singled out as if it was the worst place in the world, and why can we not discuss our Labour Party in threads dedicated to that subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 05:27 AM

Why was South Africa boycotted? There were and are worse regimes in some ways.

Basically the difference is that countries which aspire and claim to be democracies by virtue of that invite a special kind of criticism, one which tries to hold them to the standards they claim to accept. In addition the fact that there is significant mainstream for these countries in our society invites critics to respond to that. There is very little support for North Korea in our society, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 05:33 AM

"It is not antisemitic to criticise Israel, "
"Now, we see them speaking against Israel."
"Yes, because they can not get away with blatant antisemitism any more."
So it is antisemitic to speak against Israel - or not?
Which is it to be Keith - you've just said it is?
"Two threads on the Labour Party and both now hijacked and turned into yet more threads about Israel."
Links have been proven to exist which connect the Anti-boycott campaign to the accusation of (unproven) Antisemiitism in the Labour party - how dare you or anybody attempt to prevent us discussing those links, where do you think you are - Israel?
"and no-one here or in Israel's government has ever claimed that it is"
Israel's Justice minister did and it is the knee-jerk reaction of supporters of Israeli to describe criticism as ANTISEMITISM - you have accused me of it; Bobad's frothing-at-the mouth postings do nothing else.
"so why not boycott him?"
Why not indeed but what's that got to do with anything - nobody here supports Assad other than you when you said it was OK to sell him arms and equipment to put down the Arab Spring protesters.
When he was murdering the citizens of Homs, You described attempts to stop him as "invasion and "fascism"
You have never at any time opposed the selling of arms to these despots, on the contrary, you have defended arms sales.
Israel is singled out because she is a war criminal and human rights abuser who continues those crimes and abuses, has carried on a ten year long blockade of the Palestinian People in order to starve them into submission, and continue to seize their land - along with attempting to create an Apartheid State and ethnically cleanse non Jews from the Area.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 07:35 AM

The thread was diverted from talking about the Labour Party's current situation to talking about antisemitism because people opposed to the changes which have led to Jeremy Corbyn being reendorsed by the membership have levelled accusations of antisemitism against those supporting him.

These accusations have invited posts seeking to show them to be unfair and misdirected. And those posts have led to responses by people trying to show that they are justified.

At the same time in the real world stuff like suspensions of people accused of antisemitism is succeeding in focusing attention on this and keeping the issue very central. Those who see this as a cynical and manipulative tactic that seeks to exploit the natural revulsion against antisemitism to attack political opponents unjustly see it as necessary to say so.

I think it would be far better to return to more genuine issues around left wing politics in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 08:12 AM

Jim,
So it is antisemitic to speak against Israel - or not?

No it is not, and none of those mentioned or quoted in either thread has ever claimed that it is.

Antisemites will obviously be speaking against Israel, but all who speak against Israel are not antisemites.

Links have been proven to exist which connect the Anti-boycott campaign to the accusation of (unproven) Antisemiitism in the Labour party

No they have not Jim.

When he was murdering the citizens of Homs, You described attempts to stop him as "invasion and "fascism"

Here we go with the untrue smears. I have never said any such thing. I started the first of only two threads on Syria, calling mine "Homs horror."
I was one of the very few Mudcatters who spoke in support of Obama's plan to launch reprisals for Assad's chemical attacks. We agreed on that Jim, and so did Cameron.

You have never at any time opposed the selling of arms to these despots,
There were no arms sales to oppose.

Israel is singled out because she is a war criminal
No decent democracy believes that.

Kevin,
The thread was diverted from talking about the Labour Party's current situation to talking about antisemitism because people opposed to the changes which have led to Jeremy Corbyn being reendorsed by the membership have levelled accusations of antisemitism against those supporting him.

No. Antisemitism in Labour was always part of the discussion.
I question why issues relating to Israel and Middle East, including events over thirty years old, have displaced the subject in the thread titles!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM

The piece about the Israeli minister of justice very clearly showed her seeking to identify significant criticism of Israel as essentially antisemitic.

The fact that there were at one time European leaders who were antisemitic was presented as provng that when different European leaders today criticise Israel, this had to be seen as antisemitic.

She identified protests against killings of noncombatants by the IDC as "blood libels" as if there could be no grounds for objecting to such bloodshed unless it was motivated by fantatical prejudice against all Jews.

Antisemitism is something quite different from criticism of the actions of the state of Israel, or even from a refusal to accept the legitimacy of that state as established on the basis of massive ethnic cleansing. I would suggest that identifying such criticism as antisemitic, and identifying Jews everywhere with Israel risks causing critics to accept this identification. And it seems to me that identifying Jews as such with the Israeli regime and State is in fact antisemitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 09:38 AM

What "massive ethnic cleansing" Kevin?

Where and when has the state of Israel ever been indicted for war crimes or for crimes against humanity? In seeking a reply to this question I am not interested in what anyone on this forum thinks is a war crime, or thinks is a crime against humanity I am looking for specific charges brought before an international court and successfully prosecuted, charges, places and dates of the trials would be good as well as sentences handed down as a result of the guilty verdicts having been given.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 09:38 AM

What "massive ethnic cleansing" Kevin?

Where and when has the state of Israel ever been indicted for war crimes or for crimes against humanity? In seeking a reply to this question I am not interested in what anyone on this forum thinks is a war crime, or thinks is a crime against humanity I am looking for specific charges brought before an international court and successfully prosecuted, charges, places and dates of the trials would be good as well as sentences handed down as a result of the guilty verdicts having been given.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 09:48 AM

U.K.'s Labour Party Suspends Member Over Holocaust Remembrance Day Comments

Jackie Walker also questioned the need for security at Jewish institutions, during a workshop on how to confront anti-Semitism and engage Jewish voters.


A senior activist in Britain's Labour Party who is close to controversial party leader Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the party late on Friday after she questioned why Holocaust Remembrance Day is only about Jews.

Jackie Walker also questioned the need for security at Jewish institutions, suggesting that anti-Semitism is not behind any attacks, during a workshop organized by the Jewish Labour Movement at the annual party conference on how to confront anti-Semitism and engage Jewish voters.

Recordings of her comments were published Wednesday on the Huffington Post.

Walker, a vice chair of Momentum — an organization formed to help Corbyn and Labour win the next national election — was suspended from the party in May for making anti-Semitic remarks. She was later reinstated.

"I was a bit concerned … at your suggestions that the Jewish community is under such threat that they have to use security in all its buildings," she said during the workshop, according to the Huffington Post.

Walker also told workshop participants that she still had not heard "a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with."

She later apologized if her comments caused any offense, The Independent reported.

"Having been a victim of racism, I would never play down the very real fears the Jewish community have, especially in light of recent attacks in France," Walker said. "I would never play down the significance of the Shoah. Working with many Jewish comrades, I continue to seek to bring greater awareness of other genocides, which are too often forgotten or minimized. If offense has been caused, it is the last thing I would want to do and I apologize."

"I … utterly condemn anti-Semitism," Walker said.

Jeremy Newmark, the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, called for Walker to resign over the comments.

"To denigrate security provision at Jewish schools, make false claims about the universality of National Holocaust Memorial Day and to challenge recognized definitions of anti-Semitism is provocative, offensive and a stark example of the problem facing the Labour Party today," Newmark said.

Gideon Falter, chairman of Britain's Campaign Against Antisemitism, also called for Walker to be expelled from the party and Momentum, and "condemned in the strongest possible terms."

"Until Labour matches its rhetoric with action, we remain of the view that the Labour Party is not safe for Jews," he said.

Holocaust Memorial Day does also honor the victims of other genocides and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust's website includes information on atrocities in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the U.K. Jewish News website.

The Labour Party is poised to take disciplinary action against Walker over the comments, the Jewish News reported, saying she has been told to "show contrition or resign." The report did not cite any sources.

Corbyn has faced allegations that his pro-Palestinian politics and endorsement of radical anti-Semites has encouraged hate speech against Jews. He been accused of doing too little to curb rampant anti-Semitism among party members and lawmakers, some of whom have been suspended for making racist and anti-Semitic statements on social media and in other public forums

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 10:13 AM

"massive ethnic cleansing"

Another typical anti-Semitic trope that, along with apartheid state, stolen "Palestinian" land, controlling banks and media etc., Jew haters are fond of throwing around.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 10:23 AM

Kevin,
The piece about the Israeli minister of justice very clearly showed her seeking to identify significant criticism of Israel as essentially antisemitic.

It really did not.
She said that antisemites used to be able tp speak against Jews, but now they speak against Israel.
It is obvious that antisemites will speak nagainst Israel, but it is a logical fallacy to interpret that as meaning all who speak against Israel are antisemites. None of us here have claimed that, no Israeli minister has claimed that, and it is not an issue in the Labour Party.

Antisemitism is something quite different from criticism of the actions of the state of Israel,

Of course it is. No-one is disagreeing with that so why say it?
Nevertheless, some critics are indeed motivated by antisemitism. Does anyone deny that?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 10:44 AM

"I think it would be far better to return to more genuine issues around left wing politics in England."
well-trodden territory, I agree entirely.
This pair will defend atrocities till the blood runs out of their ears
They are a waste of time
As for Bobad
"Another typical anti-Semitic trope t"
Doesn't he make my point perfectly?
"Israel's Justice minister did and it is the knee-jerk reaction of supporters of Israeli is to describe criticism as ANTISEMITISM"
Why bother - one just denies and tells lies, one pontificates without evidence and the pet Rottweiler just spits mindless vitriol?
Move on fellers. - plenty to discuss other than this garbage.
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 01:15 PM

What "massive ethnic cleansing"?

I refer to the exodus of most of the native population of what is now Israel at the time the state was founded, and the continued refusal to allow them to return home subsequently. The homes and villages where they lived have been destroyed, the memory of their very existence airbrushed away. This is as clear an example of ethnic cleansing as you could find anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 01:25 PM

You might add the driving of Bedouins off their land using chemical sprays and forcing them onto toxic rubbish dumps.
Creating an Apartheid State is a form of Ethnic Cleansing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 01:47 PM

And the far greater driving away of Jewish families and communities that occurred at the same time Kevin - not a squeak from you or anyone else it would seem.

Nothing at all from you about the illegal invasion, occupation and illegal attempted annexation of Gaza by Egypt and East Jerusalem and Samaria and Judea by Jordan in 1948 that lasted until they were driven out by the IDF in 1967.

In 1948 the Arabs - all of them - chose the path of war instead of peaceful co-existence - people should accept responsibility for their actions. Since then on numerous occasions the Arabs of the region (The Jews of the region are as "Palestinian" as Yasser Arafat's construction) have threatened the Jews of the region (Note that: the Jews of the region NOT the Israeli Regime) with annihilation. It was the Egyptians and Jordanians who put Arabs of the region in refugee camps refusing them permission to be assimilated into the general population. It was Yasser Arafat's invented "Palestinians" who sought to destabilise and overthrow the Governments of Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon.

Right of return may well have been an option in 1949 it is not now.

Arabs and those of other religious denominations living in Israel have thrived since 1949 - the same cannot be said for any minority living under Arab rule in the region. The Palestine Authority cannot even get it's act together to come to any form of agreement with Hamas who rule Gaza in what must be one of the most repressive regimes of modern times. The Arabs of the region are in the predicament they are in 100% because of the actions and policies of their own leaders - their choice let them live with it. They have had 67 years to resolve this mess so the next time trouble flares let them fight it out to the finish and let the world be done with them once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 03:08 PM

"Nothing at all from you about the illegal invasion, occupation and illegal attempted annexation of Gaza by Egypt and East Jerusalem and Samaria and Judea by Jordan in 1948"
Excusing modern ethnic cleansing by using something that happened over half a century ago, when most of today's protagonists were not even born has to be the crassest yet - may as well start ethnically cleansing Germany for what happened in the thirties and forties..
The Jews left these countries for MANY REASONS, persecution being only one - they left many countries East and West for the same reason
They also left from choice to be part of the 'Promised Land', which, as Ben Gurion admitted, was created on STOLEN Arab Land .
Many left because of the Arab-Israeli war - as you've already claimed that the Palestinians have no right to their home because they left because of war, you can hardly complain abut the Jews leaving for the same reason.
"Arabs and those of other religious denominations living in Israel have thrived since 1949"
Bloody nonsense - go look at THE INEQUALITY REPORT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 05:15 PM

exodus of most of the native population

The Jews are the indigenous population of the land that is Israel including Judea and Samaria which is their heartland from which their very name is derived, it is the Arabs who were the colonizers.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 05:44 PM

"The Arabs - all of them - chose the path of war" That seems highly unlikely - I would think it pretty certain that large numbers of ordinary Arabs, like ordinary people in any circumstances, were getting on with daily life and were completely out of touch and unconcerned with all this political stuff. ."All Arabs" or "All Jews" or "All Christians" or "All Hindus" - that's the language of sectarianism and racism.

Ethnic cleansing is where one ethnic population, typically in a time of conflict, has to leave their homeland, and is permanently replaced by another ethnic population. This unquestionably happened to Palestinians in the Nakba. Teribus argues that this was justified - but that would be completely beside the point, even if the arguments were incontestable, which they certainly are not. This episode of ethnic cleansing is a matter of history. There is of course a precedent for denying another terrible fact of history, and it is rightly seen as ridiculous and shameful.
............
I'm very sorry the way this thread has lost it's way. If it doesn't get back on track pretty soon I suggest it should be given the chop.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM

I'm very sorry the way this thread has lost it's way. If it doesn't get back on track pretty soon I suggest it should be given the chop.

Quite so. There is a thread that was set up by Keith specifically to talk about Labour and anti-Semitism. This thread was specifically set up by McGrath to talk about other aspects. No one is saying the topic should not be discussed, but why cover it in both threads? This thread loses all purpose if it is simply repeating the same arguments that are in the other thread (and it's all the same people as well)

If we can't keep the topics apart, the threads should be merged or one closed, in my opinion. But I know it is not my decision either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 06:49 PM

Arab refugees tell the stories of their "expulsion" from Israel during the Arab Israeli War of 1948:

YouTube 1

YouTube 2

YouTube 3

Benny Morris (a favourite of our resident anti-Israel propagandists) on the so-called "expulsions":

Did the Zionists Ethnically Cleanse Palestine from Arabs?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 08:07 PM

Same old BooSpew. Re-read 01 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM and say good night, Bubo

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 08:09 PM

Good night Smeg.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 08:40 PM

The crucial point about ethnic cleansing is not about whether what drove people into exile was forcable expulsion or just fear of war, it is about whether they are permitted to return home subsequently, or whether they are refused this right, and their absence is used as an opportunity by others to take over the land from which they fled and wipe out the traces of their existence.

Most of those fleeing Syria now are not coming because they are being forcibly exiled, but because their lives were at risk in the chaos of war. If their return is prevented by a new regime in the aftermath of the war - as could well happen if a Sunni jihidist regime were to win, especially in the case of Christians and Shia - that would clearly be a case of ethnic cleansing.
..........
I agree with DMG. The trouble is, the last time I looked at that other thread it had turned pretty toxic. This threatens to happen here as well. Many people seem to find it impossible to remain civil while in sharp disagreement with others over matters they care about. Or perhaps they don't try, believing that civility in such circumstances is somehow inauthentic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 03:07 AM

"The Jews are the indigenous population of the land that is Israel"
Substitute "Aryans" for "Jews" in that sentence and you have an example of what happens when such a horrific belief is attempted to be put into practice.
Creating a purely ethnic state is what Holocausts are made of.
Your ancestors (six million of them, at least) must be very proud of you.
What kind of monsters are you?
Ethnic cleansing it is - in your own words
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 04:28 AM


The crucial point about ethnic cleansing is not about whether what drove people into exile was forcable expulsion or just fear of war, it is about whether they are permitted to return home subsequently, or whether they are refused this right, and their absence is used as an opportunity by others to take over the land from which they fled and wipe out the traces of their existence.

That is true of the Jews in Arab states at the time of the "Nakba."
There were many more of them than Arab refugees, but Israel took them all in on their tiny sliver of land, while the Arab refugees in Arab lands were denied citizenship and employment rights and kept in squalid camps to the present day.
Israel took in far more refugees than left, and is not responsible for the plight of those who left

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

What the hell has over half a century got to do with what's happening today
Do we have to ss#tart remembering all the grenades that were tossed in to occupied houses by Israeli "freedom fighters"?
Until you people accept that Arabs have as much right to occupy this land as the Jews do, no solution will ever be reached and you will remain the inhuman monsters that you are.
This should be about living human beings and not long dead politicians
Bobad has put yopur case perfectly - Israel Uber Alles
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 05:18 AM

Now it has become "Antisemitic" to suggest all victims of Nazism should be remembered on Holocaust day – how sick can you get?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 06:23 AM

"Until you people accept that Arabs have as much right to occupy this land as the Jews do, no solution will ever be reached" - Jim Carroll

No idea who the "you people" refers to and their acceptance of whatever is irrelevant. Of course the Arabs have the right to occupy the land, only thing wrong is the bit about the Jews having the same rights - you see the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran and others do not believe that the Jews have any rights at all. The Hamas charter calls for the Jews to be annihilated, a view they simply will not compromise on. "No solution will be reached" until that Arab mind-set is altered - nothing whatsoever to do with "you people" tapping away on keyboards on an internet forum appraising you of that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 06:33 AM

"And the far greater driving away of Jewish families and communities that occurred at the same time Kevin - not a squeak from you or anyone else it would seem.

Nothing at all from you about the illegal invasion, occupation and illegal attempted annexation of Gaza by Egypt and East Jerusalem and Samaria and Judea by Jordan in 1948 that lasted until they were driven out by the IDF in 1967."

Nicely ducked Kevin.

Here's a couple of other questions for you to neatly side-step:

The last officially recognised borders of Palestine were created when?

Show me a map drawn up by the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other involved Arab organisation that shows the borders of this "Two State Israel/Palestine Solution" they talk about when they address the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 08:58 AM

Israel Uber Alles

Showing us, once again, what a nasty little anti-Semite you are.

Subject: RE: BS:Don't Talk to Strangers
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 10:09 AM

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tube-chat-dont-even-think-about-talking-to-me-badges-handed-out-on-underground-a3358071.ht

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 10:19 AM

Jim,
Now it has become "Antisemitic" to suggest all victims of Nazism should be remembered on Holocaust day – how sick can you get?

No it has not, and Holocaust Day DOES remember all victims of genocide in WW2 and since.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 10:24 AM

It would be anti-semitic to claim that Holocaust Day does not commemorate non-Jewish victims, implying Jews do not care about any suffering but theirs.
That is one of the things Walker did.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 10:37 AM

one of the thing MGM used to say - you can always spot the bounder in political discussion - they're the first one to mention the Nazis...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 10:59 AM

I strongly disagree.

If all the people who condemn the Nazis were dishonorable/bounders that would make the proponents of Nazi policies, but did not use the word, honorable.

However in a debate should one employ the name of Hitler against their opponent, it usually is a sad exaggeration.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 01:01 PM

Holocaust Day is indeed officially intended to commemorate all the victims of the Nazi Holocaust, aand also of other genocides. But I wonder how many people actually realise that fact, or that there were other victime of the Nazi Holocaust?
......
The continued refusal to accept that there is a Right of Return for Palestinians is institutionalised ethnic cleansing. The same would of course apply to any similar policy in Arab (or European) nations where exiled Jewish people might seek to return.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 02:27 PM

The actions of the Arabs has rendered any "right of return" impossible - any Israeli Government that allowed any such "return" knows that it would be the equivalent of committing "national suicide". That is the reality and it is recognised by all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 02:38 PM

. But I wonder how many people actually realise that fact, or that there were other victime of the Nazi Holocaust?

I think anyone making a public statement vilifying Holocausr Day would make sure of their facts first.
A quick look at Wiki is all it would take.
Instead, Walker made her authoritative sounding statements and assertions that actually were based on no knowledge or facts at all! (Remind you of anyone?)
Her slander was just whims from her empty head, or maybe she knew it was a lie and was confident that her intended audience would lap it up without question.

The continued refusal to accept that there is a Right of Return for Palestinians is institutionalised ethnic cleansing. The same would of course apply to any similar policy in Arab (or European) nations where exiled Jewish people might seek to return.

Exiled Jews have been assimilated into Israel and helped make a new life there, so they would not want to return.
Exiled Arabs have been kept in squalor and deprivation by their Arab hosts. A life anywhere else is what they dream of.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 04:12 PM

My point there,Keith, wasn't whether Jackie Walker knew that Holocaust Day is, officially at least, about all genocides. It's that, so far as most people are concerned it actually isn't. And insofar as that is the case, it needs to be challenged. If Jackie Walker was challenging that failure to get the message across, that would be perfectly reasonable.

As for the fact that her expressing confusion about how antisemitism should be defined, the extended detour this thread has made indicates very clearly that there is indeed confusion about this, and about how far the term can appropriately used in respect of attitudes towards the Israeli government and the State of Israel, rather than towards Jews and Judaism.

It strikes me that when Jews who challenge such an extension of the term are attacked as "self-hating Jews", that is itself at very least extremely close to being an example of anti-semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 07:13 PM

any Israeli Government that allowed any such "return" knows that it would be the equivalent of committing "national suicide".

And that's precisely what it's proponents would like to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 16 - 08:07 PM

Yup. Same old BooSpew. Predictable & boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 01:03 AM

As you appear to be in name calling mood Smeg - the truth can often be "boring" and "predictable".

One question for you though, are you ever going to actually contribute anything to a thread on this forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 06:32 AM

We could say the same about you. You are getting nastier and more pointlessly aggressive by the day. Whatever "valid" contributions you think you're making, they're going down the plug with some pretty foul bath water. And no, I will not trade insults with you in this thread that you are doing so much to sour.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 07:02 AM

Oh dear yet another unsubstantiated accusation - in what way "sour" pray tell.

You could of course start by pointing out anything of worth that ol' Smeg has contributed, but I think that you'd be hard pressed, still should keep you gainfully employed for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 08:46 AM

There are "quite a lot of different Lefts," says Rich, "and there are still a lot of people on the Left who want to combat anti-Semitism. I don't think we should concede the idea that the 'Stop the War' Left and the Momentum [Jeremy Corbyn's inner circle activists] Left is the only true Left, and that anyone else is a right-winger. That's the insult they use. There is an assumption of bad faith and dishonesty on all sides."

Rich's bottom line, however, is that extreme anti-Israel advocacy and rhetoric "will always impact on British Jews in a way that is anti-Semitic." It is definitely the case, he writes, "that some on the Left do not recognize anti-Semitism even when it comes from their own mouths."

And he adds that Labour is going to have to decide how — and if — to win back disaffected Jews, whose relationship with the party has "collapsed" in the past 12 months.

"I'm fed up with hearing Jeremy Corbyn saying he condemns all forms of anti-Semitism and then not seeing any action," Rich says. "Commissioning a fairly superficial report [the Chakrabarti report] and then not really implementing any of its findings, doesn't count.

"A charitable interpretation is that they [Corbyn's inner circle] just don't get it," he says. "A cynical interpretation is that they get it, and they find it quite useful. I don't feel in a position to say which of those interpretations is correct."

The Left's Jewish problem

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 08:52 AM

Now then: let's discuss Bubo's "Jewish Problem".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 09:14 AM

are you ever going to actually contribute anything to a thread

OK, how about THIS, T-Bird? Just more "self-hating Jews", I suppose?

-------------

Israel Quietly Legalizes Pirate Outposts

By Isabel Kirshner, Aug 30, 2016

The retroactive legalization is seen by anti-settlement groups as a methodical effort by the government to change the map by entrenching the outposts that spread across the West Bank.

Today, more than 40 Orthodox Jewish families live in Mitzpe Danny, one of a string of outposts on a strategic ridge with breathtaking views southwest to Jerusalem's Mount of Olives and east all the way to Jordan. They are part of an expansive network of about 100 outposts established mostly over the past two decades without government authorization.

Ziv Stahl, the research director at Yesh Din, one of the left-wing advocacy groups, said "they are authorizing them in disguise."
Pointing to other Israeli measures, including the demolitions of unauthorized Palestinian structures in the West Bank, she added, "We see it as a very gradual move toward annexation."

A government-commissioned 2005 survey by Talia Sasson, a former state prosecutor, counted at least 105 outposts that were established in "blatant violation of the law" and called for "drastic steps," including the immediate removal of those on private lands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/world/middleeast/israel-west-bank-outposts-mitzpe-danny.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 09:53 AM

Bobad's link and Rich's book don't mean a thing as they are predicated on a false definition of antisemitism. Until the pro-Israel lobbies can get that right, which they show no intention of doing, pursuing this in this thread is pointless,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 10:41 AM

.....they are predicated on a false definition of antisemitism

When Jews call out something as antisemitic, leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 11:21 AM

As ever, you don't know what you're talking about. There's a nice thread that Keith started where you can go and say your stupid things to your heart's content. Leave this one alone is my advice until you can say something constructive and of substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 11:42 AM

"Leave this one alone is my advice until you can say something constructive and of substance." - Steve Shaw

Was that last bit directed at Smeg F.?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 01:11 PM

Kevin,
My point there,Keith, wasn't whether Jackie Walker knew that Holocaust Day is, officially at least, about all genocides.

My point was that she should not have asserted publicly that it is not, based only on her own prejudice which was proved false.

To make that false statement was a slander against Jews and her wilful ignorance does not excuse it.

It would be equally wrong to denigrate Nakba Day for not commemorating other comparable events without checking first.
(I have checked, and it does not.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 01:21 PM

it is my opinion, that if Corbyn, took a mandate for a remain in europe or remain in EEA, He could win the next uk general election.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 01:38 PM

When Jews call out something as antisemitic, leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

But what about when other Jews say the same thing, and criticise claim that a criticism of Israel should be defined as antisemitism?

It's as if criticism of Poland or Ireland was defined as necessarily being motivated by anti-catholicism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 01:42 PM

Only thing about that GSS Corbyn in all probability voted "Leave". Just how much of a hypocrite do you want him to be - he has always been anti-EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 02:10 PM

It's actually pretty clear that Jeremy Corbyn voted to stay, as he called for people to do. Like Corbyn, most Remain voters believed that the EU is far from perfect, but that for all that it was a better choice than Brexit.

The fact that Corbyn was actively saying this probably influenced many wavering Labour voters to opt for Remain. If he'd come out as an uncritical fan of the EU it would very likely have pushed many the other way. Aside from anything, he would have been seen as another lying unprincipled politician. Critical support of the EU made sense. If the choice had been between Brexit and EU adoration, the margin for Brexit would have been far wider.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 03:24 PM

claim that a criticism of Israel should be defined as antisemitism?

But no-one does claim that!
It would be ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 03:31 PM

So Kevin, on the 21st June this year Corbyn did not lash out at EU on tax, migrants and sovereignty on a Sky News Q&A?

No lover of the EU direct quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM

No, he was not "a lover of the EU", in common, I am sure, with most Remain voters. The EU as it stands is flawed - but in the choice between Remain and Leave, it was the better choice.

If the Remain vote had just been "lovers of the EU" the gap would have been far far wider.

Corbyn set out to get people who questioned the wisdom of staying in the EU to vote to do so. And with 63% of Labour voters going for Remain, he helped make it a narrow victory for Brexit. If Cameron had managed to persuade only a bit more than 42% the Brexiters would have been beaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 05:35 PM

Self interest surely. As Mr T says Mr Corbyn has always been anti EU and against Labour Party policy, but to say so in the circumstances which prevailed would have meant instant crucifixion(in the political sense of the word).

I think the issue was important enough for Mr Corbyn to make a stand over it.....he may yet regret not doing so as Old Labour votes haemorrhage to UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 06:43 PM

I think he was telling the truth. Why not? So far as the EU is concerned I don't know anyone who voted to Remain who doesn't see it that way - plenty wrong with the EU, but the right thing was to stay.

If David Mameron had had a minimal grasp of tactics Brexit would have been defeated. For example votes for 16 and 17 years would have done, and there'd very likely have been a majority for that in the Commons. He could have accepted calls by the Scots, the Welsh and Northern Ireland for any result to be dependent on all the nations agreeing, on the basis of holding the UK together. He could have pushed for a minimum winning margin for any change.

The Brexit victory was down to David Cameron, not Jeremy Corbyn.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 06:54 PM

"Only thing about that GSS Corbyn in all probability voted "Leave"

Prove it. You have absolutely no call for saying that. Bloody prove it, charlatan.

So where are we today? Tories breaking every promise on the economy they ever made. Six years on, they can't fix the deficit but still have to screw the poor. They have to borrow billions, the Tory bête noir. "Paying off the deficit" won't happen by 2020 or anything like, as if we didn't already know it five years ago. Osborne, flavour of the month last summer, is yesterday's man. The pound is plummeting day by day. We have a million on zero-hours contracts. Six million on less than the living wage. Job security demolished. Millions on "self-employed," basically so that employers don't have to pay their stamps. Millions on bogus "apprenticeships" which means that, unless you're bloody lucky, you'll be spending your days sweeping the floor and making the tea, on precisely the same pay as you get on jobseekers, only they won't let you have that, will they. Foreign companies threatening to leave. Hard talk from the EU. Up shit creek without a bloody paddle. But never mind. Teribus and his little Englanders will sort us out. It's just that they haven't told us how, yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 06:55 PM

Come on Mr McGrath what would the "Blairite" MP's have done with him if he had voted with his conscience? He would not have lasted two minutes.

Still think he made the wrong choice though, the EU is a capitalist construct designed to keep those rusty old wheels turning to give an impression of economic growth etc.

He wants to "wipe clean" the wrong slate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 07:16 PM

Some of us are trying to have a grown-up conversation here, akenaton. So do consider toddling off to Keith's toxic Whither Labour thread, why don't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 07:21 PM

They'd have done precisely what they did do. I see no reason whatsoever not to believe Jeremy Corbyn meant every word he said in the Brexit campaign. Whatever the failings of the EU leaving was the wrong choice, he repeatedly said, and as someone who like Jeremy voted to get out in the previous referendum, I agree with him, and I believe he meant it.

Aside from annything else, the vote gave the Green Light to the racists who infest this country. That would have been quite enough to determine my vote. When Brexit actually kicks in, rather being on the horizon that's going to get worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 07:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 11:21 AM

As ever, you don't know what you're talking about. There's a nice thread that Keith started where you can go and say your stupid things to your heart's content. Leave this one alone is my advice until you can say something constructive and of substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 07:48 AM

The whole point of my last two posts, Stu, is that I AM "giving it a rest," so your non-moderatorial injunction is not appreciated, thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 07:26 PM

The value of PMs is that they allow personal squabbles to be carried out without messing up threads. They don't belong here. When they take place in a thread beyond a certain level, that's generally a signal for moderaters to close things down.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 07:46 PM

Do you seriously think Mr McGrath that "racism" was the driver for the thousands of Labour voters who voted for Brexit?

I cant believe that you are amongst those who see any attempt to regulate the numbers of immigrants coming into this country as simply "racism".....that is an extremely insulting position to adopt.

As a socialist, I would have thought that the infrastructures of the countries from which the mass immigrants originate would be a concern to you? Do you think that our parasitical use of immigrant labour which leaves these countries short of people to run their public services and maintain their infrastructure is in line with socialist thinking?
I think that we and they should be training our own people so that they can contribute fully to each society.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 16 - 08:56 PM

Bobad's post is based on his complete misunderstanding of earlier exchanges. I'm not surprised, but don't blame me please, Kevin!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 16 - 06:49 AM

Wanting to regulate the numbers coming into the country is not racist per se. But, in the referendum campaign, the leave side's narrative on this was very racist. A poster depicting a long line of refugees, mostly black and nowhere near the UK border, had the leading light of the leave campaign, Farage, standing proudly in front of it. The message of the poster was that we had to get back "control of our borders." Well we already have cast-iron control of our borders apropos of refugees. Ask the thousands in the Calais jungle or the millions in camps in Turkey or Lebanon how easy it is to get across our borders. The poster was deliberately conflating the refugee crisis with the perfectly legitimate movement of EU citizens in order to come here to work, who are not mostly black and who don't form long snaking lines. A racist lie. It's also lies to claim that EU citizens come here to live on benefits. Overwhelmingly they do not. Pro rata, the numbers of immigrants who are on out-of-work benefits are minuscule compared with the numbers of UK citizens in that position. Immigrants are blamed for "driving down wages," when the reality is that wages are always decided by their UK employers. Immigrants are blamed for the housing crisis, when the reality is that successive governments have, for decades, failed to build anything like enough houses. Immigrants are blamed for putting a strain on the NHS, when the reality is that the Tories are letting the NHS go to the dogs (compare waiting times now with waiting times pre-Coalition, for example). Next time you visit a hospital have a quick butchers at the staff in every department, then still tell me that immigrants are "putting a strain." Yes we don't train enough doctors and nurses (along with lots of other skilled workers). Oh yes, you can bet your arse that there'll be plenty of exemptions for them to come here to work when we finally "take back control" (though, of course, we'll never see the day...)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 16 - 07:58 AM

My point wasn't that all those voting for Brexit were racists, but that much of the campaign was racist, and that opposition to racism was a very good reason to vote against it, in anticipation of the likelihood that a Brexit victory would encourage racists - which has turned out to be true, with a significant increase in attacks on immigrants, including killings, one in my home town.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 16 - 08:08 AM

And now the pound is plunging to long-time lows against the dollar over fears about brexit.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 16 - 01:38 PM

I'm reminded of a post I made about how some people were remarking that the fears about Brexit had been exaggerated, about a man jumping from a skyscraper overheard ib the course of the fall ro be sying "Well, it's all right so far." We ain't seen nothing yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Oct 16 - 03:48 PM

Grow up the lot of you....you lost, what about your precious democracy which you just love to spread around the globe?

Wouldn't you just love it if the economy collapsed, we all went back on a three day week and the kids were starving?

Might just give you all a smidgen of credibility back.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 16 - 04:32 PM

Grow up the lot of you....you lost (emphasis mine)

Aha! Ake is adopting The Professor's Mantra!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 16 - 06:20 PM

No I wouldn't, aken. I hope I'm wrong in thinking those kind of things are only too likely.

I didn't like quite a lot of things about the EU. I just thought it was the better choice. And there are some things I valued, such as some built-in protection for workers' rights, and against any attempt to bring back the death penalty. And also the guarantee of freedom of movement between countries.

On the other hand I don't like the restrictions on public ownership and so forth. I'd like an extension of democracy, which in some cases would mean an element of federalism, and in others the reverse, a reduced role for Brussels.

But that,s done and dusted. We're out (possibly not you, aken, up in Scotland, because I suspect you might well end up back in the EU, either in an independent Scotland, or in some kind of deal).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 02:13 AM

The EU, thoroughly corrupt, totally unaccountable, spendthrift and inefficient. We have been in it for 43 years continually bleating about things being wrong with the EU as MGOH has done on this thread. The argument put forward by the politicians is that we are better off as members of the EU as we can change things from the inside. In the course of those 43 years we have managed to change S.F.A. - How long do want to give it? The EU continues to be - Thoroughly corrupt, totally unaccountable, spendthrift and inefficient.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 03:38 AM

I'm sorry if my last post came across as grumpy and ill tempered Mr McGrath....I wasn't referring to you personally, and I know that you are a decent and thoughtful person, but surely the issue of "free movement of labour" is the crux of the problem.

In the future, no matter what government is in power, all our citizens will have to contribute to the best of their abilities. We will be unable to keep millions on benefits, the health service will be shaken to its roots and will be taken back to what was visualised by the founders. In short we will be forced to live within our means.

I hope this will also mean a change in our economic system to allow us to concentrate more on building a society in which every last one of us has a real stake.

Short term confidence tricks like "free movement" will not sustain our country for any length of time, while, as I said earlier denuding other countries of the labour required to service their own infrastructure.

The mantra of financial aspiration must not be the only driver, surely humanity is better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 06:54 AM

People have been coming and going to and fro these islands for thousands of years, including people from asia, africa and closer to home of course.

This petty nationalism and xenophobia is sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 07:10 AM

Sorry Stu, but the inability of some people who should and do know better, to grasp the point, is just as sickening.

Never in our history have we had to absorb immigrants at such a high level and over such a limited timespan....at a juncture where our public services are under such extreme pressure.

You know that very well, yet harp on about racism and xenophobia as if you were personally the moral arbiter.

I have seen neither on this forum and very little in real life from thinking people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 07:15 AM

Stu - 05 Oct 16 - 06:54 AM

"People have been coming and going to and fro these islands for thousands of years, including people from asia, africa and closer to home of course."

Good heavens Stu you mean that"People have been coming and going to and fro these islands for thousands of years" before we became members of the EU - WOW!!!!! - Staggers back in amazement - Guess what Stu they still will continue "coming and going to and from these islands" after we leave, only then we will have a say in who comes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 08:35 AM

They won't if your xenophobic government carries on like this. Friends from the EU and the US who live and work here at the moment are feeling very unhappy and unwelcome in the current climate in the UK. This might not matter to a couple of right-wing little Englanders like you and Ake, but not does to those of us who value our diversity and common heritage.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 09:32 AM

The EU, thoroughly corrupt, totally unaccountable, spendthrift and inefficient. We have been in it for 43 years continually bleating about things being wrong with the EU as MGOH has done on this thread. The argument put forward by the politicians is that we are better off as members of the EU as we can change things from the inside. In the course of those 43 years we have managed to change S.F.A. - How long do want to give it? The EU continues to be - Thoroughly corrupt, totally unaccountable, spendthrift and inefficient.

Well I've been in this country for 65 years, and, for at least 43 of 'em, I've been bleating about our own corrupt and inefficient, self-serving and money-wasting governments. I've seen Polaris, then Trident, then Concorde, then the M25, then plans for HS2, more bloody runways, allowing irresponsible and unregulated bankers to run amok to wreck the economy, cash for questions, cronyism, not to speak of expenses claims cheating on an industrial scale, ignoring tax avoidance and evasion on an eye-watering scale - I won't go on. Oh yes, I can vote them out (though, irrelevantly I admit, I've never actually lived in a constituency in which the bloke I voted for got in), but just consider how few people even know who their MEPs are, let alone bother to vote for them. We are part, quite a big part at that, of the setup that makes and changes all the EU laws, so this pretence all the time that it's all done by a distant bunch of unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats is simply not true. Over 95% of EU laws have our full and enthusiastic consent, and, given that we are stuck with the bloody Tories, the only ones of those likely to be discarded are the ones that protect working people from exploitation. Of the very few laws that we don't agree with, we have modified many and had to reluctantly accept very few indeed. That's what being in a club of 28 means. We HAVE changed things by being at the table when undesirable things might otherwise have got through unmodified by our influence. No more of that, eh?. You don't just "change things" once there's a fait accomplis. You "change things" mostly by ongoing negotiation during processes.

Anyway, the IMF are sounding the alarm bells and we might just "achieve" parity with the dollar and the euro by the end of about next week. Four or five months ago I bought my euros at €1.40. Glad I'm not going on holiday this month. That's how much confidence the world has in our brexiting. As Kevin says, the man halfway to the ground from the roof of the skyscraper hasn't noticed any pain as yet. You are that man.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 09:56 AM

Glad I'm not going on holiday this month

Well I go on a business trip in two weeks and the costs are now a good bit above budget...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 09:56 AM

It may have escaped your attention, Teribus, that we actually NEED the people who come in. Go into the next care home you pass and listen to the accents of the staff. Go into any large hospital and do the same. Try motorway service areas at eleven at night when only your cup of Costa will keep you going. Come down to Cornwall in March and see who's picking the daffs that you buy for a quid a bunch, bogof, from Morrisons (you can buy me a pint while you're at it). Find out who's bringing in the spud and cauliflower harvest in Lincolnshire in August. Then go down to JobCentrePlus and ask if you can have have the claimant figures for true Brits versus immigrants. You'd be amazed. Immigrants are here TO WORK. They are doing insecure, unpleasant and low-paid work, quite often. At the other end of the spectrum they are keeping the NHS afloat, in spite of the best efforts of this scumbag administration to quietly dismantle it. "Control who comes in" if you will, but have you actually HEARD how long it takes to train a hospital doctor from scratch, as if we actually had the training facilities in the first place? I'm not as old as you, but neither you nor I will live to see the day when net immigration falls significantly from today's numbers by dint of any "control mechanisms" we might contrive. It's only the economy, stupid, as it is now and as it always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 10:11 AM

Had we stayed in the EU, when would we has been able to change the "free movement of labour"; the one issue above all others which persuaded huge numbers of Labour voters to vote out.

Why was this the case? Because poor working class ex industrial areas are always hosts to the most massive influx of immigrants.....not the leafy suburbs of Kent nor the wild and windy cliffs of middle class Cornwall.


But all that is about to change, as they say in Glesca......Stevie!...."Yer tea's oot"! (Peter McDougall.."Just a boy's game")

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 10:27 AM

One confusion is that, while most peple will nod at the comment that there are things wrong with the EU, often they will be talking about different things. That's the problem with talking about "reforms" - the changes which Cameron was trying unsuccessfully to get the rest of the EU to agree to were mostly things many of us would be wholly against, and the changes many would want would be the kind of things Cameron would have opposed.
.............

We should recognise that, while immigration, for all the problems which arise when we fail to make appropriate arrangements for newcomers, is a benefit to this country, that is not so for the countries from which the emigrants come, even though in the short term it can be convenient. Emigration has long been spoken of in Ireland, for example, as "the plague of emigration".

When people who have been born, raised and edicated in other countries immigrate to Britain, those countries, which is most cases are much poorer than us, are in effect subsidising Britain. That is particularly true in the case of qualified and skilled people. There should be some method by which that anomaly can be rectified, with appropriate per capita payments, which could be used to improve employment opportunities - which would reduce the pressure on people to emigrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 10:43 AM

Do you believe that more immigration would be even better for the country, and there could never be a point of diminishing returns however many arrive?

There are both pros and cons, but the cons bite hardest on the poorest.

Of course employers decide what wages to offer, but market forces will encourage them to pay less if there are large numbers of people willing to work for less.
It is an established fact that immigration drives down wages, and blaming employers does not change that fact.
We have a massive and long standing housing crisis, and it is impossible for any government to build houses and infrastructure, and extend services at the same rate as our population increases.
You just can not build the equivalent of a small city every year.

(BTW, Cornwall voted 56% for Brexit)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 11:31 AM

"Of course employers decide what wages to offer, but market forces will encourage them to pay less if there are large numbers of people willing to work for less.
It is an established fact that immigration drives down wages, and blaming employers does not change that fact."

But having laws to stop employers from being unscrupulous would change "that fact." But don't worry, the Tories will now see to it that employment protection laws are degraded. Those are precisely the ones they hate, but which they kept rather quiet about in the campaign. It isn't actually a "fact" at all, is it? Not one spud-digger, not one care-home bottom-wiper, not one daffodil picker, not one chambermaid has the slightest say in what they get paid. The statement that "immigration drives down wages" is just one more sorry part of the racist narrative that hoodwinked so many people in the referendum.

To our resident bollocks-talker akenaton, Cornwall has the poorest economy of all the counties in England. Huge numbers of people in the main industries here, tourism and agriculture, are on part-time seasonal work on the minimum wage. Housing costs are among the highest in the country. Only couples who are both working full-time can remotely afford to rent a two-bed house in Bude or Truro. Buying is out of the question, not least because there are few affordable homes being built. Plenty of food banks here too, and rotten transport links coupled with high fuel prices. If Cornwall were a country its economy would be poorer than that of Hungary or Lithuania. I'm lucky - I've been here a very long time and we moved here to work as two teachers. We are in a small minority but, unlike you, I go around with my eyes open. So I suggest that you check your facts and engage your brain in future before you decide to open your big mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 12:29 PM

I have friends who live in Bude, my great grandfathers family lived for some time in one of the Canal Cottages, my neighbour here in Argyll had immediate family who lived next door to my Great grandfather in Captains Cottage. I am well versed on the carpetbaggers who reside there now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 12:38 PM

The problem there would be freedom of travel with the UK, aken. It,s not the Poles they should be worried about in Cornwall, it's the English (and the Scots). I can't see how Brexit will help with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 12:47 PM

BTW....Thank you Mr McGrath for at least acknowledging my point regarding the effects of emigration on poorer countries.
A point which has been studiously avoided by people like Steve and other "remainers".

No one who seriously considers themselves to have any understanding of politics could possibly condone such a policy, which according to the right reverend Anthony Blair, was designed to "make us more competitive in the global economy" (cheap labour, which as Keith has said drives down wages of the very poorest in society)
Also remember that the minimum wage is worth at least three times more in Eastern Europe than in the UK.
A fruit picker here earns the equivalent of a factory manager in Poland, but could a young UK citizen keep a home and raise a family on the same remuneration.....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM

Sorry cross posted Mr McGrath.....off on a hospital visit, but I would be interested to discuss your last point concerning movement within the UK....later..A.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:04 PM

I most certainly do not condone the policy. I condemn it. We do not train the skilled workers we need in this country and we try to hide behind a wall of fake apprenticeships that train people to make tea and sweep floors. But you can't train enough nurses or doctors unless you have the training facilities and professionals to do the training, and we do not. It does not help that this government has alienated both professions and demolished their morale. It takes a damn sight more than five years at a medical college to produce a finished doctor. We are in serious trouble over this, and stealing the finest talent from India, Pakistan, South Africa and the EU is unsustainable and wrong.

To buy a cottage on Breakwater Road, including Captain's Cottage, would leave you with little change from eight or nine hundred grand, yet they're hardly huge. Nearly all of them are either let to holidaymakers for vast weekly rentals or simply stand empty for 48 or more weeks of the year. Oh yes, "them and us" is alive and kicking in Bude as it is in all the resorts in Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:17 PM

I don't the think the kind of carpetbaggers you mentioned aken are taking the jobs of the native Cornish. It's a different kind of immigration, more akin to colonisation. Rather like what's happening in some parts of London, with the kind of wealthy incomers who will never be affected by stuff like Brexit.
..............

It's worth noting that some of the highest Brexit voting areas had relatively few immigrants, for example Sunderlands. It isn't that the jobs have been taken by immigrants, it's that the jobs have been taken away by the economic system we are stuck with. The largest number of immigrants in Sunderland is actually Chinese, predominantly in the restaurant trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:26 PM

The statement that "immigration drives down wages" is just one more sorry part of the racist narrative

No. It is a fact. Employers will always pay as little as they can.
You could increase Blair's minimum wage, but that would make Britain even more attractive and increase immigration.

Can I ask again if there is any level of immigration that any of you would consider excessive, or is more always better?
Does it matter at all that there are far fewer homes than are needed for the present population and that it is just impossible to build the equivalent of a small city every year?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:29 PM

"We find that the immigrant to native ratio has a small negative impact on
average British wages. This finding is important for monetary policy makers, who are interested in the
impact that supply shocks, such as immigration, have on average wages and overall inflation. Our
results also reveal that the biggest impact of immigration on wages is within the semi/unskilled services
occupational group."
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:58 PM

You can churn out your racist nonsense until you're blue in the face. If an employer pays an immigrant worker less than he would pay a native Brit worker for the same work, he is unscrupulous and immoral. The immigrant worker has no choice as to his pay level and, most likely, no choice but to accept the work on offer. He has come here to work and support his dependants. The person who has driven down the wages is the employer. Your constant need to blame immigrants for problems in this country is racist. You should be ashamed of yourself. Same with housing. For decades there have been those of us who have lamented the fact that successive governments have failed to build enough houses. But now you're blaming immigrants for that as well. Well I think you should buy a little offshore island, build a twenty-foot barricade all round it and live a miserable existence all on your own. No-one allowed in at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 02:35 PM

"Employers will always pay as little as they can." Probably true. But "as they can" is the important bit.

As for housing, for decades after the war the UK was building 300,000 houses a year. Equivalent of a small city.

As for whether there's limit to how many people could come, likely, but we aren't near that. The thing about immigration is that, an immigrant population bring with them the main resources needed to provide for them - human ability and energy. But enabling them to use that effectively requires a degree of planning organisation and imagination that has all too often been absent.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 02:43 PM

If an employer pays an immigrant worker less than he would pay a native Brit worker for the same work, he is unscrupulous and immoral

Then they are.

The person who has driven down the wages is the employer.

Yes, but how does that help the workers?

Your constant need to blame immigrants for problems in this country is racist

I do not blame them for anything. Please do not try to make this personal again.



No I am not.
There is a dire shortage of housing already, and housing and infrastructure can not be built at the rate our population is ballooning upwards.

Well I think you should buy a little offshore island, build a twenty-foot barricade all round it and live a miserable existence all on your own. No-one allowed in at all.

I benefit from immigration thank you, as do all pensioners, employers, management, landlords, etc.
Those who suffer are the low and unskilled workers, who you might be expected to care about Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 03:06 PM

Good post, Kevin. I can ignore the ridiculous and disconnected one that followed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 03:10 PM

While Keith and I disagree about a number of things about Israel, there is one thing on which I think we would agree. The proportion of Jewish immigrants since the establishment of Israel has been cery high, far higher in fact than the Jewish population at that time,and of course vastly higher than the immigrant numbers in Britain during tge same period.

There have been problems - but overall Israel has managed to deal with this influx as something poitive for it, socially and economically.

It can be done. The fact that we have failed to do it so wellis no reason to dismiss the possibility of our mending our ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 04:34 PM

I am well versed on the carpetbaggers who reside there now.

Carpetbaggers, Ake?? Are they anything like the Mexican rapists, murderers and worse and/or The Muslim Horde that Trump has warned us about on this side of the pond?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 04:52 PM

That is an interesting angle.

Here's a sort of red alert. I have asked the moderators to close the other Labour thread, which was very toxic and which, unfortunately, a couple of trollish interventions tried to resurrect today. This thread, despite some rather robust exchanges at times, has managed to stay afloat. My personal view is that we've done the antisemitism/Labour angle to death and beyond and I should like to suggest that we *painstakingly* steer clear of it in this thread, despite the predictable future efforts of a couple of people to keep it going. Not that it isn't worth discussing, but, if I've learned anything, it's that it isn't worth discussing further in this thread. I would suggest to them that they are at liberty to start a new Labour/antisemitism thread if they like and if the long-suffering mods will put up with it. I for one would ignore it. And I know that this risks more trollish interventions, but I'm saying it anyway.

Just a suggestion. Over and out!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 05:06 PM

The "interesting angle" was Kevin's, Greg, though, naturally, your angles are always interesting! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:46 AM

"If an employer pays an immigrant worker less than he would pay a native Brit worker for the same work, he is unscrupulous and immoral."

Seems pretty straightforward that doesn't it. But that doesn't even show a fraction of the picture and it all depends on who the "employer" is.

Remember the Chinese "Cockle pickers" in Morecombe Bay? Their "employer" was a Triad Gang, they had been brought into the country as illegal aliens and had no say in who they worked for, or what they got paid, or indeed how much of what they got paid they could keep. They were contracted out by the Triad Gang to the Company wanting the Cockles picked.

"David Anthony Eden Sr. and David Anthony Eden Jr., from Prenton in Merseyside, who bought cockles from the work gang, were cleared of helping the workers break immigration law.

Gangmaster Lin Liang Ren was found guilty of the manslaughter of at least 21 people (two further cocklers were thought to have been killed but their bodies were never found). Ren, his girlfriend Zhao Xiao Qing and his cousin Lin Mu Yong were also convicted of breaking immigration laws. Ren was sentenced to 12 years for manslaughter, 6 years for facilitating illegal immigration (to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence), and 2 years for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (to be served subsequent to the manslaughter sentence). Lin Mu Yong was sentenced to four years and nine months. Zhao Xiao Qing was sentenced to two years and nine months for facilitation of illegal immigration and perverting the course of justice."

Here's how it works:

Enterprising East European crook looks at the market for agricultural workers required in the UK and sets up an office over in the "old country" where things are bad and unemployment is high. He advertises for workers for jobs abroad for wages that are too good to be true in the "old country". In answer to this advert they get loads of takers and the next thing they are whisked off to the UK to which as members of the EU they exercise their right to free movement of labour where they are contracted out, no idea what the unit price is between the employer of these men (i.e. the Agency that hired them abroad) and the person that Agency has a contract with to supply labour, that could well be for UK minimum wage, could even be marginally above it, but the labourer only gets what he signed up for back in the "the old country".

Not quite so simple as Steve Shaw put it is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:00 AM

Exactly so Teribus.
The differentials make the whole sorry scheme unworkable, even without the criminal element.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 04:13 AM

So the immigrants are all potential criminals and the non British employees are all criminals or potential criminals?
***** foreigners eh!!
Has this site finally fallen into the hands of the B.N.P. - it certainly seems like it, reading the racist bile of our three caped crusaders.
The most law-abiding, industrious and ambitious section of the population are the million or so Asians who have moved to Britain to better their lot, more often often than not to be greeted by racist filth such as that being vomited here by our three resident 'Christian humanitarians'.
WELCOME to BRITAIN   
Immigrants come to Britain to escape the effects of appalling conditions brought about by the fact that we, and other wealthy nations flood our shops with goods manufactured in places of work that are dangerous to the point of being lethal, more on than not, for starvation wages.
We maintain slave-like conditions in these countries with our custom and our elected representatives ascertain that things don't change too much by selling arms to the despotic rulers
We are even happy when our P.M. toddles off to pay his respects to a dead despot while a journalist is undergoing 1,000 lashes for suggesting that something is "rotten in the State of Saudi".
Rule Britannia, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 04:20 AM

I questioned whether the immigration rate might be too high.
Steve's response was to call me names, e.g. "racist."
I am no racist. Senior members of the last Labour government, including Milliband, stated that they had let the rate get too high. All racists?
None have you have said if there was any level of immigration you would consider too high.

Meanwhile, low and unskilled workers are faced with their wages being cut if they can find work at all, high rents, no homes for their kids, and health care and schooling massively over subscribed.
If they complain about their plight, the workers' party turns on them and calls them racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 04:49 AM

Your arguments are racist Keith - they always have been, with your obscene "implants"
One thing is certain - it the British people had adopted the attitudethat you people do, back in the thirties rather than the humanitarian Christian one they did, there would have bee millions more dead Jews than there were.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure your God will forgive you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:36 AM

Jim Carroll - 06 Oct 16 - 04:13 AM

Usual over emotive response and generalisations from the above poster.

I wonder does he actually mean to challenge the evidence put before the Crown Court in the case of the Chinese Cockle pickers?

Is he actually attempting to deny the existence of Agencies set up in Eastern European EU member states who engage workers on what are in their own countries perfectly legal contracts, then send those workers to Britain using the EU's free movement of labour as the vehicle by which those agencies then exploit those workers. In doing this no EU Law is being violated and EU Law supersedes UK Law.

My previous post on this doesn't cover the half of it. The legally binding contract signed back in the labourer's home country requires that:

Contracted labour has to stay in Agency provided accommodation and money is deducted from their wages to cover those costs.
Contracted labour have to surrender their Passports.

In other words they are trapped for the term of their contracts. Now so far in all of this not a single "Brit" has been involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:56 AM

Unethical contracts can be found worldwide.

Perhaps you would care to take a look at Primark for example, and before you tell me that Primark is an Irish company you may want to know it is part of Associated British Foods which in itself is part of the FTSE 100.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

"I wonder does he actually mean to challenge the evidence put before the Crown Court in the case of the Chinese Cockle pickers?"
Of course I don't, but singling out on group of foreigners as evidence of corrupt foreign employers and ignoring all the appallingly bad indigenous employers, especially those who use immigrants to drive down wages, is simple racism of the king which promotes race hatred, even violence.
The system we live under promotes and encourages exploitation - that some immigrant employers indulge in the free-for-all has s.f.a. to do with anything - especially whether Britain takes in too many immigrants.
Your instigation of race hatred includes those countries that have fair labour laws and infinitely better labour relations than Britain.
Choosing a bad example, sich as the cockle-pickers is crude tub-thumping racism.
Historically, right up to the end of Empire (within my lifetime), Britain treated the people they had dominion over like shit and were noted for doing so.
It's the system that allows abuses to happen that is at fault, not the nationality of those who take advantage of those faults.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:37 AM

Sub-contracting and outsourcing can be used to distance companies from the people who do work for them in a way that protects bad practice and exploitation. That's a mahor reason why it has probably increased in recent years as a way for exployers to avoid regulation that is meant to protect workers and quality. It's a way of avoiding responsibility. And as the court case Teribus quotes demonstrates, it is a pretty successful way of doing that.

It happens in all kinds of areas - local councils do it. When you complain about some faulty bit of work repairing council property the council says it's down to the contractor, the contractor says it's the subcontractor, the subcontractor says it's the council...

It's a serious problem, and too often gets ignored. But most of the time those engaged in this, at the top especially, are natives.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 07:48 AM

"The system we live under promotes and encourages exploitation"

Well for the last 43 years that's been successively - "the Common Market"; The EEC; the EU.

The type of contracts I referred to would be illegal in the UK, but as the contracts are signed abroad, we have no control over them and if they are legal in the country they are signed in they are enforceable. It is then EU employment laws and the rules governing free movement of labour that provides the loophole for this exploitation. EU could of course make it law that the employment law to be adhered to must be that of the country where the work will actually take place - but that has it's downsides to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:02 AM

Remember the Chinese "Cockle pickers" in Morecombe Bay? Their "employer" was a Triad Gang....

Yup! See, I was right at 05 Oct 16 - 04:34 PM! Just like Trump's Mexican rapists, murders, pederasts & the like.

Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

Those are the kinds of reforms which were needed in the EU, but they weren't the kind of stuff Cameron was trying for. And I'll be very surprised if after Brexit those kind of loopholes are not preserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

"The type of contracts I referred to would be illegal in the UK,"
Plenty of those by indigenous employers - an essential part of "the black economy"
As I said, concentrating on only foreign ones is racist.
"the Common Market"
Exploitation of workers by employing cheaper labour predates the E.U. by centuries
19th century mine and and mill owners were having a field day exploiting the starving Irish fleeing the Famine, with the Government happily supporting them by opposing the introduction of Trade Unionism.
The inter-communal racism that came out of that is an accepted fact.
You fellers are still happy to use the same techniques against immigrants today - why abandon something that's served to prop up an exploitative system when it's done its job so well for so long.
The real alternative is to set a minimum living wage - can't let that happen, can we!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM

Whether it's called a minimum wage or a living wage (should mean the same thing) setting it is only part of the story. It needs to be enforced and monitored. Best way to monitor it is probably an effective trade union system.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:36 AM

At least, we won't be a party to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:39 AM

The huge differentials in exchange rate makes a mockery of the whole ill gotten scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:58 AM

If it was impossible to pay a wage for a nasty job that wasn't sufficient to attract locals, there wouldn't be any particular incentive to employ immigrants, even if they would be willing to work for less. Unless they were better at the job, and that's a matter for our education and training system to address.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 09:53 AM

"At least, we won't be a party to them."
No minimum wage - no living wage - no Trades Unions - you really are a bosses man aren't you Ake?
Maybe after the recent Ukip kerfuffle, you should think about applying for the bosses job - you certainly seem to meet all the necessary requirements
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 10:59 AM

" an effective trade union system."

You mean one like exists in Germany Kevin - i.e. one that does the job it was intended to do, one that behaves in a responsible manner with regard to the companies and industries it's members are employed in, one that does not meddle in politics and attempt to dictate to the elected Government?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 11:24 AM

"one that does not meddle in politics and attempt to dictate to the elected Government?"
Tory bullshit.
It was the politicians who meddled in Trades union rights, not the other way round
Thatcher the fascist deliberately confronted the miners to DESTROY the Trades Union movement.
The Unions in general never attempted to interfere in Government, any conflict that arose dd so because of attempted government interference.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM

It's quite simple really Jim, I am in favour of changing the economic system over a reasonable measure of time.
You on the other hand are in favour of keeping the democratic capitalist system we have at present, but making bloody sure it cannot work effectively. A "no win" situation.

If capitalism is not allowed to create wealth it moves on to somewhere more conducive.....I have sad many times that if we are determined to have a capitalist society and economy, the Conservative Party are the most effective people to run it.
That has always been true in my lifetime Labour borrow and spend without demanding any sacrifices from the working and middle classes. Soaking the rich stops the capitalist system from working effectively, as "the rich" are often the wealth creators.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:39 PM

"German workers are also envied for their corporate power. Their influence within larger companies is guaranteed by their seats on supervisory boards; this gives them a say in the hiring and firing of management and decisions over company strategy. Such a system is lauded by Ed Miliband, who is infatuated with the Rhineland model of consensual capitalism."
"It's quite simple really Jim, I am in favour of changing the economic system over a reasonable measure of time."
When's a "reasonable time" Ake - when we're all dead presumably - or perhaps when YOU decide?
We have lost our bargaining position as workers down the years, we no longer have security of employment at work or security of tenure at home, as a result, unemployment and homelessness are soaring.
According to last years's survey, following the last recession, the rich are 64% richer and the poor are 57% poorer
We no longer have an industrial base because it does not benefit the investors to have one - more profitable to swell the dole queues and buy foreign
I asked you for your idea as to how change could be brought about - you never answered, nor will you now.
You have no interest in changing society for the better and have aligned yourself with those who prefer to attack the less fortunate, in this case, refugees and economic migrants rather than to support just change
I really hop you choke on your "Pie in the Sky".
Wealth created by Captalism is only beneficial when it benefits all - the fact that Britain's main export is money says what needs to be said about exactly how "beneficial" it is to the working people of Britain as a whole
You are an establishment arse-kisser in the extreme.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:52 PM

Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal.
Why can we never have a respectful, civilised discussion without name calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:05 PM

Don't generalise, Keith. Those accusations definitely don't reflect how Jeremy Corbyn responds to criticism, and repeatedly urges others to do. And when did you last catch me overstepping the mark?
............
The big difference with German Trades Unions is that they are allowed to get on with the job without being stomped by the government with legislation that aims to undermine their ability to do that. And it would be recognised as a breach of the constitution for any govvernment to try to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:31 PM

You call those who don't agree with you know nothings, muppets and ignoramuses - "antisemitism has been one of your accusations and you constantly accuse me of lying and making things up
Yo never withdraw you accusations, let alone apologise for them when you are proven wrong
Glass houses and all that Keith
I am responding to what Ake said - nothing is out of context here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM

McGrath,
Don't generalise, Keith. Those accusations definitely don't reflect how Jeremy Corbyn responds to criticism, and repeatedly urges others to do. And when did you last catch me overstepping the mark?

Never Kevin. Sorry. I should have made clear that I meant Steve and Jim who have both just attacked me and others personally instead of discussing.
I am sure you disdain such behaviour as much as I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC 5 months ago,
"The leader of Labour's inquiry into anti-Semitism, Shami Chakrabarti, says she has joined the party in order to gain members' "trust and confidence".

Now, having been a member only five months, she has been made Shadow Attorney General!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:13 PM

Jim,
you know nothings, muppets and ignoramuses - "antisemitism has been one of your accusations and you constantly accuse me of lying and making things up

Muppets is an affectionate term. I call my grandchildren muppets in fun sometimes.

Can you give an example of me accusing you of making things up when you had not?
No, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I have never called anyone an ignoramus, or accused anyone of antisemitism.
Lots of made up stuff there Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:15 PM

But she's got a very impressive amount of experience.

When you sign a top-flight player you don't keep them on the substitutes bench till the next season.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:57 PM

Big difference between German Trades Unions Kevin is that they are forbidden by law from calling "Wildcat Strikes", they have never attempted to hold the Government or the country to ransom to get what they want, no such thing as "flying pickets", again illegal, and they and the employers are subject to compulsory and binding third party arbitration once a dispute has run a defined length of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:16 PM

British Trades Unions are also forbidden to call Wilcat Strikes. And in fact Wildcat Strikes is properly the term for what happens when a bunch of workers down tools without being authorised to do so by their union.

And so forth. British Trades Unions have all the restrictions German ones do, and then some, but without the rights which German unions have by law to balance things up.
The arrangements in Germany are essentially the ones designed by representatives of British Trades Unions after the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:18 PM

"Muppets is an affectionate term. "
A spectacular example of your dishonesty, which you've used before
You have used it as a term of abuse, along with all the others I have listed and you have chosen to ignore - the fact that you choose this and ignore the rest is another example of your dishonesty - I doubt very much if you are going to admit to them, let alone withdraw or apologise for them - the fact that yyou are silent on them is the narest we are likely to get to an apology.
"Can you give an example of me accusing you of making things up when you had not?"
Where to start
David Ben Gurion's ''taken their land' statement, "Benny Morris's' admitting to burying the massacre victim, 'Self-Hating Jews'..... are the ones that spring to mind.
I've said this before - I do not "make up" anything and if I ever felt the need to I would not be part of these debates.
Unlike you, I and those I respect on this forum are here to debate and exchange ideas, not to "win" anything.
"Ignoramous" or o nothing is also another of your stock phrases.
"Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal."
Your hypocrisy here is stunning
One ofe the most "personal" and "nasty" individuals on this forum is your friend Bobad, certainly not of "the left", - he is one of yours - his distastefully cowardly name-calling and his refusal to even pretend to respond, (as you do) put any bad-tempered response I make make in the shade
Far from complaining, you back up his vituperative hate-filled vomit - you have never once complained about his behaviour - it seems things are only "nasty and personal" when they are aimed at you or your friends.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

Maybe a separate thread about netiquette and about how best to conduct discussions about subjects that arouse heated feelings might be a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:53 PM

Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal.

Please don't sully the respectable progressive Left by referring to these regressive Leftists as the Left. This species of nouveau fascists are not representative of the Left, they are exemplars of the far Left and have more in common with the far Right than with the true Left.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 PM

I'm getting seriously pissed off with this. I asked the mods to close the toxic "Whither Labour" thread, appealed on this thread to keep it clean, and look what happens. We have the usual trolls, Keith and bobad, (not even suspects) showing up here in order to disrupt the discussion. I have things to say in this thread, but I honestly can't be arsed at the moment. I'm off to post about autumn leaves in more pleasant threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:38 PM

The thing is to avoid getting into direct arguments with individuals but rather to address the issues. And completely ignore any name-calling. That's the way Jeremy Corbyn operates, and that was also how Tony Benn did.
......
Last time anything to do with a politically related issue we were having some posts about comparisons between trades unions in Britain and Germany. Anybody out there with any actual experience that's relevant to that? One of the thing that worries Labour supporters is that this government might use Brexit as a way of hitting various kinds of workers rights, and the right to organise effectively is a central part of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:54 PM

That is true, but Corbyn and Benn are not in this forum and they are not being confronted by Keith A of Hertford and bobad. The other thread was closed, rightly, but these two have migrated here and as such I see little point in going on. They have injected the same poison into this thread as they did in the other one. Of course, we all know the answer. Unfortunately, the answer is not being achieved. Human nature I suppose. They can't debate, they are seriously and incurably bigoted, and I for one can't debate with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 07:07 PM

And completely ignore any name-calling

You're addressing this to Shaw? We can only dream of rising to the level of ad hominem of the master.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 07:57 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:35 PM

I was addressing my comment to anyone thinking of posting. Including me. If the need to get stuck-in gets too strong, the thing to do is write the post. Then look at it and delete it. Maybe save it to look at later. I doubt very much if you'll find yourself saying "I really wish I had posted that."

Leave the fisticuffs to Ukip...
...
Interesting to see Theresa May simultaneously channelling Ed Milliband and Margaret Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 09:26 PM

Interesting, innit, that the most shambolic political party in the nation, the one that got four million votes, the one whose leader is lauded by at least two or three posters here, is not only the one that plays leadership musical chairs/which manages to beat the shite out of each other/which has a bloke in charge of Wales who publicly hates the guts of its skinny-dipping leader and vice versa, but is also the one that dragged us out of the EU courtesy of a pack of lies. Nice one, brexit voters. You must be so happy that you're so well-led. Such profound and honest arguments from people of such integrity swayed you. Congratulations!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 09:54 PM

While those qualities are most openly shown in the case of Ukip, it has to be recognised that comparable levels of fractiousness characterise both the Conservative Party and particularly the Labour Party. There don't appear to be any reports of stand-up fights so far, but plenty of talk of stabs in the back (and indeed front).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:18 AM

Seems to have been established that there was a fight, with the the name of a fellow - Kipper being mentioned as having done the dirty deed, the appropriately named Mike Hookem (you couldn't make it up).
Woolfe is said to have suffered a 'bleed on the brain', so for a Ukip member, not too serious then!
"Anybody out there with any actual experience that's relevant to that? "
I posted this above - but here 'tis again
""German workers are also envied for their corporate power. Their influence within larger companies is guaranteed by their seats on supervisory boards; this gives them a say in the hiring and firing of management and decisions over company strategy. Such a system is lauded by Ed Miliband, who is infatuated with the Rhineland model of consensual capitalism."

"Maybe a separate thread about netiquette"
Totally agree, though it was dealt with pretty well on the Trolls and Flames thread

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:39 AM

Yes isn't it strange when human nature rears it's ugly head, Mr Prescott's clunking fist comes to mind amongst various other examples of pugilism that have occurred in politics.

Mr Mcgrath is correct to emphasis the open hater within the Labour Party at present.

On forum behaviour, the two people making the most noise are almost always the authors of spittle flecked diatribes containing the usual charges of bigotry xenophobia and racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:47 AM

Whoops another prem. ejac.
Link to above MODEL FOR BRITAIN
As usual, Teribus gives us only half the story - the bit that suits him.
German Trades Unions are part of the decision making of the companies - they are the workers voice in decision making.
British workers have no such voice leaving them with no negotiation power other than the withdrawal of their labour - the end result being a SHARP DECREASE IN LIVING STANDARDS, zero contracts and a widening gap between haves and have-nots.
Whatever the shortcomings, German workers have a built-in say in their lives, we have not.
Workers do not go on strike without thinking hard first - they do so to maintain a living standard and improve bad conditions - the alternative is to do nothing and watch their working lives deteriorate.
I know from experience (twice in 50 years) that taking industial action is frightening and costly.
The two occasions I was involved were both to prevent the conditions I was employed under being worsened - to prevent apprentices being used as tea-boys and then to prevent tradesmen from being used as pack-mules when our employer halted the practice of transporting tools and heavy equipment to our work-sites.
Much thought and debate went into those decisions.
"Wildcat Strikes" is a term invented by the pro-Tory gutter press.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:51 AM

Jim,
David Ben Gurion's ''taken their land' statement, "Benny Morris's' admitting to burying the massacre victim, 'Self-Hating Jews'..... are the ones that spring to mind

You accused me of making up the phrase, "Self-Hating Jews."
That was not true.

Neither of us has read Benny Morris' book, so you are relying on what propagandists have told you.
I should have a copy soon and am confident they lied.

You did completely misrepresent what Ben Gurion said, and "muppets" are amusing puppet characters popular with children, and in no way a term of abuse.

"Ignoramous" or o nothing is also another of your stock phrases.
Then why can't you find a single example? Because I have never used it.

I do not do abuse and name calling.
Why can't you and Steve stop?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:52 AM

Whoops another prem. ejac.
Link to above MODEL FOR BRITAIN
As usual, Teribus gives us only half the story - the bit that suits him.
German Trades Unions are part of the decision making of the companies - they are the workers voice in decision making.
British workers have no such voice leaving them with no negotiation power other than the withdrawal of their labour - the end result being a SHARP DECREASE IN LIVING STANDARDS, zero contracts and a widening gap between haves and have-nots.
Whatever the shortcomings, German workers have a built-in say in their lives, we have not.
Workers do not go on strike without thinking hard first - they do so to maintain a living standard and improve bad conditions - the alternative is to do nothing and watch their working lives deteriorate.
I know from experience (twice in 50 years) that taking industial action is frightening and costly.
The two occasions I was involved were both to prevent the conditions I was employed under being worsened - to prevent apprentices being used as tea-boys and then to prevent tradesmen from being used as pack-mules when our employer halted the practice of transporting tools and heavy equipment to our work-sites.
Much thought and debate went into those decisions.
"Wildcat Strikes" is a term invented by the pro-Tory gutter press.   
Jim Carroll
"spittle flecked diatribes"
Please leave it out Ake - especially when you appear to be handing out exactly the abuse you appear to be complaining of - the 'Grass Houses' syndrome again

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:57 AM

Strange...I always thought "wildcat strikes" were those which had not been authorised by the appropriate union?
But what do I know, Jim is the real socialist.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 04:09 AM

Just one of the latest offerings from Jim......to your taste?
Perhaps just one little fleck too many?

"So the immigrants are all potential criminals and the non British employees are all criminals or potential criminals?
***** foreigners eh!!
Has this site finally fallen into the hands of the B.N.P. - it certainly seems like it, reading the racist bile of our three caped crusaders.
The most law-abiding, industrious and ambitious section of the population are the million or so Asians who have moved to Britain to better their lot, more often often than not to be greeted by racist filth such as that being vomited here by our three resident 'Christian humanitarians'"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

While Nigel Farage was the man solely responsible for getting the notion of the UK leaving the EU firmly on the agenda. When it came to the run up to the actual referendum itself, neither he nor his Political Party formed any part of the "Official" Leave Campaign.

And just for the record it was 17,410,742 votes cast by the electorate of the United Kingdom that will take us out of the EU. The lies told that brought about that result, for many, were the lies told 43 years previously by Ted Heath in 1973 when he conned the British people into believing that we were becoming members of a "trading organisation", when he knew perfectly well it was not.

Back to Trades Union comparison:

McGrath of Harlow - 06 Oct 16 - 03:16 PM

You forgot to add in that post that what you were describing was the situation that has pertained post-Thatcher.

The German Trades Unions totally independent from all political parties that decision having been made by the people, whereas here in the UK we have UNITE Boss Len McCluskey boasting about how many Labour MPs "HIS" Union OWNS.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:34 AM

Well yes, Ted Heath lied. As we know, politicos of all persuasions lied in their teeth this time round too. Plus ça change, eh? But let's look at the confirmation referendum in 1975 (under Harold, not Ted). 17,378,581 votes to stay, fewer than half of that number to leave. You want us to accept the latest neck-and-neck result now, claiming that the "people have spoken" (less than 38% of registered electors, but hey ho) but you and your ilk never accepted that incredibly decisive result and have been briefing and organising against the EU/EC ever since. What was that about sauce for geese and ganders...?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:35 AM

"whereas here in the UK we have UNITE Boss Len McCluskey "
The employers federation is made up exclusively of Conservatives
How independent can you get?
The Labour party was created by the trades Union movement to represent workers interests
The problems have arisen when both of them were bought over and ceased to represent the people who created them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:55 AM

"Just one of the latest offerings from Jim......to your taste?"
I've given my opinion of the racists on this forum among whom you feature and I've said why I believe you are what I think you are.
You want to dispute it by justifying your racism, feel free to do so, otherwise, stop trying to make this another on- to-one
You are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing
Pack it in unless you intend to deliberately wreck this thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 06:24 AM

Sorry should have added "You want to dispute it by justifying your racism, feel free to do so" BUT NOT HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 07:19 AM

Free vote insisted upon by Wilson in the 1975 first ever UK wide referendum, the constitutional precedent of abandoning collective cabinet responsibility. The referendum was only held because with the free vote in the House of Commons Wilson got it through because of Conservative votes. The vote by the electorate went the way it did was because of repetition of the same lies told in 1973 coupled with scare stories of "doom'n'gloom" that the country would be ruined if we left the EEC that was a lie then as it was a lie when similar predictions were made earlier this year in the run up to the 2016 Referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 07:26 AM

So a drop of 15% in the value of the pound must be OK then.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 07:48 AM

On forum behaviour, the two people making the most noise are almost always the authors of spittle flecked diatribes containing the usual charges of bigotry xenophobia and racism.

Hear! Hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 07:52 AM

"So a drop of 15% in the value of the pound must be OK then
And the closure to traffic across Europe and slamming the employment door on British people unable to find work back home, ad the economic uncertainty that is predicted to last for a decade (just what the economy needs) - not to mention the large increase in RACIST HATE CRIMES
Icebrg - what iceberg?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 08:27 AM

"Free vote insisted upon by Wilson in the 1975 first ever UK wide referendum, the constitutional precedent of abandoning collective cabinet responsibility."

Well I agree absolutely. Your last phrase also perfectly describes the recent one too, doesn't it?

"Let's twist again..." 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 08:45 AM

Too many noises off... While we might not admire Ukip's roughhousing, the reported words of Mr Woolfe "Right you, outside now" might perhaps be a better way of acting out than carrying on in-house.
.................

Whatever Len McCluskey might say, the MPs sponsored by Trades Unions are not "owned" by Trades Unions, and don't follow their orders - as was demonstrated when MPs sponsored by unions backing Jeremy Corbyn (in keeping with the way TU rank and file members voted in the selection ballot) joined in the unsuccessful coup.

British Trades Unions do not have the built in safeguards for their members which German Trades Unions have, thanks to the impact of British Trades Unions on the constitutional rebuilding of Germany. So called "reforms" of the law over the years relating to Trades Unions have overwhelmingly been hostile to unions. Increasingly governments have seen unions as enemies, to be ground down and excluded from any role as partners.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 01:50 PM

"So a drop of 15% in the value of the pound must be OK then

No, but higher growth than any other G7 member, and record low unemployment is.

Re Chakrabarti's new job, a Jewish view,

Board of Deputies Vice President Marie van der Zyl ,
"We are disappointed, but sadly unsurprised, that once again Shami Chakrabarti and Jeremy Corbyn have spectacularly undermined her so-called 'independent' report.

"We hoped her report would be a potent weapon in the fight against antisemitism.

"It now looks increasingly like the whitewash was a job application.

"She has sold out the Jewish community".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 02:02 PM

Troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 02:48 PM

"Marie van der Zyl"
There goes that Israel/BDS/"Antisemitism link again!!
"Speaking following the event, which was attended by councillors and council chief executives from across the country and political spectrum, van der Zyl said: "Last summer was a real wake up call to the community establishment when it comes to the link between rising antisemitism and delegitimisation of Israel. I'm delighted to be part of the Board at a time when it's repositioning itself as being as the forefront in the fight against BDS on a national and local level. With the best public affairs team in the community and our unique reach with our deputies, we are well placed to ensure that the Jewish community's voice on these crucial issues does not go unheard."
So far, none of these people have described anything that faintly resembles Antisemitism - everything is directly traceable back to Israeli propaganda to stop the Boycott pf Israeli goods.
The latest stunt in suggesting that other victims of the Holcaust should be remembers is "Antisemitic" just about scraped the bottle of the barrel - except for those who support Israel's becoming a fully fledged Apartheid state, of course.
What is this Antisemitism these people are banging on about, and who are the lorra-lorra people who are involved in it?
no crime - no criminal
No attacks on the Jewish People as an ethnic or cultural group - no Antisemitism.
Doesn't get more simple than that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:05 PM

I am bemused, to say the least, to think that anyone can consider a fall in the value of the pound of 15% is anything but drastic.

The forecast is that the pound will drop even further perhaps to parity with the Euro.

This of course will eventually effect everyone.

Especially the less well off who will still have buy imported products such as food.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM

I am also bemused that someone who purports to be intelligent can have so little knowledge of the financial markets.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:17 PM

He's baiting us, Jim. Can't let it drop. We've done it to death. We know what kinds of "sources" he throws up that he must spend all day desperately fishing around for. I can't bear this constant demonisation of Shami Chakrabarti. She has more integrity, proven down the years, in her little finger than Keith, bobad and the whole dishonest and disreputable criticising-Israel-is-automatically-antisemitic brigade rolled up together. I think it's great that a person of her sinew has made a rapid rise in the party. They don't criticise John Major, do they, who was Tory prime minister in no time after doing next to bugger all.   I'm sick of discussing it, frankly, and they've had their moment (months actually) in the sun in that now-extinguished toxic thread that Keith started with malevolent intent. I know it's tempting to keep wading in, but there are plenty of other facets of the Labour Party we could be discussing without constantly being hijacked back to that dead duck. Just my take, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:25 PM

The fall in the pound is just one sign that the world has no confidence in the disastrous decision we've just taken (well, a decision that less than 38% of the electorate took anyway). Yes I find it hard to take and I'm going to have to put up with it. Not like the Teribus/proto-UKIP axis, who never accepted the far more decisive 1975 vote, eh? Never stopped carping and briefing against it ever since. Yep, we were lied to then. Of course, no-one lied to us this time, did they? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:34 PM

Chin Up Steve !

Some of us, the lucky one's, have made a killing.

In the past 3 months the value of my recently purchased property in Ireland has increased in Sterling value by about 25% added to this is the increase in property values in Ireland as a result of Brexit.

I'm looking at a 30% profit if I choose to sell.

It's the old story ........... I'm alright Jack F**k you.

Except that some of us don't see things like that. I'd much rather to have made no increase if the general population where better off.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 04:28 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 02:02 PM

Troll.


Nothing at all trollish about Keith's post of the comments made by Board of Deputies Vice President Marie van der Zyl. You just don't like to hear anything that refutes your biased position - it's the la-la-la-fingers-in-the-ears syndrome, trying to silence someone with whom you disagree. This is what those of your politic stripe do. You are the troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:08 PM

What sort of odds do you think you could get on the pound being the same value as the euro by this time next year?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 05:17 PM

Or this time next month.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 08:06 PM

By December there will be parity, or near as dammit. The pound will recover slightly in the New Year. Possibly to the level it is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 08:13 PM

At the start of this week I could get my euros through Caxton at nearly 1.13. Today it's 1.08. I was buying them at 1.40 a few short months ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 09:55 PM

It'll be ironic if Brexit means that our currency in effect becomes a version of the Euro...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 02:58 AM

Raggytash - 07 Oct 16 - 03:34 PM

"Chin Up Steve !

Some of us, the lucky one's, have made a killing."

Same therefore applies to British foreign investments then doesn't it Raggy, which are a damned sight more "liquid" than your house in Ireland, which Raggy is only actually worth what someone is prepared to pay you for it if and when you come to sell, having sold, if you want to remain in Ireland, you have to buy into the same market that you sold to.

I've got my chin up too Raggy, my two foreign pensions have increased in value by 25% as well.

Currency fluctuates, but as someone else has pointed out, our growth indicators are all much healthier than those of the Eurozone and no Kevin the £ Sterling will never be a version of anything, because it is an independent currency, we are not shackled to "What is right for Germany, is right for Europe" - The Greeks were and look what happened to them, had they still retained the Drachma their "crisis" would never have been so painful.

Brexit was carried by "Traditional Labour Votes" get used to it, and both sides massaged their figures in presenting their argument to the British electorate, but the arguments put forward by the "leave" campaign were obviously more telling. By the way I voted for membership of the EEC in both 1973 and 1975 foolishly believing we were securing the country's place in a trading partnership. I most certainly would have voted no had it been put to me that 60% of our laws would be dictated to us by an unelected, unaccountable, corrupt and hopelessly inefficient bureaucracy, that for some reason to do with placating the French has to shift offices continually between Strasbourg and Brussels for four days every month at tremendous and totally unnecessary cost. The MEPs have voted to shut it down, but all national governments have to agree, so the French have vetoed the action voted for by the European Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:54 AM

"Same therefore applies to British foreign investments then doesn't it Raggy,"
Which benefits only the wealthy of Britain and leaves the rest of us in the shit
Your personal attitude sums up the "ding-ding, I'm on the bus" society we live in perfectly - which is why it needs changing - it is designed for the wealthy at the expense of the less well off.
For this, you would happily deprive the unemployed of European jobs.
Brexit was pushed through on a racist ticket - foreigners taking British jobs - little wonder that it won some of the less caring 'traditional Labour Votes" when you consider what the Right has done to the Labour Party in making it a part of Britain' "me-me-me" society.
As good a reason as any that Labour needs changing and disinfecting - hopefully Corbyn has the conscience and the balls to clean up that particular Augean Stable.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 04:48 AM

"Which benefits only the wealthy of Britain and leaves the rest of us in the shit" - Jim Carroll

Is that what you "feel" Jim? Or is that what you "think"? Or is that what you "know"?

Any idea how pensions get paid Jim? Not state pensions but ones companies and their employees pay into. The money goes into a company pension fund and that gets invested, if they didn't do this then the pension scheme is unsustainable. So tell me Jim taking into account the vast sums invested by those pension funds and Insurance Companies who then pay out to the likes of you and me do they fit into your category of "only the wealthy"?

The Government doesn't have to do that because it has the tax payer to rely on and fund them. Besides they can always "rob Peter to pay Paul" if in trouble knowing that they then enact legislation to raise more revenue. Unfortunately their easiest way of doing this is by increasing what they call "indirect" taxation as "direct" taxation in the form of income tax accounts for only a minute percentage of the money Government needs and by increasing "indirect" taxation everybody gets nailed.

"For this, you would happily deprive the unemployed of European jobs."


Actually I don't employ anybody and I am not depriving anybody of anything - happily or otherwise.

But here a couple of "facts" should be tossed into the ring.

More people from the EU work in the UK than UK nationals work in the EU. The figures according to the BBC are as follows:

UK nationals working in the EU = 1.33 million
Nationals from EU living and working in the UK = 2.9 million

That last figure has more than doubled in the last 10 years having gone up from 758,000 in 2006 to 2,900,000 today.

Figures for those from overseas and not from EU countries has remained fairly steady over the same period.

As to depriving the UK's unemployed of jobs in Europe - Sounds very much like you are advocating a "get on your bike" solution there Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:05 AM

Steve, I am discussing the labour Party as per the thread title.
You respond by calling me names. "Troll" this time.
Just rant. No reason.
Jim,
What is this Antisemitism these people are banging on about, and who are the lorra-lorra people who are involved in it?
no crime - no criminal
No attacks on the Jewish People as an ethnic or cultural group - no Antisemitism.

Again you just demonstrate that you, like Steve, are incapable of recognising antisemitism.
You claimed that Shah had not made antisemitic comments.
Her antisemitism was recognised by the NEC, the Party leadership, Corbyn and Shah herself, but denied by you two.

You just do not see it even when your faces are rubbed in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:19 AM

"Again you just demonstrate that you, like Steve, are incapable of recognising antisemitism."
And you apparently are incapable of describing it - you haven't so far
Until you do 'nuff said, I think
"Or is that what you "know"?"
What I know, of course _ I may o longer live in Britain but I have family there
Of course I know how pensions are paid - what an incredibly condescending and stupid question
I wpaid into on for half a century and am the recipient of a Britishj one, as meagre as it is.
Your ory idiocy apparently knows no bounds
You have yet to address on single relevant point - uneployment, incrasing inequality, th rise in racism - all carefuly skated around - as you people always do with your support of the better off ad the establishment
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:21 AM

BBC just 15 hours ago,

"Ms Butler (the new shadow minister for diverse communities,) was later asked on BBC Radio 5 live whether her diverse communities brief included the Jewish community.
She said: "Yes, I hope so," adding: "As you know, it's a new brief, so we are still kind of looking at what it will include in its entirety."
Later she said she would be talking to the Jewish community about their concerns about anti-Semitism in the party.

"But the decision to promote Baroness Chakrabarti, who became a Labour peer shortly after holding an inquiry into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and concluding that it was "not overrun" by racism, was met with some criticism from Jewish groups.
Board of Deputies Vice President Marie van der Zyl said: "We are disappointed, but sadly unsurprised, that once again Shami Chakrabarti and Jeremy Corbyn have spectacularly undermined her so-called 'independent' report. We hoped her report would be a potent weapon in the fight against anti-Semitism. It now looks increasingly like the whitewash was a job application." "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584531

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:25 AM

And you apparently are incapable of describing it - you haven't so far

I am not a Labour insider. I just quote them. They should know enough about it, and certainly more than us.
Likewise the Jewish people who are at the sharp end of the abuse, who you just dismiss as part of a conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:26 AM

You are trolling because we have done this death, we get nowhere with the likes of you even after months of squabble, you had your toxic thread closed and now you're trying to bring it over here. You have an agenda and have no intention of debating this issue fairly. All you're doing is trying to get a reaction, and you're hoping that your non-debating sidekick will chime in. That is the very definition of trolling. That is not name-calling. It is an accurate description of you and your disreputable behaviour. If you manage to stoke that fire all over again in this thread it will be closed. Now you really don't deserve that explanation, but there you have it. That I'd love that to wbe the last word on it really, but we all know you and we all know it won't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:28 AM

Huh. "I'd love that to be..."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM

"I am not a Labour insider. I just quote them"
No you don't - you just illude to what the por-Israelis claim
If you are going to accuse anybody of Antisemitism you need to tell us what they are guilty of not what somebody else has said
You've done this before, with cultural implants and your ****** historians
I don't know about Antisemitism - you have no idea of baic British justice works
MAKE YOUR ACCUSATION - EVERYTHING ELSE IS HEARSAY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:46 AM

For the record Keith
"Full Definition of anti–Semitism
Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
Merriam Dictionary
It does not include criticism of Israeli terrorism
It does not include suggesting that Israeli good are boycotted because of their acts of mass murder and persecution
It does not even include suggesting that Gypsies and Jehovah's witnesses be actively acknowledged and remembered during Holocaust day
It is directly aimed at the denigration and persecution of the Jewish People as a whole.
You wouldn't describe exposing a Jewish pedophile, rapist or mass murderer as "antisemitism" - or would you?
Exposing the Israeli regime for the criminals they are and seeking to make them stop economically is not "antisemitism" - yet the Isreali regime and its supporters claim it is
To the Israeli Justice Minister, all criticism of Israel is Santisemitic - she said so publicly.
The Israeli fanatics are the biggest antisemites around - the describe their own crimes as being committed by the Jewish People and claim to be carrying them out on behalf of the Jewish People - that is antisemitism on a world-wide scale.
They describe Jews, in Israel and outside who criticise their policies as "self-hating Jews" - that is no different that the Nazis who tortured, gassed and shot German opponents of their political policies.
Even an Israeli high ranking General and an ex head of Mossad was brave enough to state that.
The hundreds of Holocaust survivors and their relatives who signed a petition comparing the Israeli regime to the Nazis said the same thing.
Now - what is this Labour Party Antisemitism, if it isn't criticism of Israel?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM

Since most Tories voted for Brexit and most Labour supporters voted against it, it,s a bit much for Teribus to say the victory for Brexit was down to Labour voters bolting. If it had gone the other way I suppose he'd blame the minority pf Tories who voted for Remain...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:27 AM

Jim Carroll - 08 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM

"I am not a Labour insider. I just quote them" - Keith A of Hertford

No you don't - you just illude to what the por-Israelis claim

Naz Shah is pro-Israeli?

She actually admitted that her statements and views were anti-Semitic due to her ignorance and lack of knowledge. Now then Mr.Carroll are you really going to tell us that you know better about what Naz Shah said than the lady herself?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:35 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 08 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM

"Since most Tories voted for Brexit and most Labour supporters voted against it"

And this you get from where? Do you "feel" it? "Think" it? Or "Know" it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:49 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/world/europe/for-britains-brexit-bunch-the-party-just-ended.html

LONDON — For those blithely inclined toward the view that Britain would somehow find a way to sever its relationship with the European Union free of drama or financial consequences — like canceling a car rental reservation, with a tad more paperwork — Friday was a sobering day of reckoning. The British pound was down about 17 percent — around 25 cents — since June 23, the day Britain voted to abandon Europe.

More than anything, though, the precipitous drop seemed to attest to an increasingly unmistakable reality: Britain's vote to exit the European Union — Brexit, in common parlance — has put its commercial relationships with the world on uncertain and potentially perilous ground.

The week began with an admission from Britain's new Conservative prime minister, Theresa May, that access to the European market is likely to be a casualty of Britain's pursuit of a primary aspiration expressed in the Brexit vote: imposing limits on immigration.

But Brexiteers had steadfastly maintained the illusion that Britain could have it both ways — that it could retain access to the European market while still controlling immigration. In destroying that idea, the prime minister's admission badly rattled the markets.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 10:47 AM

"Naz Shah is pro-Israeli?"
Of course not, who said she was?
She made an ill-worded statement which was viewed as antitisemitic -it wasn't - it attacked Israel, suggesting that it "relocates to the USA" - an attack on Israel, not the Jewish people. She apologised and was re-admitted into the Labour party, as she should have been "
In contrition, she now says:
"Antisemitism is manifestly real and exists within the Labour party, as it does within British society. The surge of new members – the party now has more than half a million – will no doubt reflect that."
Who could argue with that - I said the same at the beginning of the discussion?
Antisemitism is the oldest form of prejudice and exists at every level of society and certainly in every political Party."
She may have admitted that her statement was antisemitic - she is a politician who wishes to remain in the Labour Party.
Her statement was aimed at the Israeli regime and its supporters in the U.S. - not the Jewish People as a whole.
As far as I am concerned, what she said may have been over the top and badly worded, but its contents contained nothing antisemitic, or, if it was, it was far less so than the Israelis own statements, which claim that their policy is Jewish, is carried out on behalf of the Jewish People, and to criticise than policy is antisemitic.
She is one individual in a party of over half-a-million members.
If what she said is the worst any Labour Party member has said, it doesn't amount to a major problem; in my opinion, it certainly doesn't amount to Antisemitism.
You people have grabbed this one issue like a couple of rabid dogs grabbing a bone - you have not stated what this antisemitism is, you have not said how many people it involves and you have taken the fact that the Labour Party has acted responsibly they have taken this, as they should, seriously - - you have deliberately misinterpreted it as an admission of guilt - it is no such thing.
Back in May, the Tory party was accused of Islamophobia and an urgent enquiry was demanded - no action was taken.
It is particularly significant that the individual who caused these accusations to be made is a leading Conservative figure and the son of multi-billionaire, Sir James Goldsmith - mustn't strangle the golden goose.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:11 AM

"She made an ill-worded statement which was viewed as antitisemitic" - Jim Carroll

Yes Jim she did and that ill-worded statement was recognised as being anti-Semitic by the lady herself and yes she did apologise for having made it - you are attempting to tell this forum that the statement was only viewed as being anti-Semitic by others it wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:22 AM

It does not include criticism of Israeli terrorism
It does not include suggesting that Israeli good are boycotted because of their acts of mass murder and persecution

More vicious lies whose sole purpose is to demonize a country and it's people - a classic example of virulent anti-Semitism from one of our resident Jew haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:23 AM

"Britain's vote to exit the European Union — Brexit, in common parlance — has put its commercial relationships with the world on uncertain and potentially perilous ground."

How? In what way has what has happened to the pound, which immediately rebounded, has it put Britain's "commercial relationships with the world on uncertain and potentially perilous ground"? Our exports are now cheaper, inward investment gets a bigger bang for it's buck. explain the increasing value of our stock market and the fact that every other economic indicator is trending to the positive. UK's will be the best performing economy in the West next year. We will soon be free to negotiate our own trade deals with the world while the EU still has to flounder about getting the total agreement of 27 member states before putting pen to paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:27 AM

Obama and his administration a whole buncha Anti-Semites:

United States Criticizes Israel Over West Bank Settlement Plan

By MARK LANDLEROCT. 5, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday castigated the Israeli government for approving plans to create a new Jewish settlement on the West Bank, three weeks after it signed a lucrative military aid package with the United States and just as President Obama was traveling to Jerusalem for the funeral of Shimon Peres.

In an uncommonly harsh statement, the State Department "strongly condemned" the move, asserting that it violated Israel's pledge not to construct new settlements and ran counter to the long-term security interests Israel was seeking to protect with the military deal, which provides $38 billion in assistance over the next decade.

The new settlement, one of a string of housing complexes that threaten to bisect the West Bank, is designed to house settlers from a nearby illegal outpost, Amona, which an Israeli court has ordered demolished.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/world/middleeast/obama-israel-west-bank-settlements.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:29 AM

"Yes Jim she did and that ill-worded statement was recognised as being anti-Semitic by the lady herself and yes she did apologise for having made it"
As I said, she is a politician - on the basis of what she actually said, it was a badly worded piece of rhetoric attacking the Israeli regime and its U.S. supporters - it does no compare with the use that regime is making of the Jewish People in defence of its own fascist policies.
It's interesting to note that this is the only bone you pack have - one statement by one Labour Party member
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:42 AM

Are you intending to comment on the Conservative Party's failure to respond the way the Labour Party has to similar accusations?
Don't suppose so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:46 AM

UK's will be the best performing economy in the West next year.

Says NostraTerribamus.

Time will tell............

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:48 AM

Jim, it is OK to be pro-Israel.
Even Steve is pro-Israel.
Being pro-Israel does not mean that your views on antisemitism should be discarded.

"I am not a Labour insider. I just quote them"
No you don't -

I certainly do! I have quotede numerous lifelong Labour members including Corbyn himself and the entire NEC who all agree that there HAS been antisemitism in Labour.

Steve,
You are trolling because we have done this death,

No. You and Jim still deny there is even an issue, so it is perfectly reasonable to put hard evidence in front of you showing that it is not.
The BBC and other media outlets treat it as not just an issue, but a live, current issue so why should anyone take any notice of your denials and name calling?

Jim,
If you are going to accuse anybody of Antisemitism you need to tell us what they are guilty of not what somebody else has said

I have told you what Shah said, but Labour will not reveal all the stuff it is aware of so I can't tell you.

MAKE YOUR ACCUSATION - EVERYTHING ELSE IS HEARSAY

It is hearsay. I am telling you what prominent Labour insiders including the leadership and the entire NEC have said. Why would they lie?
Why should anyone listen to your denials in the face of all that?

Antisemitism,
It does not include criticism of Israeli terrorism

Of course it does not. Who claimed it?
It does not include suggesting that Israeli good are boycotted

Of course it does not. Who claimed it?

It does not even include suggesting that Gypsies and Jehovah's witnesses be actively acknowledged and remembered during Holocaust day

No, but to deny that they are to slander the Jews as only caring about their own suffering could well be antisemitism.

You wouldn't describe exposing a Jewish pedophile, rapist or mass murderer as "antisemitism" - or would you?

Of course not. Who claimed it?

Exposing the Israeli regime for the criminals they are and seeking to make them stop economically is not "antisemitism" - yet the Isreali regime and its supporters claim it is

No they do not. Just that antisemites would support such action.

To the Israeli Justice Minister, all criticism of Israel is Santisemitic - she said so publicly.

No she did not. I quoted her actual words. She pointed out that antisemites now can't openly criticise Jews so they attack Israel. Of course they do. That does not mean that all critics of Israel are antisemites.

They describe Jews, in Israel and outside who criticise their policies as "self-hating Jews"

They do not. Israel incorporates criticism in its constitution. It has a free media that criticise it every day and an opposition whose job is to criticise the government. If only its neighbours had the same!

Her (Shah's) statement was aimed at the Israeli regime and its supporters in the U.S

Really? Which bit was that? Quote please, or did you just make it up?

It's interesting to note that this is the only bone you pack have - one statement by one Labour Party member

If it was just that, we would not still be discussing it, but there are statements from numerous, long standing members, from the entire NEC and from the leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:52 AM

Greg,
UK's will be the best performing economy in the West next year.
Says NostraTerribamus.
Time will tell............

It is already the best performing economy in the EU and the G7!
We have the highest growth, and record low unemployment that other EU states can only dream of.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 12:18 PM

I am bloody sick of this. You lot are welcome to this rancid and now-pointless thread. The trolls have won - not the argument, but the destruction of debate. We have a scumbag who should have been thrown out of here years ago back with his "Jew hater" bile. I honestly don't know how you can carry on like it. I really did try.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 01:01 PM

Talk to me next year, Professor Nostradamus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 01:35 PM

"Jim, it is OK to be pro-Israel."
Of course it is Keith - I'm pro Israel as were my parents.
My uncle Jerry as an officer, was on of the soldiers who first entered the death camps at the end of the war - my parents and grandparents took part in the Anti Mosley opposition - two of them were arrested for doing so.
That is why I am so vehement about the shower of killers who are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews
The Israeli monsters are using the Jewish People and the Holocaust to defend mass murder and human rights abuses - this is what you are defending.
"who all agree that there HAS been antisemitism in Labour."
Nobody has ever denied there has - even thje ladtyy accused of Antismitism has said thi - but she pointed out that this is a feature of life in Britain and is a feature of all political aprties - you have sought to make it exclusively Labour and a major problem - it is neither
"No. You and Jim still deny there is even an issue,"
If it is an "issue" - it is a British issue not a Labout one.
Labour is by instinct an policy anti racist - the Labour Party was created with the support of Emigré Jews - the tiny handful that you have attempted to make into a Mount Everest are an out-of-step anomaly, however many there are.
Islamophobia is written into Tory Policy and is being maliciously ignored, by you and by yout Conservative friends.
You have yet to come anywhere close to describing this so-called antisemitism or how many are involved.
Yu have been told how seriosly Laboutr has dealt with the accusations and you have maliciously twisted it into an admission of guilt

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 02:23 PM

Channel 4 News tonight. (Still chance to see it on 4+1 or the Channel 4 Player)

Presenter, "Would you acknowledge now that the Party does have a serious problem with antisemitism."

Chakrabarti, "I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."

Steve,
The trolls have won - not the argument, but the destruction of debate.

It is not trolling to discuss current and relevant issues pertaining to the title of the thread.
Destruction of debate is what you do with your name calling and ranting instead of rational discussion.

Greg,
Talk to me next year, Professor Nostradamus.

Why? I was describing the situation RIGHT NOW!

We already have the best performing economy in the EU and the G7!
We have the highest growth, and record low unemployment that other EU states can only dream of.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 02:55 PM

Whoops - a touch of PE again
Ther is nothing wrong about supporting Israel - there is everything about supporting the bunch of antisemite monsters who are running it.
"I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."
No problem with Antisemitism then - just how she dealt with her report

A JEWISH VIEW ON LABOUR ANTISEMITISM

A Labour Party View on Jackie Walker's expulsion

Kilburn Labour Party calls for reinstatement of Jackie Walker
The Kilburn branch of the Hampstead and Kilburn Constituency Labour Party has entered the debate over the suspension of Jackie Walker by passing the following resolution yesterday evening:
This Branch/CLP notes that Jackie Walker has been suspended from Labour Party membership following remarks she made at a Party training session at conference.

We also note; The Chakrabati report advised against specific training sessions in anti-racism;
The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) was given the task of running the training session, despite it being known that its views are contested by many Jewish members of the LP;
That contrary to Data Protection – without any notice to participants – the training session was secretly filmed by a JLM member and released to the media.
That, in the view of this Branch/CLP none of the remarks made by Jackie Walker at the training session constituted anti-Semitism;
That Jackie Walker is a Black Jewish anti-racist campaigner.
That Jackie Walker's suspension by the Party is contrary to the recommendations in the Chakrabati report and the requirements of natural justice.
We therefore call on the Party to reinstate Jackie Walker to full membership of the Party
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:14 PM

Can I Just add that, while the late MtheGM and I were regular sparring partners, particularly on Israel, I hold dear his memory as somebody I liked and respected.
That respect rocketed to stratospheric heights when, having defended The State of Israel, as he should, he expressed his disgust at the present crowd who, he said, had smashed the dream of Israel that he and his generation once cherished.
I share those views utterly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:48 PM

"That is why I am so vehement about the shower of killers who are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews" - Jim Carroll

Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 04:48 PM

There is more to a discussion than repeating the same thing"Yes it is" "No it isn't" ad nauseum.

Basically there are two definitions of antisemitism. One is that it is about being hostile to Jews as such and to Judaism.. This is the antisemitism that we all see as despicable and unacceptable.

The other is that, since most Jews in the Jewish diaspora identify with Israel, any criticism of Israel which is over a certain level amounts to antisemitism - the level which is seen as acceptable varying according to undefined criteria. And that definition means that many people who detest the antisemitism that consists of being hostile to Jews as such and Judaism find themselves definned and targetted ss antisemites, even if they are themselves Jewish.

There's neve going to be agreement between those who accept these different definitions. It's really a waste of energy batting it back and forth.

There are many diasporas - people with ethnic and cultural links to particular countries, thoug they may live far away. I can't think of any other example where criticism of the actions of a country is taken as hostility to the diaspora which has roots in that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:01 PM

Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic.

Careful.........ha, ha, the little Irish Jew hating Nazi has been spewing his anti-Semitic vomit on here forever, MGM had him pegged too.

On a side note, an acquaintance is planning a research project examining anti-Semitism and social media. I suggested she check out Mudcat - she did and said it's a gold mine. I look forward to reading her findings - will post links to her web site when available. Should prove interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:11 PM

And yet more disgusting BooSpew. Is there no end to this garbage?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:15 PM

Moderators, can we shut this train-wreck down? Enough of Bubo is too much. Why his aggressive BS is condoned is beyond me, when other posts hardly approaching his level of hatefullness disappear.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM

Or we could just accept that this particular aspect has been talked through and any further posts about it are recognised as as intentional disruption and completely ignored. Someone start up a thread about definitions of antisemitism if they feel up to it.
....................
Rumours in the press of Tony Blair considering getting back into politics. Maybe he'd fit into Theresa May's reformed Tory party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:42 PM

his level of hatefullness [sic]

Ha, ha you're quite the card there Smeg, I take it you don't read the posts of those to whom you are a nodding sycophant.

In the words of one of your fellow travelers "your non-moderatorial injunction is not appreciated, thank you very much"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:09 PM

You're wasting your time, Kevin. I've tried it. For reasons best known to them, the mods are happy to let these two trolls wreck these threads. My successful appeal to the mods to close the other thread has backfired, as the trolls have simply migrated to this one, for which I owe you an apology. Unfortunately, at least one good-hearted soul can't resist responding. I suspect that the mods just leave us Brits to it. If they actually ever dip into this thread and see what's going on, then I politely suggest to them that they should close it forthwith. This part of the board can't survive for much longer if bobad and Keith A of Hertford are allowed to stay here. It really is as simple as that. I'm off to sweeter climes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:56 PM

It's tempting to respond, and I've often done it. But it's not that hard to resist the temptation. There are always more relevant topics..

"Offer it up"...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:06 PM

Both those two would have been booted out of every other forum I've been on years ago. They are not here for debate and they are allowed to get away with everything. Better to write letters to the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 02:21 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 08 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM

"we could just accept that this particular aspect has been talked through and any further posts about it are recognised as as intentional disruption and completely ignored"

You men something like let's just bury our heads in the sand, do nothing and just hope things quieten down and the whole row will all go away. Like the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership is trying to do? The trouble with the man is that he has been a disruptive wrecker all his life he does not know how to build anything and he is too scared to impose discipline on his "Momentum" supporters without whom he'd be toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM

"Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic."
I'm not a member of the Labour Party
The Israelis have managed to thow a smokescreen around the term "atisemitism" in order to avoid the consequences of their own behaviour so, if it;'s all right with you, I fully intend to avoid all politically expedient definitions and stick with the one I can reach for on my shelf whenever I might be in doubt.
"Full Definition of anti–Semitism
Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
Merriam Webster dictionary"
Can't see a mention of "Israeli regime" there at all.
As you support this bunch of killers, I presume yours include "anything that criticises Israeli policy".
Mac's second definition doesn't quite fit because it has far too many implications.
Judaism includes the entire planet, not just Israel; while I have no doubt that they all support the State of Israel - as far as I know, we have no idea what Jewish people feel about the behaviour of the present regime.
I didn't get married to a Jewish girl back in 1960s Manchester because I had a blazing row with her mother, a Holocaust survivor, when she described many of the Israeli leaders who were coming to the fore as "a bunch of Fascists" -
Her daughter and I had just from the cinema after sitting through though hours of the film 'Shoah' and I couldn't come to terms with the idea of Jewish Fascism - I don't have any trouble nowadays.
Some of the fiercest (and most humanely rational) critics of Israeli policy are Jewish - all "self-hating Jews" to the Netunyahus of this world.
"Careful.........ha, ha, the little Irish Jew hating Nazi has been spewing his anti-Semitic vomit on here forever, MGM had him pegged too."
Please, please keep this up Bobad; it present us with a perfect rxample of exactly the type of fascism I am referring to - see - you do have a purpose in life.
For the sake of accuracy, I'm English, aim racist smears at the right nation.
Whatever their faults, the Irish tend to be incredibly tolerant of and friendly to other nations - the Jewish people living here are forever making public statements to that fact - but there again - they'd probably only a bunch of "self haters", so what is their word worth!!
"his level of hatefullness"
It seems the moderators view Bobad's vicious bile as a useful example, as I do not even his mates here have the bottle to back him up (with one exception)
"he is too scared to impose discipline"
There goes that Fascist tendency" again - whatever happened to democracy?
Corbyn is an unknown, but one of the outstanding features of his leadership is that he is where he is with grass-roots support, despite massive and extremely disry opposition from his Parliamentary colleagues and a propaganda campaign that is reckoned to have cost the Israelis somewhere between six and ten billion.
Long may he remain there - or at least long enough to see if he lives up to his promises.
I don't agree with Steve - plenty here left to discuss rather than let the baddies win
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:08 AM

Jim,
there is everything about supporting the bunch of antisemite monsters who are running it (Israel).

"Antisemitic." Self-hating Jews?

Steve, I am discussing current Labour Party issues that are disputed by you and others.
The discussion is not over, and it is perfectly reasonable to post evidence that it is a serious issue for Labour and that you are wrong to deny that it is.

I remind you that you and Jim tried to hijack both threads and make them about Israel and events in Lebanon over 30 years ago instead of the Labour Party now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM

"I'm not a member of the Labour Party"

Makes not a ha'pence worth of difference by the definition of a major political organisation recognised throughout the world your remarks are regarded as being anti-Semitic.

"a propaganda campaign that is reckoned to have cost the Israelis somewhere between six and ten billion"

Now then Jim, by that "Israelis" there do you mean the "Israeli Regime"? Or the "Israeli people"? If the former then that can only be through loss of tax revenue which means that the Israeli people have taken an even bigger hit so it is the latter that get hit either way. Who do you mean when you speak of the Israeli people? Jews, Arabs, Christians? Or just the Jews of the region?

By hitting the Israeli people you demonstrate that you have no interest in peace at all, you want "pay back", you want "revenge", you support who you do hoping to see that achieved and that will only be achieved with the annihilation of the Jewish people - and you have the gall to shout "Fascist" at others.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:41 AM

"I don't agree with Steve - plenty left here to discuss..."

I know there is but that's not the issue. We have two confirmed trolls infesting this thread, and, reading Teribus's latest offering, it looks like he's made it a triumvirate. Discuss it till the cows go home but you won't progress. This stuttering issue has only been kept alive by isolated ne'er-do-wells in Labour, the gutter press and some seriously misguided and dishonest factions of the pro-Israel lobby. And on here we have three of their lackeys who have an agenda that does not include honest and measured discussion. Give it up, Jim. The thread is fatally polluted.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

He who calls others trolls is the one who has been threatened with suspension more than once and has many posts removed - see the irony there Stevie?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

"Makes not a ha'pence worth of difference by the definition of a major political organisation recognised throughout the world "
You mean like the Democrats, the Republicans, Likud.....
Additions to the centuries/millennia old definition have been put into placr by politicians, and have been re-adapted and distorted to suit their own ends, or, in Labour's case as political expediency in order to re-unite the Party.
I really want no part of anything of that.
Any definition that moves away from the persecution of Jews is, as far as I am concerned, the thin end of a very long wedge.   
If and Israeli General, an ex chief of Mossad, many thousands of Israeli citizens, hundreds of Holocaust survivors and their descendants, and Albert Einstein can make this comparison, I'm damn sure I can.
""Israelis" there do you mean the "Israeli Regime"? Or the "Israeli people"
I speak of the Israeli regime of course - I have no argument with an Israeli State - my family fought for the ideal before it became a reality.
The immediate situation to be dealt with is the terrotising of the Gazans, stop that and I have no doubt that the Israeli people - no matter what their ethnic origin and religious beliefs, are capable of dealing with that internally, given that there is no external interference by way of U.N. Vetoes, which hopefully, will make the regime answerable to Human Rights laws.
The estimated cost of the propaganda is nothing compared to the assessment of how hard the Israeli economy will be hit if it is successful
Hopefully, what worked for Apartheid South Africa can work again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:06 AM

I have started another thread, "What does antisemitism mean.?"

I suggest anyone carry on this discussion does it there - while it may be germane to the Labour Party, its implications are not limited to that, and there really are other aspects of Labour as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:32 AM

No boycott of any "regime" in the world has ever had any effect at all - not even the boycott of South Africa, which was started in 1959 and was a dead duck by 1966.

The BDS campaign hits only the people, not the "regime", the Israeli Government's main responsibility (In fact the primary responsibility of any national government) is to safeguard the territorial integrity and security of the state and the people, and the people of Israel fully realise, respect and appreciate that - that is why they voted for the Government they currently have.

Another facet of this question is the fact tht Israel can survive perfectly well without Gaza and without the West Bank - it has done so from the State's inception. Unfortunately Gaza and the West Bank cannot survive economically without Israel, so hit, or attempt to hit, Israel economically then it is the "Palestinians" and now apparently the "Gazans" who pick up the tab for it.

Terrorising the Gazans {whoever the they may be - I mean apart from the prats who since 2005 have indiscriminately fired over 15,000 missiles into Israel in the hope of killing as many Israeli civilians, men, women and children as possible) is easy tell the "Gazans" to stop attacking Israel and to formally recognise the State of Israel and acknowledge that it has the right to exist free from attack or threat of attack. Now oddly enough Carroll that is a thing the Arabs of the region have never, ever tried in the 68 years since Israel became a reality, recognised by the UN. But as the Arabs of the region do not appear to even consider giving this course of action house room, the next time things "kick-off" there should be no stopping it - next time it gets fought out to the finish.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 11:31 AM

This stuttering issue has only been kept alive by isolated ne'er-do-wells in Labour,

Sadiq Kahn? The entire NEC? Come off it Steve.

the gutter press

BBC? Channel 4, Independent? Huff Post? Guardian? Come off it Steve.

and some seriously misguided and dishonest factions of the pro-Israel lobby.

All of them actually. No wonder you want this discussion shut down. You have no case!

CH 4 News Presenter Cathy Newman, "Would you acknowledge now that the Party does have a serious problem with antisemitism."

Chakrabarti, "I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM

Pull the plug. PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 12:14 PM

"2005 have indiscriminately fired over 15,000 missiles into Israel in the hope of killing as many Israeli civilians, men, women and children as possible"
Didn't you miss a bit?
COMPARATIVE DEATH TOLLS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

Wouldn't the other thread be a better home for the last few posts?
...............

Not too surprisingly there a still signs of continuing bellyaching and sabotage from the Corbynphobic suicide squad.

There's a time to cut your losses and make friends. Someone who I anticpate is going to surprise people and do that I predict will be Liz Kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 03:11 PM

Wouldn't the other thread be a better home for the last few posts?
They would Mac
Knee jerk reaction - sorry.
Won't happen again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 02:40 AM

"Shut it down" Greg F.? Why because you and your pals are being forced to accept as reality what you have all denied?

Kevin if you want me to I can dig up posts on previous threads where Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll have furiously and indignantly told others that they have absolutely no right to dictate what others post and where.

Like all good "socialists" it seems that:

"There's one sauce for the goose and another for the gander" and/or "Do as I say, not as I do".

Jim Carroll - 09 Oct 16 - 12:14 PM - Comparative death tolls? Since when has war featured equivalence? Since 1920 the Arabs of the region have deliberately and repeatedly chosen violence before peace. Fortunately they are not very good at it compared to those who they have publicly and repeatedly declared they wish to "annihilate", "kill" and "drive into the sea" - perhaps Jim it is time for them to "Give peace a chance" - but you and I know with a sad certainty that that is not going to happen with the result that for every one Israeli they manage to kill, the Israelis acting in defence of their own population will kill nine Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 04:44 AM

Wasn't that what the Nazi's used to do. Kill one of ours and we'll kill 10 of yours, normally civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:17 AM

""Shut it down" Greg F.? Why because you and your pals are being forced to accept as reality what you have all denied?"
No - because that's what we have been asked to do by the OP
You appear to have caught a nasty dose of Keith's "I won" disease
We have been requested to take these arguments elsewhere and let those who wish to continue with the subject of this thread - I suggest that's what we do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:34 AM

Raggytash - 10 Oct 16 - 04:44 AM

Ehmmm No Raggy it was the other way around, if you look at the numbers of civilians killed. Germany attacked British centres of population in their bid to break the morale of the people - they killed ~62,500 civilians. After Coventry Churchill made the survivors a promise that he made good on as when we turned the German's weapon and strategy against them using airpower to degrade their ability to wage war and break the morale of the German population - we killed ~600,000 civilians.

Tell you what Raggy if you are attempting to equate living under Israeli occupation to living under the Nazis then ask people who are actually living under Israeli "occupation" - The Druze Arabs of the Golan Heights - go and ask them who they'd rather living under the democratically elected Israeli Government or Assad? You'll get their answer in less than a nano-second.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:40 AM

IIRC Jim, Keith A as OP of a number of threads has been told by you in the past that being OP does not mean that you "own" the thread or that you can direct what is discussed. One rule for all Carroll - not a "socialist" principle I know, but get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:54 AM

It would appear from this and other threads that your answer to everything is violence.

Not that I'm at all surprised by that. Violence resonates through most of your postings and if anything is getting worse as time passes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:00 PM

Raggytash - 10 Oct 16 - 08:54 AM

"It would appear from this and other threads that your answer to everything is violence."

Hardly Raggy, I am all for peace through negotiation. But where there is no intention, or even desire to negotiate, what are the alternatives, especially when you consider that the side so set against negotiation has chosen violence since 1920.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:02 PM

"One rule for all Carroll -"
And you were doing so well - doesn't take long for the civilised mask to slip and we're back to the neanderthal.
The OP opened a ew thread in order that those of us who wished to discuss Israel should use it while those who wished to continue with the Labour Party could stay with this one.
As we've all played our part in ***** up threads, this seemed reasonable to me - not a rule, just consideration for others.
I'm happy to discuss Atisemitism on this thread as it has a direct relevance to the subject, what happened in Israel in the 8th century. or 1920, or whenever does not, and I'm happy to accept that, though I'm sure you are not, being the feller you seem to be.
Keith is one of those who happily yomps his way through any thread discussing whatever takes his fancy until he paints himself into a corner, then she squeals "thread drift" - it happens a lot.
Enjoy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:23 PM

Perhaps Teribus you could look back through your posts over the past two years or so.

They have become increasingly aggressive and increasingly belligerent (agreed, sometimes with provocation)

It has come to a stage where now I, and I suspect many others, merely anticipate not a rational discussion but yet another tirade of bitterness and vitriol.

As this is apparent to myself and other people, nothing you post has any impact at all other than to confirm our suppositions.

In other words your contributions are seen as worthless. A huge change from just a short time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

I repeat my suggestion - no question of dictating, Teribus. It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 04:35 PM

Teribus. It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people.

Some hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:50 AM

" It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people. "

Funny thing about that Kevin is that both are a two-way street.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 02:25 AM

"Perhaps Teribus you could look back through your posts over the past two years or so."

If I did Raggy I think that they would show the opposite.

As to "rational discussion", you and the others commonly referred to by me as "the usual suspects" have never been interested in "rational discussion" - the aim stated on numerous threads was simply "to take the piss" - do you want quotes?

You and your pals for reasons best known to yourselves decided to "mob" a couple of other members of this forum. It is something that is very ugly and disturbing to watch, something that I certainly was not going to let stand without a challenge.

So far on every thread you and your "pals" have invaded you have been made to look foolish and your supposed arguments have been demolished by recorded and documented fact, reason and logic - every time Raggy. The latest trolling exercise above the line by two of your troll pals who have to sign in as GUESTS now is a classic case in point.

Now if you, or anyone else, wishes to point out where in this this post, I have displayed bad temper, or have been belligerent or aggressive I would like them to explain where and how. I ask because past experience has shown me that you and the others I speak of are very good at throwing out accusations and allegations that none of you, for what I think are very obvious reasons, can ever seem to substantiate. In writing the above I have only described as I have found to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 03:50 AM

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:02 AM

You should know Raggy, you should know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:21 AM

Back to the Labour Party.

Your latest, fast tracked Labour Peer seems to have been exposed as the hypocrite she undoubtedly is. Another classic "socialist" of the "Do as I say, not as I do" variety. Labour fights against selective education and seeks to deny parents any choice or say for that matter in the education of their children, yet she sees nothing wrong at all in her exercising what she sees as her right to place her children in fee paying schools, because she is doing what she sees as doing the best for her children - the rest of us given the Labour Party line on this have to make do with what they say is the best for our children.

This by the way is the same woman who gave everyone a free pass on past transgressions while at the same time complains about "racist" and "misogynist" hate mail she has received from those within her own party. Yet according to Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll who of course know better than anybody else what is going on in the Labour Party, even those in charge of the Labour Party - and Jim Carroll says he isn't even a member of it - that there are no problems in the Labour Party. Baroness Chakrabarti however describes it as a Party that is in "Civil War" - no problems indeed eh?

Same with houses wasn't it? "Do as I say, Not as I do", you couldn't own your own Council House under Labour, you had no right to something that you'd paid for all your life. At that time Wilson owned what? Five houses wasn't it? Callaghan owned three Healey two?

Hypocrites the lot of them, they always have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:48 AM

I would have thought that anyone could see the difference between owning a house and owning a COUNCIL house built for the specific purpose of providing decent affordable RENTED accommodation.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 10 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

I repeat my suggestion - no question of dictating, Teribus.

Not you attempting to dictate anything Kevin, but others of a political persuasion similar to your own are rather vehemently.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:04 AM

I'm sorry to say it Raggytash, but Teribus is right, hypocrisy does abound in the Labour party, especially regarding housing.

That is why I believe that any move towards a proper sustainable society will be a long term journey....any talk of reforming the system is bound to fail, as reform is not recognised by capitalism.
When it becomes unprofitable or uncompetitive to operate, it moves on.

There must be a real will to change society, with all of the sacrifices that entails......more evolution than revolution these days. The sixties generation are old people now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:14 AM

Both Chakrabarti and Diane Abbott send their own children to private schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:31 AM

As far as I recall Ake, the Labour Party has never said you cannot own a house. It had said, and rightly so in my mind, you cannot own a council house.

However that experiment was blown out of the water, most notably of Margaret Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:07 AM

Most Labour voters round this area immediately took out mortgages to buy their council houses, at extortionate rates.

Some bought and re-sold quickly, they made a huge profit, but those who saw out their mortgage till the housing bubble burst made a bad deal. my old uncle used to say to me, "forget yer Communism" we're aw Tories under the skin"......he was right, we need to reform ourselves.

Of course most of the Labour hypocrisy pertains to education and private medicine.

I think our leaders are well aware of this innate hypocrisy, it shows a lack of self belief in most of their speech's and pronouncements. That is why people respond to folk like Thatcher and Farage.....they actually believe what they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

Must have been different where you are to the Salford I lived in, in the late 70's early 80's. The council there sold houses off at a discount depending on your length of tenure. Thus some people paid just 50% of the market value of the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:33 AM

Funny, innit, that when Labour people buy houses or send their kids to public schools they're hypocrites, etc., yet no-one criticises Tories for doing the same things - or for exercising the same free choice when it comes to choosing the best STATE school for their kids (you can always move house or give the parish priest a sweetener...), or for CHOOSING whether or not they bypass the NHS queues they've done so much to create. One lot gets to "exercise free choice" with impunity yet the other lot are castigated for diving the same thing. They've "abandoned their principles." Well if you're so keen on their "principles," how come you don't follow them yourselves! The air is polluted yet we all have to breathe it. The fact that right-wingers jeer at lefties for wanting the same choices that they exercise show where the real hypocrisy lies - us and them - sauce for the goose, etc....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:34 AM

doing, not diving

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:53 AM

"Funny, innit, that when Labour people buy houses or send their kids to public schools they're hypocrites, etc., yet no-one criticises Tories for doing the same things "
Just going to say that
When you consider Tory Duck Palaces paid for out of Parliamentary expenses, claims for accommodation that didn't exist, offshore accounts and lobbying, hypocrisy (which is what it is) measures extremely small.
Labour proposes a system whereby all children are given an equal opportunity at getting an education; until we get that, it is understandable that anybody under the present system does their best for their children
We live under the system we live under
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:36 AM

But that is the point Jim, the more you try to "reform" the system the less wealth is produced and the poorest always suffer.

I repeat.....We need to reform ourselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:40 AM

BTW.....Tories are not hypocrites, they actually believe in this economic system. They may be right, most of us are better off financially than when I was a boy, but are we "happier"....and is it sustainable?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:53 AM

They are hypocrites because they like to enjoy all the trappings of living in a wealthy country, NHS OR private, public schools OR state, big houses that attract hardly any more council tax than much smaller ones, second homes that leave "desirable" villages and seaside towns like ghost towns for eleven months of the year (and,naturally, their accountants will look after their tax avoidance schemes), yet when lefties try to intrude in any way on this lush set of choices, they're "abandoning their principles!" The only "principles" Tories have are those relating to looking after number one. They find them very hard to "abandon," of course, so THEY, unlike those pesky and vociferous lefties (who probably live on benefits anyway) remain above criticism for being hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:06 AM

The only way we will ever change this society is through principle and real socialism means the abdication of "self" in the common good how many really even understand that principle never mind put it into practice......I am fortunate to remember such a society it was full of socialists who thought they were Tories.

Now we have political parties full of Tories who think they are socialists......or rather pretend they are socialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:11 AM

As ever, your utter confusion about all this precludes any possibility of a productive conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:12 AM

"I repeat.....We need to reform ourselves!"
And what exactly - we act on our own principles and our children suffer - until when???
Till they decide to give us a better system presumably - your Pie in the Sky again
You are suggesting we play by the rules and live under what they decide to dish out to us.
I have no idea which planet your "socialism" comes from but it certainly isn't part of this Galaxy
I've asked you to propose alternatives in the past - you decline to do so.
Now you suggest that we just do as we are told.
Sheesh!!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:29 AM

But Raggy, the hypocrites in the Labour Party at the time were all for forcing right to buy for tenants in privately owned property that was rented out - "Do as I say, not as I do", coupled with another good "socialist" maxim, "Everything must be shared, until it's our stuff that has to be shared".

Their own rent acts meant that they could not maintain their housing stock that was rapidly turning into post-war slums.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:38 AM

"But Raggy, the hypocrites in the Labour Party at the time were all for forcing right to buy for tenants in privately owned property that was rented out "
The target of the "Right-to-buy" scheme was aimed at ending Council Housing - nothing to do with private landlords.
That was why it was opposed by the "hypocrites"
END OF COUNCIL HOUSING
Socialism has s.f.a to do with "sharing out" - that is a Tory myth ad a very outdated one.
It is about equality of opportunity, not of possessions not wealth.
Who said dinosaurs were extinct?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:52 AM

Simple questions for you T.

1.Were council houses sold off at a discount to sitting tenants.

2. Were those houses replaced with new stock by said councils.

A yes or No will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

"THIS IS THE CRISIS THAT MAGGIE BUILT"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM

Mrs Thatcher only provided the opportunity for "socialists" to become capitalists and didn't they just dive for the trough?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:19 PM

The sale of council houses involves massive discounts to tenants, at the expense of the owners. The owners being the community as a whole. A very significant reason for imposing this policy was in order to influence voting choice. This was admitted by Margaret Thatcher and others.

A similar policy applied to private housing, with landlords compelled to sell property at significantly less than that properties cost, would be described as theft, and almost certainly be deemed illegal in court.

All this was made worse by policies by governments for decades which forbade councils from using the money received in these confiscatory cutprice sales to build new houses.

The more recent twist is where councils are compelled to sell any houses which have higher market value, and for this money to be confiscated to provide sizeable discounts to tenants of housing associations, which are compelled to sell these properties to tenants.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:22 PM

This adds up to a new way of understanding the old maxim of Proudhin - "Property is Theft".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:32 PM

it is becoming apparent, that the Labour parties support of the remain campaign was played down in the UK Media, and then Corbyns so called lack of enthusiasm for remain[ a media myth] was used afterwards to attack his leadership

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 02:27 PM

Indeed. The Prime Minister's policy was to remain. Only 43% of 2015 Tory voters followed him. Jeremy Corbyn's policy was to remain. 69% of 2015 Labour voters followed him. Another piece of right-wing media bullshit blown out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:27 PM

For Corbyn to be blamed by Tory Remainers wouldn't really matter - you'd expect that from them. But for Labour MP's to pretend that he was was responsible for failing to turn that 69% into 100% or whatever, was pretty absurd and completely irresponsible.

Corbyn's recognition that the EU is far from perfect, but that it should be supported was in fact the best way to convince doubters to opt for Remain - and it very largely succeeded.If MPs in constituencies with heavy Brexit voting had been more effective in persuading their constituencies of this, the result would have been different.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 16 - 07:45 AM

"to become capitalists and didn't they just dive for the trough?"
Your contempt for working people who attempt to better themselves in the prevailing system is palpable.
What did you expect them to do - sit on their hands and wait for the next bus to your 'Big Rock Candy Mountain'?
Your understanding of the term "capitalism" is just as risible - to be a "capitalist" you need to be living off the proceeds of invested capital - that's what the term means.
Owning your own home doesn't enter into the equation.
Your ignorance of politics rivals that of Teribus's, and is just as archaic - and that's saying something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Oct 16 - 12:58 PM

See Corbyn is calling for demonstrations outside the American Embassy, to balance criticism of Russia's efforts in Syria. Surprised that he hasn't also called for demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament to protest our involvement.

Needless to say he ignores the fact that:

1: Russia is supplying the weaponry that Assad needs to prosecute the war against his own population

2: Russian efforts since they involved themselves has been more against moderate rebel forces and the civilian population that support them than against ISIS.

3: That many accuse Russian Forces of war crimes against the Syrian people.

Can anybody tell me if "The Leader" has criticised Russian actions in Syria?

Has he any comments related to Putin's desire to acquire a permanent Russian Naval Base in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM

What Corbyn is actually saying - bot to "alance" criticism, but to ascertain that all war crimes and abuses are dealt with
Jim Carroll

Jeremy Corbyn believes Boris Johnson's focus on halting Russian airstrikes in Syria "diverts attention" from other atrocities in the country, including those committed by the US-led coalition, a spokesman for the Labour leader has said.
Corbyn had condemned the Russian attacks, "as he has condemned the intervention by all outside forces in the Syrian civil war", the spokesman said, but warned that "the focus on Russian atrocities in Syria sometimes diverts attention from other atrocities that are taking place".
Analysis Reality check: are US-led airstrikes on Syrians as bad as Russia's?
The Labour party has implied that the civilian death toll from coalition bombings is comparable to that from Russian ones
The remarks were made at a briefing of journalists after prime minister's questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
"Independent assessments are that there have been very large-scale civilian casualties as a result of the US-led coalition bombing. There are several cases of large numbers of deaths in single attacks, and there hasn't been as much focus on those casualties," the spokesman said.
The foreign secretary had called for protests outside the Russian embassy in London in response to the bombing of Aleppo and to put pressure on Moscow to agree to a ceasefire.
The Labour spokesman said said he wasn't drawing a "moral equivalence" between Russia's actions and those of the US, but when asked whether it was as equally legitimate for the public to protest outside the US embassy as the Russian, he replied: "People are free to protest outside the intervening powers' embassies, and there are a number of them." Asked if that included the US, he said, "obviously".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM

"The Labour party has implied that the civilian death toll from coalition bombings is comparable to that from Russian ones"

The Labour Party has trouble with arithmetic does it Jim?


Quote 1:
"The coalition kills too many civilians but it is clear they are trying to limit those deaths, while everything we understand about the way Russia is behaving shows they are deliberately targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure," said Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.

Quote 2:
"That means the Russians' death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one," Woods said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 10:21 AM

"The Labour Party has trouble with arithmetic does it Jim?"
Has it, and does it matter that one side kills more than the other - aren't they both reprehensible and worthy of your condemnation - or, like your obsession with semantics, are you happy to excuse morder because there aren't enough dead?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 12:33 PM

"Has it, and does it matter that one side kills more than the other"

Shouldn't that be - "It has, and does matter to mention and make the differentiation that one side {The Russians} deliberately targets kills civilians causing eight times the death toll than the other side {US & UK} who make all possible efforts to avoid civilian casualties and target ISIS" - see the difference Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

We never know the actual truth about all this kind of thing until many years later, if then.

While our eyes are focussed on Aleppo, in Yemen the Saudis are busily doing precisely the same kind of thing.

And in Syria, while the Russians join in on one side, the Saudis join in on .the other, ensuring that the war keeps going.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 02:46 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 13 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

"We never know the actual truth about all this kind of thing until many years later, if then."

If that is the case Kevin where is your rightful condemnation of Labour Party "spokesmen" making inaccurate, misleading and irresponsible pronouncements as though they were fact.

While US and others have been attacking ISIS target very successfully the Russians and Assad have been attacking Aleppo - what ISIS targets are there in Aleppo Kevin?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 06:08 PM

l understand, from UN news sources, that there at least 9,000 jihadist troops in Aleppo, with much the same ideology as Isis, and that they are understood to be the most effective fighting forces on the rebel side, and the backbone of the continued resistance.

That may or may not be true. That's what I meant - we don't know so many things you'd need to know. Stopping all outside intervention would seem to make sense. But it's not going to happen. All increased intervention just threatens to make things worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 03:36 AM

Semantics Kevin, there may well be 9,000 Rebel fighters in Aleppo but as far as anyone knows the ISIS flag has never been seen in Aleppo. There are no ISIS targets in Aleppo which is under constant attack by Assad and the Russian Air force so far they have bombed hospitals and aid convoys and have been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Syrian civilians who they are deliberately targeting according to Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 06:14 AM

"Shouldn't that be - "It has,"
No it most certainly does not
Tha Labour Party seem to be regarding all killing of civilian as reprehensible unlike yourself, who has to count the bodies before deciding whether it should be condemned.
The U.S's track record of killing whoever gets in the way goes before them - they've even invented new terms - "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" to make it sound less serious than it is.
No need to mention the Russians - we see it on our television screens and Russia isn't considered an ally, as America is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM

Sadly the mentally of some of the people on this forum seem to consider that if YOU killed 99 of OUR people and WE managed to 100 of YOUR people that WE have won.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM

The 9000 jihadis in Aleppo are indeed not Isis - they are Al Qaeda. That why I said that they essentially had the same ideology as Isis.

Yes, hospitals have been bombed in Aleppo. That also happened in Afghanistan, with the Americans, in Yemen, with the Saudis and in Gaza with the Israelis. No one has clean hands.

It is clear that there were people on both sides who wanted the recent ceasefire to fail, and they succeeded. Sooner or later there will be a ceasefire that holds, because that's the only way wars end, and all wars do end eventually. The priority on both sides needs to be to identify those who wrecked the ceasefire and neutralize them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 04:31 AM

Raggytash - 14 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM

Sadly the mentally of some of the people on this forum seem to consider that if YOU killed 99 of OUR people and WE managed to 100 of YOUR people that WE have won.

Really Raggy? Who on this forum has stated anything even remotely like that? Or are these your famous lack of comprehension skills being demonstrated again?

Mind you there have been historical precedents under which such a claim to victory could be made if the conflict was of the same type as "The Clan Fight at Perth" where if both sides consisted of 100 men then the side who did kill 100 would undoubtedly and justifiably claim victory.

What has been pointed out here Raggy is that the Russians and Assad are deliberately targeting and killing civilians in Syria, while others are not. If you doubt that then take it up with the organisation monitoring civilian deaths in Syria, the chaps name is Chris Woods of Airwars, perhaps you should read their Report entitled "A Reckless Disregard" that covered civilian deaths during the first three months of Russian airstrikes in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 07:43 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 14 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM

The 9000 jihadis in Aleppo are indeed not Isis - they are Al Qaeda

Are they really Kevin? Where did you get this information from? The same Labour spokesperson with the track record of coming out with unverified, incorrect, inaccurate, misrepresentative and irresponsible statements. WOW 9,000 people inside Aleppo fighting against Assad and they are all members of Al-Qaeda. Any idea of the number and make-up of the multiplicity of groups fighting against Assad Kevin - if not I would suggest that you do some research of your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 08:31 AM

It is true that there is a bewildering number of armed opposition groups in Syria - in 2013 a BBC "Guide to the Syrian rebels" estimated 1,000 such groups.

Among these those aspiring to create an Islamic State are said to be the most effective fighting force. Of course the term "Islamic State" can mean a range of things - Iran, Arabia and Isis would all claim that description, and deny it to the others. However a very sizeable number do have a close affinity with Isis or with Al Qaeda. The leading UN diplomat Stefan de Mistura offered to accompany such fighters out of Aleppo to Isis territory in a bid to end the bloodshed in Aleppo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 09:40 AM

I know that if we were to go back to any of the WW1 threads you have espoused exactly that.

We killed more of them than they did of us, ergo we won.

Like I said, pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 03:27 PM

Raggytash - 15 Oct 16 - 09:40 AM

I know that if we were to go back to any of the WW1 threads - I'd run circles round your idiotic contentions again as I did before.

The debate in those threads Raggy centred on whether or not the British, Commonwealth and Empire forces in general were "well led" in comparison to the other combatant powers of 1914. My contention was, along with a whole host of historians who have specialised in the period and in the subject, that a soldier stood a better chance of surviving had he fought under British Command than had he fought in any other Army. 9 out of every 10 men who served under British Command survived that was not the case in the armies of Germany, France, Austro-Hungary and Russia.

It is an undeniable fact that the Entente Powers won the First World War. Now if you do wish to pursue this - Open a thread on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 05:29 PM

I think that I agree with Mr McGrath here....if they are not "with us they are against us"   They are all Terrorists, these so called moderate rebels don't walk around with protest placards round their necks, they are armed to the teeth and have been offered safe passage out of Aleppo.

If three years ago we had bombed Assad into submission it would have been clear by now what kind of democracy they wish to propagate.

Yes civilians are being killed, that is a fact of civil war, a worse crime was the Napalming of huge areas of Vietnam by our very own champions of democracy.

This conflict has been created in a power struggle between East and West....as was the whole concept of the Arab Spring, but the Genie of IF is now out of the bottle and must be got back in pretty damned quick and that demands co-operation, not warlike noises off.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 06:40 PM

The rationale for civilian deaths in Aleppo from Russian and Syrian government air strikes is of course that these are unintended victims resulting from civilians being used as human shields by militants - which is precisely the same as that given by the British and French after mass casualties in Syria (and elsewhere), as for example in the village of Toukhan Al-Kubra in July when an estimated 140 civilians died. (An incident which seems to have been ignored by the British media, though it led to an official protest lodged with the UN by the Syrian government.) Or of course by Israel in the Gaza conflicts. "Collateral damage".

In all cases there is probably an element in the claim that civilian deaths are not the primary aim - in this they differ from terror bombing in World War II, culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but what is missing is recognition of the essential principle of proportionality in waging war. Civilian casualties always must be held down to a minimum, even where this inhibits military activities. That is why using civilians as human shields is also seen as a war crime, whichever side does it.

If it comes to war crimes trials once this war is over, the Russians and the Syrian government should not be the only ones in the dock.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 06:41 PM

a worse crime was the Napalming of huge areas of Vietnam by our very own champions of democracy.

Oh, well, then its all right, innit?

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 03:49 AM

In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people. 

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 04:21 AM

"vile' abuse of Jewish people."
Was that "vile abuse" described in any way? - no?- thought not!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 04:29 AM

"Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour party."
Guardian version of the report
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 04:30 AM

Take it up with them Jim, write to the Chairman of the Committee, or better still read their report for yourself. You can then tell them and everybody else what they actually did mean - after all you do automatically assume that you know more about everything than anybody else don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM

"In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people."

This is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation. In other words, you're lying. No-one except you has referred to an incompetent leader unqualified. Go back and read the reports properly before you come here to comment on them. It wouldn't be half so bad If this lying hadn't come from the man who picks other people up for nitpicked trifles.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:06 AM

Is this "anti Semitism" thing really worth all the verbiage?

Humanity holds a complicated arrangement of views, I'm afraid there will always be those who will be anti something or other....anti Catholic anti Jew, anti communist, anti Russian, anti American.

It is how human nature works.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:19 AM

Anti is one thing. Prejudice, hate speech, discrimination, persecution and unjustified verbal or physical attacks are entirely another. Get the difference clear in your head so that you can join the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:34 AM

From Free Speech on Israel, whose sentiment is that anti Zionism is not antisemitism:

House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Report:                  

Depends on evidence from almost exclusively pro-Israel, anti-Corbyn sources
Advocates re-defining antisemitism so as to intimidate and silence pro-Palestinian voices, including making it a punishable offence to use the word Zionist "in an accusatory context"
Dismisses the Chakrabarti Report's principled recommendations for fair and transparent disciplinary Labour Party procedures in cases of alleged antisemitism and other forms of racism, proposing draconian, politically motivated measures instead
London, October 16 – The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee today issued a Report on Antisemitism in the UK that, while correctly identifying the far Right as the source of most hate crime, shows such bias in its sources and assessment of evidence that it calls into question the committee's reputation and competence.

The Report, from a Tory dominated committee, takes up the weapons that have been used to try to unseat Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader by smearing those he has attracted to the Party with charges of antisemitism. The apparent collusion of Labour committee members reflects the dirty war being waged against Corbyn's radical leadership by elements within the party.   

Prof Jonathan Rosenhead, from the Jewish-led campaign group Free Speech on Israel (FSOI), said the select committee had aligned itself with extreme pro-Israel advocates, by setting restrictive limits on what may and may not be said, threatening to close down free speech on Israel and Palestine.

"The dire record of antisemitism over the centuries and especially in the last one means that vigilance is essential," said Prof Rosenhead. "But antisemitism is not, currently, the major racist threat in this country; nor is it a significant problem in the Labour Party. This report loses all sense of proportion. It risks actually weakening the defences against true antisemitism ('hatred of Jews as Jews') by trying to extend its meaning to include many legitimate criticisms of Israel.

"For those of us who argue, along with many other Jews and Israelis, that the Zionist project has inflicted intolerable injustice on the Palestinians, the adjective 'Zionist' inevitably has an 'accusatory' aspect. But it is directed against the State of Israel and its founding ideology, not against Jews."

So, bearing in mind the makeup of this committee, a gleeful collection made up from Corbyn's opponents, what did we expect? I predict that the anticorbynistas here will adopt this report as the latest gospel. The Chakrabarti report was done with far greater integrity, and I look forward to similar self-examinations by UKIP and the Tories. My God, there'd be some uncomfortable reading there - except that, of course, unlike Labour's, any reports they ever came up with would be spun out of recognition. Today marks a low point for parliamentary democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:39 AM

"Take it up with them Jim, write to the Chairman of the Committee"
Why on earth should I have to take it up with a bunch of Parliamentary politicians dominated by the right wing who are unanimously opposed to a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn?
You have had their conclusions, but you carefully avoid answering the points about the 75% extremist right wingers, and the bit about there being no evidence that claimed antisemitism is no worse than ity is in other parties.
You cam make any point you wish is you leave out all the inconvenient facts.
And once again - you or they produce no examples of Labour Antisemisism - accusations without facts are no more than unsubstantiated smears.
Keith's Jewish 'pact of silence' has a lot to answer for!
When will you people accept that if you accuse somebody of something, you have to at least identify what you are accusing them of by providing details?
This gets more and more bizarre
"Is this "anti Semitism" thing really worth all the verbiage?"
I first thought you were quoting somebody when you put this up Ake
Does anybody with any intelligence or humanity believe that 6 million deaths should come second to the right to openly express bigotry and hatred?
Unbelievable
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:07 AM

Jim, your quote was of Corbyn, not the report!!
The Guardian's version that you linked to says the same as Teribus posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

The acting chair of the committee told Andrew Marr today that Chakrabarti's report was a "whitewash" and "not worth the paper it was printed on."

Steve, again you accuse someone of lying when they did not.
Use Jim's link to the Guardian's report on it.

"Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people".

In a damning indictment of the party and its leader, the powerful home affairs select committee claims that Corbyn's lack of action "risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic". In the report, published on Sunday , Labour is said to have been "demonstrably incompetent" in dealing with incidents of anti-Jewish abuse.

An inquiry into antisemitism in Labour carried out by Shami Chakrabarti on the orders of Corbyn earlier this year is described as "ultimately compromised". Its independence was thrown into doubt by Chakrabarti's acceptance of a peerage and a job in the shadow cabinet, the committee writes.
   
The MPs criticise Chakrabarti for describing antisemitic abuse as merely "unhappy incidents", and note her failure to respond to requests for a timeline proving that there was no connection between her elevation to the Lords and her inquiry. They write: "Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:24 AM

"The Guardian's version that you linked to says the same as Teribus posted."
And carefully didn't post the source - probably The Daily Mail one, which carefully omitted the relevant bits.
Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties.
Are you suggesting he is lying and if so, do you have proof that he is or should your claim be judged alongside your 'Jewish Parliamentary plot' one?
Your little gang really is determined to smear Labour without providing evidence.
Keep it up boys - it all helps to make a somewhat uneventful Sunday entertaining.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

The remarks reported by Teribus were not in the report. He knew it and yiu know it. You are both lying. As I said, it is so predictable that you should take this report as gospel. After all, it it was produced almost as exclusively by Tories and a few Labour anti-Corbynites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 09:23 AM

It's all pro Israel extremist propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 10:26 AM

"Go back and read the reports properly before you come here to comment on them." - says "Knee-jerk" Shaw willing as ever to leap to the defence of the indefensible.

Tell me Shaw where in my post of - Teribus - 16 Oct 16 - 03:49 AM - did I pass or make a comment on anything?

But on the subject of reading reports properly Shaw.

Baroness Royall who investigated "racism" and "anti-Semitism" in OULC came up with seven recommendations that required urgent and immediate action. The NEC of the Labour Party attempted to muzzle this report by keeping the report itself secret while issuing Baroness Royalls summary, recommendations and conclusions. Fortunately for the British public the report in its entirety was leaked. The Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of "whitewashing" the problem and among her recommendations was the statement that there was to be a moratorium on investigations of any instances of racism, misogyny and bullying that pre-dated the submission of her report, thereby creating the "safe space" for anti-Semites talked about in the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Report.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 10:34 AM

"It's all pro Israel extremist propaganda."
You've changed your mind then - that was trip worth making
"Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of "whitewashing" "
No she wasn't - you're making it up.Still no description of this racism or antisemitism than?
Lynch mob rule OK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 11:20 AM

"Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of "whitewashing" "

"No she wasn't - you're making it up" - says Jim Carroll

Yeah Jim that's right, I made it up, long before this thread was ever even thought of, I wrote to various Labour MPs, the entire membership of Labour's National Executive Committee, the leading members of damn near every Jewish Organisation and Society in the country to fill them in on the wheeze then waited until this thread to appear just to wind you, Shaw and Raggy up - Greg F. isn't worth the effort.

Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of investigating racism and anti-Semitism within the Labour Party while Baroness Royall was in the process of writing her report. The findings of Royall's report into the OULC made it essential that the actual content of that report be kept secret to allow Chakrabarti to write her "whitewash job" but that didn't pan out did it the Royall Report was leaked. New entry member of the Labour Party one week, Labour Peer the next on £300 per day to sit in the House of Lords followed by a Shadow Cabinet Post - Damned nice work if you can get it eh Jim? Can't think why they didn't give you the job but of course you're not a member are you, yet you know more about the inner workings of the Labour Party than those running it.

Naz Shah admits to and apologises for making anti-Semitic statements, but because Jim Carroll says she didn't, she must obviously have been lying. Ken Livingston back in the fold yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM

Here's what you said:

In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people."

The report does not refer to an incompetent Labour leader. You applied "incompetent" to Corbyn in a generalised, broadbrush way that the report did not, in other words. And if you're going to tell me that it wasn't you, it was "the press," then I suggest you change your newspaper. The report did not say that he allowed vile abuse of Jewish people either. You want us to think that these dishonest extrapolations of yours are what the committee actually said. That is a long-winded way of saying that you're telling lies. I have no objection whatsoever to your bringing to the attention of the thread the criticisms of Corbyn made by the committee. I do object to your bringing your own characterisations of their words, along with their own highly-predictable negative spin, and pretending that they were theirs. Now if you want to discuss what the committee actually said, why don't you go along and bring us their actual words, unspun by either you or "the press?"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 12:45 PM

Jim,
Are you suggesting he is lying and if so, do you have proof that he is

Are you suggesting that the whole cross party committee is lying and if so, do you have proof that they are?

Steve,
The report does not refer to an incompetent Labour leader.

Errrr, yes it does Steve.

Guardian headline,
"Jeremy Corbyn accused of incompetence by MPs over antisemitic abuse "

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 12:51 PM

Steve,
. The report did not say that he allowed vile abuse of Jewish people either.

First sentence of Guardian report (linked to by Jim!)
"Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people"."

So, who is lying about this Steve, you or the Guardian?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 12:59 PM

"eah Jim that's right, I made it up, long before this thread was ever even thought of"
You claim she was given the job of making it up - she wasn't.
Some have claimed that she did whitewash it - no proof has been produced but you have thrown the rope over the branch ready for the lynching
Produce your evidnce that she was and you have made your case - fail to do so and you are part of the mob.
Golden rule of British justice - innocent until proven guilty
That's what is suppose to distinguish us from the savages.
If you can't prove it, don't make claims that have not been proven.
I take it you disapprove of all fees paid to politicians for sitting on
SPECIAL COMMITTEES - as if!!
"Naz Shah admits to and apologises for making anti-Semitic statements"
I did not say she didn't - I said it wa made before she was a politician, she acknowledged it and apologised for it
Please stop lying about what I say.
You were quick enough to absolve or Foreign Secretary' serial racist behaviour on the basis that he apologised for it - why not in this case - wrong party maybe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 01:08 PM

What the report said about Chakrabarti, according to your Guardian link Jim,

"An inquiry into antisemitism in Labour carried out by Shami Chakrabarti on the orders of Corbyn earlier this year is described as "ultimately compromised". Its independence was thrown into doubt by Chakrabarti's acceptance of a peerage and a job in the shadow cabinet, the committee writes.

The MPs criticise Chakrabarti for describing antisemitic abuse as merely "unhappy incidents", and note her failure to respond to requests for a timeline proving that there was no connection between her elevation to the Lords and her inquiry. They write: "Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her.""

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 01:43 PM

Doesn't make a difference what they said unless you can produce evidence of what was covered up - you have the context of a right-wing dominated group of politicians, you have the fact that so-called antisemitism in the Labour Party is no different than that in other parties and you still have not produced examples of the so-called antisemitism they are accused of.
The Chakrabati report was leaked was leaked and even got as far as the Jerusalem Post and guess what - no description of antisemitism there either - another of your 'Jewish Plots' maybe.
Until you produce evidence rather than innuendo by enemies of the Labour Party you will continue to be pissing into the wind on this one Keith
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF ALL THIS ANTISEMITISM?.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 02:36 PM

What Teribus said, after which he STOPPED:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people.

What the Guardian's FIRST SENTENCE said, after which they REPORTED THE MATTER IN MORE DETAIL:

Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people".

"So, who is lying about this Steve, you or the Guardian?"

You are. There you have it, folks. A typical Keith/Teribus reinterpretation, nothing like the Guardian sentence, a misrepresentation intended to blacken the Labour leader. Now just sod off, Keith. I have no time for your stupid, dishonest, disreputable games. If you want us to discuss whst the committee said, you tell us what the bloody committee said, not what Teribus said or the Guardian said or what your personal delusions are telling you. Keep it simple, stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 03:03 PM

Here's a coincidence for you all to deal with.
Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S. in September 2015 - up to then there had been not a whiff of accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Within a month of his announcement, accusations of antisemitism began to appear.
By April 16th 2016 these actions had accelerated.
At no time has this antisemitism ever been been described - even Naz Shah's blog posted in 2014 had not been commented on, though she became a Labour M.P. in the General Election of May 2015.
I go along with Sherlock Holmes' opinion of coincidence - "The universe is rarely so lazy".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:08 AM

Steve Shaw - 16 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM

Here's what you said:

In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people."

No Shaw that is what I typed and apart from the In the press today bit it was lifted straight out of the news copy of the national news paper that carried the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:11 AM

So Jim thinks that the cross party committee's findings can all be dismissed because they are not Left Wing enough, and Steve pretends the report does not mean what it clearly states.
Guardian headline,
"Jeremy Corbyn accused of incompetence by MPs over antisemitic abuse "

First sentence of Guardian report (linked to by Jim!)
"Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people"."

So Corbyn WAS accused of incompetence as Teribus said, and he WAS accused of allowing anti-Semitic abuse to be perpetrated in safety.

" Labour is said to have been "demonstrably incompetent" in dealing with incidents of anti-Jewish abuse."

" Nevertheless, it{the report) is withering about the Labour leader's response to antisemitic attacks on his own MPs, and his understanding of modern forms of racism."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:41 AM

Quote from the report, as published in Huffington Post,
"The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic,"

Comment,
"The committee's strongly-worded report was agreed in full by the two Labour MPs on the panel - Chuka Umunna and David Winnick.

A third Labour member of the committee, Naz Shah, took no part in the inquiry after she was suspended from the party over anti-Semitic social media posts before later having the whip reinstated after apologising.

Corbyn gave evidence to the committee but the MPs questioned his understanding of the issue."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-for-lack-of-consistent-leadership-over-anti-semitism_uk_580337e6e4b0010a7f3e99cf

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 04:29 AM

So,Teribus, are you saying that your typing fingers are somehow not connected to your brain, unlike your gob? Feel free to expand on this curious phenomenon, though you'll have to type it as I can't hear you from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 04:43 AM

The whole report is available online. Interpreting what press sources say about snippets from it is sheer lunacy in the light of that. Do what I did, Keith, and read it end to end, and stop farting about for a change.

Naz Shah of s a member of the committee but was not party to this report. The other two Labour members are ardent Corbyn opponents. The rest are Tories. Should we see in it in that light? Well I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 05:56 AM

Your Huffington Post quote carefully edited out Corbyn's reply to this and you naturally neglected to link your quote.
The article adds nothing to what has already been discussed.
Corbyn's and others carefully edited out response.
"Responding, Corbyn suggested the report was biased against Labour, described the criticism of Lady Chakrabarti as "unfair" and said the committee "violated natural justice" by refusing her request to appear before it.
The Labour leader said: "The report's political framing and disproportionate emphasis on Labour risks undermining the positive and welcome recommendations made in it.
"Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of anti-Semitic incidents come from far-right sources, and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest anti-Semitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour Party.
"As the report rightly acknowledges, politicising anti-Semitism – or using it as a weapon in controversies between and within political parties - does the struggle against it a disservice."
Suspended Momentum vice-chairwoman Jacqueline Walker called on Labour to support those who had been "picked off" during the anti-Semitism "witch hunt".
Writing on Facebook, Walker called the report "more poison".

Nowhere is there any attempt to describe this so-called "antisemitism" so, until somebody does so, it does not exist - that is both natural justice and common sense
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 05:57 AM

So first the report was being misrepresented, now it can be discounted anyway because the committee was not left wing enough.
You are still in denial after all these months.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 06:06 AM

Why would I include Corbyn's denials of all criticism?
I was informing you of the report.

Here is an extract from it,

"Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people. This situation has been further exacerbated by the Party's demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism, as illustrated by the saga involving the suspension, re-admittance and re-suspension of Jackie Walker. The ongoing membership of Ken Livingstone, following his outbursts about Hitler and Zionism, should also have been dealt with more effectively. The result is that the Labour Party, with its proud history of fighting racism and promoting equal rights, is seen by some as an unwelcoming place for Jewish members and activists. (Paragraph 113)

21.The decision by the Leader of the Labour Party to commission an independent inquiry into antisemitism was a welcome one, notwithstanding subsequent criticisms. The Chakrabarti report makes recommendations about creating a more robust disciplinary process within the Labour Party, but it is clearly lacking in many areas; particularly in its failure to differentiate explicitly between racism and antisemitism. The fact that the report describes occurrences of antisemitism merely as "unhappy incidents" also suggests that it fails to appreciate the full gravity of the comments that prompted the inquiry in the first place. These shortfalls, combined with Ms Chakrabarti's decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Leader of that Party, and her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General, have thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent. Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the Committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her. It is disappointing that she did not foresee that the timing of her elevation to the House of Lords, alongside a report absolving the Labour Leader of any responsibility for allegations of increased antisemitism within his Party, would completely undermine her efforts to address this issue. It is equally concerning that Mr Corbyn did not consider the damaging impression likely to be created by this sequence of events. (Paragraph 114)

22.The recommendations of the Chakrabarti report are further impaired by the fact that they are not accompanied by a clear definition of antisemitism, as we have recommended should be adopted by all political parties. We remain unconvinced of the robustness of the Labour Party's code of conduct (and whether it will be effectively enforced), and the report does nothing to address a severe lack of transparency within the Party's disciplinary process. There are examples of Labour members who have been accused of antisemitism, investigated by their Party, and then reinstated with no explanation of why their behaviour was not deemed to be antisemitic. The Labour Party, and all other political parties in the same circumstances, should publish a clear public statement alongside every reinstatement or expulsion of a member after any investigation into suspected antisemitism. (Paragraph 115)

23.We see no good reason for the Chakrabarti report's proposed statute of limitations on antisemitic misdemeanours. Antisemitism is not a new concept: an abusive, antisemitic tweet sent in 2013 is no more defensible than one sent in 2016. If the Labour Party or any other organisation is to demonstrate that it is serious about antisemitism, it should investigate all allegations with equal seriousness, regardless of when the behaviour is alleged to have taken place. (Paragraph 116)

24.In its determination to be inclusive of all forms of racism, some sections of the Chakrabarti report do not acknowledge Jewish concerns, including its recommendations on training, which make no mention of antisemitism. This has generated criticism among some observers that antisemitism may be excluded from future training programmes. The Labour Party and all political parties should ensure that their training on racism and inclusivity features substantial sections on antisemitism. This must be formulated in consultation with Jewish community representatives, and must acknowledge the unique nature of antisemitism. If antisemitism is subsumed into a generic approach to racism, its distinctive and dangerous characteristics will be overlooked. In addition, the Labour Party's disciplinary process must acknowledge the fact that an individual's demonstrated opposition to other forms of racism does not negate the possibility that they hold antisemitic beliefs; nor does it neutralise any expression of these beliefs. (Paragraph 117)

25.The Chakrabarti Report is ultimately compromised by its failure to deliver a comprehensive set of recommendations, to provide a definition of antisemitism, or to suggest effective ways of dealing with antisemitism. The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with antisemitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic. (Paragraph 118)"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 06:27 AM

Well anyone can copy and paste reams of highly-selective stuff without comment. This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

Not left-wing enough? What a stupid remark. The person under attack is on the opposite end of the political spectrum to the majority of committee members, and the only two Labour members of the committee who put their signatures to the report voted no confidence in him this summer. By any measure, that flies in the face of what decent people would regard as fair play. That in itself undermines the report, though I must say I found a lot of it to be beyond reproach, not the bits we're supposedly discussing here, mind. We don't even have to question the integrity of the individual committee members (l don't feel any particular need to do that, frankly).

I invite anyone who wishes to comment on the content of the report to completely ignore the idiotic cherrypicking by Keith and whatever "press sources" he quotes (or, for that matter, Teribus's "news paper") and read the report. You will find that Keith's obsessive emphasis on Labour's issues is not reflected by the document. When you're up against the unreconstructed far-right, as we are in their cases, there is no alternative but to go to the source, the whole source and nothing but the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 07:42 AM

"Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people

Question. Why should anti-Semitism be dealt with separately from other forms of discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 07:55 AM

"I was informing you of the report."
Then the accused has no right to defend himself - not even to be linked to the source of the quote - just about sums up all this so-called Antisemitism garbage.
The accused has no voice, one of the accused is given no right to appear before her accuses, you deliberately edit out this fact and Corbyn's defence but include what goes before and what follows and still there are no details of what he or the Labour Party is accused of - Franz Kafka wrote a novel about this sort of "justice"   
THE TRIAL
Nothing in your long cut-'n-paste describes antisemitism in any way, not have any numbers been mentioned.
The clue to all this is included in your previous quote "his understanding of modern forms of racism."
What are these "modern form of racism"?
There is no explanation of what they are, but the time line between Labour's support for B.D.S. and the beginning of these accusations makes it clear what they are.
Criticism of Israeli terrorism is now being regarded as antisemitism by right-wing politicians and the press - making every decent, compassionate and humane person on this planet an Antisemite.
Only the politicians of the extreme right actually support Israel - with their silence.
Human rights groups, eye witnesses, medical teams sent in to mop up the dead, journalists, commentators, condemn what happened in 2014 - even Israelis and Jews throughout the world, including Holocaust Survivors have condemned the massacres.
Many are claiming thet Israel is a fascit state.
The Israelis and their supporters claim self-defence, as has every tyrannical despot in history.
This is the antisemitism that this squalid report is accusing Labour of.
If it isn't - what is it?
This isn't a defence of the Jewish People - Keith made that quite clear with his accusation of a 'pact of silence' by the Parliamentary Jews.
It is defence of an extremely dangerous fascist state by three people on this thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 08:16 AM

"Question. Why should anti-Semitism be dealt with separately from other forms of discrimination."
It shouldn't
Keith and his team have all indulged in extreme racist Islamophobia
Similarly to what Naz Shah apologised for and withdrew, they have suggested that Palestinians have no right to their territory and should be relocated in neighbour countries - if what Shah said was racist - so was this - in the extreme.
The accusation of Antisemitism is now being openly used to defend extreme right-wing political behaviour.
THIS SUM IT UP PRETTY WELL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 08:49 AM

Steve,
Well anyone can copy and paste reams of highly-selective stuff without comment

Yes, but I did not.
I gave a large extract from the conclusion, and it supports what Teribus and I have said all along, and rubbishes your claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:11 AM

Oh yes you did, Keith, a great big screed that you failed to comment on, bar putting a few bits in bold that you thought might help your case. Bobadism of the worst kind. I mean, why lie about something that we can all see with our own eyes? And if you think the report rubbishes my "claims" (whatever they're supposed to be), well I think that the Chakrabarti report rubbishes yours. Of course, you won't accept that, because, as we know, all Labour leftie types are scurrilous, cheating and lying bastards who cover everything up and are all antisemitic scumbags. Whereas your committee of mostly Tories coupled with just two Corbyn deniers is a positively saintly gathering, filled with such regal integrity and profound wisdom and neutrality, whose every pronouncement must be taken as gospel. They certainly didn't besmirch themselves by letting Shami give evidence, did they? Yep, that's about the size of it. Just go and take a running jump, why don't you. Go and see if you can find a dash of honesty somewhere before you come back.

Oh, and the rest of us, if we like, can easily read the whole report for ourselves. We don't need your bleeding chunks, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:17 AM

" all Labour leftie types are scurrilous, cheating and lying bastards who cover everything up and are all antisemitic scumbags." - Steve Shaw

Well you are one of them Shaw so you should know - you said it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM

"I gave a large extract from the conclusion"
Whre does it specify the type of antisemitism Labour is said to be guilty of?
Neither of you have given anything and you are responding to nothing you have been given.
Until you describe the antisemitism you accuse Labour of you have no case, no matter how many uncorroborated claims you put up.
It defies any form of logic and natural justice to claim otherwise - simple as that.
Your mate seems to have degenerated to Bobad's level of 'sling the insults' and do a runner
JEWS FOR JUSTICE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:54 AM

Is that the best you can do, Woodcock? My helpful suggestion to you is to post only when you have something non-trolling to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 11:12 AM

Steve,
And if you think the report rubbishes my "claims" (whatever they're supposed to be), well I think that the Chakrabarti report rubbishes yours.

The Parliamentary report rubbishes her report, and anyway she acknowledged to CH 4 News Presenter Cathy Newman's question, "Would you acknowledge now that the Party does have a serious problem with anti-Semitism?"
Chakrabarti, "I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."

Whereas your committee of mostly Tories

The committee reflects the balance of MPs in Parliament.
There are 6 Tories and 4 non Tories, but Shah had to drop out.

They certainly didn't besmirch themselves by letting Shami give evidence, did they?

She sat beside Corbyn, prompting him. They had her report.

Oh, and the rest of us, if we like, can easily read the whole report for ourselves.

But you said, "
The whole report is available online. Interpreting what press sources say about snippets from it is sheer lunacy in the light of that. Do what I did, Keith, and read it end to end,"

Why don't you produce some quotes from it that support your case?
Good luck with that!

Jim,
Whre does it specify the type of antisemitism Labour is said to be guilty of?

No need. Any and all types of anti-Semitism are covered.

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

Ah Shaw your little "tell" that you are getting annoyed is showing again.

Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia were made to Labours NEC by members of the Labour Party and by members of the Parliamentary Labour Party - that you and Carroll deny.

At one point over 50 members of the Labour Party were under suspension for this unacceptable behaviour, the NEC decided to put everything under wraps - so much for the transparency you boasted about Shaw - it is non-existent.

How many CLPs are currently under suspension for racism, anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 11:41 AM

"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia "
None were described
""
No they're not - how can you "cover" something without describing it
How ca they have been "coveed" if, as you claim, the accusers refused to make them public
No details no crime
Common sense and natural justice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 01:02 PM

Wouldn't this stuff make more sense in the other thread. It would save people writing, and reading, essentially the same posts in both.

And no, they shouldn't be merged, because there are a lot of other issues around the Labour Party that are being squeezed out,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM

Idiotic posts from both Teribus (not sure which "Shaw" it was supposed to be directed at, but it doesn't relate to me) and, naturally, from Keith. The report did not "rubbish" the Chakrabarti report. It did not specify the antisemitism accusations in any detail and did not accuse Labour of widespread or institutional antisemitism. I do not need to play your silly game of taking chunks of the report out of context. All your efforts so far have been extremely biased towards highlighting Labour's issues and have ignored the rest, which gives vital context. It's my view that the report was biased against Labour too (bearing in mind it was supposed to be about antisemitism in general) but it can't hold a candle to your strenuous and dishonest efforts. As I've already said, best to read the report end to end. Anyone who hasn't already done that will be amazed at the imbalance and bias shown by what Teribus and Keith are trying to perpetrate here.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:03 PM

not sure which "Shaw"

Considering The Colonel, its likely George Bernard.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:16 PM

"Any and all types of anti-Semitism are covered."
So the LabourPary are accused of claiming Jews commit Usury and carry out blood sacrifice!!
Even more idiotic than your old usual.
"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, "
What unacceptable antisemitism?
Maybe Keith's Usury and blood sacrifice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM

Can either of you explain why your world is one where it isn't necessary to read out the charges before convicting someone of something?
It sounds awfully like fascism to me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:56 PM

Well, considering that Teribus and Keith have has an "authoritative" select committee report to bolster their prejudices, they haven't exactly had their best ever day, have they? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM

Steve,
The report did not "rubbish" the Chakrabarti report.

Yes it did.
" The Chakrabarti report makes recommendations about creating a more robust disciplinary process within the Labour Party, but it is clearly lacking in many areas; particularly in its failure to differentiate explicitly between racism and antisemitism. The fact that the report describes occurrences of antisemitism merely as "unhappy incidents" also suggests that it fails to appreciate the full gravity of the comments that prompted the inquiry in the first place. These shortfalls, combined with Ms Chakrabarti's decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Leader of that Party, and her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General, have thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent. Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the Committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her. It is disappointing that she did not foresee that the timing of her elevation to the House of Lords, alongside a report absolving the Labour Leader of any responsibility for allegations of increased antisemitism within his Party, would completely undermine her efforts to address this issue. It is equally concerning that Mr Corbyn did not consider the damaging impression likely to be created by this sequence of events. (Paragraph 114)"

It did not specify the antisemitism accusations in any detail

Of course not. There were hundreds!

and did not accuse Labour of widespread or institutional antisemitism.

No-one has claimed that anyway.

Jim,
"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia "
None were described

NO, but we know that many accusations have been made, leading to two Labour and one Parliamentary enquiry and over 50 suspensions from the Party, so you can hardly deny them even if we do not have all the details ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 AM

"None were described"
You said it, and until that are, there is no case to answer because unspecified charges are unanswerable.
Thet is the point Kafka was making when he described the actions of an extremist State imposing its will on the people.
The only "antisemitism" Labour is guilty of is critiscising Israel - that is the "new racism" the report refers to.
"so you can hardly deny them "
Of course you can deny them if they are unspecified and unsubstantiated.
How can you possible charge anybody with anything without first reading out the charges?
Any criminal would get off scott free if the arresting officer didn't do that - any crime thriller fan knows that.
It is utterly stupid to suggest that you can convict somebody of something and not specify what.
You bloody well know this - that is why you invented your antisemitic 'Jewish pact of silence' to explain it away.
,font color=red>CONDEMNING ISRAEL FRO THE WAR CRIMES AND ATROCITIES THEY HAVE BEEN SAVED FROM STANDING TRIAL FOR BY U.S. VETOES IS NOT RACISM - IT IS CERTAINLY NOT ANTISEMITISM - THAT IS THE ONLY THING LABOUR ARE GUILTY OF AND I'M WITH THEM 100% ON THAT ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:40 AM

No-one has yet answered my question of why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

Come on professor you are making an issue of it so respond to this fundamental query.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM

That is criticism, much of it unjustified, not "rubbishing." If the committee has proper evidence, not just Tory surmise, that there was anything shady about Chakrabarti's peerage, etc., they should piss or get off the pot. To accuse Labour of awful timing, which I agree with, is not the same as demonstrating improper behaviour, of which there was none.

I'll tell you why antisemitism is being made a "special case," Raggytash. It isn't because it's different from other instances of racism. It's because there's a deliberate effort to conflate true antisemitism, which, if it's to have any meaning, must adhere to its traditional definition, with criticism of the policies and actions of the Israeli regime. If the people who propagate this dishonest notion (Keith and bobad being archetypal examples here) succeed, they will have protected the regime from any criticism of its vile activities. That's the aim and that's why they want to make antisemitism a special case. If I were Jewish, that would make me very nervous. We see Keith doing that here all the time, in complete denial of all the outrages of the regime. The unintended consequences of that are that we would no longer have a useful definition of antisemitism (the EU was wise enough to ditch a dishonest wider definition despite pressure from various pro-Israel lobby groups) and that it puts Jews in the firing line by making them collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli regime. That's what unjustified conflations do for you. This is what Jim and I are referring to when we describe people such as Keith and bobad as the true antisemites. They have a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:08 AM

Steve, the report says That Chakrabarti was completely undermined.
That is as rubbished as it can be, apart from the acting chair saying it was not worth the paper it was printed on.

Rag,
why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

You are the only person I know who thinks it should be.

Jim,
You said it, and until that are, there is no case to answer because unspecified charges are unanswerable.

They have been specified to the Labour leadership.
They exist. They are real. You look a fool when you deny them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM

"Rag,why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism. You are the only person I know who thinks it should be"

Actually I am quoting one of your posts professor, do you not even bother to read them?

Presumably you agree with the post seeing as you posted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:54 AM

As if I care what a bunch of Tories think.

"Rag,
why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

You are the only person I know who thinks it should be."

But you see, Keith, he doesn't think that. He's asking why people like you think that. So you are seriously misrepresenting him. You do it all the time. Dishonest, disreputable, disgusting.

And you clearly do think that. You're like a dog worth a bone when it comes to protecting Israel from any criticism (you deny all their outrages, every single one) and you want the wider definition of antisemitism. And don't say you don't, otherwise I'll have to remind everyone of those multiple posts of yours valiantly trying to espouse a long-defunct and discredited EU definition. You weren't like a dog with a bone protecting the Pakistanis in northern England against racist abuse, though, were you? In fact, you are seriously suspected of having joined in with it. Oh yes, antisemitism is your special case all right. Has been for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 10:58 AM

"They have been specified to the Labour leadership."
You have never provided a shred of proof of this - you invented a "Jewish cover-up" to explain it.
"You look a fool when you deny them."
Not as much as you look a fool when you accuse somebody of antisemitism and can't tell us what it is you are accusing them of.
How can you accuse somebody of something and not be able to tell us what you are accusing them of?
Bloody insane.
Are you still sticking to your "Jewish pact of silence story?"
You probably won't answer this - fine - I shall enjoy asking it over and ovr until you either answer it or go away.
One more time
ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING THAT THAT THE JEWISH LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ARE REFUSING TO DESCRIBE THE ANTISEMITISM OUT OF LOYALTY TO THE LABOUR PARTY?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM

Dog WITH a bone. Although dog WORTH a bone does have a certain ring to it...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 02:21 PM

Rag,
Actually I am quoting one of your posts professor,

If true, let's all see it Rag.

Steve,
But you see, Keith, he doesn't think that. He's asking why people like you think that. So you are seriously misrepresenting him.

You forget that he recently described anti-Semitism as "a different argument" to other racism.

And you clearly do think that.

I clearly do not. You are misrepresenting me.

You're like a dog worth a bone when it comes to protecting Israel from any criticism

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with criticising Israel.
When I recognise lying propaganda about anything I will always challenge it.

Jim,
"They have been specified to the Labour leadership."
You have never provided a shred of proof of this -

Yes I have. The Labour Party has carried out two enquiries into it, over 50 members have been suspended for it, the entire NEC has declared themselves appalled by it, and numerous prominent people including Corby himself have referred to it, so there is ample proof of it and no question that it is real and you are a fool to deny it.

Are you still sticking to your "Jewish pact of silence story?"

I never had one Jim.

ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING THAT THAT THE JEWISH LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ARE REFUSING TO DESCRIBE THE ANTISEMITISM OUT OF LOYALTY TO THE LABOUR PARTY?

I never have. They reported it to the relevant people in the party to deal with, and Smeath went public on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:35 PM

For chrissake turn the bloody record over, Keith. And even I don't disrespect Ruth Smeeth by misspelling her name.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 PM

And I suppose that some twat with nothing better to do is going to bag 800.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:52 PM

anti-Semitism as "a different argument" to other racism.

Jews are not a "race".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 06:37 PM

I suppose not, Greg, though we've recently focussed a fair bit on the racist/xenophobic aspect of the debate in the brexit fiasco, yet the objects of that prejudice are simply foreigners. "Racism" has become a blanket term for prejudice against or fearmongering directed at the distant "other," whether or not they are actually a different race to us. "Race" in any sort of scientific sense is a dodgy concept in any case. I think that attacking or castigating Jews because they are Jews is a sort of racism under the current usage of the term. It is never racist to attack or castigate the outrages of a regime. If you think that someone is attacking Israel because they are anti-Jew, then it's up to you to prove that, not just say it. It is entirely possible. But it's up to you to expose it and you need evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:26 PM

I quoted from one of YOUR posts professor, complete with quotation marks. If you cannot be bothered to read your OWN posts, let alone mine, why on earth do you think I should search back to find YOUR post.

Have fun ............ I certainly AM !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:36 PM

Agreed, Steve. Especially "Race" in any sort of scientific sense is a dodgy concept in any case."

Bringing "race" into it just confuses the issue further.






















"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:43 PM

Great to have a decent chat, guys, once the axis are tucked up in their beds. Must hit the sack meself as it happens. Back to non-civilisation in the morning, I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:53 AM

"I never have. They reported it to the relevant people in the party to deal with, and Smeath went public on it."]
A blatent lie
They were perfecrly at liberty to take their specified accusations to the press and make them public they did not do so.
You said they did not go public out of loyalty to their party.
The report was leaked and got as far as The Jerusalem Post - no detail;s of the accusations of antisemitism have ever appeared in any publication anywhere - nowhere on this planet.
The only examples that have ever been given have been criticism of Israeli criminality.
No suggestion of significant antisemitism ever appeared until eight weeks after Labour declared itself in favour of boycotting Israel - not in the entire existence of the Labour Party.
These facts are enough to kick these ludicrous accusations out of court - certainly in Britain - maybe not in modern Israel.
You have no case, these accusations have no basis and unless they are properly presented with details and faces, they are exposed for what they are, part of the multi-million propaganda campaign to offset the boycott of Israeli goods.
The clumsy dishonest way in which you have attempted to use a lie invented by a foreign State to smear a British political party doesn't do you any favours either.
I see no point in discussing this subject with someone who does more damage to the evil cause he defends than any of us could possibly do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:01 AM

By the way Keith
Your efforts on this thread haven't all ben a wast of time - your "Jewish silence" claims have added antisemitism to your C.V.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:37 AM

Rag, this is your quote of me.
"Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people"

That does not suggest in any way that anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism, and I do not think it should.
You however stated that it was a different argument.

Steve, you have stopped discussing the issues and only appear to call names and make personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM

Jim,
You have no case, these accusations have no basis and unless they are properly presented with details and faces,

No. It is an internal Labour issue which they choose to deal with internally.
Is your case that there are no accusations, because that is laughable Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:23 AM

For crying out loud what does this mean:

"and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:42 AM

"No. It is an internal Labour issue which they choose to deal with internally."
That's what I said you said - the Jewish members put the interests of their party before those of the Jewish people.
As you have produced no evidence whatever that this was the case you invented it.
It was an invented antisemitic smear aimed at the Jewish members of the Labour Party
You could, of course produce evidence that this was the case by linking statements to it having happened.
If it was true it would mean those Jews covering up evidence of antisemitism had carried out an act of antisemitism by hiding vidence - but I don't believe that to be the case - I don't believe in Jewish plots, as you apparently do to have invented one.
Why is it laughable to reject an accusation because there is no evidence - your Alice in Wonderland world gets more and more bizarre.
I expect the Red Queen to shout "Off with their heads" any minute.
This is insane, it really is!!!
"I believe the accused to be guilty - I have no evidence but you're barmy not to believe me, your Worship"
You couldn't make it up - but you just have.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM

"Steve, you have stopped discussing the issues and only appear to call names and make personal attacks."

There's plenty of me discussing issues in this thread. The trouble with you, Keith, is that you never discuss anything in an honest way. You have your pro-Israel agenda from which you will not stray and you automatically twist what anyone says to the contrary. That isn't discussing. If I've "stopped discussing," it at least puts me one up on you, who has never even started discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 10:36 AM

Getting back to this totally open and fully transparent Labour Party that Steve Shaw says exists.

The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing of when they talked about her being put forward for a seat in the House of Lords. Pretty straightforward question wouldn't you think? Yet neither will state the date on which that conversation took place.

Don't know about you Shaw but I sure as hell remember the date someone made that sort of offer to me. Now why would either want that to make sure that date remains secret?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:10 AM

" Now why would either want that to make sure that date remains secret?"
One wonders why anybody should want the type of antisemitim that the Labour Party has been accused of to be kept secret.
Before you can make such claims you have to specify what they are being accused of.
The contents of the Chakrabati Report were leaked - if they contained anything damning we would have known the nature of the accusations long before now.
Is it customary to make such enquiries into all recommendations - I've never come across it?
"The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing "
In fact, this statement is incorrect - the request for this information did not come from the Committee, but from Labour M.P. for Ilford North, Wes Streeting, who has already stated that the Labour Party is not overrun by antisemites.
Streeting has made his own self-interest clear by declaring that "if there was a new election in Ilford North with "a Corbynist candidate" it would result in a Conservative victory".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:12 AM

... his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

That does not suggest in any way that anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism, and I do not think it should.

I can't follow your meaning here Keith. It seems to me that here they are suggesting precisely what you say they do not suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:50 AM

"Getting back to this totally open and fully transparent Labour Party that Steve Shaw says exists."

I don't know which Steve Shaw you're referring to, but it isn't this one. Those words have never crossed my lips. Oops, sorry, Teribus. My typing fingers.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:58 AM

Maybe it's over pedentic to point out that the date when Corbyn and Chakrabarti talked about the possibility of her going to the Lords and the date when she was invited to do so might have been very different dates. Years apart, even,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:09 PM

1: One wonders why anybody should want the type of antisemitim that the Labour Party has been accused of to be kept secret.

So that those wishing to spare the Labour Party Leaders blushes could commission a second "independent" Inquiry into anti-Semitism and after making sure the content of the first inquiry would not be published, your second inquiry could serve as a cover up and "whitewash" job. That is what was attempted, but it didn't come off.

2: "Before you can make such claims you have to specify what they are being accused of."

Well I dare say that those who were accused and suspended did have specific instances explained to them. The open and transparent Labour Party saw fit to keep such information from the public. I can think of a number of perfectly good and valid reasons for them doing this. But it is wrong to say that because none of this was disclosed that there were no grounds for the suspensions

3: "The contents of the Chakrabati Report were leaked - if they contained anything damning we would have known the nature of the accusations long before now."

You've got that wrong Jim - It was the content of Baroness Royall's Report that was "leaked" after Labour's NEC attempted to keep it secret and "in-house". What has still come into the public domain are the details and specifics of Baroness Royall's Inquiry.

Recently elevated Baroness Chakrabarti's report was rushed out to the public because it was the "whitewash" required by the Leader.

4: On recommendations those from Baroness Royall's Inquiry required urgent and immediate attention. Those from Baroness Chakrabarti's report granted a statute of limitations on all past transgressions to make the Safe Place referred to the Commons Home Affairs Committee and basically kill off any action recommended by Baroness Royall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

I think the salient point is whether the whole shenanigans was simply bad timing (Labour are good at that) and nothing to do with shady deals and secret promises. It doesn't matter whether you think "it doesn't look good." What matters is your evidence. As I've said a number of times, Shami Chakrabarti has long been known as a person of honesty and integrity. Which doesn't mean she was incapable of doing a dodgy deal. But the onus here is on the accusers. Corbyn has said that the offer of a peerage only came after the report was published. Who knows. I've read the report and it looked pretty sound to me. I've also read the select committee report and, to me, it was riddled with flaws. And, basically, it's a Tory document completely unleavened by any voice even remotely sympathetic to Jeremy Corbyn. That didn't seem right to me. In the meantime, antisemitism in the Tory party, the LibDems, UKIP, the Catholic Church, the Church of England and the golf club down the road goes unchallenged. Labour had a go. You may think it wasn't much of a go, but they had a go. The rest of you, look to yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:24 PM

" Chakrabarti's report was rushed out to the public because it was the "whitewash" required by the Leader."

Evidence please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:54 PM

"So that those wishing to spare the Labour Party Leaders blushes could commission a second "independent" Inquiry"
Why should those making accusations want to "spare Labour's blushes"?
Almost as stupid as Keith's Jewish pact of silence invention
"Well I dare say that those who were accused and suspended did have specific instances explained to them."
How many of them remain suspended and if they were foung guilty, why weren't they expelled?
Unspecified accusations have been made - before we can decide whether they are justified we have to know what they are.
The accusers haven't specified the charges, the press that has gone in mob-handed haven't specified the charges
This gets more and more like a Stalinist show trial.
No specified charges, no crime
It is blatantly obvious that the Labour Party is guilty of condemning Israel and nothing more - the committee's "new racism" makes that obvious.
None of your team have addressed the fact that Labour's "antisemitism" appeared within weeks of their declaring support for the BDS boycott.
You want to prove Labour guilty then you have to state what they are guilty of - I know you aren't strong on democracy and free speech, but even you have to accept that.
Can we assume by your silence that you tried to mislead us on your claims that "The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing" and you are refusing to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 01:42 PM

In todays papers - "a Labour review has found Ms Eagle was subjected to homophobic abuse and had her office bricked because she challenged Mr Corbyn." - that along with death threats.

"Why should those making accusations want to "spare Labour's blushes"?"

No idea Carroll I didn't say it was those who made the accusations who wanted to "spare Labour's blushes". What those members of the Labour Party and Members of the Parliamentary who did table complaints believed was that their Party would investigate those complaints and support them - what a mistake that was on their part. I would suggest that certain members who sat on Labour's NEC decided that they could sweep the matter under the carpet and that they went to extraordinary lengths to do so - all unsuccessful, all they have succeeded in doing is aggravating the problem and seriously cast into doubt any claim or pretence that Shami Chakrabarti's report and inquiry was anything other than a "whitewash". Between Corbyn, his advisors and the NEC they could not have done a worse job had they tried.

"How many of them remain suspended and if they were foung guilty, why weren't they expelled?"

You've not read Chakrabarti's recommendations have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 01:59 PM

"No idea Carroll "
Back to your old Neanderthal persona I see.
Scratch a caveman.. as they say
There is nothing whatever to stop any of these people going public
Until they do, all unqualified accusations are no more than unqualified accusations
You've not read Chakrabarti's recommendations have you?"
Yes Ihave, and I can find no specified reasons linking them to antisemitism
The report has been in the hands of the Israeli Press for months now and they haven't bother to specify what they are guilty of   
I have no doubt whatever that those making the complaints are perfectly free to enlighten us all - why haven't they - another "Jewish pact of silence"?
Still no comment on the 8 weeks gap between support for BDS and the accusations - wonder why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM

"Seriously cast into doubt," eh? Cor, that would go down well in court. You say the report was a whitewash, brainlessly parroting just about every pro-Israel commentator. Well I "seriously doubt" that you have any solid evidence for either a deliberate whitewash or any other sort of put-up job. "They're reds and what more do you need" -- now where did I hear that in a song...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 02:43 PM

"In todays papers" [sic] - cor, that's authoritative, innit! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM

hThe Charkrabati report was published a quarter of a year ago
What are these "spare the blushes" members waiting for - to send the details out on Christmas cards?
It was a crass invention any way.
Most of these complainants are declared anti-Corbynites who claim he is an embarrassment to the Labour Party
What a wonderful chance it would have been to bring him down in the leadership struggle if they had published the details
Spare my arse rather!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:20 PM

As a Jewish Labour member, I'm sick of anti-Semitism being used as a political weapon against Jeremy Corbyn
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who wear swastikas as badges of honour. Where was your concern for my community then?

Michael Segalov @mikesegalov Monday 26 September 2016235 comments

Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti, who published the Labour anti-Semitism report Getty
It's become an all too regular occurrence, waking up to headlines reporting that anti-Semitism in the Labour party is now an endemic problem, and that bad feeling against Jewish people in the party is on an upward trajectory.

As a Jewish Labour Party member, they are stories that should have me alarmed. I know from experience just how dangerous anti-Semitism can really be: vast swathes of my ancestors were lost to the murderous hands of the Nazis, and observant Jewish friends of mine have been harassed and attacked on British streets. I've read the slurs, faced the trolls, had neo-Nazis shout abuse in my face.

Campaign against anti-antisemitism launches complaint against Corbyn
And yet it's not just anger against bigots that hits as I scan story after story, but frustration towards those trying to use an all too real threat facing my community for their own political gain. Since Corbyn's election as Labour leader, unsupportive MPs, campaigning groups and journalists have been desperate to paint him and the movement who support him as anti-Semitic fanatics, despite knowing it's really not the case.

I could tell you about my own experiences, how I've never experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism inside the party – but that's just what I've seen, non-Jewish defenders of my religion will claim. My experiences, and those of countless other Corbyn-supporting Jewish members who I've spoken to, aren't reflective of what's really going on, apparently.
Just a few months ago, I found myself sat in the Channel 4 News studio, tasked with discussing anti-Semitism under Corbyn. Sat opposite me was John Woodcock MP, desperate to tell me it's the "hard-left" who are "associated [with] Soviet Russia" with anti-Semitic views infiltrating the party who were responsible for stirring up hatred.
Now, we only need look at the most high-profile of cases to see that anti-Semitism is by no means a product of Corbyn's supporters. Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, was rightly suspended for sharing anti-Semitic posts on Facebook, not a Corbynite but a backer of Yvette Cooper in the last leadership election. Ken Livingstone, similarly sanctioned for his remarks about Hitler, has been a party grandee for decades. An insurgent? I think not.
Woodcock pointed me towards "a rise in anti-Semitic incidents" within the party, without having a single statistic or figure to back it up. It's an answer I hear time and time again, and for those of us – Jewish or otherwise – committed to fighting anti-Semitism, enough is enough.
It's tiring and it's frustrating, but moreover it's frankly dangerous.
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies, and the counter-demonstrations that take place alongside. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who profess hatred for Jews and our religion, who wear swastikas as badges of honour, who'll salute like a Nazi in front of your face. Where was your concern for my community then?
Jeremy Corbyn's campaign team tackle accusations of anti-Semitism
It's not just the distinct absence of those MPs in Labour who now claim to be at the forefront of the fight against anti-Jewish prejudice that's striking, but the presence of those they now claim to be British Jewry's biggest threat.
It's the left, and Corbyn's supporters, who've put their bodies on the line time and time again to protect us from these racist organisations.
That's why these cries of anti-Semitism make a mockery of a real and present danger. Corbyn's commitment to fighting discrimination and prejudice has been well documented for decades. His supporters are those who've stood alongside him. Accusing these people now of peddling prejudice is nothing but political point-scoring at its worst. It undermines real hatred, and waters down the impact of calling out anti-Semitism when it rears its ugly head.

I'm not saying Labour members haven't experienced anti-Semitism inside the Labour Party, and of course, a progressive movement like Labour should hold itself to higher standards than other organisations. Those few who blindly label all incidents of anti-Semitism as anti-Corbyn slander and restrictions on critiquing Israel need to listen to the voices of victims and let conversations about Judaism and Israel be led by Jewish members: we are here and we know how to speak.

The most ridiculous claims made about Jeremy Corbyn

11
This isn't to say I don't value the concern, but I want to make a few things perfectly clear. Anti-Semitism is not a problem particular to Labour; using the words "Judaism" and "Israel" interchangeably is just as (if not more) common on the right as on the left.
Oppression, discrimination and Jewish identity are complex; the relationship between our religion and the state of Israel is constantly debated; disagreements will happen inside our community. Let us lead these discussions. Don't quickly take sides simply to advance your faction, angle or personal interests.
And if you're truly concerned about fighting racism and anti-Semitism, I look forward to seeing you stand alongside us in meetings and on the streets.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-conference-jewish-supporter-vote-political-weapon-a7330891.html

Some of the responses are well worth reading
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM

Fantastic stuff. I disagree with him about Naz Shah, but fantastic stuff anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:49 AM

Of course you think it is great stuff Shaw, it agrees with your point of view, and we all know how much you hate dissent, or any departure from the Party line dictated by "The Leader".

It is however only one person's opinion and I note that rather selectively he ignored the accusations made by Ruth Smeeth, Alex Chalmers, and others who most certainly have experienced anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM

"Of course you think it is great stuff Shaw, it agrees with your point of view, "
Of course it's great stuff - it is a Jewish view of what is going on, and it needs answering
You people say the Jewish view is being ignored, but every Jewish opinion which does not line up with Israeli policy is either dismissed as lies or ignored.
This so-called "antisemitism" is not about The Jewish People - it is about defending an increasingly extremist right-wing regime who have taken the Jewish Dream and are turning it into a fascist, monotheistic State - and murdering a lot of innocent people in the process.
"It is however only one person's opinion "
Your own opinion and Keith's are individually "one persons" - neither of you - you in particular, ever produce anything to back up what you claim.
You have been given similar facts - from progressive Rabbis, from Holocaust survivors and their descendants, from groups like Jews for Justice, from newspapers like Haaretz - even going back as far as Albert Einstein... on the deterioration of the State of Israel - either no comment or outright rejection (usually "a load of bollocks").
Both you and Keith have invented facts to back up your spurious arguments
You have show us no evidence that the complainant in the Labour Party have done what you claim they have done - there is no evidence of their doing and it lacks logic - SO IT IS YOUR OWN INVENTION
As for Keith's 'Jewish pact of silence' - that is as antisemitic a statement as I have heard made against a group of responsible and intelligent Jews for a long, long time.
Nobody has ignored anything other than you.
I took the trouble to follow up Ruth Smeethe and found her direct connection to the Israeli regime, including her attending a Nessunyahu planning conference.
I presented the same connections regarding others who have complained.
I pointed out that these complaints only started shortly after Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S. - you refuse even to acknowledge that fact -
Where is you evidence for any of your claims - you don't give any on principle and Keith denies making the antisemitic claims he has made.
You both dismiss linked evidence as my "made up shit", and when I produce further evidence, you just do a runner from your accusations - you never apologies and you ever withdraw your accusations.
You are both star debaters - you come here to exchange ideas in order to reach some reasonable conclusion - every debating team should have one I DON'T ***** THINK!
You really need to get your act together - the pair of you (we need Bobad to stay as he is to remind us just what we are dealing with)
The case is a simple one - if you can't prove your accusations - against the Labour Party, against a petty thief - against a mass murderer - against anybody accused of anything in this country - THEN YOU HAVE NO CASE - UNQUALIFIED ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH
Now - tell us all about my "rant", or maybe you might like to pick up on my typos, instead of responding to my points - that's usually what you do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 10:42 AM

Ruth Smeeth, an ardent opponent of Corbyn, was criticised for collaborating with a right-wing newspaper by a lifelong campaigner against racism who did not know that she was Jewish. She then staged a histrionic walkout, accompanied by fake tears. So much for your "certainly." All this was witnessed. You have no more cause for certainty than I have over that incident. Neither of us was there and we merely have reports in the newspapers. I hope you never get called for jury service.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 01:46 PM

Kevin and Rag,
The quote is from paragraph 20 of this Parliamentary report on anti-semitism in UK, not me.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13610.htm

The previous sentences read, "While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an 'anti-racist campaigner' to express antisemitic views."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 01:55 PM

Jim,

Unspecified accusations have been made - before we can decide whether they are justified we have to know what they are.

Is it not sufficient that the entire NEC, the leadership and Corbyn himself to know what they are and recognise them as anti-Semitic?
It is enough for me Jim.

My previous post was in response to Rag,
"For crying out loud what does this mean: "and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

and Kevin,
"... his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"
I can't follow your meaning here Keith. It seems to me that here they are suggesting precisely what you say they do not suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM

An NEC sub-committee has upheld the complaints of abuse from Angels Eagle, as previously the entire NEC did incidents of anti-Semitism within Labour.

BBC,
"A meeting of an NEC sub-committee on Tuesday considered a confidential report and upheld her complaint of abuse and intimidation by Labour activists in Wallasey."

She said, "The report by national party officers comprehensively explains what happened earlier this year and the NEC has accepted the findings.
"I am grateful that Jeremy took the unusual step of both attending and speaking in the meeting and that he expressed sincere sympathy for both me and for my staff."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37702135

So Steve and Jim have been proved wtrong about that abuse too.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

Say good-night, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:58 PM

Can't speak for Steve (na't see any coments by Steve here), but when have I defended what happens to Angela Eagle - Angels Eagle for that matter.
Will you please stop adding to your own mounting record of dishonesty Keith - you are now well beyond a joke.
Any word on that Jewish plot yet?
"Is it not sufficient that the entire NEC, the leadership and Corbyn himself to know what they are and recognise them as anti-Semitic?"
You've sad this before and it simply is not true - nowhere has anybody recognised a serious problem; you are blatantly lying acout what he said in th face of his statement to the Parliamentary committee.
"Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties."
How long is it since you had any self respect for yourself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:04 PM

Racism in any way, shape or form is not acceptable. Many people accept this as a truth,

You professor as a noted racist probably don't acknowledge this.

Your racism aside, please explain why anti-Semitism should be considered different to any other form of racism.

You have yet to explain, as per your earlier post, why anti-Semitism should be considered in a different light.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:46 PM

PS Merely saying that this quote is from a report you read is not acceptable.

YOU quoted the report, YOU used the report to support YOUR take on this issue.

YOU justify the statement. Why should anti-Semitism be considered in any other way than any other racism.

Can YOU do this ......................?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 05:47 PM

The report that Keith is inevitably keen on was drawn up by a bunch of Tories, aided by two passionate anti-Corbyn Labour MPs. That's yer context, folks. Now tell us, Keith. have you and Woodcock asked Naz to draw up your preferred definition of antisemitism yet? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 06:13 PM

Well both Ruth Smeeth and Angela Eagle have complained of twitter abuse on a large scale and Angela Eagle has complained about an act of vandalism. I don't doubt for a second that their allegations have substance. I also don't doubt that SOME of this offensive behaviour has come from a few of the 600,000 Labour Party members. They are seriously letting the side down. Just a couple of points. If either of these women have evidence of criminality, they have full recourse to the rule of law. That's up to them. A prosecution or two arising from their complaints would add credence to their cases. I'm waiting. Second, I read a piece somewhere today that alleged that one woman in six in the UK has been sexually abused. A shocking revelation which I have no reason to contradict. That does not mean that the whole of the male population of the UK is in disrepute. Similarly, a few rotten apples does not mean that the whole 600,000 are scum. I don't think for a second that anything like all of Smeeth's 25,000 received offensive tweets came from bona fide Labour members. An awful lot of people are extremely keen to undermine Labour and Corbyn, and principles can be the first casualty of that. So get real, chaps. And get honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 01:42 AM

"A prosecution or two arising from their complaints would add credence to their cases." - Steve Shaw - 20 Oct 16 - 06:13 PM

Already happened in the case of death threats made to Angela Eagles.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM

Whatever the right and wrongs of the argy-bargy leading up the re-election of Corbyn, the point remains - antisemitism was used as an accusation during that election campaign - by the right, who would have used wife-beating as an accusation if they thought they could have got away with it, and by the Israeli regime supporters who launched the "antisemitism" attack the minute Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S.
No evidence whatever of a significant attack on the Jewish People by Labour party members has surfaced - not in the slightest.
That, if nothing else, has been one of Corbyn's triumphs of leadership - don't bow down to the bullies.
He did everything a leader should have done to protect both the Jewish members of Labour and also those who were wrongly accused.
The danger of all this - 'The Crying Wolf' syndrome, which has been pointed out by a large number of Jews, including those from Israel, is quite likely to be one of the outcomes of all this.
Describing condemnation of Israel as "antisemitism" opens the door to genuine Antitsemites to renew their hatred of Jews, using Israeli behaviour as an excuse - "if the Israelis say their actions are "Jewish", then why can't we?"
Europe appears to be swinging to the right - LePen is waiting in the wings in France, and several Ultra-Right groups elsewhere are using the refugee crisis and Brexit to get a toe-hold in their countries.
The historically traditional target of The Right, "The Yids" are not going to be overlooked in all this.
Britain is obviously very much a part of this swing to the right - immediately obvious in the large increase in racist incidents immediately following Brexit.
I watched in horror last night as a Question Time audience of Harlepudlians applauded enthusiastically for a Donald Trump victory - won't be too long before that lot are back to HANGING MONKEYS
God help us all!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:19 AM

One case, Teribus, perpetrated by a nutter. I can't even find out whether he was a member or not. An idiot sending an email who wasn't even trying to be anonymous. This is supposed to be a tidal wave of misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism coming from the ranks of Corbyn supporters in the party, you know, 25,000 vile tweets, etc., that sort of stuff. Even the infamous brick through the window, which has led to a gleeful flood of anti-Labour nonsense for months, cannot be shown by a single shred of evidence to be linked to anyone in the party. All behind-the-hand chitchat. The party contains liars all right, from the anti-Corbyn brigade. Liars such as Ruth Smeeth and a nice little cabal in a meeting in Wallasey who made up a Eagle homophobia yarn. They are the real rotten apples just as much as the tiny minority who misuse social media. As I said, if anyone has evidence of who has perpetrated criminal acts, either vandalism or hate speech, they have recourse to the law. I note that the tsunami of smears has not yet been backed up by a tsunami of court cases. I predict with confidence that it won't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:33 AM

Jim,
You've sad this before and it simply is not true - nowhere has anybody recognised a serious problem;

I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem.

"Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties."

The committee found that there was a serious problem within Labour.

Rag,

Your racism aside, please explain why anti-Semitism should be considered different to any other form of racism.

Unlike you, I do not think it should be considered different, and unlike you I have never said that it should be considered different.

as per your earlier post,
What post Rag? You have yet to produce it.

YOU quoted the report, YOU used the report to support YOUR take on this issue.

No. I used it to support my take on an entirely different issue.
Read the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:51 AM

Steve,
"Labour's governing body has upheld complaints by MP Angela Eagle that she and her staff were subjected to homophobic abuse and intimidation by local party activists.

The report that Keith is inevitably keen on was drawn up by a bunch of Tories,

It was an all party Parliamentary committee of 6 Tories, 3 Labour and an SNP.
Shah did not work on the report, but remained on the committee which unanimously supported the report.

Steve would have us believe that they are all lying!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:57 AM

Shah did not take part. TWO Labour, Keith. Intimidatory behaviour and homophobic hate speech are against the law. I don't want hearsay. I want solid evidence and I want those "Labour activists" you refer to named. Tell me when they were convicted. Shouldn't be too difficult as you do seem so certain. Names. Piss or get off the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 11:34 AM

"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No Keith - you have deliberately misquoted them in your desperation to make the Labour Party guilty of something that is totally alien to their philosophy.
The took th matter seriously - they carried out investigations and they found no major problem
Haven't you realised what an unpleasant and stupid person you make yourself by lying in public.
you have lied about this consistently and still you are unable to describe the antisemitism you claim is a problem - utterly inane.
You lie about statements made by Israeli ministers when they are put up for you.
You lie by by anticlimactically claiming that the Jewish politicians deliberately refused to describe the "antisemitism" for the sake of the party.
You whole approach is a semblance of lies.
Even your two mates have stood clear of your lies because they are so blatant
If there was a serious problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, we would know exactly what form it takes - this thing has dragged on since September last year and no evidence has been produced.
This started immediately following Corbyn's declaration of support for B.D.S.
Last July, a march supporting Israel organised by The Sussex 'Friends of Israel', in London, where the speakers where, Matthew Offord, a Conservative lawmaker, and Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, was openly attended by members of the Fascist 'Jewish Defence League' - that is how far to the right the anti- B.D.S. propaganda movement has gone.
You want to prove antisemitism - show us it - otherwise, you are making it up, as you have everything else
I really don't mind how much you claim this, it's always an opportunity to find SOMETHING NEW
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 01:53 PM

Your arguments are a mass of contradictions.
"The committee found that there was a serious problem within Labour."
The enquiry didn't and the committee talked about "new antisemitism" which is th Israeli ministers "all criticism of Israel is antisemitic" - if it isn't, what is it.
"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No they haven't - you are lying.
Nowhere, appartt from the accusations, has anybody hints at a serious problem - The NEC hasn't Chakrabatti hasn't - you are lying
"Shah did not work on the report,"
Shah was barred from making a statement on the report - she was not allowed to speak in her own defence - you've had this.
jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:04 PM

Steve,
Shah did not take part.
As I said, Shah did not work on the report, but remained on the committee which unanimously endorsed the report.

I want solid evidence and I want those "Labour activists" you refer to named.

A Parliamentary Select Committee Report is hard evidence Steve.
I do not know the names of the activists, but the NEC and all those impeccable and prominent members do, and it is ridiculous to suggest they are all lying Steve.
I believe them over you. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

Of course you can't name them. But you can throw smears around just the same. Now tell me, Keith: are you saying that Naz Shah, whilst not having worked on the report but still a member of the committee, was party to that unanimous verdict? That's what you're saying, it appears. You did say three Labour, remember? Prove that she was. I haven't heard. Clearly you have. So out with it.

And a report by a Tory-dominated committee plus two anti-Corbynistas examining an issue in a left-wing party that every member who worked on that report would love to see undermined is not "hard evidence." It's a put-up job if ever I saw one. Gosh, how you admire the integrity of politicians. When it suits you. And I don't care who you believe over me. I'm here and they're not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

You should be, and indeed are, sorry, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:32 PM

Jim,
"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No they haven't - you are lying.

No. You are. and here are the quotes to prove it.

Labour List, " anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue" and "The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. "

Not much scope for misquote there Jim!

Daily Mirror,
"Mr Khan has vowed to spearhead a drive to stop the party being anti-semitic,"

Quite unequivocal Jim!

Chakrabarti told a Ch4 News presenter that her report acknowledged that Labour had a serious problem with anti semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:38 PM

Steve,
Now tell me, Keith: are you saying that Naz Shah, whilst not having worked on the report but still a member of the committee, was party to that unanimous verdict

No. She did not work on the report, but she did remain a member of the committee and they unanimously endorsed the report.

Of course you can't name them. But you can throw smears around just the same

I can not name them, but the Party leadership can and I see no reason to assume they are all lying about it.
Your case does not stand unless the whole Party leadership are lying, and that is ridiculous.

Why should anyone believe you over them Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM

Astonishing, the professor is even denying the contents of one of his own posts.

Not too surprised really.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 03:44 PM

"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue" a"
Recognises the seriousness of the charges having been made.
None of these charges have been confirmed by enquiry
Not much scope for misquote there Jim!2 Dosn't stop you from misinterpreting it
Were these charges confirmed by a properly carried out enquiry?
You can carry out this for as long as you like but until you describe this antisemitism it remains unproven
IF YOU HAVE A SHRED OF HONESTY AND DECENCY IN YOU, ANSWER THIS - IF YOU ACCUSED SOMEONE OF A CRIME IN ANY COURT IN BRITAIN BUT REFUSED TO DESCRIBE THAT CRIME - HOW WOULD ANY JURY REACT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 04:54 PM

So, Keith, Naz Shah, one of your Labour Three on the committee, took no part. Did she vote? Put her name to the report? Yes or no, Keith? If she took no part in producing the report and didn't vote, then it wasn't a unanimous vote of the WHOLE committee then, was it, Keith? It was a unanimous vote of six Tories plus one SNP plus TWO Labour (both anti-Corbynistas, lest we forget). But, Keith, you said THREE Labour, didn't you? Can you clear this up? Were you having another Wheatcroft moment (yet again), or do you actually know that Naz had a vote? Cards on the table here - I don't know the answer to that. But I can probably find out. If I can be arsed. I'm really trying to be fair here. If you can prove that she voted for the report, so that THREE Labour members voted for it, I promise I'll never mention the thing again.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:21 PM

Cor, I must be mad. I've just looked up who was there at the select committee meeting that "unanimously" approved the report. Here ya go:

Formal Minutes

Thursday 13 October 2016

Members present:

James Berry

Mr David Burrowes

Nusrat Ghani

Mr Ranil Jayawardena

Tim Loughton

Mr Chuka Umunna

Mr David Winnick

Tim Loughton was called to the chair.

Draft Report (Antisemitism in the UK), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 131 read and agreed to.

Annex agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Tenth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

*****

Why, Keith, only seven out of the ten members you claimed! Only two of them Labour, not the three you claimed! And, strike me down, no mention of Naz Shah! Dear me, she wasn't there after all! Better review your posts, Keith. Yes indeedie, you've had another Wheatcroft moment!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 03:16 AM

Jim who was accused of anything in "any court"? - Answer: Nobody.

The normal course of events is as follows:

1. An "offence" is alleged and reported
2. The matter is investigated
3. Substance in the allegation is either found or it is not found
4. The matter is taken further and the guilty punished

As far as the make up of committees goes I find it rather strange that Steve Shaw says that a Committee investigating the behaviour of Labour Party members that is 100% made up of Labour Party members is less biased than a Parliamentary Committee investigating the same thing that is made up on Members of a number of different political parties.

The thing that Steve Shaw denies however is that both Committees found that there was a problem with "anti-Semitism" within the Labour Party that required to be addressed. Two "Inquiries" commissioned by the Labour Party also found the same but went on to add that that "anti-Semitism" was not endemic or institutionalised - that does not mean in anyway to say that it isn't there as Shaw and Carroll attempt to claim.

The unbiased Labour NEC ordered that everything be kept secret, the names of those accused, what they were accused of and the results of any investigations made into those instances.

On the Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry which was supposed to have been an independent Inquiry. How on earth could it have been independent if the first thing the person conducting the Inquiry does is to join the Labour Party? The next thing to happen in this lady's career is that after literally weeks as a member of the Labour Party she finds herself elevated to the House of Lords and subsequently is given a Shadow Cabinet Job.

What we do know is as follows:
1. Over 50 members of the Labour Party were suspended - names of about half a dozen leaked, some of whom still remain suspended.
2. At least four Constituency Labour Party Committees are still currently suspended over allegations made against them.
3. Baroness Royall's Inquiry detailed 11 recommendations that required urgent and immediate action by Labour's NEC
4. The newly created Baroness Chakrabarti's Inquiry detailed 7 recommendations, among them was the recommendation that no-one should be banned for life from the Labour Party irrespective of what they had said. That the date of submission of her report would create a watershed after which no instance predating the submission of the report would be investigated by Labour's NEC.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:15 AM

"Jim who was accused of anything in "any court"? - Answer: Nobody."
It was merely an analogy to see how you stand on natural justice
You fail totally - you always have - it really is not your thing
For something to be proven, you make an accusation - you provide full evidence and the rest of us decides whether it is convincing.
You haven't and it isn't.
To date, what we know about these accusations is that they are totally without precedence in the Labour Party, they started to appear within weeks of Labour restating its support for B.D.S at a time when the Labour was embroiled in a leadership battle
The only "antisemitism" to have surfaced is the NEW ANTISEMITISM - described by the committee as "new racism" which also has not been specified, but is almost certainly the "criticism of Israel that has been demanded by the Israeli Justice Minister.
Most of the accusers have been found to have direct links to the Israeli propaganda machine - others were participants in the "oust Corbyn" campaign - many all are both.
Until someone produces enough actual examples of real antisemitism to make a case, all the accusations in the world - hill of beans and all that.   
They are unproven and extremely unlikely accusations - nothing more.
Now - tell me again - what are these cases of antisemitism, who committed them and how many where they - whoops, sorry - you haven't told us yet, have you NOR WILL YOU, BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGMENTS OF THE ISRAELI MACHINE'S PROPAGANDA TO PREVENT B.D.S. - THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:17 AM


Astonishing, the professor is even denying the contents of one of his own posts.

I am not denying the content of the report quoted in my post.
If you look at the post you will see that it was about something else.
Why not reproduce it Rag?

Jim,
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue" a"
Recognises the seriousness of the charges having been made.

No. The "issue" was and is Labour anti-Semitism.
You are misquoting, not me. Read the original.

Were these charges confirmed by a properly carried out enquiry?

Yes, By the Home Affairs Select Committee Report, and Chakrabarti stated that her report acknowledges that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.

Shah did not work on the report, but as a member of the committee she endorsed its findings.
However, that means nothing because she is a consummate liar who will say anything for political advantage, according to you!

But, Keith, you said THREE Labour, didn't you?
Yes. There were and are 3 Labour MPs on the committee.
There were 6 Tories, but now only 5.
There is also 1 SNP member.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:39 AM

Tim Loughton MP, Acting Chair of the Committee, said:

"It is symbolic of the importance of this deeply felt issue that, despite the contentious, political nature of much of the debate, this report — which does not pull its punches — was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/antisemitism-report-published-16-17/

Membership - Home Affairs Committee
Yvette Cooper MP was elected as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee on Wednesday 19 October 2016.

The remaining members of the Committee were formally appointed on 8 July 2015, except Naz Shah and Chuka Umunna who were appointed on 26 October 2015.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 05:04 AM

Yes you have quoted a report professor but you haven't told us why anti-Semitism should be considered different from any other racism.

Most people, yourself excluded of course, find any racism unacceptable. Are you suggesting that some racism is acceptable but anti-Semitism is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 05:50 AM

"No. The "issue" was and is Labour anti-Semitism."
Prove it Keith
You can do it easily by producing the examples of that Anitsemitism instead of yyour antisemitic claim that all the Jews in the Labour Party have kept silent about it
WHAT IS THIS ****** ANTISEMITISM YOU ARE CAINING IS RIFE IN TH LABOUR PARTY _ WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF IT?
The only genuine antisemitism to have emerged in this affair is your 'Jewish Plot'
Why should anybody take notice of somebody wh#o would make such an accusation - or the mates who back him up?
Until you produce it, it is as real as The Loch Ness Monster - go count the numbe of people who have sen that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 06:02 AM

"Shah did not work on the report, but as a member of the committee she endorsed its findings."

So let's see. She didn't go to the meetings that worked on the report, but she popped her head round the door just as they were voting and shouted "Yeah, whatevvah you're on about, I'll endorse it!"   

When Keith were a little lad, he told his mates that he wanted to be a comedian. Well, as we can see, he made it, but they're not laughing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 07:22 AM

And I just ruined that bloody joke by leaving a bit out. I blame Naz Shah, the whole of the NEC, Ruth Smeeth, Chakrabarti, the bloody EUMC, AIPAC, Blair..

Oh sorry, Teribus. I forgot. Everything's Maggie's fault!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 08:56 AM

"Yvette Cooper MP was elected as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee on Wednesday 19 October 2016."
Yvette Cooper is yet another supporter of the Israeli regime - how much proof do we need that this is an Israeli stunt Keith
"As opposed, Yvette Cooper presented pro-Israel and pro-peace stances at the same time, showing serious commitment to the latter. Unlike others, she dared to speak the truth on both issues, i.e. the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum and Anti-Semitism. Most importantly, she praised the work of CST (Community Security Trust, NDR), a charity which provides security for Jewish areas across Britain. Her standpoint was more or less the closest to that of Ed Miliband."
"The right stance is Yvette Cooper's"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 03:47 PM

Rag,
Yes you have quoted a report professor but you haven't told us why anti-Semitism should be considered different from any other racism.

I keep telling you that I do not think it should be considered differently, unlike you Rag.

Are you suggesting that some racism is acceptable but anti-Semitism is not.

Of course not, and neither did the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 03:54 PM

"No. The "issue" was and is Labour anti-Semitism."
Prove it Keith

Certainly. Here are the quotes again.

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party and is contrary to everything we stand for. "

"... anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue and is committed to addressing all the issues raised by these inquiries."
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:00 PM

Steve,
So let's see. She didn't go to the meetings that worked on the report, but she popped her head round the door just as they were voting and shouted "Yeah, whatevvah you're on about, I'll endorse it!"   

I assumed that she read it Steve. Why ever would you assume that she did not?
Tim Loughton MP, Acting Chair of the Committee, said:
"It is symbolic of the importance of this deeply felt issue that, despite the contentious, political nature of much of the debate, this report — which does not pull its punches — was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/antisemitism-report-published-16-17/

Shah was and is a committee member.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:07 PM

Jim, completing your quote,
" Her standpoint was more or less the closest to that of Ed Miliband.
The above underpins how much distrust between Labour (and particularly its left) and the Jewish Community exists at the moment. Ed Miliband took the right approach to the problem: with regards to Israel, he rightly showed criticism of the Israeli government and marked the distinction between the country and the government who runs it.

So she is not "yet another supporter of the Israeli regime" and you have provided no evidence that any other Labour member is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM

So, Keith, let's drop the bullshit. Did Naz Shah endorse that report or not? Actively, in person, etc.? Put her moniker to it? Yes or no, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 04:22 AM

"So she is not "yet another supporter of the Israeli regime" "
She and her husband, Ed Balls are members of 'Friends of Israel', have attended their events and have spoken for them - that is the support I was referring to.
She has a direct interest in Israel and cannot in any way be described as neutral on the topic - she should not have been part of any decision making on this matter.
YoU talk about the Chakrabatti enquiry being flawed - given the makeup of this one, the result was a forgone conclusion before it started.
And we still don't know what this "NEW RACISM" Labour is accused of is.
]Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 05:06 AM

Steve,
So, Keith, let's drop the bullshit. Did Naz Shah endorse that report or not? Actively, in person, etc.? Put her moniker to it? Yes or no, Keith?

All I know is that she is a member of the committee and the acting chair said it "was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties. "

What does that say to you Steve?

Jim,
she and her husband, Ed Balls are members of 'Friends of Israel',

So what? People do not leave and join according to the government in power there. It is not a political organisation in that sense.

The article you linked to stated that she was like Ed Miliband who "took the right approach to the problem: with regards to Israel, he rightly showed criticism of the Israeli government and marked the distinction between the country and the government who runs it."

Remember Jim?

she should not have been part of any decision making on this matter.

She was not. She certainly had nothing to do with the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 05:44 AM

Your quote stated clearly and categorically that:

"Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, AND HIS RELUCTANCE TO SEPARATE ANTI-SEMITISM FROM OTHER FORMS OF RACISM, has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people"

There is clearly a desire in the report to have anti-Semitism treated in a different way to other racism, to separate anti-Semitism from other racism.

That is quite obvious from YOUR quote above.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 06:02 AM

That says to me that you did not read my verbatim quote from the minutes of the meeting which listed the signatories. Naz was not among them. So what do you think happpened, Keith? That they tidied up the loose ends then gave Naz a quick bell, Naz who had nothing to do with the proceedings, to ask if she agreed to the report? What on earth is the matter with you, Keith? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

"So what? People do not leave and join according to the government in power there. It is not a political organisation in that sense."
This affair has been instigated by Israel - anybody sympathetic to that regime should be treated with suspicion and regarded as biased - the whole panel was made up of anti-Corbybinites anyway.
Th whole thing was rigged and we still don't don know what this "NEW RACISM" that Labour has been accused of so we have to assume that it is the Israeli "JUSTICE" (sic) Minister's "criticism of Israel".
The Israeli regime are not only allowed to attack a respectable and compassionate British Party, but now they are allowed to influence Parliamentary inquiries.
There goes the neighborhood - in a big way!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 06:29 AM

By the way
You also name Chuka Umanna
These, from a statement from 'Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods' entitled, "Its Kosher to Boycott Israel;i Goods"
This whole enquirt was formed of Anti- Corbynite, Pro Israeli mmbers
Jim Carroll

CHUKA UMUNNA SILENT AS LABOUR JEWS CONDEMN HIS ANTISEMITISM SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Posted on 12 July 2016 by jews4big | Leave a comment
Last weekend more than 40 Jewish members of Labour Party organisations around the UK wrote to MP Chuka Umunna condemning his cynical deployment of antisemitism allegations as part of the witch hunt against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and other supporters of justice for Palestine.
Umunna has not deigned to respond. But the statement put out by Free Speech on Israel, which organised the letter, still merits attention.

LABOUR JEWS CONDEMN UMUNNA'S ANTISEMITISM SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Umunna accused of "weaponising false accusations of antisemitism"
Public grilling of Corbyn part of "internal vendetta"
Smear campaign detracts from combatting racism
July 9 – Jewish members of the Labour Party have condemned Chuka Umunna MP for using false allegations of antisemitism to attack Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters in the Momentum group.
In an open letter to the MP for Streatham, a former Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, more than 40 members of party organisations all over the country say:
"We were shocked to witness the cynical manner in which you weaponised false allegations of antisemitism to launch an attack on the leader of the Labour party and on Momentum at the session of the Home Affairs Committee on Monday July 4th."
They accuse him of pursuing "an internal Labour Party vendetta in a public forum", cynically drawing attention away from important recommendations, contained in a recently published report by former Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti, on making the party more effective in combatting all forms of racism including antisemitism.
The letter urges Umunna to "concentrate your considerable energy on working to unite the Party so that we can displace this destructive Tory Government as soon as possible."
Free Speech on Israel (FSOI) is a network of labour movement, Green and trade union activists in the UK, mainly Jewish, who came together in April 2016 to counter attempts by pro-Israel right wingers to brand the campaign for justice for Palestinians as antisemitic. It broadly supports the conclusions of the Charabarti inquiry into antisemism and other forms of racism, to which it made this submission.
FSOI draws its support from members of the following Jewish groups:
Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP)    http://jfjfp.com/
Independent Jewish Voices (IJV)    http://ijv.org.uk/
Jewish Socialist Group (JSG)    http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN-UK)    http://www.ijan.org/
Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG)    https://jews4big.wordpress.com/
Jewdas/Young Jewish Left    http://jewdas.org/

Dear Chuka Umunna,
We write as Jews who are members of the Labour Party. Some of us are also members of Momentum. We were shocked to witness the cynical manner in which you weaponised false allegations of antisemitism to launch an attack on the leader of the Labour party and on Momentum at the session of the Home Affairs Committee on Monday July 4th.
Some of the comments made at the press conference launching the Chakrabarti inquiry on June 30 by Mr Wadsworth (not a representative of Momentum as you claimed) were rude and unwarranted, however there is no evidence they were motivated by antisemitism. Wadsworth was clearly angry that the Daily Telegraph journalist had shared one of his leaflets with Labour MP Ruth Smeeth. He makes no reference to Ms Smeeth's religion and asserts he had no knowledge she was Jewish and there is no evidence that this is not true. We have searched assiduously, including scrutinising the video footage of the incident, but have found no evidence of antisemitism, as opposed to incivility, in his words or actions.
The questions about Mr Wadsworth had been asked and answered several times by the time you asked your questions. Quite evidently your questions were not designed to elicit information but to pursue an internal Labour Party vendetta in a public forum. This relentless concentration on a confection designed to damage the Labour Party inhibits proper discussion on an important report into how the Labour Party can be more effective in combatting all forms of racism including antisemitism.
In your questioning you repeatedly employed guilt by association. For instance, you made reference to David Watson's case. This is still under investigation and, as your legal background should have informed you, the allegations against him currently remain untested and unproven. These are allegations that, had you performed due diligence before asking your questions, you would have known are based on flimsy, if not fabricated, evidence.
We have been quite unable to detect any hint of animosity towards Jews in any of Watson's social media posts. His critique of Zionism is one that many Jews share, in particular that the political Zionism dominant in Israel today is a racist ideology, both discriminating against Palestinians and stereotyping Jews as incapable of living alongside non-Jews in diverse societies. To then suggest that anyone who shares a platform with Watson is implicitly condoning antisemitism, and further that Jeremy Corbyn is answerable for all events organised by Momentum, is absurd.
You cite the example of the Oxford University Labour Club, and claim that "time and time again in these incidents of activity" in which offence is caused "to and against Jewish people Momentum seems to pop up quite frequently". Yet Baroness Royall found no evidence of institutional antisemitism in OULC, and reported on at least one case of serious false allegations of antisemitism which had been reported to the police.
We ask you to cease your relentless undermining of the Labour Party. It would be more appropriate for you to concentrate your considerable energy on working to unite the Party so that we can displace this destructive Tory Government as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 12:08 PM

British author Howard Jacobson on Anti-Semitism and the Labour party

To the question posed by the parliamentary committee last week, as to whether Shami Chakrabarti's soft inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour party was a whitewash for which Corbyn brazenly rewarded her with a peerage, or evidence of a deep-seated reluctance to take the subject seriously, there is unlikely to be a satisfactory answer.

Where people are convinced of their own rectitude – and Corbyn and Chakrabarti belong to the more un-self-questioning wing of British politics – there is no separating what they know from what they don't want to know.

The Chakrabarti inquiry didn't fail, it was stillborn. Corbyn has always defended himself against the charge of antisemitism by protesting his freedom from all racisms – an insistence that feels like an evasion and blurs a crucial distinction – and the moment Chakrabarti widened the terms of her inquiry likewise, there was no hope for it.

The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 12:44 PM

There's no hope for Howard Jacobson either. Just as wrong-headed as you and Keith. Who will you think of next? By the way, don't go thinking that the fact he's in the Guardian in any way legitimises him. The Guardian fearlessly allows commentators from all parts of the spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 01:05 PM

But, thank God, it hasn't allowed Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM

Rag,
There is clearly a desire in the report to have anti-Semitism treated in a different way to other racism, to separate anti-Semitism from other racism.

If you read the previous sentences, you will see what they mean.
Either way, I had no part in formulating the report.

Steve, all I know is that Shah is a member of the committee and the acting chair said it "was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties. "

Jim,
This affair has been instigated by Israel -

Complete bollocks Jim! All the accusations came from within Labour.

anybody sympathetic to that regime should be treated with suspicion and regarded as biased

No Labour MP is sympathetic to the current Right Wing regime.

The Israeli regime are not only allowed to attack a respectable and compassionate British Party, but now they are allowed to influence Parliamentary inquiries.

Your delusional conspiracy theories suggest you are completely deranged Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 01:25 PM

Never mind "all you know." Try looking into it. You won't like what you find, but the process will help to make an honest man of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 01:44 PM

"Complete bollocks Jim! All the accusations came from within Labour."
Good old "bollocks" again and no response to the the masses of evidence oyu have been given - or all the Jewish members inside and outside Britain who have said excactly the same thing
Well - we know your antisemitic vies on Jews who don't toe the line - they get blamed for atrocities instigated by the regime.
"No Labour MP is sympathetic to the current Right Wing regime."
You have to be joking - you have had dozens of example of those who are - including your friend Smoothie Smeethiepoos, Chuka Umunna, Ed Balls and Y'vette Cooper
Jim Carroll

LABOUR JEWS ASSERT: The Labour Party does not have a 'problem with Jews'
We are witnessing a wave of orchestrated hysteria over claims that the Labour Party is rife with antisemitism and has a 'problem with Jews.' This is not true. Yes there is indeed a problem. The problem is that some people – Jewish and otherwise, inside and outside the party – use allegations of anti-Semitism as a stick to beat the Corbyn leadership, regardless of the damage caused.
Jeremy Corbyn and others have done their best to respond, rightly asserting their impeccable anti-racist credentials, treating specific allegations of antisemitism seriously, investigating them and taking appropriate measures. This is no more and no less than should happen with allegations of racism or discrimination of any kind.
But this has not satisfied those sections of the pro-Israel lobby orchestrating the attacks. They have targeted Malia Bouattia, the first Muslim woman to be elected president of the National Union of Students, on the thinnest of pretexts and despite her consistently principled stance. Another victim has been Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) founder member and lifelong anti-racist Tony Greenstein, suspended from the Labour Party without even being informed of the charges against him. Now Naz Shah has been suspended on the basis of a few inappropriate social media posts, which she evidently regrets – swiftly followed by Ken Livingstone for having the temerity to defend her. (Regarding Shah's comments, read more here, and this background to Livingstone's comments on Zionism & Hitler)
Those who are making allegations of anti-Semitism are talking a different language. It is not anti-Semitism but anti-Zionism that is their concern. It is opposition to Israeli racism not anti-Jewish racism that concerns them.
This campaign of vilification is intended to undermine Labour's new leaders, because of their commendable record of supporting justice for Palestine. The wider aim is to crush support for the solidarity movement, which is working to achieve for Palestinians basic rights that are endorsed by international legal bodies.
As the Jewish Socialist Group has stated on its website: 'A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.'                        

As Labour and Trade Union activists, we condemn this witch hunt and assert the right to campaign in solidarity with all oppressed people, including Palestinians. We: – Reiterate our strong commitment to combating all forms of racism and to defending those who are subjected to it. We actively oppose Islamophobia, prejudice against migrants and racism against ethnic and religious minorities, including anti-Jewish racism.
– Reject the suggestion that questioning the Zionist ideology of the Israeli state and its supporters – both Jews and non-Jews – entails antisemitic prejudice. On the contrary, campaigning to end the injustices inflicted by Israel on the Palestinian people is in the very best traditions of the British Labour movement.
– Urge the Labour Party establishment to listen to the many Jews who are outraged by the lie that Jews are not safe in the Labour Party;
cease victimising those who work for justice for Palestine;
adhere to fair practice and transparency when investigating charges against members;
call to order Labour Party members who bring the party into disrepute by spreading calumnies about widespread antisemitism in the party."
Jews & friends who say antizionism is NOT antisemitism

NO ANTISEMITIC PROBLEM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 01:52 PM

"Your delusional conspiracy theories suggest you are completely deranged Jim."
No Keith - your obsessively inhuman support for a regime that instigates hatred that leads to incidents like th celebrating of the death of a child who has been burned alive in an arson attack, and then going on to support that filmed celebration by suggesting that it didn't happen, sows a sickness of mind that is beyond belief.
Blaming "Jews" for the crimes of the establishment really doesn't help your case
Please deny this disgusting behaviour to give me a chance to link to it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 02:30 PM

Snd still we have no description of what particular brand of Antisemitism Labour is supposed to be guilty
Keith's Jewish politicians are keeping this one close to their chests, aren't they?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 04:15 PM

Your delusional conspiracy theories suggest you are completely deranged Jim.

I've been saying that for a long time - it is clearly evident by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 04:28 PM

Jim,
No Keith - your obsessively inhuman support for a regime

I support no regime Jim. More desperate lies to smear me.

arson attack, and then going on to support that filmed celebration by suggesting that it didn't happen,

I suggested that the video showed nothing but an impossible to recognise photo, which is the absolute truth.

Blaming "Jews" for the crimes of the establishment really doesn't help your case
Please deny this disgusting behaviour to give me a chance to link to it.

Of course I deny your ludicrous lies and smears.
No need to link. Anyone reading this thread will also be reading the other, but i is probably just us by now.

Keith's Jewish politicians are keeping this one close to their chests, aren't they

I can hardly believe that you said that Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 12:26 PM

Some Labour Party discussion from a very prominent and long serving member, who even Jim can not link to the Israeli goverment!

"Labour has been infected by a "virus" of anti-Semitism, a former shadow cabinet minister has said.
Tristram Hunt said on Sunday evening that Jeremy Corbyn was "not doing enough" to tackle the problem."

"The Labour Party's relationship with the Jewish community is in real crisis and any hint of some kind of transactional deal with Shami and the leader's office will only sort of further distrust," he said. "We have a great history with the Jewish community in the UK and that is being put at risk"

"Shami had a real opportunity to deal with it and confront it and address it and that was a missed opportunity and we're still reaping the consequences of it."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-infected-with-anti-semitism-virus-says-former-shadow-cabinet-minister_uk_580dc39ee4b0fce107d12379

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 12:37 PM

Sounds like a a shturem in a gloz vaser to me, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 12:51 PM

Would this be the same Tristram Hunt who resigned from labours front bench stating he had substantial political differences with Jeremy Corbyn?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 12:51 PM

Hardly Greg,
This has been a huge issue for Labour for many months now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 01:12 PM

"who even Jim can not link to the Israeli goverment!"
Beg pardon?
"Splits within the Labour party over the Palestinian question were laid bare last night as one of Ed Miliband's most senior frontbenchers invoked Winston Churchill in a passionate tribute to Israel.
Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary, praised the former prime minister's 1921 declaration that he had "full sympathy for Zionism". Speaking on a visit to Jerusalem while serving as colonial secretary, Churchill said that a Jewish national home in Palestine would be "a blessing to the whole world, a blessing to the Jewish race scattered all over the world and a blessing to Great Britain"."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 01:16 PM

Whoops
Mustn't forget the link
LOVING ODE to ISRAEL
You really need to do your homework Keith
Thanks for yet another link to extreme Zionism - where shall I send the cheque?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 01:21 PM

This has been a huge issue for Labour for many months now.

Not so, Professor: this is a huge red herring that has been perpetuated for many months by the tabloid press and idiots like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 01:32 PM

extreme Zionism

Putz!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 01:51 PM

this is a huge red herring that has been perpetuated for many months by the tabloid press and idiots like yourself.

No, it has been reported by all the media including all the broadsheets and the broadcasters.
It has been "perpetuated" by the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan, 2 Labour enquiries one of which has caused even more contention, by Tristram Hunt who controversially thought it right that Israel was created as a Jewish homeland, a sentiment made reality by the United Nations, KEZIA Dugdale, the Scottish Labour leader, Jim Murphy the former Scottish Labour leader, and many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 02:17 PM

Spot on Greg. Keith, Greg was including under "idiots like you" those divisive Labour people who are deliberately undermining Corbyn and who have forgotten that they handed Cameron two elections on a plate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 02:22 PM

"Israel was created as a Jewish homeland"

That's what Jew haters can't accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 02:23 PM

"Jim Murphy"
Former chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel - passionately opposed to the boycott
Next
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 02:53 PM

Nobody apart from "ordinary" Jew-hater Keith and his two fiends have ever questioned The Jewish Homeland - your cowardly trolling accusations are about as valid as accusations of antisemitism aimed at the Labour Party - and every bit as unsubstantiated.
"Jim Murphy the former Scottish Labour leader"
And former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel
"From 1997 to 2001 Murphy was vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) and then chair from 2001 to 2002. Murphy has described himself as a 'regular visitor' to Israel. One of his visits, in 2012, was paid for by the Maureen and David Garrard Foundation, which donated £1,570 to Murphy for the trip according to the Electoral Commission. [1] Formerly a donor to the Conservative party in the 1980s and 90s, Sir David Garrard is now a major donor to the Labour Party and has hosted LFI events. In 2005 Garrard was recommended for a peerage, however the Lord's Appointments Committee recommended against his appointment and that of three other Labour Party donors. The Metropolitan Police undertook an investigation as part of which, in May 2006, Garrard was interviewed under caution by the police. The Crown Prosecution Service ultimately determined that they lacked evidence to show that peerages had been awarded in exchange for donations.

LFI is one of the most influential groups in the Labour Party and is seen as a stepping-stone to the higher ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party. During Operation Protective Edge, Murphy's website carried a statement on the fighting in Gaza. Although Murphy did criticize the comments of the Israeli interior minister (who stated that Israel would 'send Gaza back to the Middle Ages') he located the cause of the conflict, not in the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but in the actions of Palestinian militants:"
JIM MURPHY'S 'GRIM RECORD'
"Putz!"
Don't know enough about Mr Hunt to know if your dscription of him is true, but his name is a delicious piece of Rhyming Slang
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 04:09 PM

Do yu really need any more evidence than this to prove the link between the Israeli regime and accusations of antisemitism aimed at a party whose record of anti racism and anti sectarianism is to tarlly unblemished?
Murphy - Garrard -Friends of Israel - with a bit of financial iffiness thrown in for good measure
Reads like an Edwina Curry novel!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 07:10 PM

PLEASE tell me you don't read Edwina Currie novels, Jim...😳🔫

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 07:25 PM

"PLEASE tell me you don't read Edwina Currie novels, Jim"
Nope - nary a page Stage - but there again - I've never seen 'The Sound of Music either.
She broke my heart when she ran off with Major Major - I never forgave her - the hussy!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 07:27 PM

Steve of course - shouldn't have had that last bottle of Bishops Finger
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 09:05 PM

Ah Jaysus, Jim, I know what it's like. It's the missus's birthday today and, though we're not supposed to drink Tuesdays, well what can you do. Been addled all day since the large glass of white I reluctantly forced down at lunchtime. I'll never learn. Just can't take booze any time before seven in the evening any more. Which will probably save me life...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 16 - 09:14 PM

"She broke my heart when she ran off with Major Major - I never forgave her - the hussy!!"

Did you see that episode of some celebrity cooking show she did with Gordon Ramsay? After she'd made a hash of some dish she was cooking, Ramsey whipped round and shouted at Edwina "You shagged our prime minister and now you're trying to shag me from behind!"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 03:49 AM

" "You shagged our prime minister and now you're trying to shag me from behind!""
Stop it - stop it - stop it.... I will not listen to all this dirty talk!!!!
You're talking about the woman I........
Off to see the latest Ken Loach in Dublin
Final thought.
Isn't it interesting how our our resident flag-wagger, who has busted a gut defending very crime carried out by the British Great and Good - even to the extent of describing vile antisemitic poetry:

(11) Anti-Semitic poem distributed by the Right Club in 1939.

Land of dope and Jewry
Land that once was free
All the Jew boys praise thee
Whilst they plunder thee

Poorer still and poorer
Grow thy true-born sons
Faster still and faster
They're sent to feed the guns.

Land of Jewish finance
Fooled by Jewish lies
In press and books and movies
While our birthright dies

Longer still and longer
Is the rope they get
But - by the God of battles
'Twill serve to hang them yet.

....written by a member of the House of Lords just prior to the Jewish People being sent to the Nazi Gas Chambers in their millions - describing it as "Harmless as the theme Song from Dad's Army", is more than happy to put the same effort into to defend a foreign power's attempts to undermine a democratically elected British political party
Quislings eh - who'd have 'em?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 04:18 AM

A yes "The Right Club", that terribly important and influential political driving force in British politics.

Distributing poems eh?

Population of the UK in 1939 was approximately 46.5 million people

The Right Club formed in May 1939 and made illegal and disbanded in May 1940 had at it's peak 235 members in total WOW! Ever heard of a thing called perspective?

As a percentage goes that is less than the numbers of Labour Party members suspended or under investigation for "anti-Semitism" - You know Jim the number you and your pals refer to as a minute and insignificant minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 04:51 AM

"A yes "The Right Club", that terribly important and influential political driving force in British politics."
Oh - spreading antisemitism is fine as long as it's only circulated among the good and the great??
I've given you an example of that antisemitism - you have refused to give me an example of yours
Keith, in fact, blamed "the Jews" for refusing to reveal it.
Pathetic as ever
Incidentally, the author of th poem, Archibald Ramsey allowed to return to Parliament after the war and his first act was to attempt to introduce antisemitic laws

"Ramsay continued occasionally to put down written Parliamentary questions from jail, sometimes taking up the cases of fellow 18B internees. His eldest son Alec, serving in the Scots Guards, died of pneumonia on active service in South Africa in August 1943. Ramsay was finally released from detention on 26 September 1944, being one of the last few 18B detainees. He immediately returned to Westminster to resume his seat in the Commons, causing at least one member to storm out of the chamber. His only significant action in the remainder of the Parliament was a motion calling for the reinstatement of the 1275 Statute of the Jewry passed under King Edward I. He did not defend his seat in the 1945 general election."
ARCHIBALD MAULE RAMSEY
There is still a site deifying this man accessible on the web.
" 235 members in total
One of whom included Arthur Wellesley, 5th Duke of Wellington, who was still cursing "The Yids" on his deathbed.
Your little trio really is a clique of double-standard Antisemitism appeasers, isn't it.
You people are every bit as antisemitic as these people - "hermeless antisemitism" my arse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 05:13 AM

They were "insignificant enough" to have attempted to form an emergency Government for when "Herr Hitler" won the war - Lords, MPs and industrialists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 06:38 AM

Nobody apart from "ordinary" Jew-hater Keith and his two fiends have ever questioned The Jewish Homeland

Then why did you put that up as a reason for Hunt's views to be dismissed out of hand Jim, and what is wrong with being a member of Friends of Israel and objecting to the boycott?

You call me, "ordinary Jew-hater Keith." which is a nasty bit of name calling and personal attack.
I remind you that it was you you produced video, probably spurious but purported to show ordinary Jews behaving despicably.
Asked why, you said to show what is going on in Israel, as if despicable behaviour is normal for Israeli Jews.
Is that your view Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 07:33 AM

Don't bother Keith, he's obviously a sick and twisted little man, more to be pitied than argued with.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 10:38 AM

Let's see his explanation for posting videos intended to demonize ordinary Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 11:39 AM

Let's see if we got this right Jim.

In the Labour Party for every 12,000 members one has been suspended and accused of making "anti-Semitic" statements or acting in an unacceptable "anti-Semitic" manner.

In 1939 one in every 197,872 people would be a member of "The Right Party" holding "anti-Semitic" views.

Now that in make-up means that the Labour Party is 16 times more "anti-Semitic" than "The Right Party".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 01:39 PM

Bit of a double standard, Keith, when you get all sanctimonious about alleged personal attacks on you yet stand by in silence when your bosom-buddy indulges in much worse behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 16 - 01:50 PM

Bit of silliness there, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 01:54 PM

In the Richmond Park by-election, Labour lost its deposit with fewer votes than they have actual members there!
What are they doing wrong that even their members will not vote for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 03:01 PM

Two things. Central Office was a bit stupid to put up a candidate. It's a good bet that hundreds or thousands of Labour members in Richmond voted tactically in order to get rid of the scumbag Trust Fund Kid. That's what I would have done, no messing. The candidate is an excellent man of great integrity. I feel that we'll be seeing him again.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 04:13 AM

Richmond Park is in one one of the wealthiest and most privileged parts of Britain and would have most to lose from a victory by a Labour Party with decent principles, so the only surprise would have been so see Labour advance in any way there.   
Of course this vote was about the new runway - yo only have to spend four minutes (the length of the time gap between passing planes) to realise that.
This proposed runway is a fine example of the disinterest this Government has for the health and comfort of those they govern - profit before people, every time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 05:28 AM

Well you say that, Jim, but all three main candidates were against the runway. The LibDems successfully turned it into an anti-Zac anti-Brexit vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 05:49 AM

"Well you say that, Jim,"
Take your word for it Steve - but having Lived in West London, not ar from Richmond, and having worked in Richmond, Twickenham, Hounslow.... and many of the places effected by the already over exposed pollution from aircraft noise, I find it unlikely that the proposed runway had no effect
Voters tend to respond to what the government is actually doing rather than what the candidate is promising to do.
I've just been listening to a discussion on the Italian result, and I think it's indisputable that the issues on these elections are far wider than the main one, as far as the voters are concerned - an opportunity to express discontent on many, rather than the one on the card.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM

Well my lad and his family live in Richmond (I once lived in Barnes for 18 months and did my degree at plane-afflicted Imperial College). The residents tend to accept the plane noise with equanimity on the whole but I imagine the majority are ardently opposed to the runway and accompanying environmental devastation. As such, a vote for Goldsmith is a vote for the Tories is a vote for the runway, in spite of his personal opposition. You could hardly see the spoilt racist politics-for-recreation brat siding with anyone else, could you? Not fussy, those Tories, are they? Anything to whittle down their effective majority will do me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM

"Anything to whittle down their effective majority will do me."
And me
Happy to accept what you say Steve - I left West London in 1998.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:11 AM

It appears that people are now voting according to their Brexit position and not for parties.
In England and Wales that will be very harmful for Labour, and they have almost no presence in Scotland anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:22 AM

Last week,
"Midland Labour MP Tom Watson has delivered a blunt and unambiguous condemnation of anti-Semitism, and said Labour supports the state of Israel.
The Labour Deputy Leader said he was ashamed that there had been suggestions of anti-Semitism within his party, and admitted people were "right" to be "understandably frustrated" that the party had not dealt with the problem quickly enough.
He backed a two-state solution in the Middle East, which would mean Israel existing alongside an independent Palestinian state.
And he condemned the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) movement, which calls for a boycott of Israeli-made products as well as contact with Israeli academics."

"He told his audience: "Let me say something before we get any further today about taking on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party: that's a moral responsibility. I am ashamed that I am saying anti-Semitism and Labour in the same sentence.
"But dealing with it can't be something we do for show, for the sake of it, because we've come under media pressure, or because we need to deal with a political problem. It's a commandment.
"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker.
"I know there are still some outstanding issues that cannot be ignored. They won't be ignored. Action is being taken now and if, God forbid, we find these problems again, action will be quicker in the future.""
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/tom-watson-labour-opposes-anti-12248217

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:44 AM

Backto the same old same old unproved antisemitism by the same old same old people who have yet to describe the antisemitism and the people involved
Can we assume that the 'Jewish conspiracy' you described, that has bound the so-called victims of this antisemitism to silemce is still operational?
Ed Milliband - wouldn't he be one of those people who is still tying to unseat the leader of the Labour Party and returnn to being King of the castle again?
B.D.S. must be beginning to bite!!
LABOUR DELEGATION in ISRAEL Jerusalem Post 6th December
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM

He is the elected deputy leader of the Party Jim.
He knows more about the Party than even you and Steve.

" and said Labour supports the state of Israel."

"And he condemned the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) movement,"

"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:59 AM

Tom Watson is a complete twat who has done more to deliberately undermine Corbyn than almost anyone else. That's the man's mission. He doesn't give a toss about "antisemitism." He's doing his damndest to use it to try to weaken Corbyn, who he hates and is obsessively trying to get rid of.

"It appears that people are now voting according to their Brexit position and not for parties."

Classic weasel words. Where's your evidence? What people? All people? Some people? One or two people? A couple of your racist mates down the pub?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 05:45 AM

My autocorrect "corrected" damnedest four times before I finally thought I'd defeated it and sent the post. I was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 06:47 AM

"He is the elected deputy leader of the Party Jim."
Ed Milliband
"In June 2014, while speaking to the Labour Friends of Israel, Miliband stated that if he became Prime Minister he would seek "closer ties" with Israel and opposed the boycott of Israeli goods,"
Wiki
C'mon Keith
Six weeks after Corbyn announces his support for B.D.S. labour is swamped by a totally unprecedented accusations of Antisemitism.
No actual cases of anti-Semitism were ecer cites – only criticism of Israeli policy.
The accusations fade
Around three weeks after a delegation led by arch – Israeli supporter, Tom Watson, Vice Cairman of Labour's Friends of Israel, return from a visit to Israel, those attacks are renewed.
Immediately, Mudcat's own Israeli arch atrocity denier reopens a thread attacking the Labour Party.
There seems to be a nasty dose of H.M.V. (His Master's Voice') doing the rounds.
I hope you have no problem in converting your thirty Shekels of silver into Sterling for selling out democratically elected British politicians?
Even Israeli newspaper hHaaretz has managed to make the link between these accusations and Israel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:08 AM

Classic weasel words. Where's your evidence? What people? All people? Some people? One or two people? A couple of your racist mates down the pub?

I have no racist mates Steve.
The opinion was expressed by various people on Marr and/or Peston on Sunday.
If you want names I will flick through them again.

In Richmond Park, Labour supporters voted Lib Dem because of views on Brexit.
BBC,
"And it saw Labour's vote fall dramatically, with the Lib Dems taking the credit for scooping up their supporters.
But it is the claim by the victor Sarah Olney that the result is a verdict on Brexit that is most worthy of examination, because it goes to the heart of the schism that has been driven into British politics this year. She said she would vote against triggering Article 50 - the process to take Britain out of the EU. "

"The Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said the result was "historic" and a verdict on a so-called "hard" Brexit - taking the UK out of the single market."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38184503

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:12 AM

Tom Watson is the Deputy Leader, and he was voted into that office by the membership.
It is many days since he made that speech, and no-one from the Party has refuted his statements.

"Labour supports the state of Israel."

"And he condemned the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) movement,"

"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:26 AM

Please get this into your skull once and for all, Keith. Many Labour voters in no-chance constituencies VOTE TACTICALLY. I have voted LibDem in the last six general elections even though I bloody hate the LibDems. Why? Because I hate the Tories more and will do everything I can to stop a Tory from getting in in North Cornwall, and Labour haven't got a cat in hell's chance here. Many Labour members will have voted LibDem in Richmond because the Goldsmith twat-and-a-half is a very nasty, spiteful man, a bloody Tory to the core and a racist thug at that with a vile record of trying to demonise the Labour mayoral candidate in London. Labour were never going to get in but the Richmond members wanted to make bloody sure he didn't either. Still, carry on, Keith, trying to prove that the Richmond poll shows a collapse in Labour support. Go on, give us your evidence. Alternatively just stop your wishful-thinking-I-make-stuff-up-as-I-go-along nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM

"Tom Watson is the Deputy Leader, and he was voted into that office by the membership."
Tom Watson is vice Chairman of The Friends of Israel and has just come back from leading a visit to Israel
What speech, the piece I quoted was referring to Ed Milliband which was referring to two years ago.
You still have not provided a single scrap of evidence to these accusations of antisemitism other than criticism of israeli policy.
You are a persistent quisling Keith - betraying the elected members of a British Party with a century old reputation for anti-racism of any form to an extremist right wing foreign power.
"Israel calling - Israel calling"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:46 AM

Peston, 17 minutes in showed a screen chart about allegiance to Party and Brexit.
Preston, "on this issue of the importance of how you voted, remain or leave, and whether that now trumps party political allegiance"

It is not just me making shit up.
I do not do that Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM

You still have not provided a single scrap of evidence to these accusations of antisemitism other than criticism of israeli policy.

Yes I have Jim.
I have quoted Khan who is no particular friend of Israel deploring it, and the entire NEC deploring it.

Miliband has been gone since losing the 2015 election.
Tom Watson is the current Deputy Leader, and he was voted into that office by the membership.
It is many days since he made that speech, and no-one from the Party has refuted his statements.

"Labour supports the state of Israel."

"And he condemned the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) movement,"

"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 08:01 AM

Steve Shaw - 05 Dec 16 - 05:28 AM

Well you say that, Jim, but all three main candidates were against the runway. The LibDems successfully turned it into an anti-Zac anti-Brexit vote.

And here Keith A seems to be agreeing with you:

Keith A of Hertford - 06 Dec 16 - 04:11 AM

It appears that people are now voting according to their Brexit position and not for parties.

What was the Lib-Dem stance on the EU Referendum again Steve? Yet Keith A's statement agreeing with you are:

Steve Shaw - 06 Dec 16 - 04:59 AM

"Classic weasel words. Where's your evidence? What people? All people? Some people? One or two people? A couple of your racist mates down the pub?"

I could not care less whether or not Tom Watson is a "twat" (Your chosen description) or not but, because of his position within the Labour Party, he undeniably knows more about the inner workings and status of the Labour Party than a former sandal wearing NUT union activist in Cornwall and an Anglophobic, wannabe Irishman living in County Clare.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 08:46 AM

"I have quoted Khan who is no particular friend of Israel deploring it,"
Deploring it is no evidence that it exists - until you provide examples of it, it doesn't exist - no substantiation - no antisemitism - simple as that - basic British justice, if nothing else.
There is a struggle between the right and left of the Labour party, Sadiq Khan is an opponent of Crobyn and says Labour cannot wing under his leadership.
"Miliband has been gone since losing the 2015 election."
As leader - he remainsd one of the Old Guard of the right and an opponent of B.D.S.
If he is unimportant, why quote him?
Make up your mind laddie.
Tom Watson is still an enthusiastic supporter of the Israeli regime, the Vice Chariman of 'Friends of Israel, he is politically opposed to Corbyn and he has just returned from heading a delegation to Israel - lo - he reopens his attack on Corbyn with no fresh evidence of what form what this antisemitm is supposed to be, accusing him of not acting on it - four coincidences all rolled into one - a little too many to swallow, even for you... maybe not!!
"a former sandal wearing NUT union activist in Cornwall and an Anglophobic, wannabe Irishman living in County Clare"
A bit of Little Englander parochialism thrown in this time.
Thanks for helping me make up my mind - will start assembling a year's worth of your abusive behaviour - though it may take a little time
Meanwhile, back to the few days worth.
Jim Carroll

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
It will remind everyone that you are truly clueless and gormless to an astounding degree.
"Got the point now Shaw"
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 09:49 AM

These are selections of Teribus's contemptuously appalling behaviour towards those who disagree with him, all taken from one thread "To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit", dating from 2nd of June to 12th of September.
Several of his postings contain up to half a dozen examples of insulting behavior
One of the conditions of membership of this forum "You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."
We all get rattled on occasion, some time ago, Joe Offer sensibly suggested that we should act like adults and stop calling each other silly names – most of us have tried, Teribus continues his appalling behaviour, making it virtually impossible not to react in kind to it.
If these discussions are to be of any value whatever, I feel there needs to be a cut-off point as to when a member is prevented in serially behaving in this way – as far as I am concerned, that point was reached a long time ago.
Until he stops behaving in this arrogant and bullying manner, I will continue selecting examples of his appalling behaviour until he either stops of his own free will or is stopped I will continue selecting topics an providing examples.
It really is devaluing the quality of this great forum – let's stop it now.
Jim Carroll

Idiotic argument Shaw and you know it
Don't worry Jom, we both know that it is just more of your "Made-Up-Shit
Unfortunately though Jom,
Reality check for you Jom:
How many pieces will the Labour Party be in by then Shaw?
Let's rip this clichéd little exercise in leftist rhetoric apart shall we:
At one point Jom - WOW - Is it fun living in your time warp Jom?
Missed the point again Jom,
On points Jom, you have completely missed the point that was being made
But Jom you are talking "individuals" your little bleat
Just how have we closed the door Jom?
Jom says that this is
Correction Jom
Well Shaw, as ever you don't let the facts stand in your way, glossing over the utterly dire state of the nation
A new all time low even for Jim Carroll.
Now I have opened those three sentences out, just in case Jom doesn't know what a sentence is
You didn't say Jom
Unfortunately Jom
Well well Jom,
As for your post - Steve Shaw…. Put that to music and you'd have a song that would top the "Country & Western" charts in next to no time
I have drawn Jom's attention
Good heavens Jom it must have taken you at least half-an-hour to wipe down and dry out the screen and keyboard after that spittle-flecked tirade of yours.
Naw too much fun just letting you contradict yourself Jom.
Well Jom how about you banging on about how wrong those are who advocate
There is also the likes of you and Carroll
About the daftest statement I think I have ever read - not surprising really considering who wrote it
How the hell do you think he became an MEP you Prat
Ah more twaddle from Jom:
"THE F**KER WHO FEEDS THEM - YOU HALFWIT PRAT."
"Only to a wanker like you Shaw."
"Oh and please, please, please let just one of you clowns chirp up... as I will paint the room with you.
Carroll
Rap and the "kipper" haven't cottoned on to.
Nothing whatsoever to say then Jom? Just the empty beating of your gums.
You're using your "tell" that lets me know that I am really niggling you Shaw.
By the bye Shaw
Don't think so Shaw,
Still nothing to say then Jom?
By the way Jom thanks for the PM - as a spit-flecked rant it is quite an amusing bit of pointless froth - any time I want a good laugh I dare say I'll open it up and read it.
Ehmmm Carroll
Very true Shaw, I
from Eastern Europe Jom?
Depending upon who things are classified Shaw.
Only problem with all of that Shaw
Tell me Shaw
"our" democratic system hasn't failed Jom

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM

Now Teribus. Until 2010 Richmond was a solid LibDem seat. There is a very large LibDem contingent among the Richmond electorate. Richmond voted overwhelmingly to remain (are you following so far?). The LibDems' policy is to oppose Brexit (keeping up, are we?). Now let's get just a tad more imaginative. Zac Goldsmith is a Eurosceptic right-wing Tory. Zac tried to make a Big Thing of the runway by resigning and making it a by-election issue. But he couldn't do that because the other candidates WERE JUST AS AGAINST IT AS HE WAS, AND, MOREOVER, WERE NOT BREXITEERS NOR HAD THEY SMEARED THE LABOUR CANDIDATE IN THE MAYORAL ELECTION. In other words, he screwed up. Zac did bad things that do not go down well with the liberal-minded and articulate electorate of Richmond. Get it? One big thing has changed since Goldsmith was elected by an overwhelmingly Remain constituency (which didn't matter much then as no-one expected that we should be in the parlous state we're in now). But it matters now.

So.

CANDIDATE ONE: Tory nouveau-riche multimillionaire golden boy, against the EU, bad record of racist comments, anti-runway. CANDIDATE TWO: local woman who understands local issues, LibDem, pro-EU, clean as a whistle, anti-runway. CANDIDATE THREE:   Labour man, should never have stood, in danger of splitting the vote, very decent man, pro-EU, anti-runway. CONSTITUENCY'S ELECTORATE: traditionally liberal, overwhelmingly pro-EU, not stupid, anti-runway.

Do spend a little minute with that lot under your belt working out what happened in Richmond. And Keith does not agree with me. Keith has reopened this thread as part of his bigoted anti-Labour mission. He jumps opportunistically on some remark made by one of the leading lights in the party who wants to undermine Corbyn. Keith is insinuating that Labour's vote collapsed on Richmond because Labour is a bunch of antisemitic twats. Keith has clearly never heard of tactical voting. Keith is clueless and you know it. At least I hope you do. You should by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 10:09 AM

Jim,
Deploring it is no evidence that it exists

Yes it is.
They deplored and were appalled by anti Semitism within Labour.
If it did not exist, how could they be appalled by it?
How could they deplore something that does not exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 10:15 AM

Steve,
He jumps opportunistically on some remark made by one of the leading lights in the party who wants to undermine Corbyn. Keith is insinuating that Labour's vote collapsed on Richmond because Labour is a bunch of antisemitic twats. Keith has clearly never heard of tactical voting. Keith is clueless and you know it

Of course I have heard of tactical voting.
I stated, "It appears that people are now voting according to their Brexit position and not for parties."

Not my opinion. I got it from watching Peston and reading BBC news site.
You replied,
"Classic weasel words. Where's your evidence? What people? All people? Some people? One or two people? A couple of your racist mates down the pub? "

You were wrong to attack me like that.
Why are you always so angry and abusive?
Is it frustration at always being proved wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 11:03 AM

"Yes it is."
No it isn't Keith - all it proves is somebody has made an accusation.
Without proof and without examples, it remains an accusation - sort of like all those charges not made against suspects who have been sent to Guantanamo for interminable periods for.
You accused the Jews in Parliament of covering up antisemitism for the sake of the party.
That is the only antisemitism that has been proved on this subject.
You are still whingeing about people insulting you, having been regularly insulting to other.
That is proof of your hypocrisy
This is the sort of proof you need to provide for Labour Party antisemitism - examples.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 11:07 AM

"Not my opinion. I got it from watching Peston and reading BBC news site."

Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana if that doesn't nail it then. 😂😂😂 that's "evidence" for your sweeping statement about "people," is it? I've got better evidence than that for fairies at the bottom of my garden. It was a BY-ELECTION, Keith. Precipitated by a Tory idiot. Geddit? Not normal! Extrapolate ye not!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 12:59 PM

Jim,
No it isn't Keith - all it proves is somebody has made an accusation.

Wrong. It shows that Khan and the NEC were aware of the anti Semitism.
They did not deplore accusations, and were not appalled by accusations.
They deplored and were appalled by the anti Semitism.
It exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:01 PM

As Jim Carroll continues to occupy thread space with his "Reminder List" - to show appalling behaviour - he fails to mention that he was the first person ever to refer to himself as Jom. If you want Jim I will quote verbatim the post where you did this. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Jim Carroll of course has always referred to me as Teribus, never calling myself or others names and accusing them of all sorts of things - And if you believe that - you'll believe anything - True Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:03 PM

Steve, save your abuse for Peston who did a whole piece on it, with charts on "screenie."
But what does he know about politics compared to you?
Right Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:21 PM

"first person ever to refer to himself as Jom. "
And you petty minded lying behaviour fails to mention that I have mentioned it and explained it was a typo -
Your lack of imagination made you seize on it as you were unable to think of anything original yourself
You have been asked to curb your behaviour and should you continue, I will put up another thread's worth when I get time
Grow up for Chriust sake - you're supposed to be an adult.
Keith
Your obsessive behaviour is now disturbing.
No examples of genuine antisemitism have ever been produced.
Virtually all accusations have come from supporters of Israel or political opponents of Corbyn.
All accusations have been criticisms of Israel
These attacks started within two months of Corbyn announcing support for B.D.S.
This second tranche re-started when the delegation returned from Israel a couple of weeks ago.
Even Haaretz has made the connection between these accusations and Israeli policy.
I do not belive in a million years that the Jews in parliament have stayed silent on identifying the type of antisemitism for the good of the party - such an accusation is classically antisemitic - "a Jewish plot"
Unless you produce proof pesetive that antisemitism exists by naming and shaming the "antisemitism" your case is dead in the water.
It would go against any concept of justice to accuse someone of antisemitism and refuse to specify exactly what they are guilty of - the kind of justice Israel metes out to Arabs (including children)
Piss or get off the pot - you have no case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:24 PM

Which of what I have listed is not true?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:32 PM

These attacks started within two months of Corbyn announcing support for B.D.S.

Why BDS is antisemitic

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:51 PM

"I will put up another thread's worth when I get time"

Just the sake of honesty put up your own transgressions as well Jim. Oh hang on a minute "honesty" - is something you know nothing about, as far as you are concerned it is a totally alien concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 03:02 PM

"Just the sake of honesty put up your own transgressions as well Jim."
Your job - you really are a lazy individual.
Been there Bobad - Israel is not The Jews
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 03:15 PM

As ever, Keith, you can only appeal to authority. Never think for yourself. You're scared of having opinions of your own. I'll tell you what, I'll compromise. I'll bow down before Peston if you can demonstrate to me that he's still alive and has written a book on it in the last thirty years that may be found on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. Deal or no deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:18 PM

Jim, I must point you to the second line of the second post on this thread. It was a promise you made not to 'nause up' this thread. Now, I am sure there excuses a plenty from all for doing just that but, as I keep saying, it is not who starts hostilities but who finishes them that is the better person.

Not telling anyone what to do. Just reminding all concerned that this thread was started to replace one that had already gone bad ways.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:21 AM

"I must point you to the second line of the second post on this thread. It was a promise you made not to 'nause up' this thread."
If you are referring to my attempting to stop Teribus's gallop, I feel this forum is being damaged by his behaviour - not just this thread - and if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others, he will continue to infect this forum.
The administrators appear not to be interested and Teribus seems set on course to continue.
It may well be both our faults, but I can't say I'm not more than a little disappointed that you should point a finger and allocate blame.
Ah well!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:28 AM

Shouls read:
and if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others - put up for all to see in all its glory...
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM

As ever, Keith, you can only appeal to authority. Never think for yourself. You're scared of having opinions of your own.

Only an egotist on an industrial scale would think that he just knows everything already.
Peston is the Political Editor of ITV News and host of the weekly political discussion show Peston on Sunday. From February 2006 until March 2014, he was the Business Editor for BBC News.
Of course he is better informed than both of us.
I acknowledge that fact. You deny it.

It was a BY-ELECTION, Keith. Precipitated by a Tory idiot. Geddit? Not normal! Extrapolate ye not!

What did the MP who successfully fought and won it say?
"claim by the victor Sarah Olney that the result is a verdict on Brexit"
And her leader,
"The Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said the result was "historic" and a verdict on a so-called "hard" Brexit "

But what do they know about it compared to you?
Right Steve?

I have opinions based on facts.
Yours are just whims from an empty head.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:43 AM

Jim,
No examples of genuine antisemitism have ever been produced.

Naz Shah.

Virtually all accusations have come from supporters of Israel

Errr, "The Labour Party supports Israel." (Deputy Leader)

or political opponents of Corbyn.

Almost the entire PLP are political opponents of Corbyn, so not surprising.

All accusations have been criticisms of Israel

Not true.

These attacks started within two months of Corbyn announcing support for B.D.S.

The problem only arose under Corbyn's leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM

I accuse you of only ever appealing to authority and what do you do? Almost give me a biography of your latest authority! Very funny. And you call ME empty-headed.

Naz Shah did not utter a single antisemitic word. If you disagree, tell me which words. The antisemitic words, not her defending herself. Alternatively, bugger off and find yourself another stupid obsession. Your antisemitism misunderstandings have been done to death. In your heart of dishonest hearts you know bloody well that antisemitism is no more rife in the Labour Party than anywhere else, probably a lot less so in fact. "Naz Shah" my arse. Go on, entertain us, Keith. Why not have a pot at the LibDem leader for opposing abortion and gay marriage? That would be good!

No it wouldn't...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:25 AM

Steve, I spoke of people voting on Brexit and not party allegiances.
You ridiculed me for it, suggesting I got it from "racist mates" at the pub.

I then supported my stance with references to people in a position to know the facts.
You were wrong to ridicule me.
It was you who was out of touch.

Your opinions come from no-where and you can never substantiate them.
Mine are based on facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:31 AM

Steve,
Naz Shah did not utter a single antisemitic word

That is your opinion only, and what is that worth?
The NEC found it ant Semitic. They suspended her for it.
Shah herself acknowledged that her statements were anti Semitic and based on ignorance.
Once again you imagine you know better than them, based on nothing but your prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:42 AM

Not allocating blame at all, Jim. I think you may have missed the line in my post that makes that clear.

"Now, I am sure there excuses a plenty from all for doing just that "

Just trying to keep the peace.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:08 AM

"Just trying to keep the peace."
Too late - too late, the maiden cried!!
"Naz Shah."
So we have one example out of a membership of how many?
I think that makes my point perfectly
"The Labour Party supports Israel."
We all support Israel as a Stae and as an ideal - what we don't support is the acts of terrorism by the Israeli regime - and you know this
I should, of course have said "supports the Israeli regime" and could have added, is part of their propaganda campaign
Naz Shah took up the Israeli claim that it's actions were "Jewish" and also a jokey suggestion by a Jewish writer that Israel should be moved to America
Both were stupid.
Israel justifies its terrorist activities are on behalf of the Jewish People (while accusing Jews who do not agree with them as "self hating")
Shah was wrong to pick up on that Antisemitic lie - if she is an antisemitee, so is Israel.
She took what was a joke to be a serious suggestion for a solution to the conflict - that was stupid - I don't believe it to be antisemitic.
"All accusations have been criticisms of Israel" - "Not true."
Then if they weren't, you have to specify what they were.
"The problem only arose under Corbyn's leadership."
Of course it did - Corbyn supported B.D.S. - within six weeks the Israelis
accused the Party of Antisemitism
The delegation visited Israel - within three weeks those accusations beban again.
We now have agreement - antisemitism in the Labour party boils down to 1 possible example.
Lat's move on - unless you are able to produce more (hopefully without antisemitically blaming the whole thing on a Jewish Parliamentary plot to remain silent
There - that's not a bad start to the day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

I asked you for the precise antisemitic words, Keith, but, as usual, instead of giving a straight answer you give me the opinions of almost everyone in the world. Appeals to authority. The words, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Teribus's gallop = Member since 11.02.2002 with 8,580 posts.

Carroll's gallop = Member since 6.12.2007 with 17,480 posts.

Even your "pals" are getting tired of you Jim. And you are right Jim, NOT ONCE have I ever been admonished by any Moderator with regard to what I have posted on this forum. Can the same be said of you or your pals?

"I feel this forum is being damaged by his behaviour" - Jim Carroll Fortunately for this forum Max runs things not you, your feelings, or your pals.

"if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others - put up for all to see in all its glory, he will continue to infect this forum."

Your blatantly biased, bigoted, narrow minded, hate fuelled bile does more to infect this forum than anything anyone else has ever posted - "if he isn't stopped" - you sanctimonious prat, who elected you to the position of deciding who can and who cannot be a member? This all part of your "pecking order" - believer in "socialist equality" my arse - doesn't take much to make the mask slip does it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:50 AM

Perfect post From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM

"Even your "pals" are getting tired of you Jim."
Does any of this prove anything Teribus?
Your failure to provide any back up for anything you say says all that is needed.
Answer something with evidence and you will have taken the first step - sticks and stones are childish and prove nothing - but at least you have your little TROLL to keep you warm.
Now let's continue this discussion like adults and leave this to the schoolyard where it belongs and stop fucking up threads.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 09:40 AM

"This all part of your "pecking order" "
Nice to see one of my jokes hit home though
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 11:44 AM

Naz Shah says her anti-semitic posts were ignorant

Now then Steve tell us all how you know better than Naz Shah herself what she said and what she meant when she said it. Tell us all how the entire Labour NEC who investigated the matter were all less informed on the matter than retired school teacher Steve Shaw. They investigated the matter fully and suspended Naz Shaw until she acknowledged her error and then publicly apologised for posting what she did.

As far as this goes, I will accept as real the information I get from the principals themselves, not the ill-informed opinion of a biased third party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM

Well, Cap'n' Puggers, let's consider what you would would think of any other Labour politician who made a pronouncement about just about anything in the world. You'd believe every word, wouldn't you, take the whole lot on board as if it were gospel delivered from on high.

NOT.

Here we are, a bunch of politicos in a party you hate, making a pronouncement, and you believe every word of it, the reason being that it fits your anti-Labour-so-let's-whack-up-any-internal-row-they're-having-just-like-the-Daily-Mail-does-and-this-antisemitism-shit-will-do-very-nicely. Naz Shah is a political careerist. She retracted and grovelled and beat her breast chanting mea culpa TO SAVE HER OWN ARSE. Well, unless you think we Labourites are above such chicanery. Which you bloody well don't, and you know it.

I won't ask you to get real because I feel sorry for you and don't want to ask too much of you all in one go. Go and get your tea. See you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

"Now then Steve tell us all how you know better than Naz Shah herself what she said and what she meant when she said "
Naz Shah is a politician who wanted to keep her job, just as is Boris Johnson when he apoligised for his racism
Any estimation of what both of their apologies mean must be taken with that in mind, though it's far easier to arrive at the opinion that suits best.
That still remains at one Labour politician who may or my not be guilty of antisemitism out 555,000 members - a serious problem indeed!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:52 PM

Exactement, Jim. But Keith and Teribus are about as honest with themselves as, er, the average politician. You can't tell 'em, though. The ideological fog gets in the way. At least they're clever enough not to fall for my booby trap of asking them for the exact "antisemitic" words. They damn well know there aren't any, that's why!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM

'ill informed opinion of biased third parties' I wonder if he means the professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM

Naz Shah had already been reinstated when she said in Parliament that her statements were anti-Semitic, and acknowledged the role of Jewish friends who explained Jewish history to her.
But you are right. The NEC suspended her for her anti-Semitic statements and she had to retract and apologise for them.
She then went further in Parliament.
If you disagree with the NEC that her statements were anti-Semitic, it is your definition that is at fault.
They most likely work to the same definition as the Police, which is the EUMC definition that you refute Steve.
You are on your own in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

He don't mean me, Raggytash. I'm just a retired sandal-wearing* Guardian-reading sunset pinko leftie lentil-munching science teacher. Maybe he meant himself, a badly-educated Captain Pugwash clone, sailing the mighty oceans defending the world from those rotten Cuban nasties (unless he was below-deck all the time in the laundry making a few bob doing the lads' dhobies, of course. Think he'll tell us?)

*No socks, so don't accuse me. I won't stand by to be insulted. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

(Heheh. This is getting to be fun). The exact "antisemitic" words, Keith, is ALL I ask! And yes, it's a booby trap!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:33 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM

Well, Cap'n' Puggers, let's consider what you would would think of any other Labour politician who made a pronouncement about just about anything in the world. You'd believe every word, wouldn't you, take the whole lot on board as if it were gospel delivered from on high.

NOT.

Who is Cap'n' Puggers Shaw??? That you calling people names - Jom doesn't like that.

Now that we have got that out of the way the rest of that crap is not what this is all about is it?

It is not a simple matter of what one Labour MP said is it. It is not about what one Labour MP said and I believed at all is it?

It is about what one Labour MP said when she wasn't even an MP that others considered was anti-Semitic and she was reported on after she HAD become an MP. The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party which consists of the following:

Leader of the Labour Party
Jeremy Corbyn MP

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Tom Watson MP

Treasurer
Diana Holland

Opposition Front Bench
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Jon Trickett MP
Kate Osamor MP

EPLP Leader
Glenis Willmott MEP (Chair)
Young Labour
Jasmin Beckett
Trade Unions
Keith Birch (UNISON)
Jamie Bramwell (UCATT)
Jennie Formby (UNITE)
Andi Fox (TSSA)
Jim Kennedy (Unite)
Andy Kerr (CWU)
Paddy Lillis (USDAW)
Martin Mayer (UNITE)
Pauline McCarthy (BFAWU)
Wendy Nichols (UNISON)
Cath Speight (GMB)
Mary Turner (GMB)
Socialist Societies and BAME Labour
James Asser (Socialist Societies)
Keith Vaz MP (BAME Labour)

CLPs
Ann Black
Christine Shawcroft
Claudia Webbe
Darren Williams
Pete Willsman
Rhea Wolfson
Labour Councillors
Cllr Nick Forbes
Cllr Alice Perry

PLP/EPLP
Margaret Beckett MP
George Howarth MP
Shabana Mahmood MP

Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour
Kezia Dugdale MSP (Leader of the Scottish Labour Party)
Alun Davies AM (Welsh Labour Representative)

Then had to investigate the incident and they found a case to be answered. Basically "Numbnuts" (As you are in a name calling frame of mind) if they, all Labour Party stalwarts looking to the Labour Party's best interests, found that there was a case to answer - WHY the hell shouldn't I believe them?? As previously explained they know a damned sight more about the workings of the Labour Party than you do.

Unlike YOU I am not driven by ANY particular political ideology as you and Jim Carroll seem to think. Unlike you I have never been a member of ANY political Party - I tend to think things out for myself, I do not require to be told what clichéd ideological long extinct party line to stick to as seems to be the case with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

I'm just a retired sandal-wearing* Guardian-reading sunset pinko leftie lentil-munching EX-science teacher.

Thanks for that Shaw, as a description that will do nicely, especially as you provided it yourself (Whenever used you can hardly complain about it - same as Jom really).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:44 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

"The exact "antisemitic" words"

Question best directed at Naz Shah and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party don't you think Shaw - Keith A after all only reported what they themselves said. Your argument is with them not Keith A.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

"Naz Shah had already been reinstated when she said in Parliament that her statements were anti-Semitic"
It was part of the agreement of her reinstatement - that's how these things are done.
Isn't it nice to be discussing one case of antisemitism in the Labour Party rather than the "serious problem" that it was claimed.
"What a difference a day makes" (somebody is going to have to explain how to insert musical notes sometime"
"EUMC"
Where does claiming that Jews have entered into a pact of silence and refused to describe antisemitism Keit?
For that matter, where does Israel's claiming that all criticisms of her policy are antisemitic and all Jews who disagree with it are self-hating?
I don't expect an answer, but it's fun listening to the silence!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:51 PM

Except that we all know how irritable you become if anyone dares to diss Maggie. Very defensive you get: "Go on, blame Thatcher for that as well!" (caricature intended, not a verbatim quote).

"They found that there was a case to be answered." Hardly done and dusted then!   

All that happened at a time when every bloody media hawk in the country was circling around Labour. The NEC were trying to wriggle out of a media-driven crisis, cheer-led by the Israeli regime, and making a balls of it. The way you're talking about them you'd think you'd listed a litany of saints. You won't hear a word against 'em. Had they been talking about restoring trade union power or supporting Unite and McCluskey you'd have been calling them lying, subversive scumbags. You want your cake and eat it, just like those stupid brexiteers.

Nah then, Keith and Puggers. Naz Shah's precise "antisemitic" words, please. Come on, chaps. It's only a sandal-wearing former teacher asking. Leftie wastrels, the lot of us! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 03:17 PM

To save messing about I don't mind posting what she put - Taken from this Guardian article

The comments following are purely my opinions. Which will invariably differ from that of others but differing opinions are no bad thing. In my opinion... :-)

1. The post, shared nine months before she beat George Galloway to win the seat in Bradford West, showed a picture of Israel superimposed over the United States, with the approving comment: "Problem solved and save you bank charges for the £3bn you transfer yearly."

Primarily about the backing of the state of Israel by the USA. No mention of the Jewish religion.

2. The Jewish Chronicle reports another Facebook post by Shah in which she calls on Facebook followers to vote in an online poll asking whether Israel had committed war crimes.

Again, about the state of Israel with no link to Jews.

3. More Facebook posts by Shah emerge. She wrote the caption #ApartheidIsrael on a picture that appeared to compare the state to the Nazis. It was above a picture of Dr Martin Luther King holding the quote: "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal'.

Pretty stupid, linking the state of Israel to Nazi Germany but yet again she does not seem to be showing any prejudice against Jews specifically.

Her apologies, as reported in the article linked, do not seem to admit antisemitism either but they may not have printed the whole apology. Here is what was printed -

First

With the understanding of the issues I have now I would never have posted them. I have to own up to the fact that ignorance is not a defence.

The language I used was wrong. It is hurtful. What's important is the impact these posts have had on other people. I understand that referring to Israel and Hitler as I did is deeply offensive to Jewish people, for which I apologise.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm shocked myself at the language I used in some instances during the Gaza-Israel conflict.


and second

Mr Speaker, can I seek your advice on how I can express my deep sorrow for something the prime minister referred to earlier?

As you know, when a government minister makes a mistake they can correct the record. I hope you will allow me to say that I fully acknowledge that I have made a mistake and I wholeheartedly apologise to this house for the words I used before I became a member.

I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop. As an MP I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none.

I am grateful and thankful for the support and advice I have received from many Jewish friend and colleagues, advice I intend to act upon.

I truly regret what I did and I hope, I sincerely hope, that this house will accept my profound apology.


Typical politspeak if you ask me. Says that any form of racism must stop but does not admit to any!

I think the biggest argument here must be with the press and how the media have blown this out of all proportion. A blatant attempt to derail the Corbyn bandwagon.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 03:57 PM

Pretty stupid, linking the state of Israel to Nazi Germany but yet again she does not seem to be showing any prejudice against Jews specifically.

That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"

From the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism adopted by consensus of the 31 member countries, 11 observer countries and the Permanent International Partners which includes United Nations, UNESCO, OSCE/ODIHR, International Tracing Service (ITS), European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Council of Europe, and the Claims Conference.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:13 PM

That is fine. Some people say that it is antisemitism but not everyone agrees. That will always happen. Whether it is or isn't is not really the point on this thread though is it? There is one stupid statement by one MP, for which she was suspended and has subsequently apologised and has subsequently pledged to "build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none." Is this really indicative that antisemitism is rife in the labour party? If so, what other examples do we have?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:50 PM

Some people say that it is antisemitism but not everyone agrees.

Since the UK is one of the member countries that adopted the definition I would say that anyone expressing those views in the UK is committing an act of anti-Semitism regardless the prejudice of individuals who refuse to accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:53 PM

Superstar post, Dave. Naz was an idiot, not an antisemite, a learner of lessons. Saving her own arse. All those things. The context was a right-wing onslaught from pro-Tory tabloids and the Israeli regime and a Labour leadership that was inexperienced and panicky.

What a comedown to have to consider bobad's abject post. What she said is antisemitic if the definition is correct. Which it isn't. If the definition has been adopted but is incorrect, she is not antisemitic. The adoption of a definition does not imbue it with correctness or special authority. The definition has been pushed, pushed and pushed by pro-Israeli regime lobby groups. The EUMC version was proposed by a group that was "advised" by overwhelmingly pro-Israel regime lobbies. Rightly, it was abandoned before it was adopted. I actually don't think we need to have an "official definition." Billions of people happily follow a religion yet there's no "official definition" of God. Antisemitism is easy to define. It's as easy to define as any other kind of racism. Nothing complicated or special about it that needs committees driven by pro-Israel lobbies. If you attack, oppress, criticise or discriminate against Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, you are antisemitic. You are not necessarily antisemitic (depends on your motives, as ever) if you criticise the state of Israel or the policies or actions of its regime. Having "definitions" drawn up by pressure groups pushed down your throat is a very bad way to go. Positively divisive. And it gets their proponents absolutely nowhere. Wittering on about it as bobad and Keith do just victimises Jewish people and helps to put them in harm's way. Ups the ante, big-time. People like bobad and Keith are the arch-enemies of Jewish people the world over.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:41 PM

Once again a leftist non-Jew feels curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 07:15 PM

I haven't told any Jews that they're wrong or subjected any Jews to long lectures. I'm telling YOU that, not only are you wrong, you're crippled by bigotry, and it's only you I'm delivering long (allegedly) lectures to. There are very many Jews who find the attitude of people like you to be totally obnoxious (I know a few as it happens). By grouping all Jews together in order to say that I'm lecturing them, etc., you are displaying the same antisemitism you're so fond of accusing others of. "All Jews are the same" is what you're saying. "All these blacks are the same" is what I heard a lot of at school in the sixties. All Jews are not the same and very few of them would be siding with you right now. The Jewish people on this planet have got more than enough to put up with without people like you and Keith making things infinitely worse for them.

You simply can't see your way round any of this because of the fog of prejudice. It's no way to go through the world.   Enjoy your bubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:32 AM

"Question best directed at Naz Shah and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party don't you think Shaw - Keith A after all only reported what they themselves said. Your argument is with them not Keith A."

I have noticed that neither Naz Shah or the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party post on Mudcat, therefore the argument is with the person who posts.

If it is not perhaps they would refrain from posting things they cannot or will not substantiate themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 03:59 AM

"That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:"
Can you explain why you are free to ignore this clause:
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
by continuing to accuse all critics of antisemitism, yet hide behind Jews, including leading members of the Israeli establishment are making.
Israel is being described as either moving towards fascism or already there by Israelis

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:10 AM

"That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:"
Can you explain why you are free to ignore this clause:
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
by continuing to accuse all critics of Israeli policy of antisemitism, yet condemn an accusation now being made regularly by Jews, including leading members of the Israeli establishment.
Israel is being described as either moving towards fascism or is already a FASCIST STATE throughout the world by Jews and non Jews alike
You are, by the definition you quote, an antisemite Bobad - tell us what makes you so special in selecting the bits of the definition that suit you and ignoring the bits that don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:20 AM

"the argument is with the person who posts."

Ehmmmmm No Raggy, the discussion centres on the content of the post, it is not an argument with the messenger, although for nearly three years now you and your pals have been bullying, mobbing and browbeating one particular member of this forum at every single opportunity you can grab.

For sake of clarity both Naz Shah and the NEC of the Labour Party are both easily contactable - none of you will do this as you most certainly would NOT like the answer they would supply.

DtG asked what in the reported coverage of what Naz Shah said was anti-Semitic.

Well according to Baroness Royall's recommendations this:

"She wrote the caption #ApartheidIsrael on a picture that appeared to compare the state to the Nazis."

This Naz Shah fully recognised otherwise why on earth would she say the following:

"I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM

Still not the point bobad. The thread is entitled 'labour party discussion'. Feel free to discuss definitions of antisemitism if you like but I have made my point and feel no further need to progress it. In case you missed it I shall rephrase.

Naz Shah made a stupid statement whether it was antisemitic or not.

But does the action of this one person tar the whole of the Labour party antisemitic? If anyone believes that antisemitism is rife in the Labour party can they provide examples of clear antisemitism from more than, what shall we say, 10%? 5%? 1%?, of its membership?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM

Naz Shah chose her words badly and apologised for it.
If she is an antisemite so is Bobad for blaming the Jews for Isreal's crimes and he is a hypocrite for choosing only the part of the definition which suits him and ignoring the other which doesn't
Now we have these people clinging to one single case of one ill though out statement
"Where have all the thousands of Labour antisemites gone?" as the song could have said
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:39 AM

Same answer to your post as to bobad's, Teribus. The fact that Naz Shah said "I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop" Indicates that she accepts that she did cause upset obviously. However, there are plenty of ways to upset people without being racist or antisemitic but even that is still not the point. The point is, was this typical of the majority of the Labour party membership or even leadership? If so, which I doubt, is this also typical "I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none."? Hardly the phrase an antisemite would be comfortable with.

Is antisemitism endemic in the Labour party or was it just a ploy by the right wing press to stem the growing popularity of the right wing?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:44 AM

Sorry - Last words should of course be left wing.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM

Shah acknowledged that her statements were anti-Semitic but denied being an anti-Semite.
She said she was ignorant of Jewish history.
In one of her statements she suggested that Israeli Jews be transported away from the Middle East.

It was not just her.
There were over 50 secretly suspended.
The "entire NEC" were "appalled" by anti-Semitism within Labour. You make yourselves ridiculous denying it was and is an issue.

Deputy Leader just last week,
"Let me say something before we get any further today about taking on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party: that's a moral responsibility. I am ashamed that I am saying anti-Semitism and Labour in the same sentence.
"But dealing with it can't be something we do for show, for the sake of it, because we've come under media pressure, or because we need to deal with a political problem. It's a commandment.
"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker.
"I know there are still some outstanding issues that cannot be ignored. They won't be ignored. Action is being taken now and if, God forbid, we find these problems again, action will be quicker in the future."

Jim, can you substantiate that Shah's statement in Parliament was part of an "agreement?"
Steve, can you substantiate that she was lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM

So, what we have as evidence for antisemitism being endemic in the Labour party are 50 suspensions that no one can confirm because they are 'secret' and a statement that any antisemitism in the party is indeed appalling?

Not evidence at all really is it?

Can anyone come up with any real facts or figures as to how many people in the Labour party are antisemitic?

No?

Just asking.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:35 AM

Dave, are you saying that there is no evidence of anti-Semitism having been a problem within Labour?
Why would Sadique Khan and Tom Watson lie about it?
Why would the NEC say they were appalled by it?
Why so many suspensions?
Why the enquiries and reports on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:38 AM

1000!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

Can anybody come up with the numbers? Yes the NEC of the Labour Party, the problem in OULC was highlighted by Baroness Royall that called for a far wider investigation that was carried out by recently created Baroness Chakrabarti whose report recommended that a lid be put very firmly on the issue. In short Labour's NEC decided to bury the whole thing as effectively as they possibly could - shame about Baroness Royall's report being leaked into the public domain something the NEC never intended.

Doesn't matter a damn whether or not you, Steve Shaw, Raggy or Jim Carroll think - none of you are members of, or are privy to the policies and working of, Labours NEC. I will consider as being accurate whatever is stated by senior Labour figures and the NEC long before I will accept your collective suppositions and ill-informed theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM

I have not said there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. I am simply saying that if there is evidence of endemic antisemitism in the Labour party then where is it? Someone else's say so does not qualify as hard evidence to me.

Nor am I suggesting that anyone should take my opinion over anyone else's in this. Because without hard evidence, all any of us have are opinions and theories, no matter how well or ill informed.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:08 AM

Someone else's say so does not qualify as hard evidence to me.

If it is from senior insiders then it does qualify as hard evidence to me.
There have been no equivalent denials.
Presumably your case is that they might all be lying for some unknown reason. That is hardly a convincing case. There is no evidence for it at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:19 AM

That is indeed rather presumptuous. I do not believe they are lying when they say that they have serious concerns about antisemitism within the party. Just as any right minded individual should have concerns about any sort of racism anywhere. What I am saying is that unless some real evidence of endemic antisemitism within the Labour party is produced, this is all speculative.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM

No-one is suggesting "endemic anti-Semitism" Dave.
We are suggesting that indeed there are "serious concerns about antisemitism within the party."

So we agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM

"Why would Sadique Khan and Tom Watson lie about it?"
What are the reasons you have been given and are asking this question as if they haven't, not valid?
"Why would the NEC say they were appalled by it?"
See above answer - you have ben told over and over again why
"Why so many suspensions?"
See above answer - suspensions took place why accusations were investigated - they were and no problem was found
Ther reports are all linked to the B.D.S. campaign or the anti-Corbyn dispute.
Why are you maliciously asking questions that have all been answered?
So you can claim the 1000 maybe?
THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A PROBLEM AND, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT IS IDENTIFIED AND QUANTIFIED, THERE NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LANCOUR PARTY - THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM

Of course there are "serious concerns about antisemitism within the party." There are serious concerns over lots of things in lots of organisations and so there should be. I have not though, as yet, witnessed anything to make me believe that those serious concerns are anything other than that. Serious concerns. They should be listened to, investigated and acted upon. As they have been.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:15 AM

They should be listened to, investigated and acted upon.

Yes Dave . We are in total agreement.

As they have been.

The Deputy Leader said they had been slow to act and there are still outstanding issues.

Jim,
Ther reports are all linked to the B.D.S. campaign or the anti-Corbyn dispute.

Any evidence for that amazing claim Jim? No.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR -

Senior members say there is and none deny it, so that is obvious bollocks Jim.

, THERE NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LANCOUR PARTY

Senior members say there is Jim, and none deny it. Sorry.

THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM

You are now into the realms of bizarre fantasy Jim dear. You are just incapable of rational thought on this. You have a serious problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:17 AM

Do we know what these outstanding issues are or are we just to speculate some more?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:19 AM

It is a total travesty of natural and legal justice to accuse and condemn an individual, let alone an entire party of something without being to identify or quantify what these charges are - it is lynch-mob behaviour and also reminiscent of the show trials carried out by Stalin in the Soviet Union - British justice at its most toxic, it would appear.
To repeat over and over again questions that have been responded to over and over again is filibustering.
Let those responsible for this behaviour make their charges fully or let them take their right-wing politicking elsewhere.
Using Mudcat as a political soapbox has no place on the decent debating forum that it is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM


Do we know what these outstanding issues are or are we just to speculate some more?

Yes we know Dave. It is clear from the context. Anti Semitism in the Party.

Jim, You have lapsed into total irrationality.
Leave it for a while, and come back to it later.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM

Total irrationality is making charges and being able to identify them
Fucking madness in any sane society
"Leave it for a while, and come back to it later."
Don't you just wish????
You leave it - you have totally failed to make your case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:23 AM

"You are now into the realms of bizarre fantasy Jim dear. You are just incapable of rational thought on this. You have a serious problem." - Keith A of Hertford

The on this in that second sentence is redundant. Without it what you say above is true and has been obvious for almost a decade now.

DtG nice try by slipping in that "endemic". Very pleased to see that Keith A spotted it and pulled you up on it. Go back and we find it was the "usual suspects" claiming and arguing that not only was there was no problem at all with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, they claimed it did not exist. Deputy Leader says there is and it does, the NEC says there is and it does, Baroness Royall says there is and it does and Baroness Chakrabarti says there is and it does. Now I will believe them and chose to ignore the rather poor arguments being put up by the likes of Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw, Raggytash and yourself.

The evidence is there the NEC have made extensive efforts to keep it all under wraps. Chakrabarti's recommendations have aided this endeavour and made sure that Labour will not and cannot investigate the matter again - begs the obvious question that rather torpedoes your argument - if they have nothing to hide why mount the cover-up?
Thank God for leaked reports eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Now Momentum may be about to split.
Whither Momentum?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM

Yes, my apologies. Endemic was my slant on it and I was drawing the conclusion that it was implied by the massive coverage it had received in the press. I shall not use it again. I do believe that you will find however that I have not claimed that it did not exist. In a group of over half a million people generating millions of words there will be some antisemitism, some racism, some bad and lots of good. Those speaking on behalf of the party have made it clear that the bad will not be tolerated.

I shall rephrase my question. Is the belief that antisemitism is worse in the Labour party than it is anywhere else? If so, what is the evidence for this?

On the subject of evidence, what is the evidence that "the NEC have made extensive efforts to keep it all under wraps". What is this "leaked report" and where is it from? Is this a substantiated fact and would it stand up in a court of law?

Genuine questions and I have no argument to torpedo. Just trying to find out what the fuss is all about by seeking opinion from multiple sources.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 10:24 AM

Is this a substantiated fact and would it stand up in a court of law?
Yes and yes.

It is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public.
The report on anti-Semitism in the Oxford University Labour Soc. was not to be published, but was leaked.

Is the belief that antisemitism is worse in the Labour party than it is anywhere else? If so, what is the evidence for this?

The evidence is the large number of suspensions, and statements by senior figures.
Also this from the NEC.
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:01 AM

"Yes and yes."
Utter nonsense
Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges han not been described
Of course you can't -this is spiteful politicking that has long been su7nk without trace.... "Without it what you say above is true and has been obvious for almost a decade now" fully supported with mindless invective.
No specified charges - no case, unless your idea of democracy and justice is drawn from Kafka
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

" is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public."
I'M SURE YOU DON'T MEAN THESE!!
" is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public."
And provided no specified examples - even from the Jerusalem Post, which got a copy
More evidence of non-existent antisemitism (or maybe they are part of Keith's 'Jewish pact of silence'.
"The evidence is the large number of suspensions, and statements by senior figures."
No evidence - just reactions to accusations
You are now putting up thisngs for the second and thirsd time which have been over-ridden by the fact that no specified charges have ever been made
I ask again
Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges han not been described?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence? I think not. There are numerous reasons that a paper is not published, including the simplest one - That it may contain inaccuracies. I am not saying this is the case but is there any evidence that there was a cover up? Do we know who leaked the report and why? If the suspensions were so secret, how do we know how many there were and in how many cases accusations were upheld?

No, sorry. Far too many holes in this 'evidence' for my liking. The balance of probabilities is still that the Labour party is no better or worse than any other large organisation.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

the fact that no specified charges have ever been made

The charges have been made. They have been made to the leadership and the NEC who have chosen to deal with them internally.
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
Note Jim, cases not accusations.

Dave, I do not mind responding to all the probing questions you ask about everything Teribus and I post, but I have to ask, is there nothing in the posts of Jim or Steve that ever excite your sceptical curiosity?
What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

Or Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"

In short, why is your probing so unidirectional?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM

Dave,
So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence?

No Dave. The Party commissioned an enquiry into anti-Semitism in that society, but refused to publish the report.

Do we know who leaked the report and why

Yes.

If the suspensions were so secret, how do we know how many there were and in how many cases accusations were upheld?

Not "so secret." They just decided to deal with it internally, but the Telegraph got some details.

Now, what evidence will you be asking from Jim and Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/labour-has-secretly-suspended-50-members-for-anti-semitic-and-ra/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:14 PM

Unless you can specify those charges there is no Anti Semitism
Your Repetitive attempts to implicate the Labour party in something you aree totally unable to describe aaor explain without implicating the Jws in an antisemitic claim of a plot has now reached "Alice Through the Looking-Glass proportions
You refusal to respond to this question - "Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges being described?" are proof positive that you are fully aware of this and are lying in your teeth, and our gleeful attempts yo blow up yet another Labour problem and you makes obvious exactly where you are coming from.
"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government"
THat was not my claim - you are lying again - is there really no depths you will sink to to save face?
It is the implication of your claim that Jewish Parliamentarians refuse to describe the Antisemitism they claim - which now includes The Jewish Post.
The accusations have ben made quite clear - they are entirely based on Corbyn's support of B.D.S. - which may be antisemitic to Israel and her supporters but is antisemitic by definition to describe it as such.
You are as mad as a hatter
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

You are one of the most evilly dishonest people on this forum Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

Unless you can specify those charges there is no Anti Semitism

You are one of the most evilly dishonest people on this forum Keith

Ah, ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM

My statement about Quisling
06 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM
"You are a persistent quisling Keith - betraying the elected members of a British Party with a century old reputation for anti-racism of any form to an extremist right wing foreign power."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:06 PM

"So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence? I think not." - DtG

And you would think right Gnome.

A University Labour Group DID NOT produce a paper. Baroness Royall at the behest of Labour's National Executive Committee undertook an investigation of reported anti-Semitism within the Oxford University Labour Club after its Jewish co-chair resigned and other Jewish members stated that they felt unsafe attending meetings. On completion of Baroness Royall's investigation here conclusions and her recommendations were published by the NEC but they tried to suppress the main body of the report which was subsequently leaked. While Baroness Royall stated that anti-Semitism was not institutionalised she said that it did exist and required urgent and immediate action to counter the spread of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. Baroness Royall's findings prompted the investigation by Shami Chakrabarti which had a far wider remit.

Your post makes one wonder if you have the foggiest clue about anything being discussed here - not the first time you have argued from a position of total ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:02 PM

Sorry Teribus. Have I said something that offends you that warrants such rancour? If so, please let me know what it is so I can avoid it in future.

I am not arguing anything, merely questioning what was said. IE "The report on anti-Semitism in the Oxford University Labour Soc. was not to be published, but was leaked." That is all I knew about it so, yes, in one way you are right. I was ignorant, in the true sense of the word, of the events being discussed. You have now enlightened me further and I now know that the report was not by the society but about the society. But that poses a further question.

Are we now saying that a report into a top University's Labour society, that was never published but was leaked to the right wing press is indicative of serious antisemitism in the Labour party? Do you believe that antisemitism is more prevalent within the Labour party than in any other organisation? If so, what brings you to that conclusion and what makes you believe that Labour supporters are more likely to be antisemitic than any other cross section of society?

The only argument I have ever put forward is that I believe that the Labour party is not likely be any different to any other large group. That is not arguing form ignorance but from a lifetime of experience with people from all walks of life. I believe, and I accept that this is purely anecdotal, that in the main people are good regardless of their political beliefs, race, colour or creed. But there is good and bad everywhere, including the Labour party. How can it be any worse with them than say, the Conservatives, Liberals, UKIP or any other party (Excluding extremists of any persuasion of course)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:55 PM

Been away most of today. Reading the most recent bunch of posts in this thread, the most obvious conclusion, sorry to say, is that Keith is a sad obsessive. As he is not a well man, I sometimes feel that I should hold back. But that would be highly inappropriate. Keith's modus operandi is very, very simple. He gets an idea in his head, typically predicated on bigotry. He then dedicates his online life to ignoring any evidence adverse to his agenda whilst appealing to any right-wing authority he can find. This excuses him from having any properly formed opinion of his own. Keith never admits error, never. For example, he stated in a post that, according to Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor were "vulgar" whereas Wheatcroft actually said no such thing. Though Keith was clearly bang to rights, he refused to acknowledge the error (I won't go into all the excuses he gave as I haven't got all day). Also, when it comes to Israel, Keith denies every single atrocity committed by successive regimes, claiming that he's "only putting Israel's side of the story." Oh yes, Keith is very good at telling stories!

Just a few observations, that's all...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 02:18 AM

"For example, he stated in a post that, according to Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor were "vulgar" whereas Wheatcroft actually said no such thing."

Good heavens Shaw, still banging on about this two years down the line eh? You must be really short of ammunition. But I'd challenge your NO SUCH THING. Wheatcroft described the historical works related to the First World War of the authors you mentioned as being "Fraudulent" related to Clark's work and "Vulgar" related to A.J.P.Taylor's work. So Keith A was at least 50% right wasn't he.

Here are Geoffrey Wheatcroft's actual words:

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark." - Geoffrey Wheatcroft; Guardian; 9.12.1914; Article Title - The Second World War - The Long Read - "The myth of the good war"

Now Keith A of Hertford quoted the above passage, if fact IIRC he also provided a link to it, but in one post he omitted the word "Fraudulent" and Stevie boy jumped all over him for it (And as his last post shows he continues to do so after two years - and Shaw has the effin' nerve to accuse Keith A of being obsessive!!!). In Keith A's following posts on that particular thread Keith A owns up to his error of omission, obviously missed, or more likely deliberately ignored by Shaw. On the subject of errors Shaw does not seem moved to obsessively point out the glaring mistakes and errors made by his pals, Keith A had a word describing such behaviour - unidirectional.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:04 AM

As disingenuous as ever DtG.

Dave the Gnome - 08 Dec 16 - 05:02 PM

1: What rancour? I pointed out that you appeared to be ignorant {In the true sense of the word} of the details of the subject under discussion and you agreed that I was in fact right:

"That is all I knew about it so, yes, in one way you are right. I was ignorant, in the true sense of the word, of the events being discussed."

2: "Are we now saying that a report into a top University's Labour society, that was never published but was leaked to the right wing press is indicative of serious anti-Semitism in the Labour party?

I don't know about "WE" DtG but that is certainly what Baroness Royall and Labour's National Executive Committee thought.

I'll take the following points 3, 4 & 5 together

3: "Do you believe that anti-Semitism is more prevalent within the Labour party than in any other organisation? If so, what brings you to that conclusion and what makes you believe that Labour supporters are more likely to be anti-Semitic than any other cross section of society?"

4: The only argument I have ever put forward is (Strange thing to say considering the first five words of your second paragraph - "I am not arguing anything") that I believe that the Labour party is not likely be any different to any other large group. That is not arguing form ignorance but from a lifetime of experience with people from all walks of life."

5: "How can it be any worse with them than say, the Conservatives, Liberals, UKIP or any other party (Excluding extremists of any persuasion of course)"

Decide for yourself the following evidence:

(a) How many other people who are members of any political party have publicly resigned because they feel intimidated attending meetings of their own political party? Documented cases of this from members of the Labour Party.

(b) How many constituency party organisations have been suspended and prohibited from holding meetings by the governing bodies of those political parties? Documented cases of Labour's NEC doing exactly this, most notable being the Wallasey Constituency Labour Party where on mounting her Leadership challenge to Jeremy Corbin Wallasey Labour MP Angela Eagle was threatened, intimidated and subjected to homophobic abuse by Corbyn supporters. Four other Constituency Labour Party organisations have also been suspended.

(c) Baroness Royall was tasked with looking into anti-Semitism (Racism by Labour's definition) within the Oxford University Labour Club. Her findings resulted in 11 recommendations some of whom she detailed as requiring urgent and immediate action - what other political party has had to do the same? Baroness Royall's report was taken so seriously by Labour's NEC that a second investigation was commissioned to look into allegations of misogyny, intimidation, racism and homophobia throughout the entire Party structure - what other political party has found the need to do that? Those actions were not taken because there was no evidence of those charges to be found - you do not attempt to suppress a report that exonerates your organisation, I would rather have thought that you'd trumpet it to the world - Labour's NEC didn't do that - WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:58 AM

Steve, Your 8.55PM post is pure and baseless personal attack and no discussion.

Dave, I do not mind responding to all the probing questions you ask about everything Teribus and I post, but I have to ask, is there nothing in the posts of Jim or Steve that ever excite your sceptical curiosity?
What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

Or Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"
Or his claim that Shah had not been anti-Semitic but lied that she had for career purposes.

Do such claims from them not require evidence too?
We have supplied all the evidence you requested, what about them?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:17 AM

I must have misinterpreted your post as being rancourous then, Teribus. If you say it was not, I will accept that and put it down to my misunderstanding. Nothing disingenuous at all.

Addressing your points of evidence a, b and c.

a) What has this to do with antisemitism?
b) Ditto
c) Labour did not 'have' to undertake the investigations. They did so voluntarily. They have since undertaken a programme of improvement. Will the other parties do the same? I am reminded of the old joke about an ex inmate of a lunatic asylum being abused for having undertaken treatment. His response is to remind the abusers that he now has a paper to prove that he is sane whereas they have no such thing :-)

In conclusion, no, I do not believe that the Labour party is any better or worse than any other (previous exclusion apply). They have simply been more open.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:24 AM

Keith, sorry, I am not ignoring you. I thought I had addressed this question before and I was trying to find a way of answering again without repeating myself. I can't so I will just say that I do indeed find nothing in Jim or Steve's posts that "excites my sceptical curiosity". I am not saying that I either agree or disagree with their statements. In truth it is a some of each. Now, if you like, you can take it as a compliment to your journalistic ability to engender further thought or I can just confirm what I have said before. I need to ask you a lot of questions because a lot of the time your points are unclear to me.

Hope this helps

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM

"Good heavens Shaw, still banging on about this two years down the line eh? You must be really short of ammunition. "
This is exactly what you do on this forum Teribus - you are still fighting world war one from two years back, still telling us that the result of the Irish Famine had nothing to do with British policy from about four years ago and still claiming that the ammunition sold to Syria was the wrong size to be used by Assad's snipers....... all to recoup long lost arguments and prove those who argue with you are stupid liars and purveyors of "made-up shit"
And you are still talking down to people from your superior position as a mental midget.
It happens every time a thread grinds to a stalemate - you and your mates go at your opponents like a pack of rats at the throat - Keith has just had another try at smearing my with his own antisemitism, as he has done at least once before.
Let's move back to the subject and leave Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor to the clay of history.
I don't agree that the Labour Party report was indicative of serious antisemitism in the Labour party - if it had been we would have been told of what that antisemitism was in great detail - by the victims of that antisemitism, by the Israeli press who were out to get Corbyn for his support of B.D.S. (especially as these accusations have their roots in Israel and are even accepted by the Israeli press as being about criticism of Israeli policy) - and most of all, by the right-wing press, which has been the sworn enemy of Corbyn from day one.
Other than one member's possible lapse of judgement, no description of the offence Labour has been accused of has been forthcoming - that is how serious these charges are.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, by definition, as much as the Israeli regime might like it to be.
B.D.S. is not antisemitic either - as far as I am concerned, it is on par with the South African boycott that helped to bring the Apartheid regime to its knees - mor power to it's elbow, as far as I am concerned - I'll donate to it and listen to what it has to say, and take part in its demonstrations, given the opportunity.
Of course there is antisemitism in the Labour Party - and every of the political party -
Labour has a long history of opposing it and the Left movement in Britain was built with the assistance of emigré Jews fleeing the European pogroms.
If the three people here still claim there to be a serious problem with Labour, they need to produce the facts of it in detail and not a string of accusations from people like Tom Watson, Vice Chairman of Labour's Friends of Israel and a vociferous opponent of B.D.S. and the right wing opponents of Corbyn.
What form does this antisemitism take and how many are involved? -
That is the only way we can possibly make a judgement on whether there is a serious problem - accusations from tainted claimants don't hack it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM

"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?
Will you please stop repeating this lie Keith
I have not made any such claim - support for the Israeli regime has always been present - they have nort infiltrated the Labour Party - it has always been there and since Corbyn became leader the Israeli's have called on their support to oppose B.D.S.
My use of teh term 'Quisling' was aimed at you, who have supported attacks on democratically elected labour politicians.
Don't you dare involve me in your antisemitic smears of Jewish labour politicians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM

Well of course I was using Keith's Wheatcroft fiasco as a typical example of how he blunders then refuses to retract, not wishing to reopen the whole thing. The whole thing is there in a thread, chapter and verse, for anyone who'd like to put themselves through torture for half an hour. There's more evidence in his posting since my last post of his sadly obsessive behaviour. Fifty percent right means fifty percent wrong. Glad you admitted that on Keith's behalf. Keith never did. As I've said here many times, the unspoken protocol here when you admit to making a mistake, as we all do occasionally, is that the rest of us then let it drop. Someone who can't hold their hands up when they blunder is not to be trusted. As for my post containing no discussion, Keith, your posts are not part of any discussion because you don't listen to other people, you adhere obsessively to a predigested point of view, you are in denial all the time and you constantly try to set traps and refuse to let dead horses lie in peace. You are an impediment to discussion. The sooner the rest of us realise that you are just a slightly wacky, shallow, sidelined also-ran and refuse to engage in your pathetic trickery the better. We're fools to ourselves when we engage you and we are giving you a totally false sense of your own importance. And it's not as if the whole world is listening, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM

Hope you realise I wasn't criticising you Steve - we've all been victims of falling down Keith's rabbit-holes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:33 AM

Jim,
"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?
Will you please stop repeating this lie Keith

It is not a lie Jim.
You,08 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM
" THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER (Israel) INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS (Labour Party)FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM"

Dave finds that so believable that he requires no evidence to justify it.
I think it is ludicrous.

Dave, Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
No-one within Labour has denied that, while numerous senior people have attested to that fact including the entire NEC and, separately, the Deputy Leader and the Mayor of London.

If you refuse to believe them how can we hope to convince you?
You have closed your mind.

And yet you believe without question Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

And Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"
And his claim that Shah had not been anti-Semitic but lied that she had for career purposes.

Your mind is closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:39 AM

Meanwhile, Labour have gone from second to fourth place at Sleaford.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:50 AM

" THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER (Israel) INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS (Labour Party)FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM"
That was a reference to your support Keith and it was directly targeted at you, Bobad and Teribus.
Labour politicians believe what they believe - they have not "infiltrated" the Labour Party, as you suggest I said - they are part of the left-right makeup of the party and are entitled to their views.
None of them are "secretly loyalW to israel - you have made that up - how could the vice craiman of Labour's friends of Israel be "secretly loyal" to Israel - feckin' lying idiot!
And you call me a liar!!!!
You, on the other hand, or not a member of the labour party and have used a bunch of accusations and presented them as facts to undermine democratically elected politicians to prove that the Labour Party is antisemitic - without evidence.
I have no doubt that some Jewish members of the Labour Party do genuinely regard criticism of Israel as antisemitism and I have no doubt that this is the type of "antisemitism" Labour is being accused of - if it is, we need to know.
Do not call me a liar again - I don't tell lies, unlike...... well, every dog recognises its own shit.
"And Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?""
You have been given over a dozen examples of how the Israeli Lobby works - internationally - you dismissed it as "propaganda" even though it was based on iron clad research
You are now behaving like the trapped rat that you are and going for every throat within reach
Stop it now!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:57 AM

Any problem with antisemitism is serious by definition. My mind is far from closed on the subject but I have yet to be convinced that the level of antisemitism in the Labour party is any higher than in any other large organisation. The simple fact that they have admitted that there is a problem, of any level, means that they have gone further towards addressing the issue that any of the other political parties.

Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others? Or that things are not as black and white as many posters on here seem to state? No need to respond, just have a think about it.

As to what I believe and what I do not believe. How do you know? There are many things that I believe and still question to gain a better understanding and there are many things that I do not believe that I do not feel the need to question at all. You can no idea what they are and, unless I tell you, never will. Feel free to PM.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 07:43 AM

"Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others?"
Can't speak for others Dave - I think I said that at the very beginning.
I agree entirely with your summing up.
It is noteworthy that last April the Conservatives were accused of Islamophobia by leading Muslims in Britain and members of their own party.
They have done precisely nothing to deal with the charge.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 08:44 AM

My, my, so Mr. Corbyn who was too busy to visit Israel's Holocaust memorial, has found the time to hang out with Khomeinists, Press TV and Israel-hating extremists this week.

UK Labour Leader Corbyn Attends London Launch of Anti-Israel Book Authored by 'Students for Justice in Palestine' Founder

"The fact that Britain's opposition leader took the time to attend Bazian's event and show solidarity with one of the most notorious fathers of anti-Israel agitation in academia indicates that Bazian's influence is increasing,"

The meeting should "alarm" Britain's Jewish community, Canary Mission said, as Corbyn is showing "open support for the demagogic founder of SJP, who once called for an intifada in the US and created the most influential student vehicle for the delegitimization of the Jewish people's history and very identity."

The Algemeiner

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Here's why Keith can't be trusted.

"In one of her statements she suggested that Israeli Jews be transported away from the Middle East."

It was a post that she shared but which was not "one of her statements." In fact, the poster with Israel shown plonked in the middle of the US was concocted by Norman Finkelstein. The comments on the poster are his, including the one that Keith is ascribing to Naz Shah. . By the way, Finkelstein is a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors, both victims of the Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camps. So she condoned it but did not suggest it and it did not originate with her.   Next, the wording did not refer to "Israeli Jews." The poster said "Relocate Israel into the United States." Nowhere on the poster is the word "Jews" used, though "Jewish state" is referred to. As I've said many times, Israel, though it likes to refer to itself as "the Jewish state," is actually under three-quarters Jewish. "Israeli Jews transported away from the Middle East" is a direct lift by Keith from Guido Fawkes' reinterpretation of the statement on his blog, with Keith's addition of the word "Jews," and is a pretty poor and tendentious mischaracterisation of the original. I assume that any relocation of "Israel" unqualified would include all its citizens - unless otherwise stated, which it wasn't.   

It is absolutely typical of Keith, a major element of his modus operandi in fact, to make these sly little changes in quotes and passages. The changes are always, without fail, attempts to shift the agenda in his favour. You may think that the above tinkerings I've highlighted are pretty insignificant - except that they are not, are they? They represent an underhand kind of spin and they tend to accumulate unless they are constantly questioned. Well I don't want to spend half my time here being on the lookout for this kind of devious and dishonest behaviour. It sours the whole forum and wasting time on it is very polarising. You can rattle on all you like about insults, sweariness, name-calling, etc., but this despicable and disreputable behaviour is at the root of much, if not all, of that.

As for Naz reposting the poster, which clearly meant that she agreed with it, does that make her antisemitic? No it does not. It makes her very foolish and insensitive and I don't like the poster and I wish she hadn't done what she did. But she wasn't antisemitic in doing so for the following reasons. First, the poster was drawn up by a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors and whose extensive scholarship on Middle East politics can't be denied, whatever you think of him. I fully expect someone or other to pop up and claim that he's a self-hating Jew, though I'd point out that he's a fierce defender of tbe state of Israel. Second, the poster is clearly a reaction to the policies of the Israeli regime, not an attack on the characteristics of Jewish people. I regard it as ill-conceived and put out there with no regard for outcomes. But it falls at the first hurdle when it comes to antisemitism. Woolly definitions that are intended to prevent criticism of Israel are worse than useless and will do nothing to further the fight against antisemitism.

Finally, remarks emanating from Naz Shah and the Labour NEC after the event were attempts to close the issue and move on. Arguing that she said she was antisemitic so it must be true are perfectly ridiculous if you also accept that she was an utterly stupid bugger to endorse the poster in the first place. It's quite clear that the retraction and apologies were efforts to save her own arse and move on. Typical politician. So stop pretending that she suddenly had a saintly moment once confronted with her idiocy, eh?

I have yet to see a single quote from any Labour Party member that is antisemitic. If you have any, bring them on. But make it chapter and verse or just don't bother. Don't behave like Keith because we'll chuck it straight back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Did someone suggest, quite rightly that I used the term 'endemic' with reference to antisemitism in the Labour party where no one else had suggested that? I wonder where I got the idea from? Maybe some of the wording in the anti Corbyn press? From the link bobad provided...

Most recently, Corbyn has come under fire for his failure to properly address rampant Jew-hatred and antisemitic anti-Zionism within his own party.

I would hate to get hung up on semantics but are endemic and rampant not synonymous in this context? I have apologised for using the term and said I will not use it again. But maybe now people can understand my mistake.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:46 AM

the anti Corbyn press

So I guess that any press that reports on Labour's anti-Semitism is "anti Corbyn" press by definition, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM

"Addressing your points of evidence a, b and c.

a) What has this to do with antisemitism?
b) Ditto
c) Labour did not 'have' to undertake the investigations. They did so voluntarily. They have since undertaken a programme of improvement. Will the other parties do the same?

With regard to (a) How many other people who are members of any political party have publicly resigned because they feel intimidated attending meetings of their own political party? Documented cases of this from members of the Labour Party.

Those documented cases were Jewish students at Oxford who were intimidated and made to feel unsafe at meetings of the OULC. That is what (a) had to do with anti-Semitism.

With regard to (b) How many constituency party organisations have been suspended and prohibited from holding meetings by the governing bodies of those political parties? As much connected with (c) as with (a) This had to do with intimidation, misogyny, racism and homophobia uncovered by Shami Chakrabarti's Party wide investigation which was commissioned because of what Baroness Royall's Inquiry discovered. That was the link between (b) and anti-Semitism

With regard to (c) Baroness Royall was tasked with looking into anti-Semitism (Racism by Labour's definition) within the Oxford University Labour Club. Her findings resulted in 11 recommendations some of whom she detailed as requiring urgent and immediate action - what other political party has had to do the same? Baroness Royall's report was taken so seriously by Labour's NEC that a second investigation was commissioned to look into allegations of misogyny, intimidation, racism and homophobia throughout the entire Party structure - what other political party has found the need to do that? Those actions were not taken because there was no evidence of those charges to be found - you do not attempt to suppress a report that exonerates your organisation, I would rather have thought that you'd trumpet it to the world - Labour's NEC didn't do that - WHY?

Labour's NEC commissioned Baroness Royall's Inquiry because Oxford University was going to carry out their own Inquiry and it looked as though the House of Commons was about to do the same. Labour's NEC wisely took the tack that if they got the ball rolling on their own they would have a better chance of controlling whatever the Inquiry turned up - which is what they attempted to do with Baroness Royall's report.

What evidence do YOU have that other political parties need to conduct such inquiries?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM

"My, my, so Mr. Corbyn who was too busy to visit Israel's Holocaust memorial, "
This uncreited information came from
CANARY MISSION
Little wonder that Bobad failed to identify it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:01 AM

"What evidence do YOU have that other political parties need to conduct such inquiries?"
If a major party is publicly accused of racism or bigotry by a community leader it is not only beholden on that party to either disprove that accusation or carry out an enquiry - that responsibility is magnified 100 times if the party in question is the one governing Britain.
It is in their own interests to do so - unless the accusations are grounded in fact, of course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:04 AM

What evidence have I that other parties need to conduct their own enquiries? Well, to ensure that I am not accused of quoting biased comment, now about this article in the Jewish News?

bobad - no it isn't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM

Little wonder that Bobad failed to identify it

More Carroll Made Up Shit®"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:16 AM

And here's an example of the "pro Palestinian" activists groups like Canary Mission expose for their Fascistic tactics.

Students are shouting down pro-Israel speakers — and silencing free speech

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 11:55 AM

Israelis are silencing free speech of Palestinians permanently - by killing them off - men women and children.
Shouting supporters of a terrorist State measures pretty small next to that.
ISRAELI CENSORSHIP of PALESTINIAN JOURNALISTS
How free is that speech?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 11:57 AM

" "pro Palestinian" activists groups like Canary Mission expose for their Fascistic tactics."
I think you miss the point about Canary Mission - read it again.

"Jewish Voice for Peace unequivocally condemns Canary Mission, a malicious website that seeks to vilify principled activists for Palestinian human rights with targeted campaigns of misinformation, bigotry and slander."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 02:30 PM

Steve,
Next, the wording did not refer to "Israeli Jews." The poster said "Relocate Israel into the United States." Nowhere on the poster is the word "Jews" used, though "Jewish state" is referred to.

You admit that she condoned it, but forgot that she added "Problem solved" to it.

You say it was not about transporting the Jews.
You pretend to believe that moving out the indigenous Arabs was part of solving that "problem."
Bollocks. You know she meant the Jews.
She admitted it anyway.

"The MP for Bradford West remains suspended from the party for sharing a post on Facebook that called for the transportation of Israel to America, and adding the words "problem solved".

But, appearing at Sinai Synagogue in Leeds on Sunday night, she insisted her views had changed since the 2014 post as a result of engaging with the local Jewish community – something she insisted set her apart from her predecessor George Galloway.

"I looked at myself and asked whether I had prejudice against Jewish people. But I realised I was ignorant and I want to learn about the Jewish faith and culture. I do not have hatred for Jewish people."

So, it was about the Jews and you knew it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 02:37 PM

Dave,
Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others?

Yes Dave, but there is no case.
All parties have Jewish members, but it is only those in Labour who have been reporting anti-Semitism.

There is ample evidence for Labour having a serious problem, but none at all for any other party.
If you know of any please share, but neither Steve nor Jim have come up with anything.
I know evidence is important to you so you must take seriously the complete absence on one side against the plethora against Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:11 PM

Well, Keith, I'm getting to the end of my tether with you. You pile dishonesty on dishonesty. I did not "forget" to mention anything at all because the intention of my post was never to give chapter and verse on what she's said - it's all out there, it stinks and why would I deny it? - but to highlight your misrepresentations. Anyone can look at the poster and tweets online in a trice and I referred to it several times in my post. Unlike you, I do not try to hide inconveniences to my argument. In your case, you hide the whole of decades of Israeli regime atrocities from YOUR arguments, so don't bloody give me that load of hypocritical tosh if you don't mind.

As for bollocks I knew it was about Jews, etc., let me tell you something. It was a JOKE (a very misplaced and unfunny one). There was no real plan put forward to relocate anyone to anywhere else, was there, unless you've got Asbergers and want to take everything literally. I do wonder. It was very silly loose talk. No-one was doing the nuts and bolts of a serious proposal. It was a load of whimsy, frustration at the terrible behaviour of the Israeli regime during the last Gaza onslaught. She didn't say Jews, Finkelstein didn't say Jews, but Keith the bloody mind-reader is looking at the output of a right pair of clots and extrapolating "Jews" from what they posted. You desperately WANT it to be about Jews because that fits your stupid let's-tar-as-many-Labourites-with-antisemitism-as-we-can crusade, but, Keith darling (as you called Jim so you won't mind if I call you it too), there's no point. Dream on. What a pity dead horses don't fight back. Maybe this one will roll on top of you instead. Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:11 PM

Does it not seem very strange that that there is no antisemitism in the Conservative party and yet there is Islamophobia as detailed in the link I gave above?

What conclusion are we to draw from this?

Is Labour is the party of Islam while Conservatives support other religions?

Maybe Islamophobia is not considered as racist as antisemitism in some quarters?

Particularly the popular press?

Do we know how many Jewish members of the Labour party have reported antisemitism both before and after Corbyn was elected as leader?

Why are some sources saying that Labour has a 'rampant' problem with antisemitism yet others are denying that it is endemic?

So many questions. So few answers...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

"Jewish Voice for Peace unequivocally condemns Canary Mission, a malicious website that seeks to vilify principled activists for Palestinian human rights with targeted campaigns of misinformation, bigotry and slander."

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)is just another far left extremist group that promotes anti-Israel BDS campaigns on U.S. campuses, in academic associations, unions, churches, and in corporate stockholder meetings by deploying the language of demonization and delegitimization. JVP also acts to provide a façade of Jewish legitimacy to these campaigns. Moderate Jews consider their activities to be anti-Semitic. Small wonder that they would demonize a group that opposes the Fascistic tactics of the Brown Shirts of the far left.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:52 PM

You couldn't make it up, could you, bobad? Except that YOU do. Enjoy your fantasy bubble.

Dave, we stupidly let ourselves get drawn into these sterile arguments. Some git or other out of half a million Labour members may well say "something antisemitic." I won't deny that. Oddly, however, out of all the antisemitism hawks on this forum, not a single one has ever quoted a single antisemitic remark made by a Labour member. And I mean "quoted" before the usual shitbags start quoting the "appalled NEC," etc. etc. I bloody hate antisemitism and have fought it all my life. You too, I reckon, up there in Prestwich, where there are thousands of Jews and where antisemitism is unfortunately rife (I know, I lived there and still go up there six or seven times a year), as well as me in east London in the 70s where antisemitism was a massive local issue which we fought against like buggery in our trade unions. The same East End that saw off Mosley and his bunch of fascists in spite of the police and the army (used to get pissed a couple of times a week in an amazing pub in the next street). In the words of John Seymour, the working class in the East End may not have had much time for the Jews but they bloody well weren't going to help anyone to send them to the gas chambers. Right-wing arseholes like Keith, bobad and Teribus haven't got a bloody clue, all theory, their crusade against the wrong sort of antisemitism aimed at the the wrong sort of people and all based on theory and stuff they read on Israeli websites. It took you to give chapter and verse on Naz Shah's remarks, not one of those tits, in spite of my asking Jeith again and again for quotes. Know why he didn't cough up? Because he knew damn well that none of her remarks were antisemitic in the REAL sense. Sword of truth in your hand, Dave. Good man!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:55 PM

Not Jeith. You know who you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:22 AM

" just another far left extremist group that promotes anti-Israel BDS campaigns on U.S. campuses"
Another bunch of "self-hating Jews" - eh?
You really couldn't make this up.
"The MP for Bradford West remains suspended from the party for sharing a post on Facebook that called for the transportation of Israel to America, and adding the words "problem solved"
That was a joke suggestion made by Jewish writer, Norman Finkelstein - Shah apologied and accepted it was anti semitic - end of story.
Is there any difference in the suggestion and THIS suggestion made by Minister of Justice and lawyer, Tzipi Livni ?
The difference to me appears to be one is made by an Israeli, the other by a British politician
I don't recall Livni ever withdrawing it.
How about THIS nine month old demand.
Or this headline from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz - can't link to the article without subscription:
"Israelis Excel at Camouflaging the Expulsion of Palestinians
Here is an inventory of the methods of expulsion in their various concealments.
Amira Hass Oct 20, 2014 4:01 PM
Arabs driven out of Israel make up the largest number of REFUGEES on the PLANET
The other difference between Sha's statement and these (and many more) is that hers was taken from a joke and put forward as a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem, all of these are aimed at forcing an entire people out of theit rightful homes - and to agree HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED
If one is antisenmitic, the other is Islamophobic in the extreme and is aimed at ethnic cleansing
This is about Arabs - and you know it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:48 AM

Steve, yes it was intended as a joke, but an anti-Semitic joke.
Suggesting the transportation of Jews as a final solution to a problem is offensive, anti-Semitic and not at all funny.

Dave, Your link was about a Muslim leader suggesting Tories investigate Islamophobia.
A bit like Israel complaining about anti-Semitism in Labour.
Jim thought it should be dismissed and I never referred to it.

All the complaints about Labour anti-Semitism came from within Labour.
There have been no complaints of intolerance from any of the many Tory Jews or Muslims.
If we are widening the intolerance away from just anti-Semitism, remember the complaints from within Labour of homophobia and misogyny.

BBC, "Over 40 female Labour MPs have written to party leader Jeremy Corbyn urging him to do more to tackle abuse of MPs."

Where are the internal complaints of intolerance from any other party except Labour Dave.
There is a plethora of evidence from within Labour of prejudice and intolerance, but none from any other party.

Evidence Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:21 AM

"Evidence Dave" my arse. I've repeatedly asked YOU for ANTISEMITIC QUOTES, not your jaded and threadbare attacks on the party you're determined to demonise at all costs, and you never give me any. Not a one. Because you can't. And I've explained the whole thing to you at length. You are a total sham. Thank you for confirming everything I've accused you of being. A sad obsessive who never listens, who appeals to authority as a substitute for developing your own opinions. Dishonest, hypocritical, hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:02 AM

"Steve, yes it was intended as a joke, but an anti-Semitic joke."
In fact it was made by a strong advocate of Israel who made that point when he wes confronted with the afct that the idea came from him
Norman Finklestein
Stop making on-the-spot excuses for something you have no knowlege of and addreaes the facts.
Now, tell us what's the difference between calling for the deportation of the Israelis and the calling for the deportation of the Palestinians?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:12 AM

From Jim's second link:

Nearly half of Jewish Israelis agree that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, and a solid majority (79 percent) maintain that Jews in Israel should be given preferential treatment, according to a Pew Research Center in Israel survey published on Tuesday.

The poll, with 5,601 in-person interviews of Israeli adults, conducted between October 2014 and May 2015, found that Israeli Jews increasingly believe the West Bank settlements help, rather than hurt, Israel's security – and most (61%) believe Israel was given by God to the Jewish people.

Well, Keith, it looks like Israel is half-full of mirror images of Naz Shah, only they AREN'T joking, are they?

Amazing what decades of anti-Palestinian propaganda can do...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:20 AM

Thanks, Steve. It is appreciated but not really necessary. We don't want to give the impression of an 'old boys club' after all, do we ;-)

Anyway, yes, out of any group there are going to be a proportion of antisemites, Islamphobes, racists, misogynists and any amount of other people harbouring unsavoury prejudices. The Labour party will be no different. There is also the vast majority of people that are good, caring and fair minded. If we accept that, then tarring any group of people with a negative label because of the actions of a tiny few is wrong. Much was made the other day of my misuse of the term 'endemic' yet, shorty after, a link was provided, by bobad, to an article saying there was 'rampant' antisemitism in the Labour party. Something which I do not believe.

Antisemitism is a problem wherever it occurs, as are any other forms of racism. If we accept that across the whole population there is a percentage of antisemites then it does not make sense that they are more prevalent in any one large organisation unless that organisation is one that has antisemitism as part of its constitution, which I am pretty sure the Labour part does not. I fully understand what you are saying about there being no antisemitic quotes from the people concerned but, to be honest, I am unsure of that. I am sure some of the quotes and actions could and have been construed as antisemitic and the people responsible should and have atoned for their mistakes.

What I have asked, many times, and had no answer to is why it should be more prevalent in the left wing of politics than anywhere else. Remember this was not an issue until the Labour party moved slightly to the left. Because of that I am suspicious. The only genuine evidence we have for 'rampant antisemitism' in any political party is from the extreme right in the middle of the 20th century. Why would it be that only the left wing is antisemitic, as has been suggested above? Things don't 'just happen'. There is a reason behind everything and, if the left wing does have antisemitic leanings, then why have they only just been discovered?

I have also been accused of arguing from ignorance and many other things before but I am not arguing. Just questioning. In any such discussion people will present their own 'spin'. Significant points will be astutely ignored. Inconvenient facts will be obfuscated with trivia. We have all done it and, as passions rise, it gets worse. I am making a deliberate attempt to not get caught up in that. Don't get me wrong, I am still as passionate about issues. Like you, this particular subject has been lifelong. My Grandfather, a Cossack and committed Christian who became a Russian Orthodox priest, endangered his life assisting Jews in his home town of Bialystok during the Nazi occupation. Now, I am not my Grandad, but his stories have been with me since childhood. I have a very close relation who is Jewish, a left wing activist and incensed by the treatment of Labour in the media.

We will get to the bottom of this eventually and Labour will weather the storm. They will come out of it stronger and better equipped to repel any future onslaught from their enemies. I suggest that the other political parties should ready themselves for when their time comes. Enough from me.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:03 AM

It seems to me it's about time we looked at this claim anyway
Keith is obviously not going to respond to what is being called for regarding deporting Palestinians, so we must take by his silence that it's happening and he has no problem with it (when has he ever had any problem with anything that is done to the Palestinians in Israel)
The proposal that the Israelis move to the U.S. (whatever its intention) was aimed at the idea that this was done voluntarily and those who wished to move out of choice.
I's true that, in the unlikely event that ti would ever be taken seriously, it is the Jews who would take it up - so what?
Where is it "antisemitic" to suggest that ISRAEL should resite in the U.S.?
The European definition specifies attacks on Jews, not Israelis - but that definition has long become invalid since Israel has made all criticism of Israeli policy "antisemitic" - where does it say that in the definition?
You can't have a pick-'n-mix definition - some bits you adhere to, other bits you ignore totally for political purposes.
The ideal solution, of course, is that all communities in Israel learn to live together in peace and none be driven out - that has nothing to do with being Muslim or Jew - that is simple humanity.
When South Africa ditched Apartheid, there was no suggestion that one the whites should find somewhere else to live - that would be ethnic cleansing
What is happening in Israel is ETHNIC CLEANSING , and it's been going on for a long, long time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:26 AM

Another bunch of "self-hating Jews" - eh?

More Carroll Made Up Shit®

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 08:36 AM

"More Carroll Made Up Shit®"
More antisemitic Bobad bile
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

Then there's the forced "relocation" of the Bedouin in the Negev, bulldozing homes in "unrecognised villages." The express reason for this, no point denying it, was to ensure that Arabs could never outnumber Jews in the Negev.

Netanyahu wasn't indulging in a "tasteless joke" either. Was he, Keith?

Anyone else think that inventing official-sounding terms such as "unrecognised villages" to cover up ethnic cleansing has a ring of apartheid about it? How about "separate development?"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:18 AM

"unrecognised villages"

Rather like the illegal settlements that the government of Israel has planted all over the place, eh Bubo?

I suppose the significant numbers of persons in the Israeli government and Israeli citizens who oppose these illegal settlements are antisemites, self hating Jews or both, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:26 AM

Israel has absolute legal authority to relocate the inhabitants of the illegal Bedouin "villages". The Bedouin are squatters on land to which they have no title, land which they colonized during Ottoman and British rule. The land which they occupy is Israeli state land.

Israel claims that the Bedouin will be better off in towns which have services such as running water, electricity, paved roads and schools which their "villages" lack.

The legality of Israel's decision to relocate the Bedouin is unassailable, the rightness or morality of the decision is a matter of opinion. I wonder if those who oppose the Bedouin relocation would also oppose the Palestinian Authorities demand that the Israelis residing in the "West Bank" be relocated.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:29 AM

Rather like the illegal settlements that the government of Israel has planted all over the place

There are no illegal settlements - unless of course one assumes that Jews should not own property or build in those areas because they are Jews. Every current Jewish "settlement" is on land owned by Jews before 1948 or purchased after 1967. Settlements that tried to set up on land that was not Jewish owned have been dismantled. We continue to hear the term "illegal", but "legal and illegal" has to be more that political desires and interests. It has to refer to law. And, frankly, law established during the illegal Jordanian occupation of the area in which jewish property was confiscated and retitied, and current PA regulations that ban sales or ownership of property by Jews is not valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:35 AM

I suppose the significant numbers of persons in the Israeli government and Israeli citizens who oppose these illegal settlements are antisemites, self hating Jews or both, eh?

I suppose they are either ignorant of the law or history or both.

As to the term "self-hating Jews", the ones I see using it most are either Jews or Jew haters in mockery, interesting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:54 AM

There are no illegal settlements

Thousands of Israelis disagree with you on this, Bubo.

'nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:58 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/world/middleeast/bill-to-legalize-west-bank-settlements-advances-in-israel.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:00 AM

http://www.trtworld.com/mea/israeli-parliament-legalises-illegal-settlements-on-palestinian-land-248273

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

Land in Judea and Samaria, whether occupied or not was retitled as "privately owned" by Jordan during it's illegal occupation. Jordan renounced all claims to Judea and Samaria in 1988. The lands of Judea and Samaria were returned to the previous legal owners (see uti possidetis iuris).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:51 AM

So the close to one-half the members of the Knesett who voted against the "legalization"[sic] bill are antisemitic, self-hating Jews?

Thousands of Israelis disagree with you, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

Well let's just forget that this is all about the inhuman shuffling around of real, live human beings by a recently-invented country just because they don't happen to fit their religious or ethnic agenda, shall we? I mentioned apartheid just up there, I seem to remember...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 12:01 PM

Steve,
I've repeatedly asked YOU for ANTISEMITIC QUOTES, not your jaded and threadbare attacks on the party you're determined to demonise at all costs, and you never give me any. Not a one. Because you can't.

Apart from Shah that is true. I do not know what anti-Semitic statements were made because they have not been published, but I know they were made.
I have more than hard evidence for it. I have proof.

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

So there it is.
Proof. Despite all your nasty and personal abuse,I was right and you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 12:13 PM

Dave, you must have missed this.
All the complaints about Labour anti-Semitism came from within Labour.
There have been no complaints of intolerance from any of the many Tory Jews or Tory Muslims or any other minority.
If we are widening the intolerance away from just anti-Semitism, remember the complaints from within Labour of homophobia and misogyny.

BBC, "Over 40 female Labour MPs have written to party leader Jeremy Corbyn urging him to do more to tackle abuse of MPs."

Where are the internal complaints of intolerance from any other party except Labour Dave?
There is a plethora of evidence from within Labour of prejudice and intolerance, but none from any other party.

Evidence Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 12:26 PM

No, I am pretty sure I saw that. Maybe you missed this though, Keith.

What I have asked, many times, and had no answer to is why it should be more prevalent in the left wing of politics than anywhere else. Remember this was not an issue until the Labour party moved slightly to the left. Because of that I am suspicious. The only genuine evidence we have for 'rampant antisemitism' in any political party is from the extreme right in the middle of the 20th century. Why would it be that only the left wing is antisemitic, as has been suggested above? Things don't 'just happen'. There is a reason behind everything and, if the left wing does have antisemitic leanings, then why have they only just been discovered?

Or shall we just say as there seems to be no common ground here we may as well stop banging our heads on a brick wall?

BTW - Repeating what someone else said or thought or reported is not evidence. It is hearsay. There is a distinction.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 01:50 PM

"I do not know what anti-Semitic statements were made because they have not been published, but I know they were made.
I have more than hard evidence for it. I have proof."

Anyone else here ever read a more entertaining piece of utter tosh in their lives? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 02:13 PM

Steve, giggle away but you can not deny that I have proved my case.
You can pretend to laugh but you can not challenge or reply to anything I have posted.

Dave,
What I have asked, many times, and had no answer to is why it should be more prevalent in the left wing of politics than anywhere else.

Who knows, but it is an indisputable fact that it is.

Or shall we just say as there seems to be no common ground here we may as well stop banging our heads on a brick wall?

It is hard to find common ground with you when you deny hard factual evidence that it is true just because you do not understand why it is true!

All the evidence, claims and complaints come from inside Labour.
There are no comparable complaints from any other party.

You demanded evidence, were supplied with proof but you still refuse to believe.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?
No.
Is there hard evidence and even proof that you are wrong?
Yes.
So what is your case Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 02:22 PM

BTW - Repeating what someone else said or thought or reported is not evidence. It is hearsay. There is a distinction.

Rubbish!
Dave, do you really believe that "the entire NEC" were lying and their statements not evidence.
You make yourself ridiculous.

You have no evidence at all to support your position, and you scrabble desperately for a reason to disbelieve the hard facts in front of you.

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

So there it is.
Proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 02:47 PM

Council for the prosecution: Mr Gnome. How do you know that Mt X showed his willy to Mrs Y in the butchers shop window?

Mr Gnome: Because I read in the paper that the whole of the butchers shop saw it. Everyone knows that it is a fact.

Council for the defense: Objection, M'lud!

Judge: Sustained. Keep your evidence to what you actually know or saw yourself, Mr Gnome. Not what you read in the paper.

No, I do not believe the entire NEC are lying. Why suggest that I am? Of course the NEC are appalled by recent cases of antisemitism and recognise the seriousness of it. What right minded person would not be? It is an indication that the Labour party are being open in investigating the allegations. It still does not answer the question as to why antisemitism has suddenly become 'rampant' in the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn has become leader.

Do you not find that in the slightest bit suspicious?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:13 PM

Israel has absolute legal authority to relocate the inhabitants of the illegal Bedouin "villages" The Bedouin are squatters on land to which they have no title, land which they colonized during Ottoman and British rule.
You've just sunk your own case - Israel has no say over these Bedouin villages, in fact they have no claim land whatever over land that was occupied before the State was formed, the agreement never gave anybody the right to evict settled tenants
ETHNIC CLEANSING of BEDOUINS
PROTESTS AGAINST ETHNIC CLEANSING of BEDOUINS
"There are no illegal settlements "
Evicting Arabs from settled land is ILLEGAL - the Israelis have done this consistently and with growing regularity
"Apart from Shah that is true."
If Israel can demand the deportation of Palestinians (including Israel's Justice Minister) then Naz Shah has made no antisemitic comments
Her comments were aimed at the Israelis, not the Jews.
Try again.
Now, tell us what's the difference between calling for the deportation of the Israelis and the calling for the deportation of the Palestinians?
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
Back to square one again - the NEC was appalled at the accusations, which have been found groundless - game over.
"Do you have any evidence to support your position?"
Do you have evidence as to what this evidence is -
No?
Then you have no case
"Gentlemen of the jury -have you reached a verdict?"
Yes, m'lud - we don't know what crime he has committed, but someone has accused him of it so he must be guilty"
"You demanded evidence, were supplied with proof but you still refuse to believe."
Hw can there be proof if the charged have not been specified, as you have said yourself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:30 PM

Keep your evidence to what you actually know or saw yourself, Mr Gnome. Not what you read in the paper.

I have quoted nothing that was not factual.
If the NEC are reported as saying they were appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitism, then we know for a fact that there had been recent cases of anti-Semitism.
That is what you Steve and Jim have been denying.
My case has always just been that it is a serious issue in Labour, and "the entire NEC" also "recognises the seriousness of this issue."

You also deny that Shah made anti-Semitic statements.
Perhaps you are unable to recognise it.
" Corbyn's aides defended Shah, saying the comments were antisemitic but the MP had "shocked herself," and did not mean what she said."

Jury Chairman, " Why not guilty Mr Gnome? Ten passing nuns saw him do it!
Mr. Gnome, "Just hearsay then."
Chairman, "But his prints and DNA were on the knife through the heart."
Mr.Gnome, "How do we know this?"
Chairman, "The forensic report."
Mr. Gnome, "Repeating what someone else said or thought or reported is not evidence. It is hearsay."
Chairman, "But the victim gave a dying testimony to a passing party of High Court judges!"
Mr. Gnome."Just hearsay then."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/27/naz-shah-suspended-labour-party-antisemitism-row
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:34 PM

Jim,
the NEC was appalled at the accusations,

No Jim. They were appalled by RECENT CASES of anti-Semitism.
Not just accusations of it.

which have been found groundless

Which accusations have been found groundless Jim, or did you just make that up?
Produce some evidence for us please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:48 PM

Why not guilty? Surely it is innocent until proven guilty in this country :-) Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt at that and I believe we have more than enough reasonable doubt. You will need to do better than that.

Still no comment on why this only happened when Jeremy Corbyn was voted leader? An inconvenient significant fact maybe? Reasonable doubt as to the motives maybe?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:52 PM

Oh - And which accusations have been proven? Why should it be up to someone else to prove that the accusations have been found groundless. IIRC hate crime is punishable by law in this country. If the accusations of antisemitism have been proven, why have there been no criminal prosecutions brought about? Surely the Daily Heil and the Stun would be all over that wouldn't they? :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:55 PM

BTW - I am on call, monitoring a priority 1 incident that I don't really have anything to do with buy, in their wisdom, the management team have decided to call out everyone who knows how to spell computer.

What is everyone else's excuse for having nothing better to do on a Saturday night?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:56 PM

ETHNIC CLEANSING of BEDOUINS

Lol.


You've just sunk your own case - Israel has no say over these Bedouin villages, in fact they have no claim land whatever over land that was occupied before the State was formed, the agreement never gave anybody the right to evict settled tenants

You don't know what you're talking about - suggest you do some research - and not only on anti-Israel propaganda sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:00 PM

Round and round and round we go. Been there, done it, got the tears-of-laughter-stained t-shirt. Keith is a walking farce. Leave him to it. Ten years from now there will be an isolated and lonely thread somewhere out there in the interwebby ether, that only he ever posts to and only he ever reads, which will be featuring ghostly, dismembered snippets from way back when, such as "appalled NEC...I proved everything but they wouldn't listen...just putting Israel's side...Naz...maps...serious problem...you bastards are all antisemites...I never lied about Wheatcroft...only speaking generally...you lose...why are you all having a go at me...I'm centre-right..." (lonesome piano music fades into the distance...)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

I have a Chateauneuf du Pape that I was saving for Christmas day, Steve. I am that mind numbingly bored monitoring servers that have nothing wrong with them just because the management read somewhere (possibly the Daily Mail) that magic moonbeams can cause servers to become antisemitic during a network failure. Think I should open it now or does it need to breath a good while before it is drunk?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:39 PM

Did you say you had some connection with Morrisons? They're selling a cracking good red from Sicily for a fiver, on special, the Signature Nero d'Avola 2015. Worth eight or nine quid of anyone's money. We actually went through Avola in September. Lovely area but don't mention the M***a! 😱

I don't bother with all that breathing malarkey (I never drink pricey booze anyway). Just make it glug a bit when you pour it out, I reckon. Some people pour it into a jug then back into the bottle to get it all aerated, but doing that just gets me all aeriated....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:46 PM

I do work for Morrisons. The issue they have just had was a power outage at a distribution centre that knocked the network out for a few minutes. I suppose I can understand them getting twitchy considering the time of year! We get 10% discount so I will try some of that Sicilian for £4.50:-) I bought the CNDP when it was half price and on a 20% pre-Crimbo discount week. I think it worked out at about £7 in the end. I was disappointed with the last one so I wondered if letting it breath may help.

Hope no one minds us injecting a bit of frivolity into an otherwise dull evening but I suspect we may get some stick ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:07 PM

Only 10%? It's 20 at M&S! Nothing like a Lancashire man having his prejudices about Yorkshire tightfistedness confirmed! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:09 PM

:-D

Like I said before, you can always tell a Yorkshireman. But you can't tell him much.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:53 PM

I reckon that it's socialist to drink cheap wine from Southern European cooperatives though I can't help being very fond of Torres Viña Sol from Spain even though Torres is a big producer. Get that for a fiver and it's the only white you'll ever need to buy. That Morrisons Nero d'Avola I mentioned is a typical example. Tesco Nero d'Avola is another cracker, usually six quid but I wait till they give you 25% off for six. There's a damn good Negroamaro from Puglia at M&S but it's eight quid. But M&S are always doing 25% off for six.   For a nice lighter red there's Asda Frappato from Sicily which is under a fiver. Really good bog-standard red is Waitrose Mellow and Fruity which comes from Campo de Borga in northern Spain, under a fiver. As a Labour man I see it as my duty to seek out good reds. Someone's got to do it...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:17 PM

Corbyn appears unsure on what his party's stance is on Russia's slaughter of civilians in Aleppo, leaves the stage to ask advice. It seems that he doesn't want to upset his friends in Russia and Hezbollah by condemning the bombing so makes a saccharine statement without mentioning any names.

Channel 4

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 04:27 AM

"You don't know what you're talking about"
Then enlighten me with documented facts
Israel has no right to evict from land that was occupied before the state was established yet they have consistently driven of Bedoins using high powered water cannons and CHEMICAL SPRAY
More recently, the israelis have adopted similar techniques on PALESTINIAN LANDS
Bedouins have used the are as itinerent sheep herders for centuries and, as you say settled the land during Ottoman and British rule - they are where they are being evicted from legally
The Israeli regime attempted to move evicted Bedouins onto a TOXIC RUBBISH DUMP - after three attempts, they abandoned the idea following world-wide outcry
Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time - personally I see no point in responding to your idiotic spiral arguments any more
The facts are the facts - NO SPECIFIED CHARGES - NATURAL JUSTICE - NO CRIME, SIMPLE AS THAT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM

I thought Peter Tatchell's protest was a good one, peaceful and measured, and Jeremy, though he managed to retain his dignity, was just a little bang to rights on Labour's recent weak response to the outrage in Syria. Not the wrong response, but way too diffident. I've orchestrated the odd invasion of meetings like that myself. They are incredibly effective when it comes to giving a voice to sidelined opinion. I like Peter. He's a damn sight better than most of the people we like to think of as national treasures. I think his protest might actually have done Labour some good. It is time for a bit of firming up, no doubt about it.

So there! 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 08:14 AM

Israel has no right to evict from land that was occupied before the state was established

1. The Bedouin "villages" were temporary encampments as they were a nomadic people.

2. The encampments were on untitled land

3. When Israel became a state all untitled land became property of the state.


Oh, and by the way, do the Jews evicted and dispossessed from the Arab countries and from Judea and Samaria have the right to return to their land? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 09:47 AM

A very large number of Bedouin homes are not temporary camps. They are real buildings. It would help if Israel stopped knocking them down, an unfortunate predilection of a regime when confronted by its Arabic neighbours. The regime moans about environmental issues in the Negev but will not put the villages on the water, sewerage and rubbish removal grids. The history of the Bedouin prior to the formation of Israel is one of tolerance and peaceful negotiation and co-existence, though they have always suspected that signing things may lose them their rights. But when Israel come along it was suddenly different...

Hear what Mad Moshe said about the Bedouin in 1963:

We should transform the Bedouins into an urban proletariat – in industry, services, construction, and agriculture. 88% of the Israeli population are not farmers, let the Bedouin be like them. Indeed, this will be a radical move which means that the Bedouin would not live on his land with his herds, but would become an urban person who comes home in the afternoon and puts his slippers on. His children will get used to a father who wears pants, without a dagger, and who does not pick out their nits in public. They will go to school, their hair combed and parted. This will be a revolution, but it can be achieved in two generations.

[Moshe Dayan to Haaretz, 1963]

Nothing racist about these Israeli leaders then...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM

"The Bedouin "villages" were temporary encampments as they were a nomadic people."
It doesn't matter - it has nothing to do with the Israeli regime, and even if it had, a toxic rubbish dump is no alternative settlement
"The encampments were on untitled land"
They were there before Israel became Israel
"When Israel became a state all untitled land became property of the state"
No it did not, any more than houses occupied by Arabs did - there were people living there and by "squatters rights" the land was theirs.
I take it by your silence that you have no argument with the toxic site and the use of chemicals and water cannon to evict them (or is that more "Carroll made-up shit"
Are you really defending this obscene behavior?
Please say "yes"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 10:05 AM

Oh, and by the way, do the Jews evicted and dispossessed from the Arab countries and from Judea and Samaria have the right to return to their land? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I take it by your silence that you would not extend the same rights to Jews as you advocate for the non Jews who were and are merely squatters on land that they do not own. No surprise that, eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM

Hear what Mad Moshe said about the Bedouin in 1963:

1963 you say.

Let me refer you to something that has relevance to the present day:


'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian

movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is

Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of

Palestine.'


'[Peace] initiatives,   and   so-called   peaceful   solutions   and

international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of

the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than

a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of

Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by

Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a

waste of time, an exercise in futility.'


'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.'


'The enemies have been scheming for a long time ... and have

accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money,

they took control of the world media... With their money they stirred

revolutions in various parts of the globe... They stood behind the

French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most   of   the

revolutions we hear about... With their money they formed secret

organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions -

which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies

and carry out Zionist interests... They stood behind World War I ...

and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the

world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge

financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them

having their finger in it.'


                   THE CHARTER OF ALLAH: THE PLATFORM OF THE

                      ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM

Whoever said whatever about Israel - you have been given a list of actual cases of ethnic cleansing and mass murder that have and are still taking place, carried out (not threatened) by the Israeli regime towards anybody who gets in their way
All your stupid quotes (in this case from an activist working to stop BDS) doesn't measure up to what has happened to Palestinians at the hands of the Israelii and what is still happening
Threats such as the ones you quote don't count for one of the lives of the 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women, slaughtered during Operation Protective Edge or or the 1398 Palestinians slaughtered during Operation Cast Lead nor the 318 children and the 108 women of the 926 non combatants killed previously   
I know how much it upsets you people to mention the deaths refugees facilitated by the Israeli army at SABRA -SHATILA - so I take pleasure in doing so.
If I was a Palestinian subjected to this treatment I would hope for much more than meaningless threats.
We'll take it as read that you support this carnage, shall we?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM

Dave,

Still no comment on why this only happened when Jeremy Corbyn was voted leader? An inconvenient significant fact maybe?

No Dave. The complaints suggest that the problem is mostly with the far Left.
Political extremists are notoriously intolerant.

Asking why is inviting speculation.
The fact is that there have been a stream of complaints emanating from Labour and the acknowledgement that there is a serious problem.
That is my case, and it is proved.
You suggest that other parties are at least as bad, but there is no evidence for that.
There are no streams of complaints from them.

Your assumption is based on nothing but preconception and prejudice.
No evidence at all.
All the evidence points the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM

list of actual cases of ethnic cleansing and mass murder that have and are still taking place

Lol.....you must stop trolling those anti-Semitic propaganda sites - it's making you look like one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM

Steve,
. Keith is a walking farce. Leave him to it.

Same old abuse Steve.
Can you actually reply to or challenge anything I have posted?
No.
I have proved my case and proved you wrong again.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:37 AM

Jim,
Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time

If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement.
Good luck with that!
I also asked you for an example of accusations you claimed have been found groundless.
How are you getting on with that?

Your claims are just a joke Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 12:50 PM

Ah, OK. Thanks, Keith. It is mostly about the far left then. Like Naz Shah? I guess the Labour party have nothing to worry about seeing the far left of the party are a tiny minority. I suppose it could be 'rampant' with the far left but as they are not indicative of general Labour policies it would be unfair to tar the whole party for the views of a few. Oh, hang on...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:19 PM

Incidentaly, while I was looking up Naz Shah's politics I made some interesting discoveries. Have you looked up her career and life story? Makes fascinating reading she is a much braver person than you or I will ever be.

The other one was that the person digging up dirt on her was blogger Paul Staines. This lovely character writes a column for the Stun on Sunday, has been acclaimed by the Torygraph as one of Britain's leading political bloggers and describes his own policies as "Thatcher on drugs". He also states that his credibility was damaged by his enthusiasm for drugs and raves. Shah has more integrity in her little finger than this parasite has in his whole body.

Still, it is becoming an education is this so thanks for getting me off my arse and making me look things up. I always suspected that this story had for more too it than anyone has yet said on here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:22 PM

Anyone who thinks that Naz is "far-left" clearly never came across the likes of some of the buggers I consorted with in the 70s! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM

Who said Shah was anything Dave?
She made some anti-Semitic statements according to the Labour leadership and her own admission.
She attributed it to her own ignorance and says she now knows better.

You asked me to speculate on why this issue has come to prominence.
That is all I did.
My case is that it is an issue for Labour, not why.
The Labour leadership agree with me, but Steve and Jim think that they know better.
How silly that makes them look!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:54 PM

Dave,

The other one was that the person digging up dirt on her was blogger Paul Staines.

I suppose that is what bloggers do.
I do not read them.
The Labour leadership said she had made anti-Semitic statements and she admitted it. I am sure you could find some blogger saying anything if you wanted to.
I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 05:37 PM

No Dave. The complaints suggest that the problem is mostly with the far Left.

It was not me that said that was it? So if the issue is mostly with the far left then why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder? Surely, if anything, it should be only rampant in small section of the Labour party, IE the far left. Yet, as you say, Naz Shah is not of the far left and that seems to be the only example that can be verified and even that is disputed. Not doing too well really are we? So are there any examples of the 'far left' being antisemitic?

My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party. I though I had made that quite clear? I am puzzled as to why you keep responding if you do not know.

We are surely, therefore, at an impasse on this route with nothing left to discuss are we not?

On the other topic, of course we can find anyone saying anything if we look hard enough. It is especially easy to find someone saying what you want to hear. I seem to remember someone once setting great store by credible sources. This man is far from credible. By his own admission

my credibility was damaged by his enthusiasm for drugs and raves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 06:35 PM

"She made some anti-Semitic statements according to the Labour leadership and her own admission."

Yep. People who you don't trust as far as you can throw them. Except when it suits you. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Hope you said your prayers this morning. And you still haven't quoted the words she uttered that you regard as antisemitic. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:44 AM

Ah! back to one of Jim Carroll's hobby horses Sabra-Shatila.

Found out how bulldozers dig mass graves yet Jim?

DtG from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the "Labour Friends of Israel" from? And from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the anti-Israeli BDS Supporters and activists from?

As you did not respond to Keith A's statement - who said that Naz Shah was extreme left? The answer of course is nobody.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:26 AM

Dave,
why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder?

No-one is or has said that Dave.

Naz Shah is not of the far left

So what?

and that seems to be the only example that can be verified

Others are referred to in those Guardian links I gave yesterday.
Then there are Livingstone's.
Also Marc Wadsworth.

and even that is disputed

Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think.
Can you quote anyone else disputing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM

Dave again,
My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party

Why indeed. It is though.

Steve,

Yep. People who you don't trust as far as you can throw them. Except when it suits you. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

I trust them on this. Why would they lie?
Is your case that they are lying Steve?
Why would they lie that it was anti-Semitic if it was not?

You are just spouting bollocks again. You have no case at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM

Britain is to adopt a definition of antisemitm from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Some points,
" 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"

Steve, you were careful to accuse some "pro-Israel lobby" and not Jews of controlling government, but I think you could be caught by this definition.

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. "

Jim and Steve again.

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. "

You have done that many times Jim, but you are still safe from prosecution in Ireland until they adopt the definition too.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 06:38 AM

Israel is still not the Jews and some of its greatest opponents are Jews
Now does that fit into any definition?
"Ah! back to one of Jim Carroll's hobby horses Sabra-Shatila."
Not a hobby horse, but interesting that you should describe the massacre of 3,500 human beings as such
No qualified and quantified accusation - no crime
No response to facts, no argument
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM

Jim, does your post mean that you disagree with the definition?
I can not tell.

Also,
Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time

If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement.
Good luck with that!
I also asked you for an example of accusations you claimed have been found groundless.
How are you getting on with that?

Your claims are just a joke Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 08:42 AM

Jim, does your post mean that you disagree with the definition?
Israel has created a situation that there is no longer w workably consistent definition, so as far as I am concerned - hatred of and discrimination against Jews is what we have left.
Israel's behaviour in claiming the the Jewish People are responsible for the policies of the Israeli regime has directly led to the rise of antisemitism by painting a target on every Jew on the planet.
"If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement."
Where to begin - may be at your insistence that Labour has been proved to have a serious problem of antisemitism in its ranks - how many times have you claimed that?
Until you or anybody quantify and qualify the charges against Labour there is no case to answer - common sense as well as common justice.
Your claims without charges are what is a joke - I have asked you to provide an example of where this has ever happened - you have declined to answer (though you might have cited the McCarthy Senate trials (or even their equivalent 17th century witch trials)
Your lack of proof and accusing the Jewish members of parliament of being silent sums your case up perfectly - you have no interest in the Jews - your support is for Israeli terrorism - that is your definition of antisemitism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:00 AM

Israel's behaviour in claiming the the Jewish People are responsible for the policies of the Israeli regime

Made up shit Jim. Israel has never claimed any such thing.

may be at your insistence that Labour has been proved to have a serious problem of antisemitism in its ranks - how many times have you claimed that?

Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim!
I just repeated their own claims.
The NEC claimed it, the Deputy Leader claimed it, Sadiq Khan claimed it......
Were they all lying Jim?
Is that your case?!!
If so, it is a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:13 AM

I won't be caught by false definitions, Keith. If you ever catch me attacking Jews in any way, shape or form because they are Jews, it'll be a fair cop guv. Any other definition may be a definition of something or other but it isn't a definition of antisemitism, and I care not a jot how many of your rather dubious "authorities" of tendentious predisposition say so. Unlike you, I have a mind of my own. Go and ride your bike or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM

Any other definition may be a definition of something or other but it isn't a definition of antisemitism

Once again a leftist non-Jew feels curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:29 AM

Ah, so are you admitting that only Jews drew up your definition? Even I didn't think that! And I can't help being a non-Jew, you racist! Though I suppose you should really have checked that with me first. I could have been one of your self-hating ones for all you know!

Why don't you just stick to loving Dylan just because I don't? Safer ground for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:37 AM

your self-hating ones

I have never used that term - it is mostly used by Jews themselves and Jew haters in mockery.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:41 AM

"Made up shit Jim. Israel has never claimed any such thing.
Making criticism of Israeli policy is exactly that
"Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim!"
No it didn't and no-one in Labour has qualified those
The ambiguous meaning you have put on their response neither accepts or identifies actual antisemitism - just the need to deal with the accusations, which they have done and found nothing.
Until someone actually identifies the antisemitism that is supposed to be a problem in the Labour Party - it does not exist, and the fact that nobody ever has is proof positive that it doesn't
Our circular arguments finish here unless you are prepared to put a face to your claims
This gets more and more stupid the longer you persist
I ask again, can you provide one example in democratic history where people can be accused of something without that something being identified
Franz Kafka wrote a brilliant novel besed on just this bizarre piece of injustice and the longer you contine, the more your claims resemble that classic.
I assume we are now agreed that the definition has been torn up by the Israelis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 10:00 AM

Deleted a bit inadvertently
"Making criticism of Israeli policy "antisemitic" is exactly that"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

Jim,
"Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim!"
No it didn't and no-one in Labour has qualified those

Yes it did and I have quoted them doing it.
The NEC claimed it, the Deputy Leader claimed it, Sadiq Khan claimed it......
Were they all lying Jim?
Is that your case?!!
If so, it is a joke.

Steve, BBC today,
"The IHRA - which is backed by 31 countries, including the UK, US, Israel, France and Germany - hopes the definition will be adopted globally as a "political tool" to deal with anti-Jewish hate crime."

So what is your opinion worth Steve?

The Labour Party backs it, so what is your opinion worth Steve?

"Police in the UK already use this definition, which was adopted by the EU's Agency for Fundamental Rights. "

So it is the same as the EUMC definition that you asserted was defunct, so what is your opinion worth Steve?

How you ridiculed and insulted me over that, but as usual I was proved right and you wrong again.
Poor you Steve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38281950

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 12:02 PM

If you think that anything you said in that post proves you right, you must be even more doolally bloody tap than I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

Keeeith
You can wriggle around this as much as you want and misinterpret this as mauch as you want, but making an accusation and refusing to substantiating it is totally unprecedented and utterly ridiculous and you know it - which is why you refuse to respond by giving a previous example of it ever happening.
Game over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 01:22 PM

Hi Teribus

from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the "Labour Friends of Israel" from? And from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the anti-Israeli BDS Supporters and activists from?

I really have no idea. It is not something I have ever looked up. I could Google it of course but as you seem to be in the know maybe you could enlighten me and perhaps let us know what effect it has on the discussion. Thanks.

As you did not respond to Keith A's statement - who said that Naz Shah was extreme left? The answer of course is nobody.

I know. I think you may have missed the point. It was stated that most of the complaints were directed against the left wing yet the example being bandied about is Naz Shah. The point being, if it is mainly against the left wing, where are the examples of that?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 01:52 PM

Hi Keith

Dave,
why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder?

No-one is or has said that Dave.

I quote directly from the article linked by bobad on 9th Dec. "Most recently, Corbyn has come under fire for his failure to properly address rampant Jew-hatred and antisemitic anti-Zionism within his own party." Do you still dispute that the statement that it is rampant in the Labour party has been used?

and that seems to be the only example that can be verified

Others are referred to in those Guardian links I gave yesterday.
Then there are Livingstone's.
Also Marc Wadsworth.

So, they were referred to. What antisemitic phrases were used? Have Livingstone and Wadsworth been arrested for hate crimes? Post what they say not what other people say. Let us make our own minds up whether it is antisemitic, rather than rely on the words of journalists.

Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think.
Can you quote anyone else disputing it.

There are many people who dispute the definition of antisemitism being used. Including people like Noam Chomsky who categorically states that criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitism. But even if there were not so many or none so distinguished, it would still be true that it is a disputed definition.

My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party

Why indeed. It is though.


Once again you have failed to answer the question. If you do not know the answer, fine, just say so. But please stop referring to it if you have nothing to add.

My questions are a genuine attempt to get to the bottom of what is obviously a very complex issue. I don't think we will find all the answers here and I, for one, will be happy in the knowledge that I have at least learned something. There is nothing black and white about this. No winners or losers. Better to be sympathetic to all than adversarial. In my opinion.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:05 PM

Including people like Noam Chomsky ....

Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics with extremist political views, he represents no one other than himself. Why should we care what he thinks?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:36 PM

Maybe we shouldn't, bobad but why should we care what you think either?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

AL MA HAWIL

MAGADAN

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

Dave,
Do you still dispute that the statement that it is rampant in the Labour party has been used?

Yes. It may have appeared in some article but no-one in this debate has claimed such a thing.

Let us make our own minds up whether it is antisemitic, rather than rely on the words of journalists.

I do not rely on the words of journalists.
I rely on the words of the NEC, the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Sadique Khan and other insiders.
Why would anyone disregard their statements?
Do any of you three think you know better, or that they are all lying?

Post what they say not what other people say

No need. I can prove my case using the statements of the NEC, the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Sadique Khan and other insiders.
Why would anyone disregard their statements?
Do any of you three think you know better, or that they are all lying?

There are many people who dispute the definition of antisemitism being used.

That was not the issue.
You claimed, "Naz Shah is not of the far left and that seems to be the only example that can be verified and even that is disputed." and I replied,
"Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think.
Can you quote anyone else disputing it. "

Once again you have failed to answer the question. If you do not know the answer, fine, just say so.

The reason for Labour's problems are unknowable. We can only speculate and I already have.
The fact that they have a problem is indisputable though.

Steve,
If you think that anything you said in that post proves you right,

On the EUMC definition being defunct, I have been proved right and you wrong.
On the Labour Party having a serious issue with anti-Semitism, I have been proved right and you wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:51 PM

YADANA

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:59 PM

Dave again,
Including people like Noam Chomsky who categorically states that criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitism.

I categorically state that too.
So does the government of Israel.
I have never come across anyone who would disagree with that statement and I am bemused that you thought it worth stating in a serious discussion Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 03:01 PM

Teribus
"Found out how bulldozers dig mass graves yet Jim?"
This and my two posting above all contain references to bulldozersw being used to dig mass graves
Perhaps it's time you added Civil Engineering to your already impressive "know sweet **** all about' list
University Challenge beckons!!
Are you going to provide evidence of the types of antisemitism yet Keith or are we finished on that one?
Jim Carroll

MOBIL GAS FIELDS
BALKANS

SABRA SHATILA

BOSNIA

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:11 PM

Sadiq .......................

not Sadique ..........


and this idiot wonders why no one takes him seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:14 PM

The 'disputed' bit refers to the fact that it is disputed that what Naz Shah said and did was antisemitic. She did criticise the state of Israel and many people would dispute that is antisemitic. I suspect that many other people would have read my comment as that but, for some reason Keith, you and I seem to have a communication barrier that I do not know how to surmount. There is also the fact that, when I referred to 'rampant antisemitism' you said specifically that No-one is or has said that Dave. When I provided chapter and verse as to who said it and where you then changed your statement to no-one in this debate has claimed such a thing. Are you saying that the article linked by bobad is untrue then? If things that appear in the media can be discounted, which sources are we to rely on?

What was your speculation on the cause of Labour's 'problems' anyway? I must have missed that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:22 PM

So I take it you've fallen out with bobad then, Keith. He NEVER listens to Chomsky...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:32 PM

Maybe we shouldn't, bobad but why should we care what you think either?

Well, you seem to care enough to respond but why you should or shouldn't I haven't the foggiest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:34 PM

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Mr Ban gave Keith the same difficulty on the nomenclature front, Raggytash. Damn those non-English spellings, eh, Keith? Bloody foreigners!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:35 PM

He NEVER listens to Chomsky...

He's just another opinion - ask your friend Greg what opinions are.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:35 PM

"I haven't the foggiest"

You can say that again.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:42 PM

"Bloody foreigners!"

Racist!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:44 PM

Heheh. Spoken like a "man" who hasn't got the foggiest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:48 PM

He, He, caught you in own little game I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:52 PM

Do enjoy your reverie.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:55 PM

I wouldn't quite say care enough to respond. More of a duty to consider others no matter what I actualy think of them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 05:16 PM

Thanks Dave, that's touching.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 05:31 PM

Well, many people have commented that you are touched :-) But I would not be so unkind.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 06:03 PM

"Found out how bulldozers dig mass graves yet Jim?"

The question still stands Jim. You haven't answered it neither have the links you provided.

The Mobil one refers to "earth moving equipment" not bulldozers - That is credible.

The Balkans one refers to "construction equipment" not bulldozers - That too is credible.

Possibly it is a translation thing and to many anything that moves earth or operates on a civil engineering construction site is to them a "bulldozer".

The IDF had armoured bulldozers with them in South Lebanon in 1982 they are used by combat engineer units to clear obstacles - fact still remains you cannot use them to dig anything - they simply are not designed for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:06 AM

Has someone had lessons in pedantry from the professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:17 AM

Dave,
The 'disputed' bit refers to the fact that it is disputed that what Naz Shah said and did was antisemitic.

Disputed by who Dave?
Just you three.

" Corbyn's aides defended Shah, saying the comments were antisemitic but the MP had "shocked herself," and did not mean what she said."

She herself admits it was anti-Semitic.
Why should anyone care or take seriously that you three think it was not?!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:22 AM

Dave again,
When I provided chapter and verse as to who said it and where you then changed your statement to no-one in this debate has claimed such a thing. Are you saying that the article linked by bobad is untrue then? If things that appear in the media can be discounted,

No-one in this debate has claimed such a thing, so it is not part of our debate, so why raise it as an issue?
Obviously you can find someone in the world who does say whatever you want to be said. So what.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM

Steve,

So I take it you've fallen out with bobad then, Keith. He NEVER listens to Chomsky...

No. Bobad would also state categorically that criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitism.
The fact that Chomsky makes such a completely anodyne statement has no relevance to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:42 AM

You still changed you statement from no one said such thing to no one on this discussion said such a thing Keith. It makes me very reluctant to respond to or comment on anything else when I have no idea what I am responding to or commenting on. Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, you are changing what you initially said and that was what I was responding to. Please feel free to claim that point if you like. I lose.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:56 AM

It is perfectly feasible for a bulldozer to excavate a trench, it may even be the most efficient way, it is possible. Firstly make a small depression, then gradually create a ramp and making a deeper depression, increase the ramp and make a deeper depression eventually you have a trench with a ramp in and out.


Try it in your sandpit with your Tonka toys teri.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:59 AM

You have been given half a dozen references to Bulldozers being used to dig mass graves - you have nit-picked with one, but in fact Mobil actually refers to using bulldozers.
You have been supplied a dozen times with different news items stating that Israeli bulldozers were found to be on site digging mass graves (Israel actually admitted to only one in their own enquiry into the massacre, it was found that ten were used)
From the articles supplied:
"afterwards, they would bring the bulldozers to bury the people"
Ad Ma Hawil
"U.S. lend-lease bulldozers were used to dig graves for the prisoners"
Magadan
"Bulldozers used by the Indonesian military to dig mass graves"
Yadana
"Bulldozers being used to dig graves"
Mobil Gas Fields
"Bulldozers being used to raze houses on their occupants, whether dead or living, and to dig mass graves"
Sabra Shatila
"the bulldozers used to dig the mass graves"
Bosnia
To miss something occasionally is a mistake, to continually deny something from different sources from different accounts is simple dishonesty - agenda-driven lying.
You persistently request examples of your lying and I respond with lists - here's another half dozen - let's see how you deal with them
Perhaps it's worth remembering what this is really about (apart from your trying to make me out a liar or stupid – somewhat backfired here).
This arose from the fact that, after supplying weapons, access to the camp, transport, illumination and eventually, means of escape for the Falangists who spent three days massacring, raping and disembowelling up to 3,500 unarmed refugees and turning refugees attempting to escape, back into the arms of their killers, The Israeli Army assisted in digging the mass graves in order to hide their participation in this massive war crime, and eventually made most of this evidence inaccessible by building s sports stadium over them.
This atrocity was overseen by Menachem Begin, a man who was later recognised as being a fine, responsible human being and statesman by being made Prime Minister of Israel
This is what you are actually defending, not what machines were used for the job.
Your openly stupid denial of a proven fact and your wriggling attempt to hide your stupidity makes you what you are.
You are not even very good at it - at least Keith trawls up unread "real historians who sell their real books in real bookshops" to cover his efforts.
Maybe it's time you came to terms with your limitations?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 08:22 AM

"She herself admits it was anti-Semitic."
And has apologised and withdrawn her statement
Why she did so is a moot point, but even if we accept her having made an anti semitic statement - that leaves you with one single identifeid example - a long way from a "major problem"
Until you come up with more examples, that'a all you've got.
What you have not got is an excuse for the fact that nearly one half of Israeli citizens, including the former Justice Minister and other officials, wish to deport the Arabs living there
There are up to 6.5 million Palestinian refugees who have been refused the right to return home - the biggest single group of refugees on the planet
These are facts - not antisemitic statements or threats - actual reality effecting actual human beings.
It is little wonder that there has been a rise in antisemitism in the world today when the Israelis have skulked behind the Jewish People to keep themselves from being tried for crimes against humanity
It puts an ill thought out comment by a labour politician in context - doesn't it?
You won't respond to this - not with facts anyway - it doesn't matter - it's not for your benefit.
The longer you continue this farce, the more chance I will have of repeating these facts and adding links to them - like this
NEARLY HALF of ISRAELIS WANT TO EXPEL ARABS - TIMES of ISRAEL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 08:41 AM

NEARLY HALF of ISRAELIS WANT TO EXPEL ARABS - TIMES of ISRAEL

Statement of desire is one thing, actual expulsion like what was done to Jews in the Arab countries and Judea and Samaria is another entirely. Goose and gander- right Carroll?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

"like what was done to Jews in the Arab countries "
So yous say if Arabs in other states expel Jews then it ok for Israel to expel Arans who have nothing to do with those actions?
What a sick, simple-minded part of the universe you occupy
Thank you for clairfying that point
"Carroll?"
Tsk-tsk - your ill breeding is shoing again - couldn't you parents have made a better job than that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

Well if statements of desire are "one thing," then why do you keep regaling us with that Hamas charter? It's only a "statement of desire" after all. Sinn Fein's call for a united Ireland is only a "statement of desire" too. We still work with them, don't we?

Not so, Keith. Whenever we list the many undeniable atrocities of the Israeli regime, bobad denies them all and calls us Jew-haters, even though we are criticising the actions of the state, not of Jews. You need to do a bit more listening.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 10:27 AM

Well if statements of desire are "one thing," then why do you keep regaling us with that Hamas charter?

Nice attempt at making an equivalence between the charter of a ruling government and the opinion of the man on the street, but the verdict is.......FAIL!


As for this garbage:
   
So yous say if Arabs in other states expel Jews then it ok for Israel to expel Arans who have nothing to do with those actions?
What a sick, simple-minded part of the universe you occupy
Thank you for clairfying that point

from the sick, twisted mind of the hateful little twerp all I can say is........GET HELP!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:25 AM

"from the sick, twisted mind of the hateful little twerp all I can say is.."
Apparently that's all you can say - though you might be far more effective you you actually answer the point.
What do you hope to acheive by behaving as you do?
You answer nothing
You pour out bilious accusations of antisemitism and refuse to qualify them with proof.
You just present yourself as an incredibly unpleasant individual so unsure of his arguments that he can replace them by pure vindictiveness.
Is that the way you behave at home or in public life - is that the way you've been brought up to behave - do your want your cause to be associated with such behaviour?
Sorry Bobad - people like you are totally beyond me.
As you say - GET HELP - you are doing neither yourself nor Israel any favours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:34 AM

Dave, You still changed you statement from no one said such thing to no one on this discussion said such a thing Keith

Your original question was why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder? Why expect us to answer for other people? It is reasonable to point out that none of us here have argued that, and to wonder why you ask us.

Is it "people" anyway? So far, in the whole world, you have only identified one person who said that.

Jim, The Israeli Army assisted in digging the mass graves in order to hide their participation in this massive war crime,

That is a lie Jim. A single bulldozer was loaned to the militia, but no Israelis were involved.

Until you come up with more examples, that'a all you've got.

I do not need to find more examples. We know they exist from the testimonies of people like the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan, the Deputy Leader, the Leader of Scottish Labour and others.

the Israelis have skulked behind the Jewish People to keep themselves from being tried for crimes against humanity

Another lie Jim. You are just consumed by hatred and will say anything.

So yous say if Arabs in other states expel Jews then it ok for Israel to expel Arans who have nothing to do with those actions?

No, but it is reasonable to ask why you do not condemn the actual expulsion that the Jews suffered.

Steve, that Hamas charter? It's only a "statement of desire" after all

No. It is a statement of intent by a government already acting on that intent.

Not so, Keith.

Yes so. Bobad agrees that it is OK to criticise Israel, so it is wrong to suggest he disagrees with everything Chomsky says.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:38 AM

Jim,

You pour out bilious accusations of antisemitism and refuse to qualify them with proof.

Jim, by the definitions of anti Semitism long used by UK police and now being enshrined in UK law, you are guilty of anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:39 AM

you might be far more effective you you actually answer the point.

To answer your Made Up Shit® would be sinking to your level, I give it the response it warrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:03 PM

it is wrong to suggest he disagrees with everything Chomsky says.

I agree with Chomsky's rejection of BDS which he bases on the grounds of it's support of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and it's demand for recognition of the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:12 PM

Good to see you admit your racism at last.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM

Jim, by the definitions of anti Semitism long used by UK police and now being enshrined in UK law, you are guilty of anti-Semitism."
I have never attacked Jews in any shape or form - by any definition, your accusation is antisemitic.
All your denials have been dealt with a thousand times - the only evidence you have ever offered are denials by Israel - by your own admission "I'm just putting the other side"
You are now confirming your dishonesty on this by refusing to even respond to the proved ethnic cleansing that is taking place
As promised - I will continue to provide further evidence of those crimes and

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/51687-141120-poll-israel-s-treatment-of-palestinians-similar-to-nazi-persecution-of-jews

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:43 PM

Good to see you admit your racism at last.

Idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:56 PM

From Carroll's link:

Just over 27 percent of those surveyed in September said they agreed with the idea that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was no different than Nazi persecution of Jews during the Holocaust.

So, that would reflect the number of anti-Semites in the survey as Germany is one of the 31 countries adopting the IHRA definition.

Comparing Israel to Nazis is anti-Semitic, 31 Western states declare

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:56 PM

Jim,
According to the IHRA definition, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." is anti Semitic.

In posts to this thread on 8 October you did just that.

Also you knowingly lie about Israel.

The Israeli Army assisted in digging the mass graves in order to hide their participation in this massive war crime,
That is a lie Jim. A single bulldozer was loaned to the militia, but no Israelis were involved.

the Israelis have skulked behind the Jewish People to keep themselves from being tried for crimes against humanity
Another lie Jim. You are just consumed by hatred and will say anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:01 PM

the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.

Absolutely, Bubo, Yahweh forfend that anyone should extend fundamental rights and equality to the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:03 PM

Absolutely, Bubo, Yahweh forfend that anyone should extend fundamental rights and equality to the Palestinians.

Tell it to Chomsky.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:11 PM

We are telling it to YOU. You said you agreed with Chomsky and you made it clear that you oppose the fundamental right to equality in Israel for Palestinian Arab citizens. That is an explicitly racist viewpoint by any measure.

That's what you said. I'll check out Chomsky later. The chips are in the oven.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:18 PM

Keith, I am not going to fall out with you over something so trivial but if you cannot understand what I am trying to say there is no point in continuing. You will only end up changing something else and I will end up frustrated. Please feel free to claim a victory as I consider it a loss when I fail to communicate so severely!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM

Dave, I have not changed anything, but I may not have explained clearly enough what I meant.
Sorry for that.

Your original question was "why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder?"
Why expect us to answer for other people? It is reasonable to point out that none of us here have argued that, and to wonder why you ask us.

Is it "people" anyway? So far, in the whole world, you have only identified one person who said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM

We are telling it to YOU.

You are trying to use your friend Carroll's tactic of Made Up Shit® to smear me. It is cheap and dirty.

I said I agree with Chomsky's rejection of BDS. I then posted Chomsky's rationale for his rejecting it. I didn't say I agreed with his rationale only his rejection. But you know that, don't you. You are a lying prick.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:31 PM

"According to the IHRA definition, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." is anti Semitic"
Avvording to all definitions of antisemitism, it is antisemitic to associate the Jewish People with the actions of Israel
You do it, Bodad does it, Israel does it......
While you people continue to do it you will make shit of any definition and you will continue to expose the jEwish People to attacks
If you think I in any way concerned at being described as an antisemite by someone who has accused the Jewish politicians, as a body, of refusing to identify the antisemitism that is claimed to exist in the Labour Party for the love of that party - think again - that is probably the most antisemitic statement that has ever been made on this forum - AND YOU MADE IT
"Just over 27 percent of those surveyed in September said they agreed with the idea that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was no different than Nazi persecution of Jews during the Holocaust."
I'm sure that was not intended to confirm what I have just said, but that is exactly what it does do.
Israel has branded the Jewish People as being responsible for their crimes - in doing so, they make shit of any definition.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
Leading
Israelis, ex Prime Ministers, Military men, ex heads of security, the liberal Israeli press, Jewish intellectuals, Holocaust survivors and their families..... and many many more Jews, are making just this claim
You once described the phrase "Self hating Jew" as applied to modern Jewish critics of Israel, as having been made up by me - it is now a standard knee-jerk defence of all Israeli crimes
I'm not Jewish, but these are the people I identify with, not the ethnic cleansers of Israel and certainly not people like you and Bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:37 PM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:31 PM

LOL........somebody has totally lost the plot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:41 PM

I think it started further back than that when you pulled me up for using the word endemic but, honestly, there is absolutely no gain in continuing down this path. It does not matter how it started. It finishes here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM

Whoops - forgot my promise
ETHNIC CLEANSING or DEMOCRACY HAARETZ
By the way
"That is a lie Jim. A single bulldozer was loaned to the militia, but no Israelis were involved."
You have been supplied with an eyewitness account that up to ten bulldozers were seen on the site
There were certanly more than the one Israel claimed.
"On Saturday morning, September 18, 1982 Israeli Mossad agents inside the camp actually were observed driving three of the bulldozers in a frantic attempt to assist the Christian militia in covering up evidence of the crime before the exported international media arrived on the scene."
By FRANKLIN LAMB
TWENTY NINE YEARS LATER
Can you hurry up with your denials and refusals to respond - I have a list of links as long as your arm ready for posting?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:50 PM

Dave, there is no danger of us falling out over such a minor misunderstanding.
Let us sort it out.
If you are unable to answer the questions I just put to you again, let us start again.

Someone used the word "rampant" in a linked article.
I absolutely accept that fact.
What point would you have liked me to address? I promise to thoughtfully and honestly address that point.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:51 PM

Bubo, best enroll in a review course in English composition, grammar, syntax and English comprehension. You apparently don't understand what you are saying/posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM

"it is wrong to suggest he disagrees with everything Chomsky says."

I agree with Chomsky's rejection of BDS which he bases on the grounds of it's support of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and it's demand for recognition of the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.

There you are in black and white. What you said. You agree with his rejection. You give us the grounds. No demurring or qualification from you. Racism. I'll check Chomsky later (you do have a habit of mischaracterising) but you don't need any checking. Very clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 02:01 PM

Jim, no eye witness is identified in that article as seeing that.
Once again you are using extreme propaganda sites.
They tell lies Jim.

Please find something on a reputable site, or identify the eye witness concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 02:16 PM

"Once again you are using extreme propaganda sites.
They tell lies Jim."
I deliberately linked you to the author of the bulldozers facts - just as you deliberately ignored it
'Franklin Lamb is a former Assistant Counsel of the US House Judiciary Committee and Professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law, Portland, Oregon. Lamb earned his Law Degree at Boston University and his LLM, M.Phil, and PhD degrees at the London School of Economics. Following three years at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Lamb was visiting fellow at the Harvard Law School's East Asian Legal Studies Center. Lamb is the author of Israel's 1982 War in Lebanon, International Legal Responsibility for the Sabra-Shatila Massacre, The Price We Pay. His latest book, The Case for Palestinian Civil Rights in Lebanon, is due out shortly (february 2014). Dr Lamb is a visiting Professor of International Law at the Faculty of Law, Damascus University and volunteers with the Sabra-Shatila Scholarship Program."
Now you go and find someone other than Israel or its supporters to prove it wrong.
AND ONCE MORE YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE ANOTHER ARTICLE - THIS TIME FROM THE ISRALI PAPER, HAARETZ
Further as promised
ETHNIC CLEANSING in ISRAEL
Keep it up, you're doing fine!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 02:17 PM

You agree with his rejection.

That's all what I said - the rest is from Chomsky.

Nice try though.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 02:21 PM

Bubo, best enroll in a review course in English composition, grammar, syntax and English comprehension. You apparently don't understand what you are saying/posting.

Oh, I understand it perfectly well, I also understand perfectly well what you are trying to do just like what you tried to do with associating me with Trump. You showed us what you are made of.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 03:22 PM

Bubo, grab a dictionary and look up "projection".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 03:47 PM

Smeg, I suggest you look up "smear" and "slander".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 04:16 PM

Bubo, one more time grab a dictionary and look up "projection".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 07:39 PM

"I agree with Chomsky's rejection of BDS which he bases on the grounds of it's support of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and it's demand for recognition of the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality."

That's what you said. No demurring, no qualifying. You gave us the grounds on which you think he rejects BDS and your post clearly, clearly, CLEARLY means that you agree with those grounds. Otherwise you would have said you didn't, or you wouldn't have posted them at all. You are bang to rights. Tell us you made a mistake or failed to clarify and we'll drop it. As it stands, and if you don't back down, it makes you racist, no messing about. It means that you want to see Arab-Palestinians continue to be second-class citizens in Israel with no rights to equality. All your posts on Israel suggest to us that this is indeed the kind of sentiment you cling to. Calling us names is no way to go. A careful, calm clarification is what's needed, should your hubris allow. Let's see how you get on with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 08:01 PM

Well I haven't had all night, but as far as I can make out Chomsky is out of sympathy with the BDS movement on several grounds, though not all. Now you'd think from bobad's post, quoted by me just then, that Chomsky has abandoned any idea of a fair and equal society in Israel with Arab Palestinians enjoying equal rights. This is just not the case. He does think that BDS is not the right way to go in that regard. Now you wouldn't think that, would you, reading bobad's post. It's a dishonest post and it contains a monster slip-up in that he clearly casts himself as racist. If anyone can give me a quote from Chomsky in which he clearly states that he doesn't believe in equality for Palestinians in Israel, I'd be both interested and severely disappointed to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 08:58 PM

If anyone can give me a quote from Chomsky in which he clearly states that he doesn't believe in equality for Palestinians in Israel, I'd be both interested and severely disappointed to read it.

Just give Bubo or possibly CowFartBruce a bit of time, Steve, and they'll invent a quote for you out of whole cloth, gratis.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 10:03 PM

Chomsky in which he clearly states that he doesn't believe in equality for Palestinians in Israel

You seem to be having a problem with comprehension. No one has said that Chomsky doesn't believe in equality for Palestinians in Israel. It was stated that he rejects BDS because it has that as one of it's demands which he believes is untenable.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:12 AM

Clear it up in a sentence. Just tell us that you believe in full equality for Arab Palestinians in Israel. Easy!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:01 AM

Bulldozers Jim? You have in the past provided "links" that put widely varying numbers of bulldozers being used (Think the highest number was something like 13 of them). Pretty high density of bulldozers considering the footprint of the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp in 1982 was something like one square kilometre.

That Franklin Lamb, is he the same one who said he was there but wasn't. You'll introduce the American Nurse next, you know the one who stated quite clearly that IDF troops dragged Palestinian and Lebanese doctors and nurses out of the hospital she was in, took them away and they were never seen again - yet at the end of the massacres carried out solely by Lebanese Christian Falangist Militia forces - ALL DOCTORS AND ALL NURSES in the hospital were unharmed and accounted for.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:17 AM

You are getting somewhat boring with your arrogance Teribus - at least you once used to be entertaining.
You have the facts - live with them or choke on them - your choice.
We are well aware that all these people are either liars and ignoramuses and that you have all the answers - you really are one of our unappreciated national treasures.
I well know what bulldozers are capable from personal experience - my father operated one for Wimpey's for the first twenty years of my life - he even tried (unsuccessfully) to teach me the basics once).
One of his jobs was to level out the dredgings from The Manchester Ship Canal and BURY the harder, larger stuff.
True - I wasn't there to see him do that, so it's quite possible he was lying.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 04:42 AM

Jim,

I deliberately linked you to the author of the bulldozers facts -

He was not an eye witness and does not say who was.
Well known eye witnesses, the nurse, the doctor, Fisk the journalist, just saw the one bull dozer and no Israelis in the camp.

Remember that your propaganda sites lied to you about what Morris said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 05:18 AM

Finishes with this as far as you pair of sickos are concerned Keith
Tou are doing for israel what Irving has done for Nazi Germany -the only difference is that he has had the nouse to fake his evidence whereas you just take the side of the perpetrator and deny anything that contradicts it.
Sabra Shatila was mass murder instigated and facilitated by the Israeli regime - end of story
WORST of JEWISH POGROMS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 06:45 AM

He was not an eye witness"
The only eye witnesses were those who were there
You and your friend has dismissed Jewish nurse, Ellen Shapiro as a liar, ignored all the eye witness statements and the Israeli soldiers' evidence, particularly thet which led to the making of "Waltz With Bashir"
The only evidence you are prepared to accept is from those faithful to the man who was indicted as being responsible and dismissed but later became Prime Minister
Or maybe you have a hot-line to the god you claim to believe in but who you show no signs of keeping his faith
Twisted or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 08:07 AM

Clear it up in a sentence. Just tell us that you believe in full equality for Arab Palestinians in Israel. Easy!

Arabs, as do all ethnic groups in Israel, have full equality so why would I not support it? That is the opposite of what is demanded for Jews by the BDS movement. Chomsky, like Finkelstein, must at least be given credit for recognizing the hypocrisy and anti-Semitism inherent in BDS which demands the right of return and equality for all Arabs in Israel knowing full well that the realization of their demands would mean the end of Israel.

To quote Norman Finkelstein:

"I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuousness. They don't want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result? You know and I know what the result is. There's no Israel!"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 08:57 AM

"Arabs, as do all ethnic groups in Israel, have full equality "
INEQUALITY REPORT
ETHNIC CLEANSING of BEDOUINS
DATABASE of 50 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS
"They don't want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel"
How ******* unreasonable of them!!
"What Norman Finkelstein actually believes"
BDS says it's a nonviolent form of resistance, which is absolutely true, and it is not objectionable on those grounds. However, if the ends of BDS are seen as unjust, however nonviolent its means are, they will never get international support, it's never going to happen. Both the means and the ends have to be conceived by public opinion as being just.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 08:59 AM

Sorry - didn't link that
Hopes and strategies for a future in Palestine
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 09:19 AM

In a region of autocracies and theocracies, Israel shines as a beacon of freedom and hope in the Middle East. Its diverse culture, open society and guaranteed civil and political liberties for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or creed, follows closely to Western democratic tradition. It's liberal democracy, in fact, is the main reason that Israel has been able to have remarkable economic development despite being in a neighborhood surrounded by uncompromising enemies.

Israel's Liberal Democracy

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 10:36 AM

The Jewish Virtual Library -"one of whose "principal objectives is to enhance Israel's image by publicizing novel Israeli approaches to problems" (unquote" you need to ne joking!!
Did you never hear the saying "self praise is no recommendation"?
You're going to have to come up with something better than self-promoting propaganda to dispute the facts you are studiously ignoring.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 11:42 AM

You're going to have to come up with something better than self-promoting propaganda to dispute the facts you are studiously ignoring.

I don't get what you're trying to say. Do you deny that the laws of Israel guarantee civil and political liberties for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or creed? Or are you rejecting it because it comes from a Jewish source - and we know what those Jews are like - right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM

You and your friend has dismissed Jewish nurse, Ellen Shapiro as a liar, ignored all the eye witness statements

If you mean Ellen Siegel, I have not dismissed her testimony.
Likewise Robert Fisk.
They both saw only one bulldozer, neither saw bodies being buried, and neither saw Israelis in the camp.
Who is your eye witness?
That 50s pop singer Helen Shapiro?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

"If you mean Ellen Siegel, I have not dismissed her testimony."
Yes you have - she couldn't possibly ave seen what she said she could see - remember?
She had dedicated her life to proving what happened - you apparently have dedicated yours to proving she is telling lies.
The bulldozers have been verified as being used to bury the bodies - over and over again.
You have only offered denials
I have researched reports - where is your witness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 12:30 PM

Jim,
Yes you have - she couldn't possibly ave seen what she said she could see - remember?

I have never said that about her.

The bulldozers have been verified as being used to bury the bodies - over and over again.

No they have not. You made that up.
The dead were buried by the ICRC.

You have only offered denials
I have offered the eye witness accounts of Siegel and Fisk.

I have researched reports - where is your witness

Siegel and Fisk.
What eye witness have you found for dozers burying bodies?
None Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 12:41 PM

For christs sake Keith (I thought believing in him meant not telling lies) - she couldn't possibly know what was happening because she was inside the hospital - she couldn't possibly see from the top of the hospital - I think you tried to claim the map showed it.....
A whole string of excuses for why her testimony was unbelievable.
As I have just pointed out - she has dedicated her life to proving what happened - you have dedicated your life to proiving she isn't telling the truth.
"The dead were buried by the ICRC."
Nobody knows who buried the dead nor where they are buried - the Israelis made sure of that.
You have been given a dozen accounts of this fact - you have only offered denials based on the Israeli claim that they didn't do it.
"What eye witness have you found for dozers burying bodies?"
Eye witness accounts from the survivors, which of course don't count as they are not Israelis and they contradict their claims.
Piss of Keith - we're finished here
I sincerely hope for your sake that there is no God.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

I have alwas had absolute contempt for the likes of David Irving - the Nazis slaughtered Jews, Gypsies, trades Unionists, the medically or mentally "unfit".... anybody who didn't measure up to the aspirations of The Reich - Irving took away the dignity of the dead by defending the actions of their killers.
You and your mates fit into this category perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 01:37 PM

The laws of Israel are one thing, bobad, but what actually happens on the ground is another matter, and is what actually matters. We've been here before. There are massive disparities in schooling, in school transport, in employment opportunities, in housing, in unemployment and in pay, not to speak of mistreatment at checkpoints and the existence of forbidden areas for non-Jews to live in. No doubt you'll be telling me that it's all lies and propaganda. Unfortunately, as I've posted here before, it's all rather well-documented. I asked you whether or not you believed in full equality in Israel for Arab-Palestinians. I didn't ask you for Chomsky's opinion or what the law says. You have yet to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:09 PM

You have yet to answer.

Yes I have, reread for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:32 PM

she couldn't possibly know what was happening because she was inside the hospital -

She was marched from the hospital through and out of the camp.
She saw a single bulldozer working, but saw no bodies being buried.
She saw no Israelis in the camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 02:47 PM

Yes I have, reread for comprehension.

What you choose to believe, Bubo, and what actually is are two different things.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 03:00 PM

I hought you just said "I have not dismissed her testimony." - damn, must have been someone else
You have never learned to put a sensible gap between making a statement and claiming you never made it, have you
Finished here Keith - you've had the facts and your denials prove nothing
You contribute nothing other than a bad taste in the mouth.
G'night
Sleep as well as your conscience will let you - probably pretty well
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 16 - 06:55 PM

No, bobad, you've actually been evasive. As you sounded rather racist when this first cropped up, I ask you again for clarification. Do you agree that Arab-Palestinians in Israel should enjoy full equality with Jews? In every regard: jobs, wages, housing, education, transport, freedom of movement, freedom of where to live, treatment by the authorities? Not just equality according to what the law says (which doesn't happen), but in reality? Simple question, a simple "yes" without caveats would nail it. Are you up for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 05:49 AM

Jim, I have not dismissed her testimony, I have put it in front of you.
She saw and reported nothing that contradicts Israel's version of events.

You have been shown repeatedly that your anti-Israel sites tell lies.
Will you not explore the possibility that Israel is telling the truth?

It is not just me. Decent democratic governments are all on friendly terms with Israel and would not be if they believed all that stuff.
They know it to be just lying propaganda.
Open your eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 06:19 AM

Are people really this naïve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 06:44 AM

By the same token Saudi Arabia must be a paragon of virtue because we are on good terms with it. They cannot be involved in any of the human rights abuses there are accused of or we would have said something. Right?

:-S

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 06:47 AM

"Jim, I have not dismissed her testimony, I have put it in front of you."
Over the course of these arguments you have disputed everything she has said and everything she has now dedicated her life to.
You have done this by dismissing or ignoring facts and you have accused those who disagree with you by criticising the israeli regime of anti semitism.
The details of Sabra Shatila, the part Israel played in it, the transport, weapons, illumination, bulldozers used for mass burials.... are all a matter of history, disputed only by Israel and those who would defend such atrocities.
This is all repetition - nothing new and no point in prolonging, unless some miracle provides fresh insight.
There is no point continuing - everything has been said and you have provided nothing or proved nothing.
Perhaps you are referring to the decent democratic governments who stood by and watched the people of Homs being massacred, doing nothing, and are now standing watching the same thing happening to the people of Aleppo
Piss on your decent and democratic governments if that's how they behave - you have the facts and the fact that you have to fall back on this dishonest excuse once again is proof that you are unable to challenge them
Stop haunting this forum with your dishonest extremism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 09:56 AM

"The details of Jenin, the part Israel played in it, the transport, weapons, illumination, bulldozers used for mass burials.... are all a matter of FICTION Deliberately presented, promulgated and broadcast by Palestinians to further their agenda.

10 years prior to Jenin they pulled exactly the same stunt in Beirut, and Jim Carroll and many others swallowed it "hook-line-and-sinker".

No-one can substantiate the 3,500 supposed victims.

Jim Carroll talks of "secret mass graves" hidden beneath the Camille Chamoun Stadium - the largest sports stadium in Lebanon - A stadium that was completely rebuilt and redeveloped after 1982 - Guess what? - No mass graves found, they found no human remains whatsoever.

Jim Carroll produces reams of paperwork and he presents them as "eye-witness" testimony. On examination what was produced was nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 11:06 AM

"No-one can substantiate the 3,500 supposed victims."
Nobody can deny them either - the Israeli bulldozers made sure of that
So Ellen Siegel, Robert Fisk, the McBride Commission all the survivors who gave evidence - were all part of a Lebanese plot?
That took longer than it should to emerge.   
"Jim Carroll produces reams of paperwork"
And you have produced not a single scrap - all personal, agenda-driven opinion.
"he presents them as "eye-witness" testimony."
Yet another lie to add to the list
Please produce one scrap of evidence I have produced and claimed as "an eye witness account" that wasn't - waste of time asking for this, of course.
In fact I have avoided most eye witness accounts as they are not as readily available as the researched reports that were based on interviews.
While you are at it, you might produce an alternative account of the massacre that is not personal opinion or the official line put out by the perpetrators
Jim Carroll

SOME EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS HERE - all lies of course!!
"On Thursday, there was shelling when the Israelis came, then it got worse so we went down into the shelter. (…) We learned on Friday that there had been a massacre. I went to my neighbours' house. I saw our neighbour Mustapha Al Habarat; he was injured and lying in a bath of his own blood. His wife and children were dead. We took him to the Gaza hospital and then we fled. When things had calmed down, I came back and searched for my daughter and my husband for four days. I spent four days looking for them through all the dead bodies. I found Zeinab dead, her face burnt. Her husband had been cut in two and had no head. I took them and buried them. Samiha Abbas Hijazi (3)

".. they had put the men on one side and the women on the other… The armed men ordered us to walk in front, and the men behind. We walked like this until we got to the communal grave. There, the bulldozer started digging. Among us was a man who was wearing a white nurse's shirt; they called him and filled him with bullets in front of everyone. The women started screaming. The Israelis posted in front of the Kuwaiti embassy and in front of the Rihab station requested through loudspeakers that we be handed over to them. That's how we found ourselves in their hands. They took us to the Sports Centre, and the men were supposed to walk behind us. But they took the men's shirts off and started blindfolding them. At the Sports Centre, the Israelis submitted the young people to an interrogation, and the Phalangists delivered 200 people to them. And that's how neither my husband nor my sister's husband ever came back." Sana Mahmoud Sersawi (3)

… some Israelis and some Phalangists… placed us against the wall and … shot at the men. I was hit and I pretended to be dead. Three or four others fell on top of me. They were dead…. They then resumed their task, 5 or 6 times. They fired more shots to make sure that everyone was dead. At about five in the morning… I heard an Israeli on a microphone saying, "Give up your weapons, you will have your lives spared and those of your family." I tried to climb up the slope in order to give myself up like they said… I looked and I saw them placing the men on one side and the women on the other. Then I saw them shooting them. That's why I went back to hide… I stayed there until the evening. They were sitting around a table drinking alcohol, there was only a wall separating me from them. The wall was cracked; I could see what was happening. They were saying to each other, "don't leave anything that moves." Hamad Mohammed Shamas (3)

"The Israeli Army surrounded the camps, providing the murderers with all the support, aid and facilities necessary for them to carry out their appalling crime. They supplied them with bulldozers and with the necessary pictures and maps. In addition, they set off incandescent bombs in the air in order to turn night into day so that none of the Palestinians would be able to escape death's grip. And those who did flee – women, children and the elderly – were brought back inside the camps by Israeli soldiers to face their destiny."

"What will always stick in my memory is of a little boy that had come from the camps & his little body had no limbs. I can remember just holding him, holding his little body close. He was covered with blood and the life was running out of him. He was crying for his mother..They had also bulldozed buildings with people still inside, families still watching television, or having dinner. They bulldozed these people. They massacred these people. I saw bodies, piles of bodies, heaped up, mutilated & believe me they hadn't been shot. It was like a scene from what I would have imagined happened in WWII to the Jews. They had been executed. Children, women, animals, anything that moved-they had massacred…It was horror in there, it was horror. The stench, the massacre. They are war crimes. But I shall certainly never forget. Of all the horrors & atrocities & of the many things that have happened to me when I was in Beirut, nothing can come close to what I witnessed in these camps. Nothing." Deborah Thornton-Jackson (4)

"At noon on Friday, the second day of the terrorist massacre, and with the approval of the Israeli Army, the kata'ib forces began receiving more ammunition, while the forces which had been in the camps were replaced by other, "fresh" forces."

One of the journalists who went into the camps after the massacre reports what he saw, saying, "The corpses of the Palestinians had been thrown among the rubble that remained of the Shatila camp. It was impossible to know exactly how many victims there were, but there had to be more than 1,000 dead. Some of the men who had been executed had been lined up in front of a wall, and bulldozers had been used in an attempt to bury the bodies and cover up the aftermath of the massacre.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 01:06 PM

Another piece of gullible, lying propaganda
"'NOW CAME THE ISRAELI ARMY BULLDOZERS. "PLOW EVERYTHING UNDER THE GROUND. DON'T LET ANY WITNESSES STAY ALIVE." BUT DESPITE OUR EFFORTS THE AREA WAS STILL TEEMING WITH PEOPLE. THEY RAN ABOUT AND CAUSED AWFUL CONFUSION. THE ORDER TO "PLOW THEM UNDER" DEMANDED TOO MUCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 09:03 PM

The UK Adopts Modern Definition of Anti-Semitism

the IHRA makes clear that modern anti-Semitism may involve a certain excessive demonising and hate-filled discourse about the Jewish state "conceived as a Jewish collectivity." Some so-called "criticism of Israel" is anything but, having strayed into a dark place, where anti-Semitism is updated for our times. Some of that discourse, such as the Holocaust Inversion—in which Israel is depicted as The Third Reich, the IDF as the SS, Netanyahu as Hitler, and the Star of David twisted into the Swastika—positively luxuriates in those dark places.

The UK government is calling time on all that. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust, or of being more loyal to Israel than their own nations is now defined as anti-Semitism. The denial of the Jewish peoples right to self-determination, requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, the application to Israel of the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, such as the blood libel, all this too, is now defined as anti-Semitism. The "[Ken]Livingstone Formulation"—i.e. the claim that no attack on Israel or Zionism is ever anti-Semitic, while every objection to an attack on Israel is always a bad faith dirty 'Zionist' affair—has had its day.

The Left is comfortable fighting classic anti-Semitism, especially if it comes wearing a skinhead haircut and Dr Martens boots. But when it comes to the anti-Semitism aimed at Israel, the anti-Semitic anti-Zionism highlighted by the IHRA, parts of the Left have lost their way. Too many turn the world upside down until support for Israel's enemies—whatever these enemies stand for, however they behave—is a left-wing duty. For example, Judith Butler, a leading US academic, said Hamas and Hezbollah, two of the most murderous anti-Semitic organizations in the world, must be understood as "social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important."

Good news then, that the Labour Party has announced that it too will accept the government's new definition. If Jeremy Corbyn's staff have also read the IHRA guidance notes, then that really would be a breakthrough.

World Affairs


Reporting Anti-Semitic Incidents

Incidents can take several forms, including physical attacks on people or property, verbal or written abuse and threats, or antisemitic graffiti, leaflets or posters.
Incidents can also include social media postings if they involve a UK-based offender or victim.

Online:
Report the incident here.

By phone:
For a non-emergency, call the Police on 101
and CST London 0208 457 9999
Manchester & northern regions 0161 792 6666

Report by email:
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 03:47 AM

Jim,
Over the course of these arguments you have disputed everything she has said

Not true Jim.
I have NEVER disputed ANYTHING said by Siegel.

Dave, we are not talking about human rights abuses or we would have no relations with the whole Arab world.
We are talking about massacres of civilians.

Jim again,
So Ellen Siegel, Robert Fisk, the McBride Commission all the survivors who gave evidence - were all part of a Lebanese plot?

Nothing there that contradicts Israel's version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 03:53 AM

Jim, your link has harrowing pictures of massacre victims.
No-one denies a massacre occurred.
It also contains Fisk's account which entirely supports Israel's version of events.
It does not show Fisk's video of Palestinian fighters engaged in a fire fight inside the camp.

The link is to an Israel hating propaganda site.
If you want to convince anybody, use respected and reputable sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 04:41 AM

The UK Adopts Modern Definition of Anti-Semitism
HOLDING JEWS COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF ISRAEL
So there you go
Every individual who describes criticism of Israel as "Antisemitic" is an antisemite.
While Israel continues to ADOPT THIS POLICY , no definition in the world will have a shred of meaning
Keith
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says they are makes you diametrically opposed to what she has dedicated her life to telling the world about - you are contradicting what she said even to the point of saying she didn't see it or was told abot it by those she was treating.
Typically you reduce my link to "harrowing pictures", totally ignoring the information implicating Israel that comes with it - rather makes my point.
I really think you should get together with David Irving - he might give you some tips.
Your crude denials in defence of the indefensible are just that - crude denials.
Pl;ease go away and live with your conscience in silence - you really have no more to say on this matter
You really have disgraced yourself for long enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:09 AM

Too many turn the world upside down until support for Israel's enemies—whatever these enemies stand for, however they behave—is a left-wing duty. For example, Judith Butler, a leading US academic, said Hamas and Hezbollah, two of the most murderous anti-Semitic organizations in the world, must be understood as "social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important."

Well, "leading US academic," classic weasel words, enshrines both an appeal to authority and a straw man argument. The extract quoted is wilfully out of context and misrepresents her views on Hamas and Hezbollah. Not only that, the unqualified description of Hamas and Hezbollah in that sentence is nakedly Islamophobic. We may not like what Hamas and Hezbollah do but we bloody well know how they started and why they're there, and what we know doesn't exactly cast successive Israeli regimes in a good light. Their supporters calling Hamas and Hezbollah "murderous" are applying a double standard that, in terms of outrage, trumps anything in that confounded "definition."

To put the record straight for bobad and others who like to be highly selective in what they quote and who clearly can't read anything that is more that the length of a Daily Mail headline, here's the real lowdown on Judith Butler, who is actually an outstanding campaigner for non-violent resistance. Shame on you, bobad. From wiki.

Butler was criticized for statements she had made about Hamas and Hezbollah. She had described them as "social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left".She was accused of defending "Hezbollah and Hamas as progressive organizations" and supporting their tactics.

Butler responded to these criticisms by stating that her remarks on Hamas and Hezbollah were taken completely out of context and badly, if not wittingly, distort her established views on non-violence. She has repeatedly condemned the violence and non-democratic actions of these groups while clearly advocating for a politics committed to non-violence. In a recent interview she explained that Hamas and Hezbollah are "progressive" insofar as they do address infrastructural needs that are quite acute under occupation. Precisely because such groups are supplying important social services, it becomes harder—yet more urgent—to find ways of persuading people not to support their violent tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM

In a recent interview she explained that Hamas and Hezbollah are "progressive" insofar as they do address infrastructural needs that are quite acute under occupation.

So Gaza and Lebanon are under occupation eh? Typical lies and distortion of the truth such as are the tools of the likes of Shaw and Carroll. The only occupiers of these two places are the terrorist groups that operate out of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:57 AM

Both have been constantly uber attack and have had atrocities committed against them
Gaza has been reduced to little more than a ghetto by Israel, with many of the historical comparisons that implies.
"Typical lies and distortion of the truth "
Is really all you have to offer, the rest is vitriolic, antisemitic abuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:35 AM

Why don't you learn to read, bobad? Hezbollah arose as a direct consequence of the occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel. Hezbollah had been in existence for eighteen years before Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. Hamas arose as a direct consequence of the occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel. Hamas had been in existence for nearly twenty years before Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza. Even Ariel Sharon, the instigator of that withdrawal, used the word "occupation" in relation to Gaza. One might have thought that you of all people would hang on every word that the thuggish Sharon uttered. Check your facts before you accusing others of lies and distortion. It's you doing that here, not us, and I'll indulge you by assuming that you are doing it out of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 09:14 AM

Nice attempt at distorting again Shaw. Butler was speaking of the present not the past like you are trying to infer. Here's her entire quote in context, we'll just put it here and let everyone draw their own conclusion as to whether she believes that those two terrorist groups are progressive social movements of the Left.

Similarly, I think: Yes, understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important. That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn't stop those of us who are interested in non-violent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence. So again, a critical, important engagement. I mean, I certainly think it should be entered into the conversation on the Left. I similarly think boycotts and divestment procedures are, again, an essential component of any resistance movement."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 09:37 AM

You put up a quote that was totally out of context. The person in question is dedicated to non-violence. The facets of Hamas and Hezbollah which she finds hard to reconcile with their militancy developed UNDER OCCUPATION, AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF OCCUPATION. . Your intent was clear. Go and make an honest man of yourself for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:14 AM

Hey, Bubo & CowFart! Your hero Trump strikes again.

Hard-Liner as Ambassador to Israel

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Thursday named David M. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right, as his nominee for ambassador to Israel, elevating a campaign adviser who has questioned the need for a two-state solution and has likened left-leaning Jews in America to the Jews who aided the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Mr. Friedman has made clear his disdain for those American Jews — especially those connected to J Street — who support a two-state solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Writing in June on the website of Arutz Sheva, an Israeli media organization, Mr. Friedman compared J Street supporters to "kapos," the Jews who cooperated with the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, raised the kapos comparison and asked if he stood by it. Mr. Friedman did not back away. "They're not Jewish, and they're not pro-Israel," he said, according to the people in the room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:43 AM

You put up a quote that was totally out of context.

It's there for all to see and make their own judgement on who's being honest.

So, she says that these Islamist terrorist groups are "social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left" but questions, with weasel words, whether they might use options other than violence - pretty hypocritical of her don't you think. I suppose that by her and your rationalization ISIS is also a progressive social movement of the "Left". She severely discredits the "progressive Left" but fits perfectly the definition of "regressive Left", a term coined to describe those just like her. I note she also supports the anti-Semitic BDS movement - that fits right in there.

No comment on the Labour party's adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism? Will you accept it too or will you stand on your principles and break with them and maybe join a party that is more aligned with your position, like say the Bee Enn Pee perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:49 AM

Hey Smeg, your hero David Duke strikes again:

"There is a problem in America with a very strong, powerful tribal group that dominates our media and dominates our international banking," Duke said Wednesday at a debate at the historically black Dillard University in New Orleans, according to CNN. "I'm not opposed to all Jews. I think there's a lot of great Jews."

The Republican candidate, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, was responding to a question by the moderator about why he had referred to journalists reporting on a tape on which Donald Trump admitted to sexual assault as "CNN Jews."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/david-duke-jews-dominate-media-international-banking/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:16 AM

Duke my hero, Bubo? rather like Eichmann being yours, methinks.

But Duke IS a buddy of your boy Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

Trump is "my boy" as much as Duke is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:32 AM

Greg can you give the name of anyone in the Palestine Authority or indeed in Hamas that believes in, or have any interest in a "Two State Solution"?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:54 AM

Greg can you give the name of anyone in the Palestine Authority or indeed in Hamas...

Sure, with a little research I can. In the meantime, I can give ya the names of thousands of Jews, citizens of Israel, and members of the Knesset. Will that suffice for now?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:59 AM

Trump is "my boy" as much as Duke is yours.

Oh yes? Considering Ambassador Friedman's & Trump's pronouncements they both sound just like you, Bubo! What's not for you to like??

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM

So you're assuming that a two-state solution is the answer, huh? Well do you see Israel trying to work towards one? Israel will not agree to the 1967 borders. Israel's ever-expanding settlements make the concept of a contiguous Palestinian state next to impossible. In fact, because of unconditional US support both militarily and in the UN, Israel never has to give an inch. You will not see a two-state solution in your lifetime. In fact, it will never happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM

No GregF just answer the question you have been asked, that will do nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Naw, T-Bird. Thanks for the invitation to dance, but I've got your routine down pat. Pounding salt down a rat hole would be more productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:09 PM

Well do you see Israel trying to work towards one?

Erm, yes

In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO.
In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO.
In 1967, The Palestinians were offered a state (Khartoum), they said NO.
In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO.
In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO.
In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO.
Each time it was offered and they refused, they resorted to violence against Israel. What do you think the Palestinians really want?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:11 PM

Israel will not agree to the 1967 borders.

Erm, no such thing as 1967 borders, just more Made Up Shit®

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:36 PM

Pray tell how occupying big lumps of what could become Palestine, to such an extent that it would be impossible to make a single tract of land, is working towards a two-state solution. You're way out of date. The notion is belly up. One day, Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state. Far better for it to be negotiated, but that isn't on the cards. The demographics are working against the Jewish state (would you like to condemn Arab shagging as antisemitic? Didn't see it in your " definition!" 😂) and Israeli actions are making a single stat e the only viable outcome. That's reality, bobad. You and I will not live to see it and there mucho blood to be shed until both sides realise that they're all actually human beings and that their religions are shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:18 PM

So, you admit to lieing about Israel not trying to work toward a two state solution and about the 1967 "borders"......nice to see some honesty from you for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:03 PM

Onl half the story Bobad

"In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO."
The Zionist leadership was bitterly divided over the plan.[4] In a resolution adopted at the 1937 Zionist Congress, the delegates rejected the specific partition plan. Yet the principle of partition is generally thought to have been "accepted" or "not rejected outright" by any major faction: the delegates empowered the leadership to pursue future negotiations.[4][7][8][9] The Jewish Agency Council later attached a request that a conference be convened to explore a peaceful settlement in terms of an undivided Palestine.[4] According to Benny Morris, Ben-Gurion and Weizmann saw it 'as a stepping stone to some further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine.'[10][4]

"In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO."
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, despite its perceived limitations.[5][6] Arab leaders and governments rejected it[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[8] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

STOP BLAMING PALESTINE
Jim Carroll

"In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO."
Public opinion towards the summit[edit]
The Palestinian public was supportive of Arafat's role in the negotiations. After the summit, Arafat's approval rating increased seven percentage points from 39 to 46%.[47] Overall, 68% of the Palestinian public thought Arafat's positions on a final agreement at Camp David were just right and 14% thought Arafat compromised too much while only 6% thought Arafat had not compromised enough.[47]
Barak did not fare as well in public opinion polls. Only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Barak compromised too much.[48] A majority of Israelis were opposed to Barak's position on every issue discussed at Camp David except for security.[49]
"In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO."
At the start of the Taba Summit, Israel held on three main points:[3]
no right of Palestinian refugees to return to inside the State of Israel
no Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif
big settlement blocs (containing 80% of Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza) will be under Israeli sovereignty

In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
The breakdown is often attributed to the political circumstances posed by Israeli elections and changeover in leadership in the United States:[10] They had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."
Sharon Government's negation of the talks[edit]
The following month the Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon defeated Ehud Barak in the Israeli elections and was elected as Israeli prime minister on 6 February 2001. Sharon's new government chose not to resume the high-level talks.[11] Immediately after the elections and before the change of government, an 8 February 2001 statement published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that:
Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.

"In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO."
Olmert's 2008 peace offer was a further improvement over previous proposals, yet Olmert refused to give Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas a copy of the Israeli map, which outlined the future borders of both states, unless Abbas first initialed it. Furthermore, Abbas was told by Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni not to accept the Olmert offer. The Palestinians planned on continuing negotiations after Olmert left office but were stuck with Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as Ross well knows, has been relentless in sabotaging negotiations, putting up roadblock after roadblock, or should I say settlement after settlement.

"In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO."
The initial Israeli reaction was that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not discuss the eventuality of a peace conference unless France withdraws its ultimatum of recognizing Palestine as a state (in case the initiative is rejected). Furthermore, officials in the prime minister's office made it clear to the French that negotiations would have to be bilateral and unconditional. An international gathering without setting pre-conditions for negotiation could launch direct negotiations, as did the Madrid Conference of 1991 in which Netanyahu participated as deputy foreign minister.
The Palestinian position, as expressed to the French, is that the conference has to be based on the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, referring to the 1967 lines as future borders and to East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. Establishing the Arab initiative as the basis for a peace conference would also bring about the support of most of the Arab League member states for a Palestinian diplomatic move.
AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT _ U.S. VETO
STOP BLAMING PALESTINE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:33 PM

Well, bobad, your response to my post is puzzlingly unconnected with it. No-one is in the slightest bit interested in a two-state solution on the terms being offered. The twain will not meet. Do try to tap into the realpolitik just for once. Israel's intransigence and expansionist policies have permanently put paid to a two-state solution. That is the reality. As a matter of fact, and I may lose friends here by saying it, I don't think it was ever the right solution and I'm damn sure it will never happen. Nothing will change until the US stops giving Israel its unconditional support. Support, yes. Unconditional support, a recipe for conflict for ever more. Which seems to be what the US will settle for. Proxy conflict. Peace at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 02:57 AM

"You're way out of date. The notion is belly up. One day, Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state. Far better for it to be negotiated, but that isn't on the cards." - Steve Shaw

Good, there we have an honest enough admission that the concept of "Two State" solution from the "Palestinian" perspective is the hogwash it always in reality has been.

Whether or not the "Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state" remains to be seen, but the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and Islamic Jihad and their clearly declared policies cast grave doubt on the issue, particularly Mr. Shaw, as you state so clearly, none of them are even remotely interested in any form of negotiation (The three NOs of the Khartoum Conference - "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...")

Both sides have had every opportunity to sort this out over the past 68 years - nothing has changed and it increasingly looks as though nothing will every change - this "conflict" has plagued the world for far too long so next time it kicks off as it undoubtedly will, just let them fight it out to a finish once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:37 AM

"Both sides have had every opportunity to sort this out over the past 68" years - nothing has changed
Exept a lot more people have been slaughtered, a lot more Palestinians have been driven out of their homes, an ethnic cleansing programme has been put into motion and the Israelis have put themselves above all criticism be declaring that all such is antisemitic.
Incidentals, I know
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM

The one thing that hasn't changed is that Israel refuses to return Palestinian land or allow the refugees to return to their homes - that was a feature of every one of Bobads list of negotiations that the Palestinians turned down - unreasonable bastards that they ate!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:21 AM

"The one thing that hasn't changed is that Israel refuses to return Palestinian land or allow the refugees to return to their homes - that was a feature of every one of Bobads list of negotiations that the Palestinians turned down" - Jim Carroll

Certainly not a feature in 1937 Jim, or in 1947. I say that as there were no "refugees" in 1937 and 1947 - there wasn't even an Israel.

The Arabs decision to reject a two state solution and go to war in 1948 meant that there are no defined borders for a Jewish State and an Arab State within the confines of the internationally defined borders of 1923 Mandated Territory of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM

Thought you said "over the last sixty years" - maybe yo meant 60 years prior to 1947 - should have made that clear
The state solutions prior to independence involved vacating occupied land - no responsible leadership would accept that imposed from the outside by a dying Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 07:20 AM

The two-state solution has been rejected by Palestinians because the terms on offer were skewed against them. The two-state solution has been implicitly rejected by Israel by their actions in annexing land for settlements and by their intransigence over borders. Israel sees no need to compromise, so that's that. One day, there will have to be a single state whether Israel wants that or not and the demographics will eventually determine the outcome. Not in our lifetimes. Your suggestion that we leave them to tear each other to pieces is diabolical. The chaos in the Middle East is our doing and there are far too many countries on both sides of the argument with their fingers well and truly in the pie. Leaving them to it would end in World War Three.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 07:41 AM

Nothing at all was "imposed from the outside by a dying Empire".

The Mandate and the territory it covered were defined by the League of Nations. That Mandate expired in March 1948 in the run up to the expiry date the United Nations attempted and failed to reach a settlement based on a two-state solution.

Lead to World War Three Shaw - very much doubt it - everybody is so used to the shenanigans of the area that we are all now numb to it - Arab/Israeli conflict WGAF. Their spat is a cancer that has affected the world, let them sort it out themselves once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Ok. So tell us how we are going to stop military aid to the Palestinians from surrounding countries. Explain how Hezbollah will be persuaded to leave off. Advise us as to how €3 billion in US military aid to Israel will be withheld. Any idea how Russia will be kept out?

Yeah. Do all that then leave 'em to it. But do all that first, then it will be a mere regional war. Don't do all that and it's WWIII. Try to remember that Israel is a nuclear power. Get real, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM

Got my dollars and euros mixed up there. It's my eyesight, doc.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"League of Nations."
Negotiating with a dying Empire to persuade the Arabs to leave the land they had occupied for many centuries
That's what I said.
Since then, the Israelis have shrunk the Palestinian lands to Ghetto size and are shrinking it even further, driven out millions of its occupants and refused them the right to return and have carried out regular murderous incursions into the patch that is now Gaza.
And people call the defence of those actions "terrorism!!
Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM

the Israelis have shrunk the Palestinian lands

Lie!

The Jewish homeland was shrunk by 77% to create the "Palestinian lands" - the remainder, except for Gaza which was given by Israel to the "Palestinians", is Israel under international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM

I note your use of quotes. I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 11:13 AM

I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings.

Of course you would "assume" something like that because that is what creeps like you do.

I suggest you do yourself a favour and look up the history of the usage of that term, it would make you look less stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:08 PM

Jim,
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says
If it is on record, produce a single example of me dismissing her.

What she says supports Israel's version of events, as did all they eye witnesses at the time.

Since then the propaganda machine can produce as many "eye witnesses" as anyone could want telling another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:19 PM

Sorry,
Jim,
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says

If it is on record, produce a single example of me dismissing her.

What she says supports Israel's version of events, as did all they eye witnesses at the time.

Since then the propaganda machine can produce as many "eye witnesses" as anyone could want telling another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Here we have it - the Palestinians were interlopers in lands they had occupied for millennia and every critisism of Israel is "propaganda" even when it's made by Jews
Two mindless fanatics for the price of one
Aren't we blessed on Mudcat to have t two such deep thinkers!!
Feckin' madmen - the pair of them - I wonder if they have mummified corpses of their mothers locked away in the attic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:31 PM

The word Palestinian is a word that everyone else manages to use without putting speech marks round it. Clearly, you are so afflicted with hate that you can't bring yourself to utter the word normally like everybody else. You've been taking lessons from ache, haven't you, what with his homosexual "marriage" and sexual minority "rights." Two of a kind, why am I not surprised! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

"Ok. So tell us how we are going to stop military aid to the Palestinians from surrounding countries. Explain how Hezbollah will be persuaded to leave off. Advise us as to how $3 billion in US military aid to Israel will be withheld. Any idea how Russia will be kept out?"

What you are describing there Shaw was the status quo from 1956 onward. The situation has got slightly worse for the "Palestinians" (Who by the way are a 1970 invention and creation of Yasser Arafat - if you look at it logically by 1970 the Jews of Israel were as much "Palestinian" as any Arab from the region) because the Israelis are now no longer surrounded by rich Arab front line states - Both Egypt and Jordan have signed bilateral treaties with Israel and both have held. that leaves Lebanon and Syria. Both those countries have more than enough problems of their own to worry about taking on Israel and the IDF. Russia is no position to assist, either economically or militarily. The USA has a binding bilateral defence treaty with Israel that guarantees that country's sovereignty dating back to 1948 - tell me on what grounds should that binding treaty be cast aside? The state of Israel has been under constant attack and threat of attack since 1948 - the Arabs could have opted for peace at any time they wished, they chose not to do so, they chose war and must pay the price and accept the consequences of having done so. The Arabs of Palestine who chose to wage war and lost have as much right of return and title to their former possessions as the Jacobites in the 18th century, if you wage and risk all in war and lose the stakes are extremely high, and if you think for one second that real life is like a computer game that is automatically reset to the previous start position then you are a fool living in cloud cuckoo-land.

On two occasions (1967 and in 1973) Israel was under dire threat and the odds were firmly in favour of the Arab armies ranged against Israel - they were an nuclear power then weren't they Shaw? Why did they not use their weapons then? If faced with total annihilation why should they not use the threat of nuclear attack to deter their enemies? The USA does, the Russians do, we do as do the French.

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM

"I note your use of quotes. I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings."

I of course have absolutely no control whatsoever of what you wish to idiotically "assume" but the reasons I always refer to "Palestinians" because they are a political construct of a ruthless, thoroughly corrupt and totally dishonest leader Yasser Arafat - even as I type there are still hundreds if not thousands trying to trace the $millions he stole from the Arabs of Palestine, they have been doing so since Arafat died. The territory of Palestine was defined by the League of Nations in 1920. It was redefined in 1923 when 77% of the territory was hived off for the sole settlement by the Arabs of the region. Since Arafat departed the scene the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned - instead you applaud them and cheer on their efforts.

Jim Carroll - 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence"

That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

lands they had occupied for millennia

Lol......your ignorance would be astonishing if it weren't so often on display.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:54 PM

Well done bobad, saved me the bother of pointing that fact out to the amazingly ill-informed Mr. Carroll, who is like Rafferty's pig whose "ignorance would have disgraced any cannibal".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 03:32 PM

"saved me the bother"
Oh dear, we really are a sore loser. aren't we (and pompous with it) - what with your "to licence or not to licence" and "got any gum chum" contradictions.
Never mind - at least you have Mudcat's own vitriol- spitting troll to keep you warm
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

Teribus responding to Jim's criticism of Israel (not Jews):

That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark.

Almost in the same breath:

the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned

No messing here. That is hate speech and Islamophobia of the very worst kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:03 PM

Just by way of clarification to the intellectually challenged, I put homosexual "marriage" in quotation marks, as I, along with the vast majority of people worldwide and millions of people in the UK, do not recognise such a sexual relationship as marriage.
I would also remind IC's that this relationship is not regarded as legal in part of the UK itself.

There are laws, some which I approve of and some that I do not and I shall defend that position for what is left of my life.

I opposed the law on the criminalisation of homosexuality, and I shall continue to oppose the legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 06:57 PM

Michael Gove hits it out of the park:

For those on the left addicted to guilt-tripping and grievance-mongering, who believe that poverty is a consequence of western exploitation and that bourgeois ethics lead to oppression, the existence of a political entity that is a runaway success precisely because it is a bourgeois-minded, capitalist-fuelled, western-oriented nation state is just too much to bear. Their ideological prejudices have collided with a stubborn, undeniable, fact.

So what do they do? Keep the prejudices, of course, and try to get rid of the fact. Try to undermine, delegitimise and reduce support for Israel. Make it the only country in the world whose right to exist is called continually into question. Make the belief in that state's survival, Zionism, a dirty word. Denounce, as the NUS president has, a British university for being a "Zionist outpost". And instead call organisations pledged to eliminate Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas "friends", as Jeremy Corbyn has.

Antizionism is not a brave anti-colonial and anti-racist stance, it is simply antisemitism minding its manners so it can sit in a seminar room. And as such it deserves to be called out, confronted and opposed.

Left's hatred of Israel is racism in disguise

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:15 PM

Right- Mr Gove - Boris' lapdog, creationist symptathizer, Freedom of Information Act dodger, foe of the NHS, supporter of the invasion of Iraq - he'seven less credible than YOU are, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:38 PM

Bloody Nora, bobad. Gove is a laughing stock in this country. Yesterday's man, totally loopy. Do yourself a favour and do your homework before you post. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:46 PM

Well yeah, he has you pegged to a tee Shaw so what else can you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 09:05 PM

He doesn't know me from Adam. And in any case I tend not to worry about complete lunatics who "have me pegged to a tee," whatever that means. Life's too short. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:34 AM

I think what Bobad means, is that Mr Gove's article has exposed weaknesses in your usual rant?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:38 AM

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

1: Teribus responding to Jim's criticism of Israel (not Jews):

"That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark."

From the IHRA definition, adopted by the British Government and as used by UK Police Forces since 2015 in defining anti-Semitic race hatred.

Here is what Jim Carroll posted:

Jim Carroll - 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence"

Here is the IHRA Definition of what is considered to be anti-Semitic behaviour:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

- 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.

- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.


2: Almost in the same breath:

"the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned" - Teribus

"No messing here. That is hate speech and Islamophobia of the very worst kind." - Steve Shaw

Really Steve where in that quoted passage have I referred to Islam? As I haven't nothing contained in that quote could ever be considered "Islamophobic". But to analyse what I did say:

(a) "the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other"

Mere observation and actual fact previously commented on by T.E. Lawrence and others. Do you wish to dispute that? Would you like me to furnish you examples of this almost incessant internecine conflict between the Arabs in the region since 1920? Easily enough done.

(b) "launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of "

Referring to the so-called leaders of the "Palestinians" in Gaza. Do you deny that Hamas in their 2007 "spat" with Fatah that Hamas and Fatah followers were thrown from the roofs of multi-storied buildings in Gaza? Do you deny that promised elections have not been held? The last elections run by the Palestine National Authority in the West Bank or by Hamas in Gaza were in 2006, tell us all Steve why no further elections have been held and who is responsible for that? What organisation and who in that organisation controls the aid money that is given to the Palestine National Authority and to Hamas? Considering that they have received more in foreign aid than the whole of Europe received after the Second World War these Arab "leaders" appear to have done very little with it apart from making themselves extremely rich - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and you are one of their biggest apologists, you applaud them all the way whilst criticising Israel thereby making yourself guilty of anti-Semitic behaviour in as much that you are - Applying double standards by requiring of it {Israel} a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation..

So what I said was neither "Islamophobic" nor was it "hate speech". I was merely stating well established, documented and recognised facts relating to the "Leaders" of the "Palestinians".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:31 AM

"IHRA"
By the fact that Israel has chosen to ignore the item in that definition, that which makes associating the actions of Israel anti-Semitic, neither the IHRA, or any other "accepted" definition of anti-Semitism are valid other than discriminating against the Jewish people
What I said has been said over and over again by Jews throughout the world – they are dismissed as "self-hating" – I stand with them, not the terrorist State of Israel's manipulation of the death of millions of people at the hands of the Nazis
This definition is being used to prevent Israel from standing trials for crimes against humanity and war crimes – so far blocked by U.S. vetoes.
Israeli policy is directly responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism in two ways – by identifying their behaviour with the Jewish People, among some, they have turned opposition to Israeli policy into opposition to The Jews as a whole.
The fact that Israel had peddled the idea that to attack Israeli policy is "antsemitic" means that the estimation of a rise in anti-Semitism now counts attacks on Israel as being anti-Semitic – The Jewish People get it with both barrels.
The only anti-Semitism on this forum comes from the likes of Bobad, who vitriolically describes any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic and from Keith, who envisages a Jewish Parliamentary plot to keep silent about so-called Labour antsemitism
Teribus can shove his accusations of anti-Semitism up his hole – if there is any room for it alongside his head, which appears to be permanently lodged there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 07:24 AM

So what I said was neither "Islamophobic" nor was it "hate speech". I was merely stating well established, documented and recognised facts relating to the "Leaders" of the "Palestinians".

Sure. A reminder (and you were not talking about their leaders, by the way - go and check yourself out):

"... the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best...stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of...they are the scum of the earth..."

Just wondering what would come raining down on anyone who generalised in that way about the Jews of Israel. Never mind. I'll let you wallow in your "definition" as you hone your double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 07:37 AM

"they are the scum of the earth"
Fair's fair Steve - it reall isn't discriminatory or racist if it's about Arabs - not to these people anyway.
Amazing what maggots these discussions draw out of the apple
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 08:41 AM

I would surmise that you two are not at all surprised by yet another racist, violent and bigoted post from this idiot. I take this as "par for the course"

Perhaps one day he will see his own post for what they are, but I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 09:29 AM

"yet another racist, violent and bigoted post from this idiot. I take this as "par for the course""
Not surprised in the slightest - it's refreshing that he crawls out of the closet in this way though
Put's the rest of them in context perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 11:47 AM

It is much easier to denounce a post as "racist" than to challenge that actual points made.
Impossible in fact.

Jim's statements unequivocally contravened the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Are you stating that the post was NOT racist. If so please explain your thinking.

Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM

"the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law."
Which has been made totally invalid by the Israeli's ignoring it to defend their war crimes
This opinion has been put forward by Jews - members of the Israeli establishment including - it is totally unusable as a definition while this happens.
Your own antisemitism in claimng a Parliamentary Jewish plot, on the other hand.....!!!
There is no exuse for Teribus's mask- slip racist statement - it was basic, crude racism, unless tyou would like to prove Arabs to be "thieving scum of the earth" - and allow your mask to slip
Is that what you believe?
Your inevitable silence will be reply enough.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM

Plainly obvious who I was referring to Shaw. here are a few clues:

1: In 2007 it was the leadership and members of Hamas and Fatah that fought it out in Gaza NOT the ordinary people.

2: Who in any community has the power to organise, call and hold elections? Certainly NOT the ordinary people such power rests with the political leadership.

3: Who received the vast sums in aid? The ordinary people? Hardly Shaw they are as much in the shit now as they were in 1947. The aid Shaw at the insistence of Yasser Arafat goes directly to the leaders, that was the system he set up (must have learned that from his Uncle Eh?).

So in stating what I did there is no way whatsoever that I could be referring to the general populace of Gaza or the West Bank.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:29 PM

Don't sweat it Teribus, lies, distortion and putting words in others' mouths is the stock-in-trade of the likes of Shaw and his buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 08:51 PM

All the distortion lies in the backtracking. I'm sorry, but Teribus's post is up there for everyone to read (if there's anyone left who chooses to read his splenetic nonsense). No-one cares about your lies, bobad. Everything we could conceivably need to judge Teribus, and you for that matter, is up here. I'd love to hear what you think are our lies and distortion (broad brush not acceptable - chapter and verse if you don't mind). You are both up shit creek without a paddle. Bang to rights. Look after yourself, Keith. You know you shouldn't be associating yourself with these blokes at your stage in life, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 03:03 AM

Ah Shaw is exhibiting his "Wheatcroft" streak. We can now expect him to whizz round in circles "worrying" it to death. As to distortion if you do not understand what was being said and draw an inference that was incorrect and then ignore and refuse to accept the clarification offered, then it is obvious that you are not discussing or debating any point, you are deliberately seeking a fight. Isn't there an internet slang term for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:29 AM

I understand full well what you said and it's up there in all its uneditable glory for all to see. You tarred all Palestinian Arabs, not just their leaders, with the same brush. We can all read plain English. If you're worried about my sinking my Wheatcroftesque teeth into you, the answer is simple. Just tell the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. "
You single out Arab leaders as "dishonest and scum of the earth", while ignoring the fact that the Netanyahu's have been up to their necks in scandals and corruption accusations (admittedly the "democratic" bit doesn't apply to Israel.
The Netanyahu's have been accused by Israeli politicians of behaving lik royalty and abusing their domestic employees - particularly the alcoholic wife.
Our own British Government has overseen banking scams and incompetence's for years and is now openly running Britain for the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
This is now a description of 21 presidential Trump's (President - in - waiting of the richest and most powerful democracy on the planet)appointees for the new government
Sixteen are white
Three are former generals
Most are billionaires (so much so that this is 50 times wealthier than George Bush's cabinet - collectively worth more than the 43 million poorest U.S, households combined)
This fact will quite likely give rise to conflicts of interest in decision making.
And you dare to call Arab leaders thieves and scum of the earth?
If it is anti-Semitic to demand standards from Israel that you would not of other nations, then the reverse is true of other leaders.
Your accusation of "sum of the earth thieving Arab leaders is selective and plain racism
None of this is about the quality of leadership, it is about the seizure of land and the ethnic cleansing that is happening in Israel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:33 AM

Jim Carroll - 19 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. "

You single out Arab leaders as "dishonest and scum of the earth",

There you see Shaw - even the rather obtuse Jim has twigged what was meant.

You say you wanted the truth? The so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine when given a choice have chosen violence. When not fighting or targeting Israeli civilians they chose to fight and squabble amongst themselves. Once elected to power the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine renege on promises to hold elections in order to hold onto the reins of power. Those in power have total control over the massive sums in aid that have been poured into the West Bank and Gaza, yet the funny thing is that all this money never seems to percolate through to those the aid was intended to help, wonder why that is Shaw? Could it possibly be because the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine are totally corrupt - and these are the "leaders" you defend, support and cheer on from the sidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

At the present time the leader of the ruling party in Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, is up to her arse in a four billion euro scandal
Her British supporters have claimed she is being "witch-hunted" and the man who exposed the scandal has been suspended - she has refused to step down
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM

Daily Mirror today,

" Stop agonising over anti-Semitism: just stamp on it and move on. Abandon what YOU think you're supposed to be doing and start doing what VOTERS think you should be doing. "

So it still needs stamping on according to a Labour supporting paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:06 PM

Jim,
"the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law."
Which has been made totally invalid by the Israeli's ignoring it to defend their war crimes

Do not kid yourself Jim.
It is valid, and you are in contravention of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:25 PM

Pretty meaningless, even for your meaninglessly low standards Keith
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker, fierce opponent of Corbyn, ex shadow foreign secretary - no numbers, no description of anti-Semitism - just how to win elections - says it all really.
Until you provide evidence of anti-Semitism, it remains at the "this man is a burglar but I don't know what he stole" level
You tell us what needs stamping out and we'll all but on our big boots and stamp on it
Maybe you can get your ,Jewish pact of silence' to reveal their closely guarded secrets,
Feckin' joke!!!
A view from a Labour member from a non -Labour supporting Paper
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-conference-jewish-supporter-vote-political-weapon-a7330891.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 04:08 PM

"Since Arafat departed the scene the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned..."

Jim, you are wrong to accept that Teribus was referring to Arab leaders when he referred to their stealing, grasping hands, scum of the earth, etc. There's the quote again. I won't belabour you with the whole post of his, but you can check it out if you like - he was NOT talking about "leaders" when he made those comments. Check that quote again: "since Arafat departed..." he said, so the rest of it was about Arabs in general, NOT leaders. There is nothing to twig. You can't come here and say one thing then laugh at people because they got it right, which is precisely what he is doing. Fine if he wants to go back and modify his language, but, as ever with him, he hasn't done that, preferring to go on the attack instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 01:47 AM

Shaw, are you really trying to tell others on this forum what I meant? Are you honestly stating that you know what I think better than I do myself? Utterly preposterous, your ignorance and arrogance is beyond belief.

You raised a point, I clarified it, you refused to accept the clarification - like I said Shaw having a "Vulgar; Fraudulent" moment - same thing happened there too.

Teribus - 19 Dec 16 - 09:33 AM

You {Steve Shaw} say you wanted the truth? The so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine when given a choice have chosen violence. When not fighting or targeting Israeli civilians they chose to fight and squabble amongst themselves. Once elected to power the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine renege on promises to hold elections in order to hold onto the reins of power. Those in power have total control over the massive sums in aid that have been poured into the West Bank and Gaza, yet the funny thing is that all this money never seems to percolate through to those the aid was intended to help, wonder why that is Shaw? Could it possibly be because the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine are totally corrupt - and these are the "leaders" you defend, support and cheer on from the sidelines.

Now having clarified and highlighted the point as to who I was referring to - is there anything else that might make it clearer to you?

By the way when you and the "usual suspects" refer critically to, and condemn, the actions of the "Israelis" are you referring to the people of Israel or the Government of Israel (the leaders of the Jews of Palestine)?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 03:46 AM

"you and the "usual suspects"
Can we clear this up
Your leading "usual suspect" is Keith, who is a fanatical Israeli atrocity denier, an extremist Islamophobe who believes all male British Muslims are culturally implanted to rape underage girls, and an anti-Semite, who claims there is a Jewish parliamentary pact of silence to cover up the nature of Labour anti-Semitism.
Keith has managed to make himself a standing joke with his "real historians" who sell "real books" (none of which he has read) in "real bookshops".
Then we have Ake, a raving homophobe who doesn't believe that socialism is left wing, refuses to describe his version of socialism (and is probably a National Socialist), hates liberals and seems to think Donald Trump is god's saviour of mankind.
Finally we have Bobad - a vitriol-spitting troll.
A truly impressive band of brothers!
You, yourself, up to now, have been unable to respond to those who disagree with you without talking down to them and childishly insulting them with your contemptuous and contemptible responses.
I have had to post only a small number of them from only two threads - a formidable list, to get you to slow down to the extent you have done - but should you persist, I will continue to put them up, to display you in full flow - Homs Horror should keep me busy for a week or two.
You really don't seem to have gathered that you know very little and seem not particularly capable of learning, given your bombastic, belligerent attitude to others.
You have never at any time convinced anybody with your archaic, jingoistic approach to modern society - you are an anachronism
Why not give us 'lesser mortals' a break, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM

Jim,
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker,

No Jim. It was by Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror.
You do not need links. Just Google the text.
Here it is anyway,
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-going-9484923#r3z-addoor

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM

Jim, your last post was pure personal attack. Just lies and smears.
Presumably you are unable to defend your case in any more intelligent way.

Steve, it is obvious that Teribus referred to the Arab leaders because the ordinary people have no say in what is done in their name.
There are no Arab democracies.

Jim, from your Indy piece,
"Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, was rightly suspended for sharing anti-Semitic posts on Facebook, not a Corbynite but a backer of Yvette Cooper in the last leadership election. Ken Livingstone, similarly sanctioned for his remarks about Hitler,

So that's two then, and I have acknowledged that it is not just Corbyn supporters anyway.
He does not explain why the leadership saw fit to suspend some 50 members for anti Semitism, or why the entire NEC was appalled by recent cases of anti Semitism, so he is just in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:58 AM

Whilst I vehemently disagree with your scurrilous and racist broadbrush condemnation of Arab leaders, I'm happy to accept after all you've said since that it was they you intended to attack. I suggest that you review your posts more carefully in future. As for this:

"By the way when you and the "usual suspects" refer critically to, and condemn, the actions of the "Israelis" are you referring to the people of Israel or the Government of Israel (the leaders of the Jews of Palestine)?"

If you really want to pick us off for loose language (look who's talking!), kindly note that I am extremely careful, unlike you, to point to the precise target of my criticism. It takes more virtual ink but I don't criticise "Israelis" en masse, ever. I might refer to the policies of the Israeli regime, or words pretty close to those, leaving it in no doubt that I do not blame the Israeli people for what their leaders do. And speaking of loose talk I'd remind you that the government of Israel comprises the leaders of both Jews AND Arabs, not just "the Jews of Palestine" [sic]. There were a fair few Arabs thereabouts last time I looked into it. At least a quarter of the population, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 05:39 AM

No Jim. It was by Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror.
Who interviewed and quoted Vernon Croker (misnamed Coaker in the link) and took her headline from him - the daily Mirror is virtually non-political nowadays, leaning vaguely to Labour right
"Jim, your last post was pure personal attack. Just lies and smears."
No lies or smears Keith - yuou have said everything I said there and have had them put before you a dozen times
Are you really claiming you didn't accuse all Muslims of what I said you did
Please say yes and I'll put your exact "implant" claim up and systematically go through the rest of them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM

Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, yourself, Steve Shaw, Dave the Gnome, Raggy, Greg.F - those who made a habit of 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.

Shaw did try to come back at what he sees as the opposition by using the term the "usual convicts" but apart from that being defamatory it didn't catch on.

I think collectively, just purely for challenging your view on things we have been accused of being guilty of every "....ism" and being representative of every ".....ist" in the book. Automatically assumed to being died in the wool "Tories" and ultra-right wing - we are of course nothing of the sort - we are merely reactive in that we challenge and disprove the "made-up-shit", myths, misrepresentations, lies and half-truths that you normally present in your biased and bigoted rants.

Looking at posting history I have been here longer yet have posted roughly a third of your contributions, the picture is the same with the rest of "your" pals - the term "serial gobshites" comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 07:52 AM

Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, yourself, Steve Shaw, Dave the Gnome, Raggy, Greg.F - those who made a habit of 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.

The term "usual suspects" was, I believe, coined a long time ago in this particular context by Joe Offer and applies equally to both sides of the argument in these inevitably circular debates. Thanks for the explanation of your own usage for it though. I find it interesting that a person or group of people is being discussed rather than the issues in hand. Maybe it goes a long way towards explaining why common ground is never sought in these situations?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 08:39 AM

You really are as daft as a brush, Teribus. I must say, I do admire your undiluted energy for these insulting diatribes of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 08:55 AM

You may live to regret that last statement Steve, it may well be misconstrued and misquoted in future to say "I do admire your undiluted energy" full stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM

Jim, you objected,
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker,

It was not.
My quote was of Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror exactly as I stated. You were wrong to ascribe it to Croker, Coaker or anyone else.

Are you really claiming you didn't accuse all Muslims of what I said you did

Yes. It is a smear and a lie like everything else in that disgusting post.
DtG, you criticised Teribus for discussing a group of people rather than the issues in hand. Did you miss Jim's disgusting post 20 Dec 16 - 03:46 AM ?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:11 AM

I did not criticise anyone, Keith. I said I find it interesting that a person or group of people is being discussed rather than the issues in hand. If there is any criticism, explicit or implied, in that statement I cannot see it. Can you please explain how you consider it to be such?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM

Dave, debate should be about the issues at hand and not personal stuff, so of course it was a criticism but directed at Teribus and ignoring the far worse offence from Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:54 AM

Yo, Bubo! Read Up!

For weeks now, Jewish communities across America have been troubled by an awkward phenomenon. Donald J. Trump, a ruthless politician trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes, has been elected to become the next president, and he has appointed as his chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent figure of the "alt-right," a movement that promotes white nationalism, anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny.

Still, neither the United States' most powerful Jewish organizations nor Israeli leaders have taken a clear stance against the appointment. In fact, they have embraced it.

The alliance that's beginning to form between Zionist leadership and politicians with anti-Semitic tendencies has the power to transform Jewish-American consciousness for years to come.

Whole article is Worth Reading

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:56 AM

If you believe it was a criticism of any individual, Keith, we really do have a communication problem. That is not a criticism of you BTW.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM

Yo, Smeg, read up: Ban Ki Moon admits UN bias against Israel

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the organisation has a "disproportionate" volume of resolutions against Israel, which he believes has "foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively".

Addressing the UN Security Council on Friday, Mr Ban said: "Over the last decade I have argued that we cannot have a bias against Israel at the UN.

"Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.
Read more

"In many cases, instead of helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively."

In response, Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said Mr Ban "had admitted the clear truth", adding that the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel had "broken records over the past decade".

Mr Danon continued: "During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel, while only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd.

"With a new Secretary General set to take office next month, we look forward to the possibility of a new era of fairness at the UN."

Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

"Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, "
You are a stupidly arrogant man who attempts to hide his ignorance with bluster and bullshit, as all bullies do.
Bit late in the day now, but I'm looking forward to pulling out some more of your bon mots from Homs Horror tomorrow.
"debate should be about the issues at hand and not personal stuff, "
I take it we've finished with you "smear and lie"/
I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about
Everything I wrote was true and you remain one of the most inhuman, unchristian and dishonest people I have ever had the displeasure to deal with
Nasty, nasty individual
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 01:04 PM

Yo, Smeg, read up: Ban Ki Moon

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article I posted, or the facts discussed therein.

The old "baffle 'em with irrelevant bullshit" ploy seems to be your forté.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 02:13 AM

"Bit late in the day now, but I'm looking forward to pulling out some more of your bon mots from Homs Horror tomorrow."

Of course you are JOM, having had all your points thoroughly trashed by what amounts to actual fact and detail, you have to resort to chaff in order to run for cover as you have absolutely nothing to support your arguments.

I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about

Here let me oblige you. Jim Carroll, you are a liar, you deliberately take things out of context, "cherry-pick" to put words in people's mouths to misrepresent what they actually did say, introduce your own brand of "made-up-Shit" into the discussion as though it was well established fact. Recently you have been caught out now on at least three threads where you have deliberately lied, misrepresented facts and made knowingly false and groundless allegations against members on this forum. Having had evidence of the above laid out before you, instead of coming up with anything to refute that evidence you provide a meaningless list of examples (Many of them extremely accurate descriptions of yourself and of your behaviour) of you being called names. But it is noted that you do not put them in context by similarly detailing the name calling that you yourself have engaged in.

Looking forward to your list Jim. I'll mark it as a favourite, that way I can just click it up and cut'n'paste the bits I need for future posts. It will save me the trouble of retyping them - I know on this occasion you will not let me down.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:14 AM

"you are a liar, you deliberately take things out of context, "cherry-pick""
You don't take abuse, insulting and talking down to "out of context - they are their own context - nobody on this forum behaves in this manner other than you.
You substitute insult for argument, and as you refuse to provide linked evidence to anything,, you are presenting your own archaic, jingoistic, extreme right wing opinions as facts - that is your greatest lie.
If you had any confidence that what you claim would stand up to close examination, you would provide facts to back them up - you refuse to do so.
I don't put up the list for you - you are so far up your own arse that I have little doubt that you wear it as a medal.
I do know one thing, you would not dare to say the things you do in the manner you do to anybody's face, which makes you a somewhat snivelling coward relying on the safety of anonymity and distance to get away with your loutish behaviour, you are a cowardly cyber-bully.
Perhaps it's worth reminding you that I usually prefix your list with your own statement to Steve when you described his insulting you "as a sign that I am getting to you".
As you permanently insult those who don't agree with you, you must be in a very extreme state of being "got at".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 04:03 AM

"you are presenting your own archaic, jingoistic, extreme right wing opinions as facts" - Jim Carroll

Now if that were indeed the case it would be very easy to demonstrate the fallacy of those opinions and the error in the statements and facts supporting them wouldn't it? Problem is Jim neither you, nor any of your pals ever seem to manage to do that. The nearest you come is to "invent" things I am supposed to have said, then take me to task for them - classic Jim Carroll "made-up-shit".

"I don't put up the list for you"

Really?? Could you explain these quotes of yours then:

"I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about"

That Jim is a threat - "If you do that then I'm going to do this" - i.e. "You must modify and alter your behaviour to appease me, or I will do something to you" - And YOU have got the fucking gall to call me a bully (Once again Jim Carroll puts both feet firmly in it - another home goal).

"I do know one thing, you would not dare to say the things you do in the manner you do to anybody's face, which makes you a somewhat snivelling coward relying on the safety of anonymity and distance to get away with your loutish behaviour, you are a cowardly cyber-bully."

Another remark and opinion passed by Jim Carroll based on total ignorance. "I do know one thing, ...." - YOU know nothing of the sort, you do not "know" me at all, you have never met me, you have never talked to me. "Anybody's face Jim??? - Go back and take a good look at that list of yours, your quoted examples you will find are directed at a certain clique on this forum - them and only them - care to guess at who they are? So it is not a matter of "anybody" is it? It is directed at you and your pals specifically, and for a reason - you are subject to being repaid in kind - and as such your list and your loud and numerous objections reveal another tell-tale trait of the typical bully - you can dish it out, but you certainly cannot handle it when you are subjected to a healthy dose of your own medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 04:50 AM

Is the Labour party actually fit for purpose these days? The function of opposition is to try and hold the government to account.
They fail miserably and as an opposition they are a total disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:04 AM

I would have agreed a year or so ago, Iains, but, of late, they seem to be getting better. Not sure if it is too little too late though. I have recently re-joined the Labour party in the hope that I can make a bit of a difference from within. Have you done anything about changing the situation or is your comment just criticism for the sake of it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:24 AM

"The function of opposition is to try and hold the government to account"
No opposition has ever been able to hold a government to account unless the gap between majority and minority is small enough - not ever.
Little point in blaming the opposition for this
It is why the PR system here in Ireland works better than the UK system
The function of an opposition is to present an alternative policy - for most of my lifetime they have only propped up a failing system - which is why I'm prepared to support Corbyn - who, so far, offers that alternative.
Please stop cyber-stalking Teribus, you are only confirming what I have just said and you are in line to fuck up yet another thread.
Take yopur bullying bluster elsewhere (open a new thread maybe)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

D the G. It is merely my perception of events that their internal squabbling degrades both their influence and purpose as an opposition.
I have no desire to associate with either labour or conservative.

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 laguage.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM

OK - Thanks for the clarification Iains. Maybe if you have no desire to associate with either of the main parties you would care to share your ideas for an alternative with us? I think, with a little tweaking, either of them could become much better and, as Jim says, if the opposition presents viable alternative policies then, just maybe, the government of the day, whoever is in the majority, will start to govern more sensibly? I would view well regulated capitalism as a good start and global resource management as essential but I know not everyone agrees.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM

Apologies Iaian it wasn't, - it was addressed to Teribus - I really should have clarified that - whoops - if you7 read what I said, I did!
Mayvbe it's good practice to do just that.
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

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM

Jim. not a problem.
D the G. you ask a lot and it deserves far more than my usual 3 liner.
There are many changes that could be made that in my opinion would improve our present system.
1) control lobbying ( How to do this with any degree of success escapes me)
2)Change the qualifications for becoming an MP.
( I would prefer to see a minimum age of say mid 40's.)
3) pay each mp 150k/year.
4) On leaving office pay continues for 10 years but no speeches, no    jumping through revolving doors, no politicking of any description backed by mandatory sanction of jail.
5)Change the legal status of corporations so that greed is tempered by a small degree of morality
6)Curb the undue influence of the SE of England over policies and investment.
7) Certain categories of voting in Parliament to be free votes.
   ( I leave it to others to categorize)
8) Minimum attendance levels of MP's for any vote to be valid.(50+%)

I am sure others could suggest many other options. Perhaps the thread should migrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM

"Jim. not a problem."
Ditto
You missed what I believe to be the most important requirement in your list
Make all MPs and parties answerable to their promises and subject to recall should they fail to live up to them
Without this, your suggestions would be little more than moving the deckchairs on The Titanic and they will continue to do what suits their careers rather than the people they are supposed to represent.
If your car engine packs in, you don't just change the tyre.
Jim Carroll

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:15 AM

I recommend a thorough tasering for every evasive response.

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.

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

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 :-)

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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?

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/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!!! :-)

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 05:15 AM

BDS SMEARS
Jim Carroll

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 😂😂😂

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.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM

...their side..

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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? 😂😂😂

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.

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

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/

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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. 🍷🍷🍷😉

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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??

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Stick to the point. I do.

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

Lol!

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?

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!

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

some sections

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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

And yet another: Shah Hussain

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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

Rupert Murdoch Jewish?????

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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".

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

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.

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

10 4x4's!

D

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...

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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?

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/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Halibuts.

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

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.

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

"meaningless."

Totally!

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

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.

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.

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

Let play resume.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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-

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

they are

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.

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

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....

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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

than from within

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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

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.

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

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,

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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

1700!

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]

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.

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? 😂

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?

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.

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

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.

   

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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...

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

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....🦆

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.

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

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."

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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

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

Thanks Jim, have a good Brexit   :0)

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

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.

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

It'll outlast us, ake!

DtG

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

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

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.

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/

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

Hello Keith. Good holiday?

DtG

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

Unbelievable! 😂😂😂

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Prove it

It just has been, you dolt.

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

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-

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.

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-

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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-