BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:04 AM

As disingenuous as ever DtG.

Dave the Gnome - 08 Dec 16 - 05:02 PM

1: What rancour? I pointed out that you appeared to be ignorant {In the true sense of the word} of the details of the subject under discussion and you agreed that I was in fact right:

"That is all I knew about it so, yes, in one way you are right. I was ignorant, in the true sense of the word, of the events being discussed."

2: "Are we now saying that a report into a top University's Labour society, that was never published but was leaked to the right wing press is indicative of serious anti-Semitism in the Labour party?

I don't know about "WE" DtG but that is certainly what Baroness Royall and Labour's National Executive Committee thought.

I'll take the following points 3, 4 & 5 together

3: "Do you believe that anti-Semitism is more prevalent within the Labour party than in any other organisation? If so, what brings you to that conclusion and what makes you believe that Labour supporters are more likely to be anti-Semitic than any other cross section of society?"

4: The only argument I have ever put forward is (Strange thing to say considering the first five words of your second paragraph - "I am not arguing anything") that I believe that the Labour party is not likely be any different to any other large group. That is not arguing form ignorance but from a lifetime of experience with people from all walks of life."

5: "How can it be any worse with them than say, the Conservatives, Liberals, UKIP or any other party (Excluding extremists of any persuasion of course)"

Decide for yourself the following evidence:

(a) How many other people who are members of any political party have publicly resigned because they feel intimidated attending meetings of their own political party? Documented cases of this from members of the Labour Party.

(b) How many constituency party organisations have been suspended and prohibited from holding meetings by the governing bodies of those political parties? Documented cases of Labour's NEC doing exactly this, most notable being the Wallasey Constituency Labour Party where on mounting her Leadership challenge to Jeremy Corbin Wallasey Labour MP Angela Eagle was threatened, intimidated and subjected to homophobic abuse by Corbyn supporters. Four other Constituency Labour Party organisations have also been suspended.

(c) Baroness Royall was tasked with looking into anti-Semitism (Racism by Labour's definition) within the Oxford University Labour Club. Her findings resulted in 11 recommendations some of whom she detailed as requiring urgent and immediate action - what other political party has had to do the same? Baroness Royall's report was taken so seriously by Labour's NEC that a second investigation was commissioned to look into allegations of misogyny, intimidation, racism and homophobia throughout the entire Party structure - what other political party has found the need to do that? Those actions were not taken because there was no evidence of those charges to be found - you do not attempt to suppress a report that exonerates your organisation, I would rather have thought that you'd trumpet it to the world - Labour's NEC didn't do that - WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 02:18 AM

"For example, he stated in a post that, according to Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor were "vulgar" whereas Wheatcroft actually said no such thing."

Good heavens Shaw, still banging on about this two years down the line eh? You must be really short of ammunition. But I'd challenge your NO SUCH THING. Wheatcroft described the historical works related to the First World War of the authors you mentioned as being "Fraudulent" related to Clark's work and "Vulgar" related to A.J.P.Taylor's work. So Keith A was at least 50% right wasn't he.

Here are Geoffrey Wheatcroft's actual words:

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark." - Geoffrey Wheatcroft; Guardian; 9.12.1914; Article Title - The Second World War - The Long Read - "The myth of the good war"

Now Keith A of Hertford quoted the above passage, if fact IIRC he also provided a link to it, but in one post he omitted the word "Fraudulent" and Stevie boy jumped all over him for it (And as his last post shows he continues to do so after two years - and Shaw has the effin' nerve to accuse Keith A of being obsessive!!!). In Keith A's following posts on that particular thread Keith A owns up to his error of omission, obviously missed, or more likely deliberately ignored by Shaw. On the subject of errors Shaw does not seem moved to obsessively point out the glaring mistakes and errors made by his pals, Keith A had a word describing such behaviour - unidirectional.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:55 PM

Been away most of today. Reading the most recent bunch of posts in this thread, the most obvious conclusion, sorry to say, is that Keith is a sad obsessive. As he is not a well man, I sometimes feel that I should hold back. But that would be highly inappropriate. Keith's modus operandi is very, very simple. He gets an idea in his head, typically predicated on bigotry. He then dedicates his online life to ignoring any evidence adverse to his agenda whilst appealing to any right-wing authority he can find. This excuses him from having any properly formed opinion of his own. Keith never admits error, never. For example, he stated in a post that, according to Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor were "vulgar" whereas Wheatcroft actually said no such thing. Though Keith was clearly bang to rights, he refused to acknowledge the error (I won't go into all the excuses he gave as I haven't got all day). Also, when it comes to Israel, Keith denies every single atrocity committed by successive regimes, claiming that he's "only putting Israel's side of the story." Oh yes, Keith is very good at telling stories!

Just a few observations, that's all...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:02 PM

Sorry Teribus. Have I said something that offends you that warrants such rancour? If so, please let me know what it is so I can avoid it in future.

I am not arguing anything, merely questioning what was said. IE "The report on anti-Semitism in the Oxford University Labour Soc. was not to be published, but was leaked." That is all I knew about it so, yes, in one way you are right. I was ignorant, in the true sense of the word, of the events being discussed. You have now enlightened me further and I now know that the report was not by the society but about the society. But that poses a further question.

Are we now saying that a report into a top University's Labour society, that was never published but was leaked to the right wing press is indicative of serious antisemitism in the Labour party? Do you believe that antisemitism is more prevalent within the Labour party than in any other organisation? If so, what brings you to that conclusion and what makes you believe that Labour supporters are more likely to be antisemitic than any other cross section of society?

The only argument I have ever put forward is that I believe that the Labour party is not likely be any different to any other large group. That is not arguing form ignorance but from a lifetime of experience with people from all walks of life. I believe, and I accept that this is purely anecdotal, that in the main people are good regardless of their political beliefs, race, colour or creed. But there is good and bad everywhere, including the Labour party. How can it be any worse with them than say, the Conservatives, Liberals, UKIP or any other party (Excluding extremists of any persuasion of course)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:06 PM

"So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence? I think not." - DtG

And you would think right Gnome.

A University Labour Group DID NOT produce a paper. Baroness Royall at the behest of Labour's National Executive Committee undertook an investigation of reported anti-Semitism within the Oxford University Labour Club after its Jewish co-chair resigned and other Jewish members stated that they felt unsafe attending meetings. On completion of Baroness Royall's investigation here conclusions and her recommendations were published by the NEC but they tried to suppress the main body of the report which was subsequently leaked. While Baroness Royall stated that anti-Semitism was not institutionalised she said that it did exist and required urgent and immediate action to counter the spread of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. Baroness Royall's findings prompted the investigation by Shami Chakrabarti which had a far wider remit.

Your post makes one wonder if you have the foggiest clue about anything being discussed here - not the first time you have argued from a position of total ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM

My statement about Quisling
06 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM
"You are a persistent quisling Keith - betraying the elected members of a British Party with a century old reputation for anti-racism of any form to an extremist right wing foreign power."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

Unless you can specify those charges there is no Anti Semitism

You are one of the most evilly dishonest people on this forum Keith

Ah, ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

You are one of the most evilly dishonest people on this forum Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:14 PM

Unless you can specify those charges there is no Anti Semitism
Your Repetitive attempts to implicate the Labour party in something you aree totally unable to describe aaor explain without implicating the Jws in an antisemitic claim of a plot has now reached "Alice Through the Looking-Glass proportions
You refusal to respond to this question - "Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges being described?" are proof positive that you are fully aware of this and are lying in your teeth, and our gleeful attempts yo blow up yet another Labour problem and you makes obvious exactly where you are coming from.
"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government"
THat was not my claim - you are lying again - is there really no depths you will sink to to save face?
It is the implication of your claim that Jewish Parliamentarians refuse to describe the Antisemitism they claim - which now includes The Jewish Post.
The accusations have ben made quite clear - they are entirely based on Corbyn's support of B.D.S. - which may be antisemitic to Israel and her supporters but is antisemitic by definition to describe it as such.
You are as mad as a hatter
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/labour-has-secretly-suspended-50-members-for-anti-semitic-and-ra/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM

Dave,
So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence?

No Dave. The Party commissioned an enquiry into anti-Semitism in that society, but refused to publish the report.

Do we know who leaked the report and why

Yes.

If the suspensions were so secret, how do we know how many there were and in how many cases accusations were upheld?

Not "so secret." They just decided to deal with it internally, but the Telegraph got some details.

Now, what evidence will you be asking from Jim and Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

the fact that no specified charges have ever been made

The charges have been made. They have been made to the leadership and the NEC who have chosen to deal with them internally.
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
Note Jim, cases not accusations.

Dave, I do not mind responding to all the probing questions you ask about everything Teribus and I post, but I have to ask, is there nothing in the posts of Jim or Steve that ever excite your sceptical curiosity?
What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

Or Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"

In short, why is your probing so unidirectional?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence? I think not. There are numerous reasons that a paper is not published, including the simplest one - That it may contain inaccuracies. I am not saying this is the case but is there any evidence that there was a cover up? Do we know who leaked the report and why? If the suspensions were so secret, how do we know how many there were and in how many cases accusations were upheld?

No, sorry. Far too many holes in this 'evidence' for my liking. The balance of probabilities is still that the Labour party is no better or worse than any other large organisation.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

" is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public."
I'M SURE YOU DON'T MEAN THESE!!
" is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public."
And provided no specified examples - even from the Jerusalem Post, which got a copy
More evidence of non-existent antisemitism (or maybe they are part of Keith's 'Jewish pact of silence'.
"The evidence is the large number of suspensions, and statements by senior figures."
No evidence - just reactions to accusations
You are now putting up thisngs for the second and thirsd time which have been over-ridden by the fact that no specified charges have ever been made
I ask again
Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges han not been described?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:01 AM

"Yes and yes."
Utter nonsense
Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges han not been described
Of course you can't -this is spiteful politicking that has long been su7nk without trace.... "Without it what you say above is true and has been obvious for almost a decade now" fully supported with mindless invective.
No specified charges - no case, unless your idea of democracy and justice is drawn from Kafka
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 10:24 AM

Is this a substantiated fact and would it stand up in a court of law?
Yes and yes.

It is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public.
The report on anti-Semitism in the Oxford University Labour Soc. was not to be published, but was leaked.

Is the belief that antisemitism is worse in the Labour party than it is anywhere else? If so, what is the evidence for this?

The evidence is the large number of suspensions, and statements by senior figures.
Also this from the NEC.
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM

Yes, my apologies. Endemic was my slant on it and I was drawing the conclusion that it was implied by the massive coverage it had received in the press. I shall not use it again. I do believe that you will find however that I have not claimed that it did not exist. In a group of over half a million people generating millions of words there will be some antisemitism, some racism, some bad and lots of good. Those speaking on behalf of the party have made it clear that the bad will not be tolerated.

I shall rephrase my question. Is the belief that antisemitism is worse in the Labour party than it is anywhere else? If so, what is the evidence for this?

On the subject of evidence, what is the evidence that "the NEC have made extensive efforts to keep it all under wraps". What is this "leaked report" and where is it from? Is this a substantiated fact and would it stand up in a court of law?

Genuine questions and I have no argument to torpedo. Just trying to find out what the fuss is all about by seeking opinion from multiple sources.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Now Momentum may be about to split.
Whither Momentum?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:23 AM

"You are now into the realms of bizarre fantasy Jim dear. You are just incapable of rational thought on this. You have a serious problem." - Keith A of Hertford

The on this in that second sentence is redundant. Without it what you say above is true and has been obvious for almost a decade now.

DtG nice try by slipping in that "endemic". Very pleased to see that Keith A spotted it and pulled you up on it. Go back and we find it was the "usual suspects" claiming and arguing that not only was there was no problem at all with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, they claimed it did not exist. Deputy Leader says there is and it does, the NEC says there is and it does, Baroness Royall says there is and it does and Baroness Chakrabarti says there is and it does. Now I will believe them and chose to ignore the rather poor arguments being put up by the likes of Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw, Raggytash and yourself.

The evidence is there the NEC have made extensive efforts to keep it all under wraps. Chakrabarti's recommendations have aided this endeavour and made sure that Labour will not and cannot investigate the matter again - begs the obvious question that rather torpedoes your argument - if they have nothing to hide why mount the cover-up?
Thank God for leaked reports eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM

Total irrationality is making charges and being able to identify them
Fucking madness in any sane society
"Leave it for a while, and come back to it later."
Don't you just wish????
You leave it - you have totally failed to make your case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM


Do we know what these outstanding issues are or are we just to speculate some more?

Yes we know Dave. It is clear from the context. Anti Semitism in the Party.

Jim, You have lapsed into total irrationality.
Leave it for a while, and come back to it later.

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

It is a total travesty of natural and legal justice to accuse and condemn an individual, let alone an entire party of something without being to identify or quantify what these charges are - it is lynch-mob behaviour and also reminiscent of the show trials carried out by Stalin in the Soviet Union - British justice at its most toxic, it would appear.
To repeat over and over again questions that have been responded to over and over again is filibustering.
Let those responsible for this behaviour make their charges fully or let them take their right-wing politicking elsewhere.
Using Mudcat as a political soapbox has no place on the decent debating forum that it is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:17 AM

Do we know what these outstanding issues are or are we just to speculate some more?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:15 AM

They should be listened to, investigated and acted upon.

Yes Dave . We are in total agreement.

As they have been.

The Deputy Leader said they had been slow to act and there are still outstanding issues.

Jim,
Ther reports are all linked to the B.D.S. campaign or the anti-Corbyn dispute.

Any evidence for that amazing claim Jim? No.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR -

Senior members say there is and none deny it, so that is obvious bollocks Jim.

, THERE NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LANCOUR PARTY

Senior members say there is Jim, and none deny it. Sorry.

THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM

You are now into the realms of bizarre fantasy Jim dear. You are just incapable of rational thought on this. You have a serious problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM

Of course there are "serious concerns about antisemitism within the party." There are serious concerns over lots of things in lots of organisations and so there should be. I have not though, as yet, witnessed anything to make me believe that those serious concerns are anything other than that. Serious concerns. They should be listened to, investigated and acted upon. As they have been.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM

"Why would Sadique Khan and Tom Watson lie about it?"
What are the reasons you have been given and are asking this question as if they haven't, not valid?
"Why would the NEC say they were appalled by it?"
See above answer - you have ben told over and over again why
"Why so many suspensions?"
See above answer - suspensions took place why accusations were investigated - they were and no problem was found
Ther reports are all linked to the B.D.S. campaign or the anti-Corbyn dispute.
Why are you maliciously asking questions that have all been answered?
So you can claim the 1000 maybe?
THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A PROBLEM AND, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT IS IDENTIFIED AND QUANTIFIED, THERE NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LANCOUR PARTY - THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM

No-one is suggesting "endemic anti-Semitism" Dave.
We are suggesting that indeed there are "serious concerns about antisemitism within the party."

So we agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:19 AM

That is indeed rather presumptuous. I do not believe they are lying when they say that they have serious concerns about antisemitism within the party. Just as any right minded individual should have concerns about any sort of racism anywhere. What I am saying is that unless some real evidence of endemic antisemitism within the Labour party is produced, this is all speculative.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:08 AM

Someone else's say so does not qualify as hard evidence to me.

If it is from senior insiders then it does qualify as hard evidence to me.
There have been no equivalent denials.
Presumably your case is that they might all be lying for some unknown reason. That is hardly a convincing case. There is no evidence for it at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM

I have not said there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. I am simply saying that if there is evidence of endemic antisemitism in the Labour party then where is it? Someone else's say so does not qualify as hard evidence to me.

Nor am I suggesting that anyone should take my opinion over anyone else's in this. Because without hard evidence, all any of us have are opinions and theories, no matter how well or ill informed.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

Can anybody come up with the numbers? Yes the NEC of the Labour Party, the problem in OULC was highlighted by Baroness Royall that called for a far wider investigation that was carried out by recently created Baroness Chakrabarti whose report recommended that a lid be put very firmly on the issue. In short Labour's NEC decided to bury the whole thing as effectively as they possibly could - shame about Baroness Royall's report being leaked into the public domain something the NEC never intended.

Doesn't matter a damn whether or not you, Steve Shaw, Raggy or Jim Carroll think - none of you are members of, or are privy to the policies and working of, Labours NEC. I will consider as being accurate whatever is stated by senior Labour figures and the NEC long before I will accept your collective suppositions and ill-informed theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:38 AM

1000!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:35 AM

Dave, are you saying that there is no evidence of anti-Semitism having been a problem within Labour?
Why would Sadique Khan and Tom Watson lie about it?
Why would the NEC say they were appalled by it?
Why so many suspensions?
Why the enquiries and reports on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM

So, what we have as evidence for antisemitism being endemic in the Labour party are 50 suspensions that no one can confirm because they are 'secret' and a statement that any antisemitism in the party is indeed appalling?

Not evidence at all really is it?

Can anyone come up with any real facts or figures as to how many people in the Labour party are antisemitic?

No?

Just asking.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM

Shah acknowledged that her statements were anti-Semitic but denied being an anti-Semite.
She said she was ignorant of Jewish history.
In one of her statements she suggested that Israeli Jews be transported away from the Middle East.

It was not just her.
There were over 50 secretly suspended.
The "entire NEC" were "appalled" by anti-Semitism within Labour. You make yourselves ridiculous denying it was and is an issue.

Deputy Leader just last week,
"Let me say something before we get any further today about taking on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party: that's a moral responsibility. I am ashamed that I am saying anti-Semitism and Labour in the same sentence.
"But dealing with it can't be something we do for show, for the sake of it, because we've come under media pressure, or because we need to deal with a political problem. It's a commandment.
"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker.
"I know there are still some outstanding issues that cannot be ignored. They won't be ignored. Action is being taken now and if, God forbid, we find these problems again, action will be quicker in the future."

Jim, can you substantiate that Shah's statement in Parliament was part of an "agreement?"
Steve, can you substantiate that she was lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:44 AM

Sorry - Last words should of course be left wing.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:39 AM

Same answer to your post as to bobad's, Teribus. The fact that Naz Shah said "I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop" Indicates that she accepts that she did cause upset obviously. However, there are plenty of ways to upset people without being racist or antisemitic but even that is still not the point. The point is, was this typical of the majority of the Labour party membership or even leadership? If so, which I doubt, is this also typical "I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none."? Hardly the phrase an antisemite would be comfortable with.

Is antisemitism endemic in the Labour party or was it just a ploy by the right wing press to stem the growing popularity of the right wing?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM

Naz Shah chose her words badly and apologised for it.
If she is an antisemite so is Bobad for blaming the Jews for Isreal's crimes and he is a hypocrite for choosing only the part of the definition which suits him and ignoring the other which doesn't
Now we have these people clinging to one single case of one ill though out statement
"Where have all the thousands of Labour antisemites gone?" as the song could have said
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM

Still not the point bobad. The thread is entitled 'labour party discussion'. Feel free to discuss definitions of antisemitism if you like but I have made my point and feel no further need to progress it. In case you missed it I shall rephrase.

Naz Shah made a stupid statement whether it was antisemitic or not.

But does the action of this one person tar the whole of the Labour party antisemitic? If anyone believes that antisemitism is rife in the Labour party can they provide examples of clear antisemitism from more than, what shall we say, 10%? 5%? 1%?, of its membership?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:20 AM

"the argument is with the person who posts."

Ehmmmmm No Raggy, the discussion centres on the content of the post, it is not an argument with the messenger, although for nearly three years now you and your pals have been bullying, mobbing and browbeating one particular member of this forum at every single opportunity you can grab.

For sake of clarity both Naz Shah and the NEC of the Labour Party are both easily contactable - none of you will do this as you most certainly would NOT like the answer they would supply.

DtG asked what in the reported coverage of what Naz Shah said was anti-Semitic.

Well according to Baroness Royall's recommendations this:

"She wrote the caption #ApartheidIsrael on a picture that appeared to compare the state to the Nazis."

This Naz Shah fully recognised otherwise why on earth would she say the following:

"I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:10 AM

"That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:"
Can you explain why you are free to ignore this clause:
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
by continuing to accuse all critics of Israeli policy of antisemitism, yet condemn an accusation now being made regularly by Jews, including leading members of the Israeli establishment.
Israel is being described as either moving towards fascism or is already a FASCIST STATE throughout the world by Jews and non Jews alike
You are, by the definition you quote, an antisemite Bobad - tell us what makes you so special in selecting the bits of the definition that suit you and ignoring the bits that don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 03:59 AM

"That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:"
Can you explain why you are free to ignore this clause:
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
by continuing to accuse all critics of antisemitism, yet hide behind Jews, including leading members of the Israeli establishment are making.
Israel is being described as either moving towards fascism or already there by Israelis

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:32 AM

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

I have noticed that neither Naz Shah or the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party post on Mudcat, therefore the argument is with the person who posts.

If it is not perhaps they would refrain from posting things they cannot or will not substantiate themselves.

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

I haven't told any Jews that they're wrong or subjected any Jews to long lectures. I'm telling YOU that, not only are you wrong, you're crippled by bigotry, and it's only you I'm delivering long (allegedly) lectures to. There are very many Jews who find the attitude of people like you to be totally obnoxious (I know a few as it happens). By grouping all Jews together in order to say that I'm lecturing them, etc., you are displaying the same antisemitism you're so fond of accusing others of. "All Jews are the same" is what you're saying. "All these blacks are the same" is what I heard a lot of at school in the sixties. All Jews are not the same and very few of them would be siding with you right now. The Jewish people on this planet have got more than enough to put up with without people like you and Keith making things infinitely worse for them.

You simply can't see your way round any of this because of the fog of prejudice. It's no way to go through the world.   Enjoy your bubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:41 PM

Once again a leftist non-Jew feels curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:53 PM

Superstar post, Dave. Naz was an idiot, not an antisemite, a learner of lessons. Saving her own arse. All those things. The context was a right-wing onslaught from pro-Tory tabloids and the Israeli regime and a Labour leadership that was inexperienced and panicky.

What a comedown to have to consider bobad's abject post. What she said is antisemitic if the definition is correct. Which it isn't. If the definition has been adopted but is incorrect, she is not antisemitic. The adoption of a definition does not imbue it with correctness or special authority. The definition has been pushed, pushed and pushed by pro-Israeli regime lobby groups. The EUMC version was proposed by a group that was "advised" by overwhelmingly pro-Israel regime lobbies. Rightly, it was abandoned before it was adopted. I actually don't think we need to have an "official definition." Billions of people happily follow a religion yet there's no "official definition" of God. Antisemitism is easy to define. It's as easy to define as any other kind of racism. Nothing complicated or special about it that needs committees driven by pro-Israel lobbies. If you attack, oppress, criticise or discriminate against Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, you are antisemitic. You are not necessarily antisemitic (depends on your motives, as ever) if you criticise the state of Israel or the policies or actions of its regime. Having "definitions" drawn up by pressure groups pushed down your throat is a very bad way to go. Positively divisive. And it gets their proponents absolutely nowhere. Wittering on about it as bobad and Keith do just victimises Jewish people and helps to put them in harm's way. Ups the ante, big-time. People like bobad and Keith are the arch-enemies of Jewish people the world over.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:50 PM

Some people say that it is antisemitism but not everyone agrees.

Since the UK is one of the member countries that adopted the definition I would say that anyone expressing those views in the UK is committing an act of anti-Semitism regardless the prejudice of individuals who refuse to accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:13 PM

That is fine. Some people say that it is antisemitism but not everyone agrees. That will always happen. Whether it is or isn't is not really the point on this thread though is it? There is one stupid statement by one MP, for which she was suspended and has subsequently apologised and has subsequently pledged to "build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none." Is this really indicative that antisemitism is rife in the labour party? If so, what other examples do we have?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 03:57 PM

Pretty stupid, linking the state of Israel to Nazi Germany but yet again she does not seem to be showing any prejudice against Jews specifically.

That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:

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

From the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism adopted by consensus of the 31 member countries, 11 observer countries and the Permanent International Partners which includes United Nations, UNESCO, OSCE/ODIHR, International Tracing Service (ITS), European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Council of Europe, and the Claims Conference.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 03:17 PM

To save messing about I don't mind posting what she put - Taken from this Guardian article

The comments following are purely my opinions. Which will invariably differ from that of others but differing opinions are no bad thing. In my opinion... :-)

1. The post, shared nine months before she beat George Galloway to win the seat in Bradford West, showed a picture of Israel superimposed over the United States, with the approving comment: "Problem solved and save you bank charges for the £3bn you transfer yearly."

Primarily about the backing of the state of Israel by the USA. No mention of the Jewish religion.

2. The Jewish Chronicle reports another Facebook post by Shah in which she calls on Facebook followers to vote in an online poll asking whether Israel had committed war crimes.

Again, about the state of Israel with no link to Jews.

3. More Facebook posts by Shah emerge. She wrote the caption #ApartheidIsrael on a picture that appeared to compare the state to the Nazis. It was above a picture of Dr Martin Luther King holding the quote: "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal'.

Pretty stupid, linking the state of Israel to Nazi Germany but yet again she does not seem to be showing any prejudice against Jews specifically.

Her apologies, as reported in the article linked, do not seem to admit antisemitism either but they may not have printed the whole apology. Here is what was printed -

First

With the understanding of the issues I have now I would never have posted them. I have to own up to the fact that ignorance is not a defence.

The language I used was wrong. It is hurtful. What's important is the impact these posts have had on other people. I understand that referring to Israel and Hitler as I did is deeply offensive to Jewish people, for which I apologise.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm shocked myself at the language I used in some instances during the Gaza-Israel conflict.


and second

Mr Speaker, can I seek your advice on how I can express my deep sorrow for something the prime minister referred to earlier?

As you know, when a government minister makes a mistake they can correct the record. I hope you will allow me to say that I fully acknowledge that I have made a mistake and I wholeheartedly apologise to this house for the words I used before I became a member.

I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop. As an MP I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none.

I am grateful and thankful for the support and advice I have received from many Jewish friend and colleagues, advice I intend to act upon.

I truly regret what I did and I hope, I sincerely hope, that this house will accept my profound apology.


Typical politspeak if you ask me. Says that any form of racism must stop but does not admit to any!

I think the biggest argument here must be with the press and how the media have blown this out of all proportion. A blatant attempt to derail the Corbyn bandwagon.

DtG