BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:04 AM

Can't find any trace of that, Tunesmith. I'm honestly not that bothered, but I have looked into it. If you think I'm wrong, please elaborate. .

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 01:48 AM

Oh dear, Murdoch is clearly Jewish via his mother's line.
Steve, do a bit more research, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:39 PM

So it comes down to, as always, that nebulous, all powerful Jewish lobby that controls governments, owns the media and runs the banks does it? Thought so.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 07:39 PM

Hmm. How odd that you should demand information from me whereas you can't comply, despite almost ten spluttering posts from you, with my simple request to point out which of those tweets were antisemitic and why. Are you scared that big ol' Stevieboy is coming to get you?😂😂😂

But I'm a nice chap really, so here you have it. Your sacred "definition" is derived closely from the long-discredited EUMC definition that was quietly ditched by the EU, never having been officially adopted at all, in 2013. The body that spawned that definition was "advised" almost exclusively by pro-Israel lobby groups. There was no balance. Look it up, why don't you? I've quoted it several times before but people like you and Keith with ears of cloth won't have picked it up. Go on, have a look, even though you know you won't like what you find. You want to regale us with a "definition" drawn up by a body unduly influenced by a bunch of partisans? Great! Personally, I'd prefer to have a definition drawn up by a neutral body with no axes to grind. Christ, how odd does that make me!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:55 PM

31 countries have been leaned on to accept a particular "definition,"

Here we go again, tell us by whom have they been leaned on why don't you. Oh, and do provide some evidence on who has done the leaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:20 PM

"One" referred to the definition, not to one of the 31 countries, to be clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 PM

Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. Comment is free but facts are sacred.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:09 PM

Nothing irrefutable about the fact that 31 countries have been leaned on to accept a particular "definition," one with a very murky history of excessive Israeli-regime influence. There are over 170 other countries, you know. When you tell me which remarks are antisemitic and why, and when I tell you why they're not, what you'll get from me is my unvarnished, measured opinion. You won't get me appealing to authority which is always, ALWAYS the first and last resort of you and Keith. Not a game, bobad. Are you in double-figure evasive posts yet since I first asked you this morning to tell me which remarks were antisemitic and why? Focus, don't spit!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 04:08 PM

Rupert Murdoch Jewish?????

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:47 PM

You may find this thread useful to you, Tunesmith. The link in the opening post is thought provoking and some of the posts following can be a bit of an eye opener to attitudes as well!

Mistrust the press

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:40 PM

Well, I can't get over the fact that there is a law which states that it is illegal to say that Jewish businessmen control the media.

Well, it can't be a unlawful to say that Jewish businessmen own most of the media in the UK... because that is a fact.

But do they control the editorial content?

Well, have a read of the following:

"In evidence to a House of Lords select committee in 2007, Murdoch even said that he acted like "a traditional proprietor" in regard to the Sun and the News of the World by "exercising control on major issues, such as which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:19 PM

Sorry Shaw you won't suck me into your pathetic little game of "it's not anti-Semitic by my definition". The fact that it is irrefutably anti-Semitic by the definition accepted by your country, your political party, your police forces and the 31 countries who adopted it is good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:06 PM

Stop flailing around, bobad. You may lose your focus but I won't lose mine. So tell me: which of those remarks are antisemitic and why? Tell me which ones and why and I'll tell you why they are not. There's nothing "irrefutable" except in your own head. Try to regain your cool, stop trolling, answer the question straightforwardly and honestly, or just give up. So, with icy coolness, tell me which remarks were antisemitic. And tell me why. I'll tell you straightforwardly and unemotionally why they are not. Nothing to be scared of. I'm a big fluffy bunny, you know. Not a scurrying little snappy dog, as you appear to want to show yourself to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM

Good question DtG, maybe you should ask it of your local government rep. Maybe it's because a clear definition had not been in place at the time these statements were made but now that there is one anti-Semites are more circumspect with their wording, like in Shaw's advice to Tunesmith.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:16 PM

I think I asked this question some time back but don't recall if there was ever a response. It seems to be generally agreed that there is a specific law about antisemitism. It is also well known that hate speech, including that against Jews, is a crime in this country. If any of the quotes given have broken that law then, surely, the people who made them would be under arrest and banged to rights for hate crime. How come they are not?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:10 PM

A couple more gems from Cllr Mullah:

believes Israel responsible for Sandy Hook school massacre

Zionist Jews are a disgrace to humanity

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:58 PM

And yet another: Shah Hussain

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:50 PM

And here's a Facebook post by another one who was suspended by the party for anti-Semitism: Salim Mulla

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:36 PM

And Keith, Shaw is just being his precious self and once again trying to misrepresent. Aziz's twitter posts are there to see and clearly anti-Semitic to anyone but perhaps him and his fellow travelers. He's just trying to obfuscate (as usual) by making the messenger the issue, a tactic favoured by him and Carroll when they are presented with irrefutable evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:31 PM

Mind how you step with this one!

That's it, get Shaw to teach you his personal definition of anti-Semitism and the right euphemisms to use to try and hide your true intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:13 PM

My last post was aimed at Keith, Tunesmith.

You're being pretty brave using that approach here, Tunesmith. I don't see any Jewish conspiracy to take over the media, though there is in general a pro-Israel bias in more outlets than not. There are powerful pro-Israel lobby groups, especially in political parties, which by no means consist of Jews exclusively, which make sure that anti-Israel sentiment gets shot down. It's worse in the US, by the way. Disproportionateness in representation within institutions is endemic in this country - top politicians/public schools spring to mind. Mind how you step with this one!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM

We've been through this Keith
Whather it is Antisemitic or not is a moot point, particularly regarding it's source being from a Jewish writer.
Iven if it were - that makes two out of how many members.
I'm sure if you dig around you might find others - the fact that there are antisemites in every section of society has never been disputed
You seem to be subjecting us to drip-drip-drip water torture
There is not a majoor problem, none of those claiming there is have ever come up with a serious problem
This particular lifeboat is long sunk.
If Israel continues to blame the Jews for their crimes and you talk about Jewish pacts of silence in Parliament, you are going to have to come up with more than two examples to make anything resembling a case
Keep on trying though - it helps lighten the tedium
HOW SERIOUS WAS THIS?
IS THIS NOT APPEASING ANTISEMITISM?
IS IT ONLY ANTISEMITISM THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM

Nope. You lied. You said he "merely exposed the comments." No he didn't. One glance at the offending page on his site reveals that he wrapped up the tweets in a torrent of abusive, biased, multicoloured, sensationalist headlines that make the Sun and Mail look positively demure by comparison. The trouble with you, Keith, is that nothing you ever say on this site can ever be relied on to have been honestly and straightforwardly delivered. Before you make any more miserable attempts to take this any further via intelligence-insulting diversions, please explain why you said that he had "merely exposed the comments." Why did you need to say that, Keith? What's wrong with you? I've told you not to lie to me. You are choosing the wrong person to do that to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 12:50 PM

Keith posted the following the following definition now adopted by British police and law,

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

Well, now, that is very worrying and sinister! Talk about a gag on free speech.

Now, in the UK, Jewish businessmen do control the media ( well almost all of it) in the sense that they own almost all of the media.

And, there is no doubt that the media help - in a big way - to shape public opinion in the UK.

I think a person would have to be very naive to believe that the people who own - ie. control - the media would not have some say - i.e. a big say - in the editorial output.

It seems crazy to me that an almost total monopoly of Jewish owned newspapers is allowed in the UK!

Particularly, as previouslt stated - the Jewish population of the UK stands at 0.5%

Finally, when British Prime Ministers are fearful of getting on the wrong side of a newspaper owner, we should all be very concerned!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 12:40 PM

Fawkes did not "merely expose the comments." He wrapped them up in a tirade of negative and sensational headlines.

So ignore all that shit. Ilyas Aziz's tweets were considered anti-Semitic by your Party, and serious enough to suspend him for six months.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:55 AM

Fawkes did not "merely expose the comments." He wrapped them up in a tirade of negative and sensational headlines. Don't lie any more, please. You are trying it on with the wrong person. As for my being no judge of antisemitism, that conclusion is based purely on your own biased opinion and is unsupportable. And if you mention "the whole of the bloody NEC seeing a serious issue," one more time, you clown, I'll hurl the whole contents of this box of 144 ping-pong balls at my telly one at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM

Tunesmith, The Guardian is not owned by a Jewish businessman. It is owned by the Scott Trust which has no specific links with Judaism. Perhaps, coincidentally you may hope, the Guardian has probably been the national paper most accused of anti-Israel bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM

Tunesmith, from the definition now adopted by British police and law,

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

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:41 AM

Fawkes merely exposed the comments.
You may not recognise the anti-Semitism but you have proved to be no judge of it.
The Labour Party found it sufficiently bad to suspend him for six months because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:33 AM

Three things, bobad. First, I didn't defend Tunesmith. He's stating facts and has yet to propose a Jewish conspiracy, but he's making me feel uneasy. I thought I'd made that clear. He can speak for himself. Second, I asked you to tell me which remarks were antisemitic, with reasons. Shouldn't be hard for you as you're so quick to jump on these things. Third, you've shilly-shallied around since I asked you and you have still failed to answer. You can't, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:32 AM

No - I'm going by the fact that he (whoever he is) has come no nearer to providing either description nor numbers of this elusive "antisemitism"
His Wiki entry includes accusations of smears against Labour figures like Peter Hain, and past support for The Conras
He is a right-wing conspiracy blogger whose Wili entry includes
"Peter Hain[edit]
Staines has been credited with being the first blogger to "take the scalp" of a serving British minister, following the resignation for a period of well over a year of Peter Hain from the offices of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Secretary of State for Wales in January 2008.[44][45][46]
Smeargate affair[edit]
Over the weekend of 11–12 April 2009, Staines exposed in his blog that a series of e-mails had been prepared by Damian McBride, a political adviser working at 10 Downing Street, smearing a number of Conservative MPs which had been sent to Derek Draper for consideration for publication on the Red Rag blogsite.[47] This led to the resignation of McBride and expressions of regret to the MPs concerned from the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.[48] Staines provided copies of these emails to the News of the World and The Sunday Times and states that, contrary to the comments of his detractors, he did not receive any payments for this.[49]
His success in the McBride affair has occasioned serious criticism from him of the UK lobby correspondent system, which he believes has succumbed to the ethos of political spin.[50]
Leveson Inquiry[edit]
Main article: Leveson Inquiry
In late November 2011, Staines posted on his Guido Fawkes blog the Leveson Inquiry pre-submission of former journalist and Labour Party spin-doctor Alastair Campbell. All pre-submissions are given under strict and full confidentiality, and all core participants – including victims, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service – are also signatories. Staines stated that he had obtained the submission legally. Lord Justice Leveson immediately called him to the inquiry to make a statement under cross-examination.[51]
Staines gave written evidence denying any fault or breach of the Inquiry Act, when at the start of his oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry Alastair Campbell admitted sending his evidence to "two or three journalists" and some friends, the order for Staines to appear was quietly dropped.[citation needed]
In late December 2011, Staines was invited to give further evidence.[52]"
He is a right-wing conspiracy theorist with a long record of smearing politicians - not teh feller to eith buy a used car from or take home to meet your mother
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:24 AM

This is sinister craziness! Or stupidity!

It is a FACT that UK national newpapers are entitely owned by Jewish businessmen.
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
As are the TV companies.

It's also a fact that the media can - and has been - "King Makers".

It is a fact that when Blair and Cameron visited the States, they would always find time for a meeting with Murdoch ( I wonder why?)

The UK press is going to reflect the aims and desires of its owners.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:54 AM

Guido Fawkes Blog - for Christ's sake
Really bottom of the barrel time

You must have missed the copies of Ilyas Aziz's virulent anti-Semitic tweets posted on the site or are you pulling your usual ruse of trying to disparage the messenger when he gives you something you would rather not see?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM

so that I can tell you why they are not

By your definition, right Shaw, which is totally laughable considering the definition accepted by your country, your political party, your police forces and the 31 countries who adopted it. But do go on and tell us again why you are entitled to ignore what all these bodies accept as being anti-Semitic, as if we don't know why.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:44 AM

Guido Fawkes Blog - for Christ's sake
Really bottom of the barrel time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:38 AM

No surprise that Shaw is coming to Tunesmith's defense, is it? Tunesmith, you will find yourself in the company of fellow travelers here but just like we do with them we will not let you get away with spewing anti-Semitic hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:32 AM

Well, bobad, Guido Fawkes's blog is sub-tabloid, isn't it? Tendentious, incoherent, old news, nothing new, clutching at straws. And I can't find anything antisemitic in any of it. And please don't do your usual spitting back. Highlight the remarks that you think are antisemitic and tell me why so that I can tell you why they are not, and let's see how we get on.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 10:23 AM

It is not antisemitic simply to state facts. It's how you use those facts. Your first step is to show that Tunesmith is factually incorrect. If he is, then his post smacks strongly of antisemitism. If he is substantially factually correct, then it's up to you to show that his motive in posting the information was antisemitic. Just three-quarters or less of the Israeli population is Jewish, but Jews run Israel almost entirely. Have I been antisemitic in saying that?

Having said that, I'm not sure that Tunesmith was wise to post those rather threadbare facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:52 AM

Tunesmith, it is unequivocally anti-Semitic to claim that the Jews control the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:49 AM

Steve and Jim,
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/guido-fawkes-exposes-another-anti-semite-in-labours-ranks/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 09:43 AM

Go to Seth Frantzman's website. Scroll down from the top a little. Not hard if you really want it.

Thanks. Found it.

"Is US abstaining unprecedented? It has been unprecedented under Obama, but other US administrations have regularly abstained from or supported UN resolutions against Israeli actions."
Really?

"In 2002 the US abstained on Resolution 1345. " which was not about Israel or the Middle East.

"The US abstained on UN Resolution in 1322 in 2000."
The original version of the resolution sought a strong condemnation of Israel. The United States, which abstained, threatened to veto this version, and the language was modified to remove mention of Israel by name.[6]

The rest are more than twenty years old so I lost interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM

Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.
Also, I believe, that this is true for UK TV companies ( even the " neutral" BBC has been headed by a number of Jewish Director Generals)

This is amazing when one considers that Jewish people only make up 0.5% of the UK population.

Oh look another UK anti-Semite, surprise, surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:38 AM

Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then

antisemitic social media posts

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:31 AM

The British press is the main obstacle to Labour - and Jeremy - being elected!
Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.
Also, I believe, that this is true for UK TV companies ( even the " neutral" BBC has been headed by a number of Jewish Director Generals)

This is amazing when one considers that Jewish people only make up 0.5% of the UK population.
AND, Jeremy has been very outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

In the run up to the next election, the British people will be bombarded with negative headlines directed at Corbyn.

A free press?
Well,it is free to pick who runs the country!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 07:57 AM

"Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then, Keith"
Have patience - he'll put it up when he puts up examples of others calling one of Israel's leading Zionists a liar
All in good tuime (should we live that long!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 06:03 AM

Let's have those antisemitic social media posts then, Keith. Back yourself up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 06:00 AM

Is that supposed to be debate, Keith? You quote all my statements, say for each one "no it isn't" and leave it at that? That's a joke, Keith.

Go to Seth Frantzman's website. Scroll down from the top a little. Not hard if you really want it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:36 AM

"Ilyas Aziz, an avid supporter of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who is listed as a manager of a Pakistani community centre in the East Midlands city, tweeted on 31 December: "Can resume my Labour Party activities now that my suspension lifted. Thanks to all who stood by me in difficult times."
Labour lifted the suspension of Aziz, who has been approached for comment, after political website Guido Fawkes revealed that he had written a string of anti-Semitic social media posts. He was subsequently suspended in May."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:27 AM

Momentum leader on Labour anti-Semitism,

"The founder of the grassroots group that helped propel Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership has condemned anti-Israel Jews who blame allegations of anti-Semitism on 'Zionists" – as he insisted he "can't see any good reason" why it's taken so long to determine Ken Livingstone's fate in the party.

Momentum chief Jon Lansman was speaking to Jewish News after taking part in two panels on his first visit to Limmud, setting out why Jews should support Labour under Corbyn.

While he acknowledged there was a problem of anti-Semitism in the party, he claimed the row had been "exaggerated" and there was a "gap between perception and reality". But he added: "I think the suggestion that the row about anti-Semitism has been organised by Zionists is completely wrong. Jewish anti-Zionists are entitled to their point of view about Zionism but are not helping Palestinian or themselves in claiming the row is part of a Zionist conspiracy. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 AM

Steve,
Correct, though you forgot to say SOME US Jews.

Your own linked article make it clear it is the majority.

You have no evidence that a majority of US citizens, whether they favour Israel or not, think that the settlement expansion is fair.

I disagree.
The NYT link suggests that it's probably the other way round.

No it does not.
It is perfectly possible to strongly dislike the Palestinians yet condemn Israel for taking their land for settlements.

They were not asked who they "liked." They were asked who they "supported."

You can find a list of them on sethfrantzman.com.

I can't. More detail please.