BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:51 PM

Except that we all know how irritable you become if anyone dares to diss Maggie. Very defensive you get: "Go on, blame Thatcher for that as well!" (caricature intended, not a verbatim quote).

"They found that there was a case to be answered." Hardly done and dusted then!   

All that happened at a time when every bloody media hawk in the country was circling around Labour. The NEC were trying to wriggle out of a media-driven crisis, cheer-led by the Israeli regime, and making a balls of it. The way you're talking about them you'd think you'd listed a litany of saints. You won't hear a word against 'em. Had they been talking about restoring trade union power or supporting Unite and McCluskey you'd have been calling them lying, subversive scumbags. You want your cake and eat it, just like those stupid brexiteers.

Nah then, Keith and Puggers. Naz Shah's precise "antisemitic" words, please. Come on, chaps. It's only a sandal-wearing former teacher asking. Leftie wastrels, the lot of us! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

"Naz Shah had already been reinstated when she said in Parliament that her statements were anti-Semitic"
It was part of the agreement of her reinstatement - that's how these things are done.
Isn't it nice to be discussing one case of antisemitism in the Labour Party rather than the "serious problem" that it was claimed.
"What a difference a day makes" (somebody is going to have to explain how to insert musical notes sometime"
"EUMC"
Where does claiming that Jews have entered into a pact of silence and refused to describe antisemitism Keit?
For that matter, where does Israel's claiming that all criticisms of her policy are antisemitic and all Jews who disagree with it are self-hating?
I don't expect an answer, but it's fun listening to the silence!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:44 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

"The exact "antisemitic" words"

Question best directed at Naz Shah and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party don't you think Shaw - Keith A after all only reported what they themselves said. Your argument is with them not Keith A.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

I'm just a retired sandal-wearing* Guardian-reading sunset pinko leftie lentil-munching EX-science teacher.

Thanks for that Shaw, as a description that will do nicely, especially as you provided it yourself (Whenever used you can hardly complain about it - same as Jom really).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:33 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM

Well, Cap'n' Puggers, let's consider what you would would think of any other Labour politician who made a pronouncement about just about anything in the world. You'd believe every word, wouldn't you, take the whole lot on board as if it were gospel delivered from on high.

NOT.

Who is Cap'n' Puggers Shaw??? That you calling people names - Jom doesn't like that.

Now that we have got that out of the way the rest of that crap is not what this is all about is it?

It is not a simple matter of what one Labour MP said is it. It is not about what one Labour MP said and I believed at all is it?

It is about what one Labour MP said when she wasn't even an MP that others considered was anti-Semitic and she was reported on after she HAD become an MP. The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party which consists of the following:

Leader of the Labour Party
Jeremy Corbyn MP

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Tom Watson MP

Treasurer
Diana Holland

Opposition Front Bench
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Jon Trickett MP
Kate Osamor MP

EPLP Leader
Glenis Willmott MEP (Chair)
Young Labour
Jasmin Beckett
Trade Unions
Keith Birch (UNISON)
Jamie Bramwell (UCATT)
Jennie Formby (UNITE)
Andi Fox (TSSA)
Jim Kennedy (Unite)
Andy Kerr (CWU)
Paddy Lillis (USDAW)
Martin Mayer (UNITE)
Pauline McCarthy (BFAWU)
Wendy Nichols (UNISON)
Cath Speight (GMB)
Mary Turner (GMB)
Socialist Societies and BAME Labour
James Asser (Socialist Societies)
Keith Vaz MP (BAME Labour)

CLPs
Ann Black
Christine Shawcroft
Claudia Webbe
Darren Williams
Pete Willsman
Rhea Wolfson
Labour Councillors
Cllr Nick Forbes
Cllr Alice Perry

PLP/EPLP
Margaret Beckett MP
George Howarth MP
Shabana Mahmood MP

Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour
Kezia Dugdale MSP (Leader of the Scottish Labour Party)
Alun Davies AM (Welsh Labour Representative)

Then had to investigate the incident and they found a case to be answered. Basically "Numbnuts" (As you are in a name calling frame of mind) if they, all Labour Party stalwarts looking to the Labour Party's best interests, found that there was a case to answer - WHY the hell shouldn't I believe them?? As previously explained they know a damned sight more about the workings of the Labour Party than you do.

Unlike YOU I am not driven by ANY particular political ideology as you and Jim Carroll seem to think. Unlike you I have never been a member of ANY political Party - I tend to think things out for myself, I do not require to be told what clichéd ideological long extinct party line to stick to as seems to be the case with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

(Heheh. This is getting to be fun). The exact "antisemitic" words, Keith, is ALL I ask! And yes, it's a booby trap!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

He don't mean me, Raggytash. I'm just a retired sandal-wearing* Guardian-reading sunset pinko leftie lentil-munching science teacher. Maybe he meant himself, a badly-educated Captain Pugwash clone, sailing the mighty oceans defending the world from those rotten Cuban nasties (unless he was below-deck all the time in the laundry making a few bob doing the lads' dhobies, of course. Think he'll tell us?)

*No socks, so don't accuse me. I won't stand by to be insulted. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM

Naz Shah had already been reinstated when she said in Parliament that her statements were anti-Semitic, and acknowledged the role of Jewish friends who explained Jewish history to her.
But you are right. The NEC suspended her for her anti-Semitic statements and she had to retract and apologise for them.
She then went further in Parliament.
If you disagree with the NEC that her statements were anti-Semitic, it is your definition that is at fault.
They most likely work to the same definition as the Police, which is the EUMC definition that you refute Steve.
You are on your own in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM

'ill informed opinion of biased third parties' I wonder if he means the professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:52 PM

Exactement, Jim. But Keith and Teribus are about as honest with themselves as, er, the average politician. You can't tell 'em, though. The ideological fog gets in the way. At least they're clever enough not to fall for my booby trap of asking them for the exact "antisemitic" words. They damn well know there aren't any, that's why!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

"Now then Steve tell us all how you know better than Naz Shah herself what she said and what she meant when she said "
Naz Shah is a politician who wanted to keep her job, just as is Boris Johnson when he apoligised for his racism
Any estimation of what both of their apologies mean must be taken with that in mind, though it's far easier to arrive at the opinion that suits best.
That still remains at one Labour politician who may or my not be guilty of antisemitism out 555,000 members - a serious problem indeed!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM

Well, Cap'n' Puggers, let's consider what you would would think of any other Labour politician who made a pronouncement about just about anything in the world. You'd believe every word, wouldn't you, take the whole lot on board as if it were gospel delivered from on high.

NOT.

Here we are, a bunch of politicos in a party you hate, making a pronouncement, and you believe every word of it, the reason being that it fits your anti-Labour-so-let's-whack-up-any-internal-row-they're-having-just-like-the-Daily-Mail-does-and-this-antisemitism-shit-will-do-very-nicely. Naz Shah is a political careerist. She retracted and grovelled and beat her breast chanting mea culpa TO SAVE HER OWN ARSE. Well, unless you think we Labourites are above such chicanery. Which you bloody well don't, and you know it.

I won't ask you to get real because I feel sorry for you and don't want to ask too much of you all in one go. Go and get your tea. See you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 11:44 AM

Naz Shah says her anti-semitic posts were ignorant

Now then Steve tell us all how you know better than Naz Shah herself what she said and what she meant when she said it. Tell us all how the entire Labour NEC who investigated the matter were all less informed on the matter than retired school teacher Steve Shaw. They investigated the matter fully and suspended Naz Shaw until she acknowledged her error and then publicly apologised for posting what she did.

As far as this goes, I will accept as real the information I get from the principals themselves, not the ill-informed opinion of a biased third party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 09:40 AM

"This all part of your "pecking order" "
Nice to see one of my jokes hit home though
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM

"Even your "pals" are getting tired of you Jim."
Does any of this prove anything Teribus?
Your failure to provide any back up for anything you say says all that is needed.
Answer something with evidence and you will have taken the first step - sticks and stones are childish and prove nothing - but at least you have your little TROLL to keep you warm.
Now let's continue this discussion like adults and leave this to the schoolyard where it belongs and stop fucking up threads.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:50 AM

Perfect post From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Teribus's gallop = Member since 11.02.2002 with 8,580 posts.

Carroll's gallop = Member since 6.12.2007 with 17,480 posts.

Even your "pals" are getting tired of you Jim. And you are right Jim, NOT ONCE have I ever been admonished by any Moderator with regard to what I have posted on this forum. Can the same be said of you or your pals?

"I feel this forum is being damaged by his behaviour" - Jim Carroll Fortunately for this forum Max runs things not you, your feelings, or your pals.

"if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others - put up for all to see in all its glory, he will continue to infect this forum."

Your blatantly biased, bigoted, narrow minded, hate fuelled bile does more to infect this forum than anything anyone else has ever posted - "if he isn't stopped" - you sanctimonious prat, who elected you to the position of deciding who can and who cannot be a member? This all part of your "pecking order" - believer in "socialist equality" my arse - doesn't take much to make the mask slip does it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

I asked you for the precise antisemitic words, Keith, but, as usual, instead of giving a straight answer you give me the opinions of almost everyone in the world. Appeals to authority. The words, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:08 AM

"Just trying to keep the peace."
Too late - too late, the maiden cried!!
"Naz Shah."
So we have one example out of a membership of how many?
I think that makes my point perfectly
"The Labour Party supports Israel."
We all support Israel as a Stae and as an ideal - what we don't support is the acts of terrorism by the Israeli regime - and you know this
I should, of course have said "supports the Israeli regime" and could have added, is part of their propaganda campaign
Naz Shah took up the Israeli claim that it's actions were "Jewish" and also a jokey suggestion by a Jewish writer that Israel should be moved to America
Both were stupid.
Israel justifies its terrorist activities are on behalf of the Jewish People (while accusing Jews who do not agree with them as "self hating")
Shah was wrong to pick up on that Antisemitic lie - if she is an antisemitee, so is Israel.
She took what was a joke to be a serious suggestion for a solution to the conflict - that was stupid - I don't believe it to be antisemitic.
"All accusations have been criticisms of Israel" - "Not true."
Then if they weren't, you have to specify what they were.
"The problem only arose under Corbyn's leadership."
Of course it did - Corbyn supported B.D.S. - within six weeks the Israelis
accused the Party of Antisemitism
The delegation visited Israel - within three weeks those accusations beban again.
We now have agreement - antisemitism in the Labour party boils down to 1 possible example.
Lat's move on - unless you are able to produce more (hopefully without antisemitically blaming the whole thing on a Jewish Parliamentary plot to remain silent
There - that's not a bad start to the day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:42 AM

Not allocating blame at all, Jim. I think you may have missed the line in my post that makes that clear.

"Now, I am sure there excuses a plenty from all for doing just that "

Just trying to keep the peace.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:31 AM

Steve,
Naz Shah did not utter a single antisemitic word

That is your opinion only, and what is that worth?
The NEC found it ant Semitic. They suspended her for it.
Shah herself acknowledged that her statements were anti Semitic and based on ignorance.
Once again you imagine you know better than them, based on nothing but your prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:25 AM

Steve, I spoke of people voting on Brexit and not party allegiances.
You ridiculed me for it, suggesting I got it from "racist mates" at the pub.

I then supported my stance with references to people in a position to know the facts.
You were wrong to ridicule me.
It was you who was out of touch.

Your opinions come from no-where and you can never substantiate them.
Mine are based on facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM

I accuse you of only ever appealing to authority and what do you do? Almost give me a biography of your latest authority! Very funny. And you call ME empty-headed.

Naz Shah did not utter a single antisemitic word. If you disagree, tell me which words. The antisemitic words, not her defending herself. Alternatively, bugger off and find yourself another stupid obsession. Your antisemitism misunderstandings have been done to death. In your heart of dishonest hearts you know bloody well that antisemitism is no more rife in the Labour Party than anywhere else, probably a lot less so in fact. "Naz Shah" my arse. Go on, entertain us, Keith. Why not have a pot at the LibDem leader for opposing abortion and gay marriage? That would be good!

No it wouldn't...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:43 AM

Jim,
No examples of genuine antisemitism have ever been produced.

Naz Shah.

Virtually all accusations have come from supporters of Israel

Errr, "The Labour Party supports Israel." (Deputy Leader)

or political opponents of Corbyn.

Almost the entire PLP are political opponents of Corbyn, so not surprising.

All accusations have been criticisms of Israel

Not true.

These attacks started within two months of Corbyn announcing support for B.D.S.

The problem only arose under Corbyn's leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM

As ever, Keith, you can only appeal to authority. Never think for yourself. You're scared of having opinions of your own.

Only an egotist on an industrial scale would think that he just knows everything already.
Peston is the Political Editor of ITV News and host of the weekly political discussion show Peston on Sunday. From February 2006 until March 2014, he was the Business Editor for BBC News.
Of course he is better informed than both of us.
I acknowledge that fact. You deny it.

It was a BY-ELECTION, Keith. Precipitated by a Tory idiot. Geddit? Not normal! Extrapolate ye not!

What did the MP who successfully fought and won it say?
"claim by the victor Sarah Olney that the result is a verdict on Brexit"
And her leader,
"The Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said the result was "historic" and a verdict on a so-called "hard" Brexit "

But what do they know about it compared to you?
Right Steve?

I have opinions based on facts.
Yours are just whims from an empty head.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:28 AM

Shouls read:
and if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others - put up for all to see in all its glory...
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:21 AM

"I must point you to the second line of the second post on this thread. It was a promise you made not to 'nause up' this thread."
If you are referring to my attempting to stop Teribus's gallop, I feel this forum is being damaged by his behaviour - not just this thread - and if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others, he will continue to infect this forum.
The administrators appear not to be interested and Teribus seems set on course to continue.
It may well be both our faults, but I can't say I'm not more than a little disappointed that you should point a finger and allocate blame.
Ah well!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:18 PM

Jim, I must point you to the second line of the second post on this thread. It was a promise you made not to 'nause up' this thread. Now, I am sure there excuses a plenty from all for doing just that but, as I keep saying, it is not who starts hostilities but who finishes them that is the better person.

Not telling anyone what to do. Just reminding all concerned that this thread was started to replace one that had already gone bad ways.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 03:15 PM

As ever, Keith, you can only appeal to authority. Never think for yourself. You're scared of having opinions of your own. I'll tell you what, I'll compromise. I'll bow down before Peston if you can demonstrate to me that he's still alive and has written a book on it in the last thirty years that may be found on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. Deal or no deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 03:02 PM

"Just the sake of honesty put up your own transgressions as well Jim."
Your job - you really are a lazy individual.
Been there Bobad - Israel is not The Jews
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:51 PM

"I will put up another thread's worth when I get time"

Just the sake of honesty put up your own transgressions as well Jim. Oh hang on a minute "honesty" - is something you know nothing about, as far as you are concerned it is a totally alien concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:32 PM

These attacks started within two months of Corbyn announcing support for B.D.S.

Why BDS is antisemitic

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:24 PM

Which of what I have listed is not true?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:21 PM

"first person ever to refer to himself as Jom. "
And you petty minded lying behaviour fails to mention that I have mentioned it and explained it was a typo -
Your lack of imagination made you seize on it as you were unable to think of anything original yourself
You have been asked to curb your behaviour and should you continue, I will put up another thread's worth when I get time
Grow up for Chriust sake - you're supposed to be an adult.
Keith
Your obsessive behaviour is now disturbing.
No examples of genuine antisemitism have ever been produced.
Virtually all accusations have come from supporters of Israel or political opponents of Corbyn.
All accusations have been criticisms of Israel
These attacks started within two months of Corbyn announcing support for B.D.S.
This second tranche re-started when the delegation returned from Israel a couple of weeks ago.
Even Haaretz has made the connection between these accusations and Israeli policy.
I do not belive in a million years that the Jews in parliament have stayed silent on identifying the type of antisemitism for the good of the party - such an accusation is classically antisemitic - "a Jewish plot"
Unless you produce proof pesetive that antisemitism exists by naming and shaming the "antisemitism" your case is dead in the water.
It would go against any concept of justice to accuse someone of antisemitism and refuse to specify exactly what they are guilty of - the kind of justice Israel metes out to Arabs (including children)
Piss or get off the pot - you have no case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:03 PM

Steve, save your abuse for Peston who did a whole piece on it, with charts on "screenie."
But what does he know about politics compared to you?
Right Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:01 PM

As Jim Carroll continues to occupy thread space with his "Reminder List" - to show appalling behaviour - he fails to mention that he was the first person ever to refer to himself as Jom. If you want Jim I will quote verbatim the post where you did this. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Jim Carroll of course has always referred to me as Teribus, never calling myself or others names and accusing them of all sorts of things - And if you believe that - you'll believe anything - True Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 12:59 PM

Jim,
No it isn't Keith - all it proves is somebody has made an accusation.

Wrong. It shows that Khan and the NEC were aware of the anti Semitism.
They did not deplore accusations, and were not appalled by accusations.
They deplored and were appalled by the anti Semitism.
It exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 11:07 AM

"Not my opinion. I got it from watching Peston and reading BBC news site."

Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana if that doesn't nail it then. 😂😂😂 that's "evidence" for your sweeping statement about "people," is it? I've got better evidence than that for fairies at the bottom of my garden. It was a BY-ELECTION, Keith. Precipitated by a Tory idiot. Geddit? Not normal! Extrapolate ye not!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 11:03 AM

"Yes it is."
No it isn't Keith - all it proves is somebody has made an accusation.
Without proof and without examples, it remains an accusation - sort of like all those charges not made against suspects who have been sent to Guantanamo for interminable periods for.
You accused the Jews in Parliament of covering up antisemitism for the sake of the party.
That is the only antisemitism that has been proved on this subject.
You are still whingeing about people insulting you, having been regularly insulting to other.
That is proof of your hypocrisy
This is the sort of proof you need to provide for Labour Party antisemitism - examples.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 10:15 AM

Steve,
He jumps opportunistically on some remark made by one of the leading lights in the party who wants to undermine Corbyn. Keith is insinuating that Labour's vote collapsed on Richmond because Labour is a bunch of antisemitic twats. Keith has clearly never heard of tactical voting. Keith is clueless and you know it

Of course I have heard of tactical voting.
I stated, "It appears that people are now voting according to their Brexit position and not for parties."

Not my opinion. I got it from watching Peston and reading BBC news site.
You replied,
"Classic weasel words. Where's your evidence? What people? All people? Some people? One or two people? A couple of your racist mates down the pub? "

You were wrong to attack me like that.
Why are you always so angry and abusive?
Is it frustration at always being proved wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 10:09 AM

Jim,
Deploring it is no evidence that it exists

Yes it is.
They deplored and were appalled by anti Semitism within Labour.
If it did not exist, how could they be appalled by it?
How could they deplore something that does not exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM

Now Teribus. Until 2010 Richmond was a solid LibDem seat. There is a very large LibDem contingent among the Richmond electorate. Richmond voted overwhelmingly to remain (are you following so far?). The LibDems' policy is to oppose Brexit (keeping up, are we?). Now let's get just a tad more imaginative. Zac Goldsmith is a Eurosceptic right-wing Tory. Zac tried to make a Big Thing of the runway by resigning and making it a by-election issue. But he couldn't do that because the other candidates WERE JUST AS AGAINST IT AS HE WAS, AND, MOREOVER, WERE NOT BREXITEERS NOR HAD THEY SMEARED THE LABOUR CANDIDATE IN THE MAYORAL ELECTION. In other words, he screwed up. Zac did bad things that do not go down well with the liberal-minded and articulate electorate of Richmond. Get it? One big thing has changed since Goldsmith was elected by an overwhelmingly Remain constituency (which didn't matter much then as no-one expected that we should be in the parlous state we're in now). But it matters now.

So.

CANDIDATE ONE: Tory nouveau-riche multimillionaire golden boy, against the EU, bad record of racist comments, anti-runway. CANDIDATE TWO: local woman who understands local issues, LibDem, pro-EU, clean as a whistle, anti-runway. CANDIDATE THREE:   Labour man, should never have stood, in danger of splitting the vote, very decent man, pro-EU, anti-runway. CONSTITUENCY'S ELECTORATE: traditionally liberal, overwhelmingly pro-EU, not stupid, anti-runway.

Do spend a little minute with that lot under your belt working out what happened in Richmond. And Keith does not agree with me. Keith has reopened this thread as part of his bigoted anti-Labour mission. He jumps opportunistically on some remark made by one of the leading lights in the party who wants to undermine Corbyn. Keith is insinuating that Labour's vote collapsed on Richmond because Labour is a bunch of antisemitic twats. Keith has clearly never heard of tactical voting. Keith is clueless and you know it. At least I hope you do. You should by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 09:49 AM

These are selections of Teribus's contemptuously appalling behaviour towards those who disagree with him, all taken from one thread "To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit", dating from 2nd of June to 12th of September.
Several of his postings contain up to half a dozen examples of insulting behavior
One of the conditions of membership of this forum "You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."
We all get rattled on occasion, some time ago, Joe Offer sensibly suggested that we should act like adults and stop calling each other silly names – most of us have tried, Teribus continues his appalling behaviour, making it virtually impossible not to react in kind to it.
If these discussions are to be of any value whatever, I feel there needs to be a cut-off point as to when a member is prevented in serially behaving in this way – as far as I am concerned, that point was reached a long time ago.
Until he stops behaving in this arrogant and bullying manner, I will continue selecting examples of his appalling behaviour until he either stops of his own free will or is stopped I will continue selecting topics an providing examples.
It really is devaluing the quality of this great forum – let's stop it now.
Jim Carroll

Idiotic argument Shaw and you know it
Don't worry Jom, we both know that it is just more of your "Made-Up-Shit
Unfortunately though Jom,
Reality check for you Jom:
How many pieces will the Labour Party be in by then Shaw?
Let's rip this clichéd little exercise in leftist rhetoric apart shall we:
At one point Jom - WOW - Is it fun living in your time warp Jom?
Missed the point again Jom,
On points Jom, you have completely missed the point that was being made
But Jom you are talking "individuals" your little bleat
Just how have we closed the door Jom?
Jom says that this is
Correction Jom
Well Shaw, as ever you don't let the facts stand in your way, glossing over the utterly dire state of the nation
A new all time low even for Jim Carroll.
Now I have opened those three sentences out, just in case Jom doesn't know what a sentence is
You didn't say Jom
Unfortunately Jom
Well well Jom,
As for your post - Steve Shaw…. Put that to music and you'd have a song that would top the "Country & Western" charts in next to no time
I have drawn Jom's attention
Good heavens Jom it must have taken you at least half-an-hour to wipe down and dry out the screen and keyboard after that spittle-flecked tirade of yours.
Naw too much fun just letting you contradict yourself Jom.
Well Jom how about you banging on about how wrong those are who advocate
There is also the likes of you and Carroll
About the daftest statement I think I have ever read - not surprising really considering who wrote it
How the hell do you think he became an MEP you Prat
Ah more twaddle from Jom:
"THE F**KER WHO FEEDS THEM - YOU HALFWIT PRAT."
"Only to a wanker like you Shaw."
"Oh and please, please, please let just one of you clowns chirp up... as I will paint the room with you.
Carroll
Rap and the "kipper" haven't cottoned on to.
Nothing whatsoever to say then Jom? Just the empty beating of your gums.
You're using your "tell" that lets me know that I am really niggling you Shaw.
By the bye Shaw
Don't think so Shaw,
Still nothing to say then Jom?
By the way Jom thanks for the PM - as a spit-flecked rant it is quite an amusing bit of pointless froth - any time I want a good laugh I dare say I'll open it up and read it.
Ehmmm Carroll
Very true Shaw, I
from Eastern Europe Jom?
Depending upon who things are classified Shaw.
Only problem with all of that Shaw
Tell me Shaw
"our" democratic system hasn't failed Jom

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 08:46 AM

"I have quoted Khan who is no particular friend of Israel deploring it,"
Deploring it is no evidence that it exists - until you provide examples of it, it doesn't exist - no substantiation - no antisemitism - simple as that - basic British justice, if nothing else.
There is a struggle between the right and left of the Labour party, Sadiq Khan is an opponent of Crobyn and says Labour cannot wing under his leadership.
"Miliband has been gone since losing the 2015 election."
As leader - he remainsd one of the Old Guard of the right and an opponent of B.D.S.
If he is unimportant, why quote him?
Make up your mind laddie.
Tom Watson is still an enthusiastic supporter of the Israeli regime, the Vice Chariman of 'Friends of Israel, he is politically opposed to Corbyn and he has just returned from heading a delegation to Israel - lo - he reopens his attack on Corbyn with no fresh evidence of what form what this antisemitm is supposed to be, accusing him of not acting on it - four coincidences all rolled into one - a little too many to swallow, even for you... maybe not!!
"a former sandal wearing NUT union activist in Cornwall and an Anglophobic, wannabe Irishman living in County Clare"
A bit of Little Englander parochialism thrown in this time.
Thanks for helping me make up my mind - will start assembling a year's worth of your abusive behaviour - though it may take a little time
Meanwhile, back to the few days worth.
Jim Carroll

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
It will remind everyone that you are truly clueless and gormless to an astounding degree.
"Got the point now Shaw"
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 08:01 AM

Steve Shaw - 05 Dec 16 - 05:28 AM

Well you say that, Jim, but all three main candidates were against the runway. The LibDems successfully turned it into an anti-Zac anti-Brexit vote.

And here Keith A seems to be agreeing with you:

Keith A of Hertford - 06 Dec 16 - 04:11 AM

It appears that people are now voting according to their Brexit position and not for parties.

What was the Lib-Dem stance on the EU Referendum again Steve? Yet Keith A's statement agreeing with you are:

Steve Shaw - 06 Dec 16 - 04:59 AM

"Classic weasel words. Where's your evidence? What people? All people? Some people? One or two people? A couple of your racist mates down the pub?"

I could not care less whether or not Tom Watson is a "twat" (Your chosen description) or not but, because of his position within the Labour Party, he undeniably knows more about the inner workings and status of the Labour Party than a former sandal wearing NUT union activist in Cornwall and an Anglophobic, wannabe Irishman living in County Clare.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM

You still have not provided a single scrap of evidence to these accusations of antisemitism other than criticism of israeli policy.

Yes I have Jim.
I have quoted Khan who is no particular friend of Israel deploring it, and the entire NEC deploring it.

Miliband has been gone since losing the 2015 election.
Tom Watson is the current Deputy Leader, and he was voted into that office by the membership.
It is many days since he made that speech, and no-one from the Party has refuted his statements.

"Labour supports the state of Israel."

"And he condemned the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) movement,"

"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:46 AM

Peston, 17 minutes in showed a screen chart about allegiance to Party and Brexit.
Preston, "on this issue of the importance of how you voted, remain or leave, and whether that now trumps party political allegiance"

It is not just me making shit up.
I do not do that Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM

"Tom Watson is the Deputy Leader, and he was voted into that office by the membership."
Tom Watson is vice Chairman of The Friends of Israel and has just come back from leading a visit to Israel
What speech, the piece I quoted was referring to Ed Milliband which was referring to two years ago.
You still have not provided a single scrap of evidence to these accusations of antisemitism other than criticism of israeli policy.
You are a persistent quisling Keith - betraying the elected members of a British Party with a century old reputation for anti-racism of any form to an extremist right wing foreign power.
"Israel calling - Israel calling"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:26 AM

Please get this into your skull once and for all, Keith. Many Labour voters in no-chance constituencies VOTE TACTICALLY. I have voted LibDem in the last six general elections even though I bloody hate the LibDems. Why? Because I hate the Tories more and will do everything I can to stop a Tory from getting in in North Cornwall, and Labour haven't got a cat in hell's chance here. Many Labour members will have voted LibDem in Richmond because the Goldsmith twat-and-a-half is a very nasty, spiteful man, a bloody Tory to the core and a racist thug at that with a vile record of trying to demonise the Labour mayoral candidate in London. Labour were never going to get in but the Richmond members wanted to make bloody sure he didn't either. Still, carry on, Keith, trying to prove that the Richmond poll shows a collapse in Labour support. Go on, give us your evidence. Alternatively just stop your wishful-thinking-I-make-stuff-up-as-I-go-along nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 07:12 AM

Tom Watson is the Deputy Leader, and he was voted into that office by the membership.
It is many days since he made that speech, and no-one from the Party has refuted his statements.

"Labour supports the state of Israel."

"And he condemned the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) movement,"

"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker."