BS: Labour party discussion

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

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

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

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

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

that would definitely be seen as a death threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raggytash - 29 Aug 16 - 04:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh where to start ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 06:24 AM

So it is not enough for a paper to support Labour, it has to support the correct faction!
Other Parties do not have that problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:02 AM

They certainly do. The Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun all ran plenty of stuff that was very hostile to David Cameron.
.....

I think this thread is vvery much in danger of slipping into the pattern of slapdash pointless personal abuse that marred the other thread about Labour, and led me to start this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:09 AM

Raggytash - 29 Aug 16 - 05:20 AM

Ah so Raggy I take it from that, that you can produce no such examples, why not just say so. Just more empty and meaningless waffle, like your pal with his "Rights of the Taxpayer" {Do you know what they are Raggy?}.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:19 AM

"Other Parties do not have that problem."
Most parties don't have factions - they have no dividded loyalties between self interest and duty to the people who they are supposed to represent - their loyalties are overwhelmingly to themselves and the privileged - the people may go stuff themselves.
The Labour Party, down the years, has moved further and further to the right; Blair, a possible war criminal, with the help of a couple of self-serving idiots and a soft-porn journalist, confirmed that rightist position with his 'New Lablor' coup.
A principled leader, Corbyn, presented the possibility of returning the Labour Party into a decent, honest part, which now has the establishment running around like headless chickens, trying to bring him down, which is basically what this is all about - why should a pair or extreme rightists like you youd your pontificating friend bother your right-wing arses about what happens in the Labour Party otherwise.
So far, you have failed on every count, just as you are floundering here.
If you think in-fighting doesnt take place in other parties
DREAM ON
AND ON
AND EVER ON
AND SO ON Ad INFINITUM
What planet do you live on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:39 AM

"I take it from that, that you can produce no such examples,"
Once again you are demanding things you refuse to supply yourself
You've just been given a load which you will ignore - plenty of others to ignore where they came from
What a pair of Tory tossers!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:04 AM

Oh there are plenty, however I've got much better things to do with my time than argue with an uneducated oaf like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:08 AM

Throwing out remarks like "an uneducated oaf like yourself" is the kind of thing that I was expressing regret about in my last post.

It requires going back over previous posts even to understand who it is directed at. Even if accurate it would be irrelevant, since there is no connection between oafishness and lack of education.

It is perfectly possible to express strong disagreement and point out failures of logic and innacuracy without getting personal, and in that way providing the people with whom we are arguing with an easy get-out from responding to the actual point being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:38 AM

Kevin,
They certainly do. The Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun all ran plenty of stuff that was very hostile to David Cameron.

That is true, but no-one here has ever rejected something reported in such papers because they support the wrong faction of the Party, as Jim just did about the Mirror story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 10:12 AM

"That is true, but no-one here has ever rejected something reported in such papers because they support the wrong faction of the Party,"
That's because there aren't too many Tories around here Keith - it's not rocket science.
There is a massive split in the Tory Party - one of the results being that Britain has a racist for a foreign secretary.
Nobody rejects statements on a factional basis, on the contrary, the fact that these reports appear in Tory bum-wipes are a confirmation that they are true.
LEAVE-REMAIN SPLIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 11:39 AM

" and in that way providing the people with whom we are arguing with an easy get-out from responding to the actual point being made."

Come on Mr McGrath that is a touch patronising......of anyone here Teribus would be the last to need an "easy get out", he is well informed and posts detailed explanations of his views.

He is quite correct on Mr Corbyns faux pas and I am dismayed that he attempted something so bloody clumsy.

I saying that, the whole sorry episode has been blown up by our lovely media.....surprise surprise.

Seriously though we should be big enough to admit our failures when they are pointed out, if we don't, we end up defending the indefencible......like the EU or Hillary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 11:49 AM

I don't care who the Daily Mirror "supports." It isn't my idea of a serious newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM

I don't always agree with Kevin and I he certainly doesn't always agree with me, but on this occasion I think he's perfectly in order in asking that this thread be kept relatively civil. We have another one for the banging of heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM

indefencible......like Hillary Clinton.

Give it up, Ake. Your BS is getting tedious.

Patronising is a descriptor of Mr.T nine-telths of the time, certainly not Kevin.


(By the way, which fence are you talking about?)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:49 PM

"of anyone here Teribus would be the last to need an "easy get out","
No - he just does a runner when the going gets tough
"He is quite correct on Mr Corbyns faux pas and I am dismayed that he attempted something so bloody clumsy."
Oooo you communists!!
You are sooo predictable in taking sides - and youi have ignored every point here - including the admission by Virgin'r executive that the ****** trains are overrowdwd
"we end up defending the indefencible.."
The truth - at last an admission!!!
"like the EU or Hillary Clinton"
Still can't get into her knickers?
Freud would have had a lot to say about you hang-up over this poor lady
It now takes on the characteristic of stalking - and what with your "gay plaguers - you really are a mixed up disturbo.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:04 PM

I intentionally didn't name any names. The point was a more general one - how many times, both here and elewhere, do we see someone use pointless insults as an escape card, and a way to avoid the real issues.

Actually, isn't that just what has been happening refently with all the hoohah about personal abuse and so forth in Social Media in the context of the disputes in the Labour Party? Personal abuse in a discussion always hepls the other side, even wwhen that isn't the aim in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:39 PM

- including the admission by Virgin'r executive that the ****** trains are overrowdwd

Not just Virgin trains, but Corbyn's train had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because the train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM

personal abuse and so forth in Social Media

Say it ain't so! "Social media" is a blessing, not a curse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:12 PM

Mr McGrath,

Many, many apologies. I forgot myself and the opening post.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:23 PM

"but Corbyn's train had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor"
If that's what he did - that's what all politicians dohatsthe system we live under.
The statement was a fact - Virgin trains are overcrowded.
Do you think Thatcher's "Labour Isn't Working" dole queues were real?
She went on to produce the highest unemployment rates Britain had ever seen.
She lied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:49 PM

This is Virgin's stated policy on how many people it will allow on a train.

"Virgin trains admit overcrowding safety measure is that "train can't move"
By Fraser Clarke - August 26, 2016 0 87
VIRGIN trains have admitted their safety measure against overcrowding is that the train is too heavy to move.
In a series of tweets with customers, the company was asked to explain its upper limit for passengers.
The company eventually admitted there was no limit on the number of people it would squeeze into a carriage, adding: "If the train reaches a certain overall weight then the train would come to a stop."
Virgin statement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:22 AM

The statement was a fact - Virgin trains are overcrowded.

The statement was that it was "ram-packed" when in fact there were empty seats, which means it was not even overcrowded.

Rag, your apology should be directed at the victim of your abusive outburst.

300!