BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 07:37 AM

"they are the scum of the earth"
Fair's fair Steve - it reall isn't discriminatory or racist if it's about Arabs - not to these people anyway.
Amazing what maggots these discussions draw out of the apple
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 08:41 AM

I would surmise that you two are not at all surprised by yet another racist, violent and bigoted post from this idiot. I take this as "par for the course"

Perhaps one day he will see his own post for what they are, but I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 09:29 AM

"yet another racist, violent and bigoted post from this idiot. I take this as "par for the course""
Not surprised in the slightest - it's refreshing that he crawls out of the closet in this way though
Put's the rest of them in context perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 11:47 AM

It is much easier to denounce a post as "racist" than to challenge that actual points made.
Impossible in fact.

Jim's statements unequivocally contravened the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Are you stating that the post was NOT racist. If so please explain your thinking.

Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM

"the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law."
Which has been made totally invalid by the Israeli's ignoring it to defend their war crimes
This opinion has been put forward by Jews - members of the Israeli establishment including - it is totally unusable as a definition while this happens.
Your own antisemitism in claimng a Parliamentary Jewish plot, on the other hand.....!!!
There is no exuse for Teribus's mask- slip racist statement - it was basic, crude racism, unless tyou would like to prove Arabs to be "thieving scum of the earth" - and allow your mask to slip
Is that what you believe?
Your inevitable silence will be reply enough.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM

Plainly obvious who I was referring to Shaw. here are a few clues:

1: In 2007 it was the leadership and members of Hamas and Fatah that fought it out in Gaza NOT the ordinary people.

2: Who in any community has the power to organise, call and hold elections? Certainly NOT the ordinary people such power rests with the political leadership.

3: Who received the vast sums in aid? The ordinary people? Hardly Shaw they are as much in the shit now as they were in 1947. The aid Shaw at the insistence of Yasser Arafat goes directly to the leaders, that was the system he set up (must have learned that from his Uncle Eh?).

So in stating what I did there is no way whatsoever that I could be referring to the general populace of Gaza or the West Bank.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:29 PM

Don't sweat it Teribus, lies, distortion and putting words in others' mouths is the stock-in-trade of the likes of Shaw and his buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 08:51 PM

All the distortion lies in the backtracking. I'm sorry, but Teribus's post is up there for everyone to read (if there's anyone left who chooses to read his splenetic nonsense). No-one cares about your lies, bobad. Everything we could conceivably need to judge Teribus, and you for that matter, is up here. I'd love to hear what you think are our lies and distortion (broad brush not acceptable - chapter and verse if you don't mind). You are both up shit creek without a paddle. Bang to rights. Look after yourself, Keith. You know you shouldn't be associating yourself with these blokes at your stage in life, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 03:03 AM

Ah Shaw is exhibiting his "Wheatcroft" streak. We can now expect him to whizz round in circles "worrying" it to death. As to distortion if you do not understand what was being said and draw an inference that was incorrect and then ignore and refuse to accept the clarification offered, then it is obvious that you are not discussing or debating any point, you are deliberately seeking a fight. Isn't there an internet slang term for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:29 AM

I understand full well what you said and it's up there in all its uneditable glory for all to see. You tarred all Palestinian Arabs, not just their leaders, with the same brush. We can all read plain English. If you're worried about my sinking my Wheatcroftesque teeth into you, the answer is simple. Just tell the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. "
You single out Arab leaders as "dishonest and scum of the earth", while ignoring the fact that the Netanyahu's have been up to their necks in scandals and corruption accusations (admittedly the "democratic" bit doesn't apply to Israel.
The Netanyahu's have been accused by Israeli politicians of behaving lik royalty and abusing their domestic employees - particularly the alcoholic wife.
Our own British Government has overseen banking scams and incompetence's for years and is now openly running Britain for the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
This is now a description of 21 presidential Trump's (President - in - waiting of the richest and most powerful democracy on the planet)appointees for the new government
Sixteen are white
Three are former generals
Most are billionaires (so much so that this is 50 times wealthier than George Bush's cabinet - collectively worth more than the 43 million poorest U.S, households combined)
This fact will quite likely give rise to conflicts of interest in decision making.
And you dare to call Arab leaders thieves and scum of the earth?
If it is anti-Semitic to demand standards from Israel that you would not of other nations, then the reverse is true of other leaders.
Your accusation of "sum of the earth thieving Arab leaders is selective and plain racism
None of this is about the quality of leadership, it is about the seizure of land and the ethnic cleansing that is happening in Israel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:33 AM

Jim Carroll - 19 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. "

You single out Arab leaders as "dishonest and scum of the earth",

There you see Shaw - even the rather obtuse Jim has twigged what was meant.

You say you wanted the truth? The so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine when given a choice have chosen violence. When not fighting or targeting Israeli civilians they chose to fight and squabble amongst themselves. Once elected to power the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine renege on promises to hold elections in order to hold onto the reins of power. Those in power have total control over the massive sums in aid that have been poured into the West Bank and Gaza, yet the funny thing is that all this money never seems to percolate through to those the aid was intended to help, wonder why that is Shaw? Could it possibly be because the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine are totally corrupt - and these are the "leaders" you defend, support and cheer on from the sidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

At the present time the leader of the ruling party in Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, is up to her arse in a four billion euro scandal
Her British supporters have claimed she is being "witch-hunted" and the man who exposed the scandal has been suspended - she has refused to step down
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM

Daily Mirror today,

" Stop agonising over anti-Semitism: just stamp on it and move on. Abandon what YOU think you're supposed to be doing and start doing what VOTERS think you should be doing. "

So it still needs stamping on according to a Labour supporting paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:06 PM

Jim,
"the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law."
Which has been made totally invalid by the Israeli's ignoring it to defend their war crimes

Do not kid yourself Jim.
It is valid, and you are in contravention of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:25 PM

Pretty meaningless, even for your meaninglessly low standards Keith
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker, fierce opponent of Corbyn, ex shadow foreign secretary - no numbers, no description of anti-Semitism - just how to win elections - says it all really.
Until you provide evidence of anti-Semitism, it remains at the "this man is a burglar but I don't know what he stole" level
You tell us what needs stamping out and we'll all but on our big boots and stamp on it
Maybe you can get your ,Jewish pact of silence' to reveal their closely guarded secrets,
Feckin' joke!!!
A view from a Labour member from a non -Labour supporting Paper
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-conference-jewish-supporter-vote-political-weapon-a7330891.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 04:08 PM

"Since Arafat departed the scene the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned..."

Jim, you are wrong to accept that Teribus was referring to Arab leaders when he referred to their stealing, grasping hands, scum of the earth, etc. There's the quote again. I won't belabour you with the whole post of his, but you can check it out if you like - he was NOT talking about "leaders" when he made those comments. Check that quote again: "since Arafat departed..." he said, so the rest of it was about Arabs in general, NOT leaders. There is nothing to twig. You can't come here and say one thing then laugh at people because they got it right, which is precisely what he is doing. Fine if he wants to go back and modify his language, but, as ever with him, he hasn't done that, preferring to go on the attack instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 01:47 AM

Shaw, are you really trying to tell others on this forum what I meant? Are you honestly stating that you know what I think better than I do myself? Utterly preposterous, your ignorance and arrogance is beyond belief.

You raised a point, I clarified it, you refused to accept the clarification - like I said Shaw having a "Vulgar; Fraudulent" moment - same thing happened there too.

Teribus - 19 Dec 16 - 09:33 AM

You {Steve Shaw} say you wanted the truth? The so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine when given a choice have chosen violence. When not fighting or targeting Israeli civilians they chose to fight and squabble amongst themselves. Once elected to power the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine renege on promises to hold elections in order to hold onto the reins of power. Those in power have total control over the massive sums in aid that have been poured into the West Bank and Gaza, yet the funny thing is that all this money never seems to percolate through to those the aid was intended to help, wonder why that is Shaw? Could it possibly be because the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine are totally corrupt - and these are the "leaders" you defend, support and cheer on from the sidelines.

Now having clarified and highlighted the point as to who I was referring to - is there anything else that might make it clearer to you?

By the way when you and the "usual suspects" refer critically to, and condemn, the actions of the "Israelis" are you referring to the people of Israel or the Government of Israel (the leaders of the Jews of Palestine)?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 03:46 AM

"you and the "usual suspects"
Can we clear this up
Your leading "usual suspect" is Keith, who is a fanatical Israeli atrocity denier, an extremist Islamophobe who believes all male British Muslims are culturally implanted to rape underage girls, and an anti-Semite, who claims there is a Jewish parliamentary pact of silence to cover up the nature of Labour anti-Semitism.
Keith has managed to make himself a standing joke with his "real historians" who sell "real books" (none of which he has read) in "real bookshops".
Then we have Ake, a raving homophobe who doesn't believe that socialism is left wing, refuses to describe his version of socialism (and is probably a National Socialist), hates liberals and seems to think Donald Trump is god's saviour of mankind.
Finally we have Bobad - a vitriol-spitting troll.
A truly impressive band of brothers!
You, yourself, up to now, have been unable to respond to those who disagree with you without talking down to them and childishly insulting them with your contemptuous and contemptible responses.
I have had to post only a small number of them from only two threads - a formidable list, to get you to slow down to the extent you have done - but should you persist, I will continue to put them up, to display you in full flow - Homs Horror should keep me busy for a week or two.
You really don't seem to have gathered that you know very little and seem not particularly capable of learning, given your bombastic, belligerent attitude to others.
You have never at any time convinced anybody with your archaic, jingoistic approach to modern society - you are an anachronism
Why not give us 'lesser mortals' a break, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM

Jim,
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker,

No Jim. It was by Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror.
You do not need links. Just Google the text.
Here it is anyway,
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-going-9484923#r3z-addoor

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM

Jim, your last post was pure personal attack. Just lies and smears.
Presumably you are unable to defend your case in any more intelligent way.

Steve, it is obvious that Teribus referred to the Arab leaders because the ordinary people have no say in what is done in their name.
There are no Arab democracies.

Jim, from your Indy piece,
"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,

So that's two then, and I have acknowledged that it is not just Corbyn supporters anyway.
He does not explain why the leadership saw fit to suspend some 50 members for anti Semitism, or why the entire NEC was appalled by recent cases of anti Semitism, so he is just in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:58 AM

Whilst I vehemently disagree with your scurrilous and racist broadbrush condemnation of Arab leaders, I'm happy to accept after all you've said since that it was they you intended to attack. I suggest that you review your posts more carefully in future. As for this:

"By the way when you and the "usual suspects" refer critically to, and condemn, the actions of the "Israelis" are you referring to the people of Israel or the Government of Israel (the leaders of the Jews of Palestine)?"

If you really want to pick us off for loose language (look who's talking!), kindly note that I am extremely careful, unlike you, to point to the precise target of my criticism. It takes more virtual ink but I don't criticise "Israelis" en masse, ever. I might refer to the policies of the Israeli regime, or words pretty close to those, leaving it in no doubt that I do not blame the Israeli people for what their leaders do. And speaking of loose talk I'd remind you that the government of Israel comprises the leaders of both Jews AND Arabs, not just "the Jews of Palestine" [sic]. There were a fair few Arabs thereabouts last time I looked into it. At least a quarter of the population, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 05:39 AM

No Jim. It was by Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror.
Who interviewed and quoted Vernon Croker (misnamed Coaker in the link) and took her headline from him - the daily Mirror is virtually non-political nowadays, leaning vaguely to Labour right
"Jim, your last post was pure personal attack. Just lies and smears."
No lies or smears Keith - yuou have said everything I said there and have had them put before you a dozen times
Are you really claiming you didn't accuse all Muslims of what I said you did
Please say yes and I'll put your exact "implant" claim up and systematically go through the rest of them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM

Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, yourself, Steve Shaw, Dave the Gnome, Raggy, Greg.F - those who made a habit of ruining good threads by your incessant tag-mobbing of Keith A of Hertford, as well as the deliberate and obtuse misrepresentation of practically everything posted by Akenaton and laterally bobad and Iains.

Shaw did try to come back at what he sees as the opposition by using the term the "usual convicts" but apart from that being defamatory it didn't catch on.

I think collectively, just purely for challenging your view on things we have been accused of being guilty of every "....ism" and being representative of every ".....ist" in the book. Automatically assumed to being died in the wool "Tories" and ultra-right wing - we are of course nothing of the sort - we are merely reactive in that we challenge and disprove the "made-up-shit", myths, misrepresentations, lies and half-truths that you normally present in your biased and bigoted rants.

Looking at posting history I have been here longer yet have posted roughly a third of your contributions, the picture is the same with the rest of "your" pals - the term "serial gobshites" comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 07:52 AM

Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, yourself, Steve Shaw, Dave the Gnome, Raggy, Greg.F - those who made a habit of ruining good threads by your incessant tag-mobbing of Keith A of Hertford, as well as the deliberate and obtuse misrepresentation of practically everything posted by Akenaton and laterally bobad and Iains.

The term "usual suspects" was, I believe, coined a long time ago in this particular context by Joe Offer and applies equally to both sides of the argument in these inevitably circular debates. Thanks for the explanation of your own usage for it though. I find it interesting that a person or group of people is being discussed rather than the issues in hand. Maybe it goes a long way towards explaining why common ground is never sought in these situations?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 08:39 AM

You really are as daft as a brush, Teribus. I must say, I do admire your undiluted energy for these insulting diatribes of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 08:55 AM

You may live to regret that last statement Steve, it may well be misconstrued and misquoted in future to say "I do admire your undiluted energy" full stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM

Jim, you objected,
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker,

It was not.
My quote was of Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror exactly as I stated. You were wrong to ascribe it to Croker, Coaker or anyone else.

Are you really claiming you didn't accuse all Muslims of what I said you did

Yes. It is a smear and a lie like everything else in that disgusting post.
DtG, you criticised Teribus for discussing a group of people rather than the issues in hand. Did you miss Jim's disgusting post 20 Dec 16 - 03:46 AM ?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:11 AM

I did not criticise anyone, Keith. I said I find it interesting that a person or group of people is being discussed rather than the issues in hand. If there is any criticism, explicit or implied, in that statement I cannot see it. Can you please explain how you consider it to be such?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM

Dave, debate should be about the issues at hand and not personal stuff, so of course it was a criticism but directed at Teribus and ignoring the far worse offence from Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:54 AM

Yo, Bubo! Read Up!

For weeks now, Jewish communities across America have been troubled by an awkward phenomenon. Donald J. Trump, a ruthless politician trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes, has been elected to become the next president, and he has appointed as his chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent figure of the "alt-right," a movement that promotes white nationalism, anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny.

Still, neither the United States' most powerful Jewish organizations nor Israeli leaders have taken a clear stance against the appointment. In fact, they have embraced it.

The alliance that's beginning to form between Zionist leadership and politicians with anti-Semitic tendencies has the power to transform Jewish-American consciousness for years to come.

Whole article is Worth Reading

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:56 AM

If you believe it was a criticism of any individual, Keith, we really do have a communication problem. That is not a criticism of you BTW.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM

Yo, Smeg, read up: Ban Ki Moon admits UN bias against Israel

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the organisation has a "disproportionate" volume of resolutions against Israel, which he believes has "foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively".

Addressing the UN Security Council on Friday, Mr Ban said: "Over the last decade I have argued that we cannot have a bias against Israel at the UN.

"Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.
Read more

"In many cases, instead of helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively."

In response, Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said Mr Ban "had admitted the clear truth", adding that the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel had "broken records over the past decade".

Mr Danon continued: "During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel, while only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd.

"With a new Secretary General set to take office next month, we look forward to the possibility of a new era of fairness at the UN."

Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

"Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, "
You are a stupidly arrogant man who attempts to hide his ignorance with bluster and bullshit, as all bullies do.
Bit late in the day now, but I'm looking forward to pulling out some more of your bon mots from Homs Horror tomorrow.
"debate should be about the issues at hand and not personal stuff, "
I take it we've finished with you "smear and lie"/
I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about
Everything I wrote was true and you remain one of the most inhuman, unchristian and dishonest people I have ever had the displeasure to deal with
Nasty, nasty individual
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 01:04 PM

Yo, Smeg, read up: Ban Ki Moon

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article I posted, or the facts discussed therein.

The old "baffle 'em with irrelevant bullshit" ploy seems to be your forté.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 02:13 AM

"Bit late in the day now, but I'm looking forward to pulling out some more of your bon mots from Homs Horror tomorrow."

Of course you are JOM, having had all your points thoroughly trashed by what amounts to actual fact and detail, you have to resort to chaff in order to run for cover as you have absolutely nothing to support your arguments.

I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about

Here let me oblige you. Jim Carroll, you are a liar, you deliberately take things out of context, "cherry-pick" to put words in people's mouths to misrepresent what they actually did say, introduce your own brand of "made-up-Shit" into the discussion as though it was well established fact. Recently you have been caught out now on at least three threads where you have deliberately lied, misrepresented facts and made knowingly false and groundless allegations against members on this forum. Having had evidence of the above laid out before you, instead of coming up with anything to refute that evidence you provide a meaningless list of examples (Many of them extremely accurate descriptions of yourself and of your behaviour) of you being called names. But it is noted that you do not put them in context by similarly detailing the name calling that you yourself have engaged in.

Looking forward to your list Jim. I'll mark it as a favourite, that way I can just click it up and cut'n'paste the bits I need for future posts. It will save me the trouble of retyping them - I know on this occasion you will not let me down.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:14 AM

"you are a liar, you deliberately take things out of context, "cherry-pick""
You don't take abuse, insulting and talking down to "out of context - they are their own context - nobody on this forum behaves in this manner other than you.
You substitute insult for argument, and as you refuse to provide linked evidence to anything,, you are presenting your own archaic, jingoistic, extreme right wing opinions as facts - that is your greatest lie.
If you had any confidence that what you claim would stand up to close examination, you would provide facts to back them up - you refuse to do so.
I don't put up the list for you - you are so far up your own arse that I have little doubt that you wear it as a medal.
I do know one thing, you would not dare to say the things you do in the manner you do to anybody's face, which makes you a somewhat snivelling coward relying on the safety of anonymity and distance to get away with your loutish behaviour, you are a cowardly cyber-bully.
Perhaps it's worth reminding you that I usually prefix your list with your own statement to Steve when you described his insulting you "as a sign that I am getting to you".
As you permanently insult those who don't agree with you, you must be in a very extreme state of being "got at".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 04:03 AM

"you are presenting your own archaic, jingoistic, extreme right wing opinions as facts" - Jim Carroll

Now if that were indeed the case it would be very easy to demonstrate the fallacy of those opinions and the error in the statements and facts supporting them wouldn't it? Problem is Jim neither you, nor any of your pals ever seem to manage to do that. The nearest you come is to "invent" things I am supposed to have said, then take me to task for them - classic Jim Carroll "made-up-shit".

"I don't put up the list for you"

Really?? Could you explain these quotes of yours then:

"I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about"

That Jim is a threat - "If you do that then I'm going to do this" - i.e. "You must modify and alter your behaviour to appease me, or I will do something to you" - And YOU have got the fucking gall to call me a bully (Once again Jim Carroll puts both feet firmly in it - another home goal).

"I do know one thing, you would not dare to say the things you do in the manner you do to anybody's face, which makes you a somewhat snivelling coward relying on the safety of anonymity and distance to get away with your loutish behaviour, you are a cowardly cyber-bully."

Another remark and opinion passed by Jim Carroll based on total ignorance. "I do know one thing, ...." - YOU know nothing of the sort, you do not "know" me at all, you have never met me, you have never talked to me. "Anybody's face Jim??? - Go back and take a good look at that list of yours, your quoted examples you will find are directed at a certain clique on this forum - them and only them - care to guess at who they are? So it is not a matter of "anybody" is it? It is directed at you and your pals specifically, and for a reason - you are subject to being repaid in kind - and as such your list and your loud and numerous objections reveal another tell-tale trait of the typical bully - you can dish it out, but you certainly cannot handle it when you are subjected to a healthy dose of your own medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 04:50 AM

Is the Labour party actually fit for purpose these days? The function of opposition is to try and hold the government to account.
They fail miserably and as an opposition they are a total disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:04 AM

I would have agreed a year or so ago, Iains, but, of late, they seem to be getting better. Not sure if it is too little too late though. I have recently re-joined the Labour party in the hope that I can make a bit of a difference from within. Have you done anything about changing the situation or is your comment just criticism for the sake of it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:24 AM

"The function of opposition is to try and hold the government to account"
No opposition has ever been able to hold a government to account unless the gap between majority and minority is small enough - not ever.
Little point in blaming the opposition for this
It is why the PR system here in Ireland works better than the UK system
The function of an opposition is to present an alternative policy - for most of my lifetime they have only propped up a failing system - which is why I'm prepared to support Corbyn - who, so far, offers that alternative.
Please stop cyber-stalking Teribus, you are only confirming what I have just said and you are in line to fuck up yet another thread.
Take yopur bullying bluster elsewhere (open a new thread maybe)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

D the G. It is merely my perception of events that their internal squabbling degrades both their influence and purpose as an opposition.
I have no desire to associate with either labour or conservative.

Jim if that last rant was aimed at me perhaps you should study yourself closely in a mirror. and clean up your spelling and preferably your laguage.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM

OK - Thanks for the clarification Iains. Maybe if you have no desire to associate with either of the main parties you would care to share your ideas for an alternative with us? I think, with a little tweaking, either of them could become much better and, as Jim says, if the opposition presents viable alternative policies then, just maybe, the government of the day, whoever is in the majority, will start to govern more sensibly? I would view well regulated capitalism as a good start and global resource management as essential but I know not everyone agrees.

Cheers

DtG

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

Apologies Iaian it wasn't, - it was addressed to Teribus - I really should have clarified that - whoops - if you7 read what I said, I did!
Mayvbe it's good practice to do just that.
Since you have had the bad manners to mention it, typos (of which I make a few due to my idiosyncratic keyboard) are usually used to avoid points people cant handle and my language is my own ****** business and not yours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM

Jim. not a problem.
D the G. you ask a lot and it deserves far more than my usual 3 liner.
There are many changes that could be made that in my opinion would improve our present system.
1) control lobbying ( How to do this with any degree of success escapes me)
2)Change the qualifications for becoming an MP.
( I would prefer to see a minimum age of say mid 40's.)
3) pay each mp 150k/year.
4) On leaving office pay continues for 10 years but no speeches, no    jumping through revolving doors, no politicking of any description backed by mandatory sanction of jail.
5)Change the legal status of corporations so that greed is tempered by a small degree of morality
6)Curb the undue influence of the SE of England over policies and investment.
7) Certain categories of voting in Parliament to be free votes.
   ( I leave it to others to categorize)
8) Minimum attendance levels of MP's for any vote to be valid.(50+%)

I am sure others could suggest many other options. Perhaps the thread should migrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM

"Jim. not a problem."
Ditto
You missed what I believe to be the most important requirement in your list
Make all MPs and parties answerable to their promises and subject to recall should they fail to live up to them
Without this, your suggestions would be little more than moving the deckchairs on The Titanic and they will continue to do what suits their careers rather than the people they are supposed to represent.
If your car engine packs in, you don't just change the tyre.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:49 AM

I don't think I would disagree with any of those, Iains. May tweak one or two and add my own. Thanks for the reply.

Just of the top of my head

1. While employed in government, no further employment that may cause split loyalties.

2. Hold MPs accountable to their constituents above the parliamentary party.

3. Do away with general elections every 5 years. Elect 25% of MPs each year on a 4 year cycle.

4. Educate voters on what they are voting for. If they fail a test on it, they are not allowed to vote! (Bit extreme but I am sure we could come up with something)

I am sure there will be more to come :-)



DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM

I cannot argue with any of your respective suggestions. Making an MP more accountable to their electorate has definite merit, as also making candidate selection a local responsibility (no helicoptering in anointed ones)
Ensuring the electorate is capable of understanding the election process is a worthy ideal, but a method of implementation that meets universal acclaim would be some challenge.Perhaps a multichoice series of topical questions on screen to validate capability and further on screen interrogation to prove ID after prior registration.
There would be unhappy bunnies whatever route was taken. But should an election outcome be dictated by a sector of society that some would say is both functionally and educationally illiterate?
That is a quagmire to enter and could generate many unintended consequences and could easily lead to the rebirth of eugenics.
As I said above the idea has merit but the dangers of it being hijacked by special interest groups would steer me well away from the idea. Any restriction of voting rights, no matter how innocently intended, could open a Pandora's box. Democracy is a delicately poised beast as it is, introducing any constraints could aid it's destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM

"Democracy is a delicately poised beast as it is"
As far as British politics are concerned, democracy doesn't come into the equation.
It requires a voice for all - Mrs T silenced the one that people like us had which had ben fought for over a couple of centuries.
Now, we are at the mercy of those we elect, who are not committed in any way to fulfilling the reasons they gave for electing them
We live under an elected dictatorship which, of late has discovered the convenience of populism - the cynical use of peoples fears.
Add the power of the media to this and you have Government by Murdoch - hence Brexit and Trump - and much more of the same to come.
Jim Carroll