BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:00 AM

Israel's behaviour in claiming the the Jewish People are responsible for the policies of the Israeli regime

Made up shit Jim. Israel has never claimed any such thing.

may be at your insistence that Labour has been proved to have a serious problem of antisemitism in its ranks - how many times have you claimed that?

Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim!
I just repeated their own claims.
The NEC claimed it, the Deputy Leader claimed it, Sadiq Khan claimed it......
Were they all lying Jim?
Is that your case?!!
If so, it is a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 08:42 AM

Jim, does your post mean that you disagree with the definition?
Israel has created a situation that there is no longer w workably consistent definition, so as far as I am concerned - hatred of and discrimination against Jews is what we have left.
Israel's behaviour in claiming the the Jewish People are responsible for the policies of the Israeli regime has directly led to the rise of antisemitism by painting a target on every Jew on the planet.
"If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement."
Where to begin - may be at your insistence that Labour has been proved to have a serious problem of antisemitism in its ranks - how many times have you claimed that?
Until you or anybody quantify and qualify the charges against Labour there is no case to answer - common sense as well as common justice.
Your claims without charges are what is a joke - I have asked you to provide an example of where this has ever happened - you have declined to answer (though you might have cited the McCarthy Senate trials (or even their equivalent 17th century witch trials)
Your lack of proof and accusing the Jewish members of parliament of being silent sums your case up perfectly - you have no interest in the Jews - your support is for Israeli terrorism - that is your definition of antisemitism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM

Jim, does your post mean that you disagree with the definition?
I can not tell.

Also,
Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time

If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement.
Good luck with that!
I also asked you for an example of accusations you claimed have been found groundless.
How are you getting on with that?

Your claims are just a joke Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 06:38 AM

Israel is still not the Jews and some of its greatest opponents are Jews
Now does that fit into any definition?
"Ah! back to one of Jim Carroll's hobby horses Sabra-Shatila."
Not a hobby horse, but interesting that you should describe the massacre of 3,500 human beings as such
No qualified and quantified accusation - no crime
No response to facts, no argument
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM

Britain is to adopt a definition of antisemitm from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

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

Steve, you were careful to accuse some "pro-Israel lobby" and not Jews of controlling government, but I think you could be caught by this definition.

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. "

Jim and Steve again.

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. "

You have done that many times Jim, but you are still safe from prosecution in Ireland until they adopt the definition too.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM

Dave again,
My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party

Why indeed. It is though.

Steve,

Yep. People who you don't trust as far as you can throw them. Except when it suits you. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

I trust them on this. Why would they lie?
Is your case that they are lying Steve?
Why would they lie that it was anti-Semitic if it was not?

You are just spouting bollocks again. You have no case at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:26 AM

Dave,
why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder?

No-one is or has said that Dave.

Naz Shah is not of the far left

So what?

and that seems to be the only example that can be verified

Others are referred to in those Guardian links I gave yesterday.
Then there are Livingstone's.
Also Marc Wadsworth.

and even that is disputed

Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think.
Can you quote anyone else disputing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:44 AM

Ah! back to one of Jim Carroll's hobby horses Sabra-Shatila.

Found out how bulldozers dig mass graves yet Jim?

DtG from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the "Labour Friends of Israel" from? And from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the anti-Israeli BDS Supporters and activists from?

As you did not respond to Keith A's statement - who said that Naz Shah was extreme left? The answer of course is nobody.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 06:35 PM

"She made some anti-Semitic statements according to the Labour leadership and her own admission."

Yep. People who you don't trust as far as you can throw them. Except when it suits you. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Hope you said your prayers this morning. And you still haven't quoted the words she uttered that you regard as antisemitic. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 05:37 PM

No Dave. The complaints suggest that the problem is mostly with the far Left.

It was not me that said that was it? So if the issue is mostly with the far left then why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder? Surely, if anything, it should be only rampant in small section of the Labour party, IE the far left. Yet, as you say, Naz Shah is not of the far left and that seems to be the only example that can be verified and even that is disputed. Not doing too well really are we? So are there any examples of the 'far left' being antisemitic?

My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party. I though I had made that quite clear? I am puzzled as to why you keep responding if you do not know.

We are surely, therefore, at an impasse on this route with nothing left to discuss are we not?

On the other topic, of course we can find anyone saying anything if we look hard enough. It is especially easy to find someone saying what you want to hear. I seem to remember someone once setting great store by credible sources. This man is far from credible. By his own admission

my credibility was damaged by his enthusiasm for drugs and raves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:54 PM

Dave,

The other one was that the person digging up dirt on her was blogger Paul Staines.

I suppose that is what bloggers do.
I do not read them.
The Labour leadership said she had made anti-Semitic statements and she admitted it. I am sure you could find some blogger saying anything if you wanted to.
I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM

Who said Shah was anything Dave?
She made some anti-Semitic statements according to the Labour leadership and her own admission.
She attributed it to her own ignorance and says she now knows better.

You asked me to speculate on why this issue has come to prominence.
That is all I did.
My case is that it is an issue for Labour, not why.
The Labour leadership agree with me, but Steve and Jim think that they know better.
How silly that makes them look!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:22 PM

Anyone who thinks that Naz is "far-left" clearly never came across the likes of some of the buggers I consorted with in the 70s! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:19 PM

Incidentaly, while I was looking up Naz Shah's politics I made some interesting discoveries. Have you looked up her career and life story? Makes fascinating reading she is a much braver person than you or I will ever be.

The other one was that the person digging up dirt on her was blogger Paul Staines. This lovely character writes a column for the Stun on Sunday, has been acclaimed by the Torygraph as one of Britain's leading political bloggers and describes his own policies as "Thatcher on drugs". He also states that his credibility was damaged by his enthusiasm for drugs and raves. Shah has more integrity in her little finger than this parasite has in his whole body.

Still, it is becoming an education is this so thanks for getting me off my arse and making me look things up. I always suspected that this story had for more too it than anyone has yet said on here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 12:50 PM

Ah, OK. Thanks, Keith. It is mostly about the far left then. Like Naz Shah? I guess the Labour party have nothing to worry about seeing the far left of the party are a tiny minority. I suppose it could be 'rampant' with the far left but as they are not indicative of general Labour policies it would be unfair to tar the whole party for the views of a few. Oh, hang on...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:37 AM

Jim,
Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time

If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement.
Good luck with that!
I also asked you for an example of accusations you claimed have been found groundless.
How are you getting on with that?

Your claims are just a joke Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM

Steve,
. Keith is a walking farce. Leave him to it.

Same old abuse Steve.
Can you actually reply to or challenge anything I have posted?
No.
I have proved my case and proved you wrong again.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM

list of actual cases of ethnic cleansing and mass murder that have and are still taking place

Lol.....you must stop trolling those anti-Semitic propaganda sites - it's making you look like one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM

Dave,

Still no comment on why this only happened when Jeremy Corbyn was voted leader? An inconvenient significant fact maybe?

No Dave. The complaints suggest that the problem is mostly with the far Left.
Political extremists are notoriously intolerant.

Asking why is inviting speculation.
The fact is that there have been a stream of complaints emanating from Labour and the acknowledgement that there is a serious problem.
That is my case, and it is proved.
You suggest that other parties are at least as bad, but there is no evidence for that.
There are no streams of complaints from them.

Your assumption is based on nothing but preconception and prejudice.
No evidence at all.
All the evidence points the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM

Whoever said whatever about Israel - you have been given a list of actual cases of ethnic cleansing and mass murder that have and are still taking place, carried out (not threatened) by the Israeli regime towards anybody who gets in their way
All your stupid quotes (in this case from an activist working to stop BDS) doesn't measure up to what has happened to Palestinians at the hands of the Israelii and what is still happening
Threats such as the ones you quote don't count for one of the lives of the 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women, slaughtered during Operation Protective Edge or or the 1398 Palestinians slaughtered during Operation Cast Lead nor the 318 children and the 108 women of the 926 non combatants killed previously   
I know how much it upsets you people to mention the deaths refugees facilitated by the Israeli army at SABRA -SHATILA - so I take pleasure in doing so.
If I was a Palestinian subjected to this treatment I would hope for much more than meaningless threats.
We'll take it as read that you support this carnage, shall we?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM

Hear what Mad Moshe said about the Bedouin in 1963:

1963 you say.

Let me refer you to something that has relevance to the present day:


'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian

movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is

Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of

Palestine.'


'[Peace] initiatives,   and   so-called   peaceful   solutions   and

international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of

the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than

a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of

Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by

Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a

waste of time, an exercise in futility.'


'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.'


'The enemies have been scheming for a long time ... and have

accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money,

they took control of the world media... With their money they stirred

revolutions in various parts of the globe... They stood behind the

French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most   of   the

revolutions we hear about... With their money they formed secret

organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions -

which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies

and carry out Zionist interests... They stood behind World War I ...

and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the

world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge

financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them

having their finger in it.'


                   THE CHARTER OF ALLAH: THE PLATFORM OF THE

                      ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 10:05 AM

Oh, and by the way, do the Jews evicted and dispossessed from the Arab countries and from Judea and Samaria have the right to return to their land? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I take it by your silence that you would not extend the same rights to Jews as you advocate for the non Jews who were and are merely squatters on land that they do not own. No surprise that, eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM

"The Bedouin "villages" were temporary encampments as they were a nomadic people."
It doesn't matter - it has nothing to do with the Israeli regime, and even if it had, a toxic rubbish dump is no alternative settlement
"The encampments were on untitled land"
They were there before Israel became Israel
"When Israel became a state all untitled land became property of the state"
No it did not, any more than houses occupied by Arabs did - there were people living there and by "squatters rights" the land was theirs.
I take it by your silence that you have no argument with the toxic site and the use of chemicals and water cannon to evict them (or is that more "Carroll made-up shit"
Are you really defending this obscene behavior?
Please say "yes"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 09:47 AM

A very large number of Bedouin homes are not temporary camps. They are real buildings. It would help if Israel stopped knocking them down, an unfortunate predilection of a regime when confronted by its Arabic neighbours. The regime moans about environmental issues in the Negev but will not put the villages on the water, sewerage and rubbish removal grids. The history of the Bedouin prior to the formation of Israel is one of tolerance and peaceful negotiation and co-existence, though they have always suspected that signing things may lose them their rights. But when Israel come along it was suddenly different...

Hear what Mad Moshe said about the Bedouin in 1963:

We should transform the Bedouins into an urban proletariat – in industry, services, construction, and agriculture. 88% of the Israeli population are not farmers, let the Bedouin be like them. Indeed, this will be a radical move which means that the Bedouin would not live on his land with his herds, but would become an urban person who comes home in the afternoon and puts his slippers on. His children will get used to a father who wears pants, without a dagger, and who does not pick out their nits in public. They will go to school, their hair combed and parted. This will be a revolution, but it can be achieved in two generations.

[Moshe Dayan to Haaretz, 1963]

Nothing racist about these Israeli leaders then...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 08:14 AM

Israel has no right to evict from land that was occupied before the state was established

1. The Bedouin "villages" were temporary encampments as they were a nomadic people.

2. The encampments were on untitled land

3. When Israel became a state all untitled land became property of the state.


Oh, and by the way, do the Jews evicted and dispossessed from the Arab countries and from Judea and Samaria have the right to return to their land? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM

I thought Peter Tatchell's protest was a good one, peaceful and measured, and Jeremy, though he managed to retain his dignity, was just a little bang to rights on Labour's recent weak response to the outrage in Syria. Not the wrong response, but way too diffident. I've orchestrated the odd invasion of meetings like that myself. They are incredibly effective when it comes to giving a voice to sidelined opinion. I like Peter. He's a damn sight better than most of the people we like to think of as national treasures. I think his protest might actually have done Labour some good. It is time for a bit of firming up, no doubt about it.

So there! 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 16 - 04:27 AM

"You don't know what you're talking about"
Then enlighten me with documented facts
Israel has no right to evict from land that was occupied before the state was established yet they have consistently driven of Bedoins using high powered water cannons and CHEMICAL SPRAY
More recently, the israelis have adopted similar techniques on PALESTINIAN LANDS
Bedouins have used the are as itinerent sheep herders for centuries and, as you say settled the land during Ottoman and British rule - they are where they are being evicted from legally
The Israeli regime attempted to move evicted Bedouins onto a TOXIC RUBBISH DUMP - after three attempts, they abandoned the idea following world-wide outcry
Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time - personally I see no point in responding to your idiotic spiral arguments any more
The facts are the facts - NO SPECIFIED CHARGES - NATURAL JUSTICE - NO CRIME, SIMPLE AS THAT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:17 PM

Corbyn appears unsure on what his party's stance is on Russia's slaughter of civilians in Aleppo, leaves the stage to ask advice. It seems that he doesn't want to upset his friends in Russia and Hezbollah by condemning the bombing so makes a saccharine statement without mentioning any names.

Channel 4

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:53 PM

I reckon that it's socialist to drink cheap wine from Southern European cooperatives though I can't help being very fond of Torres Viña Sol from Spain even though Torres is a big producer. Get that for a fiver and it's the only white you'll ever need to buy. That Morrisons Nero d'Avola I mentioned is a typical example. Tesco Nero d'Avola is another cracker, usually six quid but I wait till they give you 25% off for six. There's a damn good Negroamaro from Puglia at M&S but it's eight quid. But M&S are always doing 25% off for six.   For a nice lighter red there's Asda Frappato from Sicily which is under a fiver. Really good bog-standard red is Waitrose Mellow and Fruity which comes from Campo de Borga in northern Spain, under a fiver. As a Labour man I see it as my duty to seek out good reds. Someone's got to do it...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:09 PM

:-D

Like I said before, you can always tell a Yorkshireman. But you can't tell him much.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:07 PM

Only 10%? It's 20 at M&S! Nothing like a Lancashire man having his prejudices about Yorkshire tightfistedness confirmed! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:46 PM

I do work for Morrisons. The issue they have just had was a power outage at a distribution centre that knocked the network out for a few minutes. I suppose I can understand them getting twitchy considering the time of year! We get 10% discount so I will try some of that Sicilian for £4.50:-) I bought the CNDP when it was half price and on a 20% pre-Crimbo discount week. I think it worked out at about £7 in the end. I was disappointed with the last one so I wondered if letting it breath may help.

Hope no one minds us injecting a bit of frivolity into an otherwise dull evening but I suspect we may get some stick ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:39 PM

Did you say you had some connection with Morrisons? They're selling a cracking good red from Sicily for a fiver, on special, the Signature Nero d'Avola 2015. Worth eight or nine quid of anyone's money. We actually went through Avola in September. Lovely area but don't mention the M***a! 😱

I don't bother with all that breathing malarkey (I never drink pricey booze anyway). Just make it glug a bit when you pour it out, I reckon. Some people pour it into a jug then back into the bottle to get it all aerated, but doing that just gets me all aeriated....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

I have a Chateauneuf du Pape that I was saving for Christmas day, Steve. I am that mind numbingly bored monitoring servers that have nothing wrong with them just because the management read somewhere (possibly the Daily Mail) that magic moonbeams can cause servers to become antisemitic during a network failure. Think I should open it now or does it need to breath a good while before it is drunk?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:00 PM

Round and round and round we go. Been there, done it, got the tears-of-laughter-stained t-shirt. Keith is a walking farce. Leave him to it. Ten years from now there will be an isolated and lonely thread somewhere out there in the interwebby ether, that only he ever posts to and only he ever reads, which will be featuring ghostly, dismembered snippets from way back when, such as "appalled NEC...I proved everything but they wouldn't listen...just putting Israel's side...Naz...maps...serious problem...you bastards are all antisemites...I never lied about Wheatcroft...only speaking generally...you lose...why are you all having a go at me...I'm centre-right..." (lonesome piano music fades into the distance...)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:56 PM

ETHNIC CLEANSING of BEDOUINS

Lol.


You've just sunk your own case - Israel has no say over these Bedouin villages, in fact they have no claim land whatever over land that was occupied before the State was formed, the agreement never gave anybody the right to evict settled tenants

You don't know what you're talking about - suggest you do some research - and not only on anti-Israel propaganda sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:55 PM

BTW - I am on call, monitoring a priority 1 incident that I don't really have anything to do with buy, in their wisdom, the management team have decided to call out everyone who knows how to spell computer.

What is everyone else's excuse for having nothing better to do on a Saturday night?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:52 PM

Oh - And which accusations have been proven? Why should it be up to someone else to prove that the accusations have been found groundless. IIRC hate crime is punishable by law in this country. If the accusations of antisemitism have been proven, why have there been no criminal prosecutions brought about? Surely the Daily Heil and the Stun would be all over that wouldn't they? :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:48 PM

Why not guilty? Surely it is innocent until proven guilty in this country :-) Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt at that and I believe we have more than enough reasonable doubt. You will need to do better than that.

Still no comment on why this only happened when Jeremy Corbyn was voted leader? An inconvenient significant fact maybe? Reasonable doubt as to the motives maybe?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:34 PM

Jim,
the NEC was appalled at the accusations,

No Jim. They were appalled by RECENT CASES of anti-Semitism.
Not just accusations of it.

which have been found groundless

Which accusations have been found groundless Jim, or did you just make that up?
Produce some evidence for us please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:30 PM

Keep your evidence to what you actually know or saw yourself, Mr Gnome. Not what you read in the paper.

I have quoted nothing that was not factual.
If the NEC are reported as saying they were appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitism, then we know for a fact that there had been recent cases of anti-Semitism.
That is what you Steve and Jim have been denying.
My case has always just been that it is a serious issue in Labour, and "the entire NEC" also "recognises the seriousness of this issue."

You also deny that Shah made anti-Semitic statements.
Perhaps you are unable to recognise it.
" Corbyn's aides defended Shah, saying the comments were antisemitic but the MP had "shocked herself," and did not mean what she said."

Jury Chairman, " Why not guilty Mr Gnome? Ten passing nuns saw him do it!
Mr. Gnome, "Just hearsay then."
Chairman, "But his prints and DNA were on the knife through the heart."
Mr.Gnome, "How do we know this?"
Chairman, "The forensic report."
Mr. Gnome, "Repeating what someone else said or thought or reported is not evidence. It is hearsay."
Chairman, "But the victim gave a dying testimony to a passing party of High Court judges!"
Mr. Gnome."Just hearsay then."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/27/naz-shah-suspended-labour-party-antisemitism-row
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 03:13 PM

Israel has absolute legal authority to relocate the inhabitants of the illegal Bedouin "villages" The Bedouin are squatters on land to which they have no title, land which they colonized during Ottoman and British rule.
You've just sunk your own case - Israel has no say over these Bedouin villages, in fact they have no claim land whatever over land that was occupied before the State was formed, the agreement never gave anybody the right to evict settled tenants
ETHNIC CLEANSING of BEDOUINS
PROTESTS AGAINST ETHNIC CLEANSING of BEDOUINS
"There are no illegal settlements "
Evicting Arabs from settled land is ILLEGAL - the Israelis have done this consistently and with growing regularity
"Apart from Shah that is true."
If Israel can demand the deportation of Palestinians (including Israel's Justice Minister) then Naz Shah has made no antisemitic comments
Her comments were aimed at the Israelis, not the Jews.
Try again.
Now, tell us what's the difference between calling for the deportation of the Israelis and the calling for the deportation of the Palestinians?
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
Back to square one again - the NEC was appalled at the accusations, which have been found groundless - game over.
"Do you have any evidence to support your position?"
Do you have evidence as to what this evidence is -
No?
Then you have no case
"Gentlemen of the jury -have you reached a verdict?"
Yes, m'lud - we don't know what crime he has committed, but someone has accused him of it so he must be guilty"
"You demanded evidence, were supplied with proof but you still refuse to believe."
Hw can there be proof if the charged have not been specified, as you have said yourself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 02:47 PM

Council for the prosecution: Mr Gnome. How do you know that Mt X showed his willy to Mrs Y in the butchers shop window?

Mr Gnome: Because I read in the paper that the whole of the butchers shop saw it. Everyone knows that it is a fact.

Council for the defense: Objection, M'lud!

Judge: Sustained. Keep your evidence to what you actually know or saw yourself, Mr Gnome. Not what you read in the paper.

No, I do not believe the entire NEC are lying. Why suggest that I am? Of course the NEC are appalled by recent cases of antisemitism and recognise the seriousness of it. What right minded person would not be? It is an indication that the Labour party are being open in investigating the allegations. It still does not answer the question as to why antisemitism has suddenly become 'rampant' in the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn has become leader.

Do you not find that in the slightest bit suspicious?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 02:22 PM

BTW - Repeating what someone else said or thought or reported is not evidence. It is hearsay. There is a distinction.

Rubbish!
Dave, do you really believe that "the entire NEC" were lying and their statements not evidence.
You make yourself ridiculous.

You have no evidence at all to support your position, and you scrabble desperately for a reason to disbelieve the hard facts in front of you.

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

So there it is.
Proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 02:13 PM

Steve, giggle away but you can not deny that I have proved my case.
You can pretend to laugh but you can not challenge or reply to anything I have posted.

Dave,
What I have asked, many times, and had no answer to is why it should be more prevalent in the left wing of politics than anywhere else.

Who knows, but it is an indisputable fact that it is.

Or shall we just say as there seems to be no common ground here we may as well stop banging our heads on a brick wall?

It is hard to find common ground with you when you deny hard factual evidence that it is true just because you do not understand why it is true!

All the evidence, claims and complaints come from inside Labour.
There are no comparable complaints from any other party.

You demanded evidence, were supplied with proof but you still refuse to believe.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?
No.
Is there hard evidence and even proof that you are wrong?
Yes.
So what is your case Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 01:50 PM

"I do not know what anti-Semitic statements were made because they have not been published, but I know they were made.
I have more than hard evidence for it. I have proof."

Anyone else here ever read a more entertaining piece of utter tosh in their lives? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 12:26 PM

No, I am pretty sure I saw that. Maybe you missed this though, Keith.

What I have asked, many times, and had no answer to is why it should be more prevalent in the left wing of politics than anywhere else. Remember this was not an issue until the Labour party moved slightly to the left. Because of that I am suspicious. The only genuine evidence we have for 'rampant antisemitism' in any political party is from the extreme right in the middle of the 20th century. Why would it be that only the left wing is antisemitic, as has been suggested above? Things don't 'just happen'. There is a reason behind everything and, if the left wing does have antisemitic leanings, then why have they only just been discovered?

Or shall we just say as there seems to be no common ground here we may as well stop banging our heads on a brick wall?

BTW - Repeating what someone else said or thought or reported is not evidence. It is hearsay. There is a distinction.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 12:13 PM

Dave, you must have missed this.
All the complaints about Labour anti-Semitism came from within Labour.
There have been no complaints of intolerance from any of the many Tory Jews or Tory Muslims or any other minority.
If we are widening the intolerance away from just anti-Semitism, remember the complaints from within Labour of homophobia and misogyny.

BBC, "Over 40 female Labour MPs have written to party leader Jeremy Corbyn urging him to do more to tackle abuse of MPs."

Where are the internal complaints of intolerance from any other party except Labour Dave?
There is a plethora of evidence from within Labour of prejudice and intolerance, but none from any other party.

Evidence Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 12:01 PM

Steve,
I've repeatedly asked YOU for ANTISEMITIC QUOTES, not your jaded and threadbare attacks on the party you're determined to demonise at all costs, and you never give me any. Not a one. Because you can't.

Apart from Shah that is true. I do not know what anti-Semitic statements were made because they have not been published, but I know they were made.
I have more than hard evidence for it. I have proof.

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

So there it is.
Proof. Despite all your nasty and personal abuse,I was right and you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

Well let's just forget that this is all about the inhuman shuffling around of real, live human beings by a recently-invented country just because they don't happen to fit their religious or ethnic agenda, shall we? I mentioned apartheid just up there, I seem to remember...