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

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


BS: Labour party discussion

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









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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

30,000 Brits of course
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Good Soldier Schweik
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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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! 😉


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Cheers, Kevin. A littl accuracy never comes amiss.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

We'll see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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**."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Sorry Raggy. I'll shut up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

How would YOU know?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

You could well be. Don't tempt us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

I moved down there, as we were discussing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?}.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:22 PM

Champion, I like kippers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:46 PM

Nobody cares any more.

Except you it seems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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. 😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:25 PM

Nobody cares any more.

Apparently YOU do, Bubo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:16 PM

Awwrk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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? 😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 09:54 PM

And these are 'junior' doctors.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:12 AM

So sorry!
Wrong thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 12:22 PM

Stop copying bobad. Cheap sniping is beneath you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 01:45 PM

Yes please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Good Soldier Schweik
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 03:44 AM

I agree,Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 09:42 AM

Amen to that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 07:29 AM

......and **** up another thread Keith

You already have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 03:22 AM

Hi Big Al.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Good Soldier Schweik
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:18 PM

I admire Jeremy Corbyn, I think renationalisation of the railways is a good idea.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 02:11 PM

Could we have that again in English?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:04 PM

Hear hear!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:43 PM

Why? Just for once, try explaining yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 02:28 PM

Hear, Hear, McGrath. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:07 PM

23 reasons why BDS is antisemitic


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 09:07 PM

Again, thanks Kevin.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 01 Oct 16 - 08:09 PM

Good night Smeg.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 16 -