BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:52 PM

anti-Semitism as "a different argument" to other racism.

Jews are not a "race".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 06:37 PM

I suppose not, Greg, though we've recently focussed a fair bit on the racist/xenophobic aspect of the debate in the brexit fiasco, yet the objects of that prejudice are simply foreigners. "Racism" has become a blanket term for prejudice against or fearmongering directed at the distant "other," whether or not they are actually a different race to us. "Race" in any sort of scientific sense is a dodgy concept in any case. I think that attacking or castigating Jews because they are Jews is a sort of racism under the current usage of the term. It is never racist to attack or castigate the outrages of a regime. If you think that someone is attacking Israel because they are anti-Jew, then it's up to you to prove that, not just say it. It is entirely possible. But it's up to you to expose it and you need evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:26 PM

I quoted from one of YOUR posts professor, complete with quotation marks. If you cannot be bothered to read your OWN posts, let alone mine, why on earth do you think I should search back to find YOUR post.

Have fun ............ I certainly AM !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:36 PM

Agreed, Steve. Especially "Race" in any sort of scientific sense is a dodgy concept in any case."

Bringing "race" into it just confuses the issue further.






















"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:43 PM

Great to have a decent chat, guys, once the axis are tucked up in their beds. Must hit the sack meself as it happens. Back to non-civilisation in the morning, I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:53 AM

"I never have. They reported it to the relevant people in the party to deal with, and Smeath went public on it."]
A blatent lie
They were perfecrly at liberty to take their specified accusations to the press and make them public they did not do so.
You said they did not go public out of loyalty to their party.
The report was leaked and got as far as The Jerusalem Post - no detail;s of the accusations of antisemitism have ever appeared in any publication anywhere - nowhere on this planet.
The only examples that have ever been given have been criticism of Israeli criminality.
No suggestion of significant antisemitism ever appeared until eight weeks after Labour declared itself in favour of boycotting Israel - not in the entire existence of the Labour Party.
These facts are enough to kick these ludicrous accusations out of court - certainly in Britain - maybe not in modern Israel.
You have no case, these accusations have no basis and unless they are properly presented with details and faces, they are exposed for what they are, part of the multi-million propaganda campaign to offset the boycott of Israeli goods.
The clumsy dishonest way in which you have attempted to use a lie invented by a foreign State to smear a British political party doesn't do you any favours either.
I see no point in discussing this subject with someone who does more damage to the evil cause he defends than any of us could possibly do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:01 AM

By the way Keith
Your efforts on this thread haven't all ben a wast of time - your "Jewish silence" claims have added antisemitism to your C.V.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:37 AM

Rag, this is your quote of me.
"Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people"

That does not suggest in any way that anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism, and I do not think it should.
You however stated that it was a different argument.

Steve, you have stopped discussing the issues and only appear to call names and make personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM

Jim,
You have no case, these accusations have no basis and unless they are properly presented with details and faces,

No. It is an internal Labour issue which they choose to deal with internally.
Is your case that there are no accusations, because that is laughable Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:23 AM

For crying out loud what does this mean:

"and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:42 AM

"No. It is an internal Labour issue which they choose to deal with internally."
That's what I said you said - the Jewish members put the interests of their party before those of the Jewish people.
As you have produced no evidence whatever that this was the case you invented it.
It was an invented antisemitic smear aimed at the Jewish members of the Labour Party
You could, of course produce evidence that this was the case by linking statements to it having happened.
If it was true it would mean those Jews covering up evidence of antisemitism had carried out an act of antisemitism by hiding vidence - but I don't believe that to be the case - I don't believe in Jewish plots, as you apparently do to have invented one.
Why is it laughable to reject an accusation because there is no evidence - your Alice in Wonderland world gets more and more bizarre.
I expect the Red Queen to shout "Off with their heads" any minute.
This is insane, it really is!!!
"I believe the accused to be guilty - I have no evidence but you're barmy not to believe me, your Worship"
You couldn't make it up - but you just have.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM

"Steve, you have stopped discussing the issues and only appear to call names and make personal attacks."

There's plenty of me discussing issues in this thread. The trouble with you, Keith, is that you never discuss anything in an honest way. You have your pro-Israel agenda from which you will not stray and you automatically twist what anyone says to the contrary. That isn't discussing. If I've "stopped discussing," it at least puts me one up on you, who has never even started discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 10:36 AM

Getting back to this totally open and fully transparent Labour Party that Steve Shaw says exists.

The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing of when they talked about her being put forward for a seat in the House of Lords. Pretty straightforward question wouldn't you think? Yet neither will state the date on which that conversation took place.

Don't know about you Shaw but I sure as hell remember the date someone made that sort of offer to me. Now why would either want that to make sure that date remains secret?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:10 AM

" Now why would either want that to make sure that date remains secret?"
One wonders why anybody should want the type of antisemitim that the Labour Party has been accused of to be kept secret.
Before you can make such claims you have to specify what they are being accused of.
The contents of the Chakrabati Report were leaked - if they contained anything damning we would have known the nature of the accusations long before now.
Is it customary to make such enquiries into all recommendations - I've never come across it?
"The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing "
In fact, this statement is incorrect - the request for this information did not come from the Committee, but from Labour M.P. for Ilford North, Wes Streeting, who has already stated that the Labour Party is not overrun by antisemites.
Streeting has made his own self-interest clear by declaring that "if there was a new election in Ilford North with "a Corbynist candidate" it would result in a Conservative victory".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:12 AM

... his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

That does not suggest in any way that anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism, and I do not think it should.

I can't follow your meaning here Keith. It seems to me that here they are suggesting precisely what you say they do not suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:50 AM

"Getting back to this totally open and fully transparent Labour Party that Steve Shaw says exists."

I don't know which Steve Shaw you're referring to, but it isn't this one. Those words have never crossed my lips. Oops, sorry, Teribus. My typing fingers.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:58 AM

Maybe it's over pedentic to point out that the date when Corbyn and Chakrabarti talked about the possibility of her going to the Lords and the date when she was invited to do so might have been very different dates. Years apart, even,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:09 PM

1: One wonders why anybody should want the type of antisemitim that the Labour Party has been accused of to be kept secret.

So that those wishing to spare the Labour Party Leaders blushes could commission a second "independent" Inquiry into anti-Semitism and after making sure the content of the first inquiry would not be published, your second inquiry could serve as a cover up and "whitewash" job. That is what was attempted, but it didn't come off.

2: "Before you can make such claims you have to specify what they are being accused of."

Well I dare say that those who were accused and suspended did have specific instances explained to them. The open and transparent Labour Party saw fit to keep such information from the public. I can think of a number of perfectly good and valid reasons for them doing this. But it is wrong to say that because none of this was disclosed that there were no grounds for the suspensions

3: "The contents of the Chakrabati Report were leaked - if they contained anything damning we would have known the nature of the accusations long before now."

You've got that wrong Jim - It was the content of Baroness Royall's Report that was "leaked" after Labour's NEC attempted to keep it secret and "in-house". What has still come into the public domain are the details and specifics of Baroness Royall's Inquiry.

Recently elevated Baroness Chakrabarti's report was rushed out to the public because it was the "whitewash" required by the Leader.

4: On recommendations those from Baroness Royall's Inquiry required urgent and immediate attention. Those from Baroness Chakrabarti's report granted a statute of limitations on all past transgressions to make the Safe Place referred to the Commons Home Affairs Committee and basically kill off any action recommended by Baroness Royall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

I think the salient point is whether the whole shenanigans was simply bad timing (Labour are good at that) and nothing to do with shady deals and secret promises. It doesn't matter whether you think "it doesn't look good." What matters is your evidence. As I've said a number of times, Shami Chakrabarti has long been known as a person of honesty and integrity. Which doesn't mean she was incapable of doing a dodgy deal. But the onus here is on the accusers. Corbyn has said that the offer of a peerage only came after the report was published. Who knows. I've read the report and it looked pretty sound to me. I've also read the select committee report and, to me, it was riddled with flaws. And, basically, it's a Tory document completely unleavened by any voice even remotely sympathetic to Jeremy Corbyn. That didn't seem right to me. In the meantime, antisemitism in the Tory party, the LibDems, UKIP, the Catholic Church, the Church of England and the golf club down the road goes unchallenged. Labour had a go. You may think it wasn't much of a go, but they had a go. The rest of you, look to yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:24 PM

" Chakrabarti's report was rushed out to the public because it was the "whitewash" required by the Leader."

Evidence please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:54 PM

"So that those wishing to spare the Labour Party Leaders blushes could commission a second "independent" Inquiry"
Why should those making accusations want to "spare Labour's blushes"?
Almost as stupid as Keith's Jewish pact of silence invention
"Well I dare say that those who were accused and suspended did have specific instances explained to them."
How many of them remain suspended and if they were foung guilty, why weren't they expelled?
Unspecified accusations have been made - before we can decide whether they are justified we have to know what they are.
The accusers haven't specified the charges, the press that has gone in mob-handed haven't specified the charges
This gets more and more like a Stalinist show trial.
No specified charges, no crime
It is blatantly obvious that the Labour Party is guilty of condemning Israel and nothing more - the committee's "new racism" makes that obvious.
None of your team have addressed the fact that Labour's "antisemitism" appeared within weeks of their declaring support for the BDS boycott.
You want to prove Labour guilty then you have to state what they are guilty of - I know you aren't strong on democracy and free speech, but even you have to accept that.
Can we assume by your silence that you tried to mislead us on your claims that "The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing" and you are refusing to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 01:42 PM

In todays papers - "a Labour review has found Ms Eagle was subjected to homophobic abuse and had her office bricked because she challenged Mr Corbyn." - that along with death threats.

"Why should those making accusations want to "spare Labour's blushes"?"

No idea Carroll I didn't say it was those who made the accusations who wanted to "spare Labour's blushes". What those members of the Labour Party and Members of the Parliamentary who did table complaints believed was that their Party would investigate those complaints and support them - what a mistake that was on their part. I would suggest that certain members who sat on Labour's NEC decided that they could sweep the matter under the carpet and that they went to extraordinary lengths to do so - all unsuccessful, all they have succeeded in doing is aggravating the problem and seriously cast into doubt any claim or pretence that Shami Chakrabarti's report and inquiry was anything other than a "whitewash". Between Corbyn, his advisors and the NEC they could not have done a worse job had they tried.

"How many of them remain suspended and if they were foung guilty, why weren't they expelled?"

You've not read Chakrabarti's recommendations have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 01:59 PM

"No idea Carroll "
Back to your old Neanderthal persona I see.
Scratch a caveman.. as they say
There is nothing whatever to stop any of these people going public
Until they do, all unqualified accusations are no more than unqualified accusations
You've not read Chakrabarti's recommendations have you?"
Yes Ihave, and I can find no specified reasons linking them to antisemitism
The report has been in the hands of the Israeli Press for months now and they haven't bother to specify what they are guilty of   
I have no doubt whatever that those making the complaints are perfectly free to enlighten us all - why haven't they - another "Jewish pact of silence"?
Still no comment on the 8 weeks gap between support for BDS and the accusations - wonder why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM

"Seriously cast into doubt," eh? Cor, that would go down well in court. You say the report was a whitewash, brainlessly parroting just about every pro-Israel commentator. Well I "seriously doubt" that you have any solid evidence for either a deliberate whitewash or any other sort of put-up job. "They're reds and what more do you need" -- now where did I hear that in a song...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 02:43 PM

"In todays papers" [sic] - cor, that's authoritative, innit! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM

hThe Charkrabati report was published a quarter of a year ago
What are these "spare the blushes" members waiting for - to send the details out on Christmas cards?
It was a crass invention any way.
Most of these complainants are declared anti-Corbynites who claim he is an embarrassment to the Labour Party
What a wonderful chance it would have been to bring him down in the leadership struggle if they had published the details
Spare my arse rather!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:20 PM

As a Jewish Labour member, I'm sick of anti-Semitism being used as a political weapon against Jeremy Corbyn
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who wear swastikas as badges of honour. Where was your concern for my community then?

Michael Segalov @mikesegalov Monday 26 September 2016235 comments

Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti, who published the Labour anti-Semitism report Getty
It's become an all too regular occurrence, waking up to headlines reporting that anti-Semitism in the Labour party is now an endemic problem, and that bad feeling against Jewish people in the party is on an upward trajectory.

As a Jewish Labour Party member, they are stories that should have me alarmed. I know from experience just how dangerous anti-Semitism can really be: vast swathes of my ancestors were lost to the murderous hands of the Nazis, and observant Jewish friends of mine have been harassed and attacked on British streets. I've read the slurs, faced the trolls, had neo-Nazis shout abuse in my face.

Campaign against anti-antisemitism launches complaint against Corbyn
And yet it's not just anger against bigots that hits as I scan story after story, but frustration towards those trying to use an all too real threat facing my community for their own political gain. Since Corbyn's election as Labour leader, unsupportive MPs, campaigning groups and journalists have been desperate to paint him and the movement who support him as anti-Semitic fanatics, despite knowing it's really not the case.

I could tell you about my own experiences, how I've never experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism inside the party – but that's just what I've seen, non-Jewish defenders of my religion will claim. My experiences, and those of countless other Corbyn-supporting Jewish members who I've spoken to, aren't reflective of what's really going on, apparently.
Just a few months ago, I found myself sat in the Channel 4 News studio, tasked with discussing anti-Semitism under Corbyn. Sat opposite me was John Woodcock MP, desperate to tell me it's the "hard-left" who are "associated [with] Soviet Russia" with anti-Semitic views infiltrating the party who were responsible for stirring up hatred.
Now, we only need look at the most high-profile of cases to see that anti-Semitism is by no means a product of Corbyn's supporters. Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, was rightly suspended for sharing anti-Semitic posts on Facebook, not a Corbynite but a backer of Yvette Cooper in the last leadership election. Ken Livingstone, similarly sanctioned for his remarks about Hitler, has been a party grandee for decades. An insurgent? I think not.
Woodcock pointed me towards "a rise in anti-Semitic incidents" within the party, without having a single statistic or figure to back it up. It's an answer I hear time and time again, and for those of us – Jewish or otherwise – committed to fighting anti-Semitism, enough is enough.
It's tiring and it's frustrating, but moreover it's frankly dangerous.
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies, and the counter-demonstrations that take place alongside. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who profess hatred for Jews and our religion, who wear swastikas as badges of honour, who'll salute like a Nazi in front of your face. Where was your concern for my community then?
Jeremy Corbyn's campaign team tackle accusations of anti-Semitism
It's not just the distinct absence of those MPs in Labour who now claim to be at the forefront of the fight against anti-Jewish prejudice that's striking, but the presence of those they now claim to be British Jewry's biggest threat.
It's the left, and Corbyn's supporters, who've put their bodies on the line time and time again to protect us from these racist organisations.
That's why these cries of anti-Semitism make a mockery of a real and present danger. Corbyn's commitment to fighting discrimination and prejudice has been well documented for decades. His supporters are those who've stood alongside him. Accusing these people now of peddling prejudice is nothing but political point-scoring at its worst. It undermines real hatred, and waters down the impact of calling out anti-Semitism when it rears its ugly head.

I'm not saying Labour members haven't experienced anti-Semitism inside the Labour Party, and of course, a progressive movement like Labour should hold itself to higher standards than other organisations. Those few who blindly label all incidents of anti-Semitism as anti-Corbyn slander and restrictions on critiquing Israel need to listen to the voices of victims and let conversations about Judaism and Israel be led by Jewish members: we are here and we know how to speak.

The most ridiculous claims made about Jeremy Corbyn

11
This isn't to say I don't value the concern, but I want to make a few things perfectly clear. Anti-Semitism is not a problem particular to Labour; using the words "Judaism" and "Israel" interchangeably is just as (if not more) common on the right as on the left.
Oppression, discrimination and Jewish identity are complex; the relationship between our religion and the state of Israel is constantly debated; disagreements will happen inside our community. Let us lead these discussions. Don't quickly take sides simply to advance your faction, angle or personal interests.
And if you're truly concerned about fighting racism and anti-Semitism, I look forward to seeing you stand alongside us in meetings and on the streets.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-conference-jewish-supporter-vote-political-weapon-a7330891.html

Some of the responses are well worth reading
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM

Fantastic stuff. I disagree with him about Naz Shah, but fantastic stuff anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:49 AM

Of course you think it is great stuff Shaw, it agrees with your point of view, and we all know how much you hate dissent, or any departure from the Party line dictated by "The Leader".

It is however only one person's opinion and I note that rather selectively he ignored the accusations made by Ruth Smeeth, Alex Chalmers, and others who most certainly have experienced anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM

"Of course you think it is great stuff Shaw, it agrees with your point of view, "
Of course it's great stuff - it is a Jewish view of what is going on, and it needs answering
You people say the Jewish view is being ignored, but every Jewish opinion which does not line up with Israeli policy is either dismissed as lies or ignored.
This so-called "antisemitism" is not about The Jewish People - it is about defending an increasingly extremist right-wing regime who have taken the Jewish Dream and are turning it into a fascist, monotheistic State - and murdering a lot of innocent people in the process.
"It is however only one person's opinion "
Your own opinion and Keith's are individually "one persons" - neither of you - you in particular, ever produce anything to back up what you claim.
You have been given similar facts - from progressive Rabbis, from Holocaust survivors and their descendants, from groups like Jews for Justice, from newspapers like Haaretz - even going back as far as Albert Einstein... on the deterioration of the State of Israel - either no comment or outright rejection (usually "a load of bollocks").
Both you and Keith have invented facts to back up your spurious arguments
You have show us no evidence that the complainant in the Labour Party have done what you claim they have done - there is no evidence of their doing and it lacks logic - SO IT IS YOUR OWN INVENTION
As for Keith's 'Jewish pact of silence' - that is as antisemitic a statement as I have heard made against a group of responsible and intelligent Jews for a long, long time.
Nobody has ignored anything other than you.
I took the trouble to follow up Ruth Smeethe and found her direct connection to the Israeli regime, including her attending a Nessunyahu planning conference.
I presented the same connections regarding others who have complained.
I pointed out that these complaints only started shortly after Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S. - you refuse even to acknowledge that fact -
Where is you evidence for any of your claims - you don't give any on principle and Keith denies making the antisemitic claims he has made.
You both dismiss linked evidence as my "made up shit", and when I produce further evidence, you just do a runner from your accusations - you never apologies and you ever withdraw your accusations.
You are both star debaters - you come here to exchange ideas in order to reach some reasonable conclusion - every debating team should have one I DON'T ***** THINK!
You really need to get your act together - the pair of you (we need Bobad to stay as he is to remind us just what we are dealing with)
The case is a simple one - if you can't prove your accusations - against the Labour Party, against a petty thief - against a mass murderer - against anybody accused of anything in this country - THEN YOU HAVE NO CASE - UNQUALIFIED ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH
Now - tell us all about my "rant", or maybe you might like to pick up on my typos, instead of responding to my points - that's usually what you do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 10:42 AM

Ruth Smeeth, an ardent opponent of Corbyn, was criticised for collaborating with a right-wing newspaper by a lifelong campaigner against racism who did not know that she was Jewish. She then staged a histrionic walkout, accompanied by fake tears. So much for your "certainly." All this was witnessed. You have no more cause for certainty than I have over that incident. Neither of us was there and we merely have reports in the newspapers. I hope you never get called for jury service.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 01:46 PM

Kevin and Rag,
The quote is from paragraph 20 of this Parliamentary report on anti-semitism in UK, not me.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13610.htm

The previous sentences read, "While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an 'anti-racist campaigner' to express antisemitic views."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 01:55 PM

Jim,

Unspecified accusations have been made - before we can decide whether they are justified we have to know what they are.

Is it not sufficient that the entire NEC, the leadership and Corbyn himself to know what they are and recognise them as anti-Semitic?
It is enough for me Jim.

My previous post was in response to Rag,
"For crying out loud what does this mean: "and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

and Kevin,
"... his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"
I can't follow your meaning here Keith. It seems to me that here they are suggesting precisely what you say they do not suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM

An NEC sub-committee has upheld the complaints of abuse from Angels Eagle, as previously the entire NEC did incidents of anti-Semitism within Labour.

BBC,
"A meeting of an NEC sub-committee on Tuesday considered a confidential report and upheld her complaint of abuse and intimidation by Labour activists in Wallasey."

She said, "The report by national party officers comprehensively explains what happened earlier this year and the NEC has accepted the findings.
"I am grateful that Jeremy took the unusual step of both attending and speaking in the meeting and that he expressed sincere sympathy for both me and for my staff."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37702135

So Steve and Jim have been proved wtrong about that abuse too.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

Say good-night, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:58 PM

Can't speak for Steve (na't see any coments by Steve here), but when have I defended what happens to Angela Eagle - Angels Eagle for that matter.
Will you please stop adding to your own mounting record of dishonesty Keith - you are now well beyond a joke.
Any word on that Jewish plot yet?
"Is it not sufficient that the entire NEC, the leadership and Corbyn himself to know what they are and recognise them as anti-Semitic?"
You've sad this before and it simply is not true - nowhere has anybody recognised a serious problem; you are blatantly lying acout what he said in th face of his statement to the Parliamentary committee.
"Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties."
How long is it since you had any self respect for yourself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:04 PM

Racism in any way, shape or form is not acceptable. Many people accept this as a truth,

You professor as a noted racist probably don't acknowledge this.

Your racism aside, please explain why anti-Semitism should be considered different to any other form of racism.

You have yet to explain, as per your earlier post, why anti-Semitism should be considered in a different light.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:46 PM

PS Merely saying that this quote is from a report you read is not acceptable.

YOU quoted the report, YOU used the report to support YOUR take on this issue.

YOU justify the statement. Why should anti-Semitism be considered in any other way than any other racism.

Can YOU do this ......................?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 05:47 PM

The report that Keith is inevitably keen on was drawn up by a bunch of Tories, aided by two passionate anti-Corbyn Labour MPs. That's yer context, folks. Now tell us, Keith. have you and Woodcock asked Naz to draw up your preferred definition of antisemitism yet? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 06:13 PM

Well both Ruth Smeeth and Angela Eagle have complained of twitter abuse on a large scale and Angela Eagle has complained about an act of vandalism. I don't doubt for a second that their allegations have substance. I also don't doubt that SOME of this offensive behaviour has come from a few of the 600,000 Labour Party members. They are seriously letting the side down. Just a couple of points. If either of these women have evidence of criminality, they have full recourse to the rule of law. That's up to them. A prosecution or two arising from their complaints would add credence to their cases. I'm waiting. Second, I read a piece somewhere today that alleged that one woman in six in the UK has been sexually abused. A shocking revelation which I have no reason to contradict. That does not mean that the whole of the male population of the UK is in disrepute. Similarly, a few rotten apples does not mean that the whole 600,000 are scum. I don't think for a second that anything like all of Smeeth's 25,000 received offensive tweets came from bona fide Labour members. An awful lot of people are extremely keen to undermine Labour and Corbyn, and principles can be the first casualty of that. So get real, chaps. And get honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 01:42 AM

"A prosecution or two arising from their complaints would add credence to their cases." - Steve Shaw - 20 Oct 16 - 06:13 PM

Already happened in the case of death threats made to Angela Eagles.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM

Whatever the right and wrongs of the argy-bargy leading up the re-election of Corbyn, the point remains - antisemitism was used as an accusation during that election campaign - by the right, who would have used wife-beating as an accusation if they thought they could have got away with it, and by the Israeli regime supporters who launched the "antisemitism" attack the minute Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S.
No evidence whatever of a significant attack on the Jewish People by Labour party members has surfaced - not in the slightest.
That, if nothing else, has been one of Corbyn's triumphs of leadership - don't bow down to the bullies.
He did everything a leader should have done to protect both the Jewish members of Labour and also those who were wrongly accused.
The danger of all this - 'The Crying Wolf' syndrome, which has been pointed out by a large number of Jews, including those from Israel, is quite likely to be one of the outcomes of all this.
Describing condemnation of Israel as "antisemitism" opens the door to genuine Antitsemites to renew their hatred of Jews, using Israeli behaviour as an excuse - "if the Israelis say their actions are "Jewish", then why can't we?"
Europe appears to be swinging to the right - LePen is waiting in the wings in France, and several Ultra-Right groups elsewhere are using the refugee crisis and Brexit to get a toe-hold in their countries.
The historically traditional target of The Right, "The Yids" are not going to be overlooked in all this.
Britain is obviously very much a part of this swing to the right - immediately obvious in the large increase in racist incidents immediately following Brexit.
I watched in horror last night as a Question Time audience of Harlepudlians applauded enthusiastically for a Donald Trump victory - won't be too long before that lot are back to HANGING MONKEYS
God help us all!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:19 AM

One case, Teribus, perpetrated by a nutter. I can't even find out whether he was a member or not. An idiot sending an email who wasn't even trying to be anonymous. This is supposed to be a tidal wave of misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism coming from the ranks of Corbyn supporters in the party, you know, 25,000 vile tweets, etc., that sort of stuff. Even the infamous brick through the window, which has led to a gleeful flood of anti-Labour nonsense for months, cannot be shown by a single shred of evidence to be linked to anyone in the party. All behind-the-hand chitchat. The party contains liars all right, from the anti-Corbyn brigade. Liars such as Ruth Smeeth and a nice little cabal in a meeting in Wallasey who made up a Eagle homophobia yarn. They are the real rotten apples just as much as the tiny minority who misuse social media. As I said, if anyone has evidence of who has perpetrated criminal acts, either vandalism or hate speech, they have recourse to the law. I note that the tsunami of smears has not yet been backed up by a tsunami of court cases. I predict with confidence that it won't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:33 AM

Jim,
You've sad this before and it simply is not true - nowhere has anybody recognised a serious problem;

I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem.

"Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties."

The committee found that there was a serious problem within Labour.

Rag,

Your racism aside, please explain why anti-Semitism should be considered different to any other form of racism.

Unlike you, I do not think it should be considered different, and unlike you I have never said that it should be considered different.

as per your earlier post,
What post Rag? You have yet to produce it.

YOU quoted the report, YOU used the report to support YOUR take on this issue.

No. I used it to support my take on an entirely different issue.
Read the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:51 AM

Steve,
"Labour's governing body has upheld complaints by MP Angela Eagle that she and her staff were subjected to homophobic abuse and intimidation by local party activists.

The report that Keith is inevitably keen on was drawn up by a bunch of Tories,

It was an all party Parliamentary committee of 6 Tories, 3 Labour and an SNP.
Shah did not work on the report, but remained on the committee which unanimously supported the report.

Steve would have us believe that they are all lying!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:57 AM

Shah did not take part. TWO Labour, Keith. Intimidatory behaviour and homophobic hate speech are against the law. I don't want hearsay. I want solid evidence and I want those "Labour activists" you refer to named. Tell me when they were convicted. Shouldn't be too difficult as you do seem so certain. Names. Piss or get off the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 11:34 AM

"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No Keith - you have deliberately misquoted them in your desperation to make the Labour Party guilty of something that is totally alien to their philosophy.
The took th matter seriously - they carried out investigations and they found no major problem
Haven't you realised what an unpleasant and stupid person you make yourself by lying in public.
you have lied about this consistently and still you are unable to describe the antisemitism you claim is a problem - utterly inane.
You lie about statements made by Israeli ministers when they are put up for you.
You lie by by anticlimactically claiming that the Jewish politicians deliberately refused to describe the "antisemitism" for the sake of the party.
You whole approach is a semblance of lies.
Even your two mates have stood clear of your lies because they are so blatant
If there was a serious problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, we would know exactly what form it takes - this thing has dragged on since September last year and no evidence has been produced.
This started immediately following Corbyn's declaration of support for B.D.S.
Last July, a march supporting Israel organised by The Sussex 'Friends of Israel', in London, where the speakers where, Matthew Offord, a Conservative lawmaker, and Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, was openly attended by members of the Fascist 'Jewish Defence League' - that is how far to the right the anti- B.D.S. propaganda movement has gone.
You want to prove antisemitism - show us it - otherwise, you are making it up, as you have everything else
I really don't mind how much you claim this, it's always an opportunity to find SOMETHING NEW
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 01:53 PM

Your arguments are a mass of contradictions.
"The committee found that there was a serious problem within Labour."
The enquiry didn't and the committee talked about "new antisemitism" which is th Israeli ministers "all criticism of Israel is antisemitic" - if it isn't, what is it.
"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No they haven't - you are lying.
Nowhere, appartt from the accusations, has anybody hints at a serious problem - The NEC hasn't Chakrabatti hasn't - you are lying
"Shah did not work on the report,"
Shah was barred from making a statement on the report - she was not allowed to speak in her own defence - you've had this.
jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:04 PM

Steve,
Shah did not take part.
As I said, Shah did not work on the report, but remained on the committee which unanimously endorsed the report.

I want solid evidence and I want those "Labour activists" you refer to named.

A Parliamentary Select Committee Report is hard evidence Steve.
I do not know the names of the activists, but the NEC and all those impeccable and prominent members do, and it is ridiculous to suggest they are all lying Steve.
I believe them over you. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

Of course you can't name them. But you can throw smears around just the same. Now tell me, Keith: are you saying that Naz Shah, whilst not having worked on the report but still a member of the committee, was party to that unanimous verdict? That's what you're saying, it appears. You did say three Labour, remember? Prove that she was. I haven't heard. Clearly you have. So out with it.

And a report by a Tory-dominated committee plus two anti-Corbynistas examining an issue in a left-wing party that every member who worked on that report would love to see undermined is not "hard evidence." It's a put-up job if ever I saw one. Gosh, how you admire the integrity of politicians. When it suits you. And I don't care who you believe over me. I'm here and they're not.