BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 09:23 AM

It's all pro Israel extremist propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 10:26 AM

"Go back and read the reports properly before you come here to comment on them." - says "Knee-jerk" Shaw willing as ever to leap to the defence of the indefensible.

Tell me Shaw where in my post of - Teribus - 16 Oct 16 - 03:49 AM - did I pass or make a comment on anything?

But on the subject of reading reports properly Shaw.

Baroness Royall who investigated "racism" and "anti-Semitism" in OULC came up with seven recommendations that required urgent and immediate action. The NEC of the Labour Party attempted to muzzle this report by keeping the report itself secret while issuing Baroness Royalls summary, recommendations and conclusions. Fortunately for the British public the report in its entirety was leaked. The Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of "whitewashing" the problem and among her recommendations was the statement that there was to be a moratorium on investigations of any instances of racism, misogyny and bullying that pre-dated the submission of her report, thereby creating the "safe space" for anti-Semites talked about in the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Report.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 10:34 AM

"It's all pro Israel extremist propaganda."
You've changed your mind then - that was trip worth making
"Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of "whitewashing" "
No she wasn't - you're making it up.Still no description of this racism or antisemitism than?
Lynch mob rule OK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 11:20 AM

"Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of "whitewashing" "

"No she wasn't - you're making it up" - says Jim Carroll

Yeah Jim that's right, I made it up, long before this thread was ever even thought of, I wrote to various Labour MPs, the entire membership of Labour's National Executive Committee, the leading members of damn near every Jewish Organisation and Society in the country to fill them in on the wheeze then waited until this thread to appear just to wind you, Shaw and Raggy up - Greg F. isn't worth the effort.

Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of investigating racism and anti-Semitism within the Labour Party while Baroness Royall was in the process of writing her report. The findings of Royall's report into the OULC made it essential that the actual content of that report be kept secret to allow Chakrabarti to write her "whitewash job" but that didn't pan out did it the Royall Report was leaked. New entry member of the Labour Party one week, Labour Peer the next on £300 per day to sit in the House of Lords followed by a Shadow Cabinet Post - Damned nice work if you can get it eh Jim? Can't think why they didn't give you the job but of course you're not a member are you, yet you know more about the inner workings of the Labour Party than those running it.

Naz Shah admits to and apologises for making anti-Semitic statements, but because Jim Carroll says she didn't, she must obviously have been lying. Ken Livingston back in the fold yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM

Here's what you said:

In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people."

The report does not refer to an incompetent Labour leader. You applied "incompetent" to Corbyn in a generalised, broadbrush way that the report did not, in other words. And if you're going to tell me that it wasn't you, it was "the press," then I suggest you change your newspaper. The report did not say that he allowed vile abuse of Jewish people either. You want us to think that these dishonest extrapolations of yours are what the committee actually said. That is a long-winded way of saying that you're telling lies. I have no objection whatsoever to your bringing to the attention of the thread the criticisms of Corbyn made by the committee. I do object to your bringing your own characterisations of their words, along with their own highly-predictable negative spin, and pretending that they were theirs. Now if you want to discuss what the committee actually said, why don't you go along and bring us their actual words, unspun by either you or "the press?"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 12:45 PM

Jim,
Are you suggesting he is lying and if so, do you have proof that he is

Are you suggesting that the whole cross party committee is lying and if so, do you have proof that they are?

Steve,
The report does not refer to an incompetent Labour leader.

Errrr, yes it does Steve.

Guardian headline,
"Jeremy Corbyn accused of incompetence by MPs over antisemitic abuse "

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 12:51 PM

Steve,
. The report did not say that he allowed vile abuse of Jewish people either.

First sentence of Guardian report (linked to by Jim!)
"Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people"."

So, who is lying about this Steve, you or the Guardian?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 12:59 PM

"eah Jim that's right, I made it up, long before this thread was ever even thought of"
You claim she was given the job of making it up - she wasn't.
Some have claimed that she did whitewash it - no proof has been produced but you have thrown the rope over the branch ready for the lynching
Produce your evidnce that she was and you have made your case - fail to do so and you are part of the mob.
Golden rule of British justice - innocent until proven guilty
That's what is suppose to distinguish us from the savages.
If you can't prove it, don't make claims that have not been proven.
I take it you disapprove of all fees paid to politicians for sitting on
SPECIAL COMMITTEES - as if!!
"Naz Shah admits to and apologises for making anti-Semitic statements"
I did not say she didn't - I said it wa made before she was a politician, she acknowledged it and apologised for it
Please stop lying about what I say.
You were quick enough to absolve or Foreign Secretary' serial racist behaviour on the basis that he apologised for it - why not in this case - wrong party maybe?
Jim Carroll

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

What the report said about Chakrabarti, according to your Guardian link Jim,

"An inquiry into antisemitism in Labour carried out by Shami Chakrabarti on the orders of Corbyn earlier this year is described as "ultimately compromised". Its independence was thrown into doubt by Chakrabarti's acceptance of a peerage and a job in the shadow cabinet, the committee writes.

The MPs criticise Chakrabarti for describing antisemitic abuse as merely "unhappy incidents", and note her failure to respond to requests for a timeline proving that there was no connection between her elevation to the Lords and her inquiry. They write: "Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her.""

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 01:43 PM

Doesn't make a difference what they said unless you can produce evidence of what was covered up - you have the context of a right-wing dominated group of politicians, you have the fact that so-called antisemitism in the Labour Party is no different than that in other parties and you still have not produced examples of the so-called antisemitism they are accused of.
The Chakrabati report was leaked was leaked and even got as far as the Jerusalem Post and guess what - no description of antisemitism there either - another of your 'Jewish Plots' maybe.
Until you produce evidence rather than innuendo by enemies of the Labour Party you will continue to be pissing into the wind on this one Keith
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF ALL THIS ANTISEMITISM?.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 02:36 PM

What Teribus said, after which he STOPPED:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people.

What the Guardian's FIRST SENTENCE said, after which they REPORTED THE MATTER IN MORE DETAIL:

Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people".

"So, who is lying about this Steve, you or the Guardian?"

You are. There you have it, folks. A typical Keith/Teribus reinterpretation, nothing like the Guardian sentence, a misrepresentation intended to blacken the Labour leader. Now just sod off, Keith. I have no time for your stupid, dishonest, disreputable games. If you want us to discuss whst the committee said, you tell us what the bloody committee said, not what Teribus said or the Guardian said or what your personal delusions are telling you. Keep it simple, stupid.

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

Here's a coincidence for you all to deal with.
Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S. in September 2015 - up to then there had been not a whiff of accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Within a month of his announcement, accusations of antisemitism began to appear.
By April 16th 2016 these actions had accelerated.
At no time has this antisemitism ever been been described - even Naz Shah's blog posted in 2014 had not been commented on, though she became a Labour M.P. in the General Election of May 2015.
I go along with Sherlock Holmes' opinion of coincidence - "The universe is rarely so lazy".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:08 AM

Steve Shaw - 16 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM

Here's what you said:

In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people."

No Shaw that is what I typed and apart from the In the press today bit it was lifted straight out of the news copy of the national news paper that carried the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:11 AM

So Jim thinks that the cross party committee's findings can all be dismissed because they are not Left Wing enough, and Steve pretends the report does not mean what it clearly states.
Guardian headline,
"Jeremy Corbyn accused of incompetence by MPs over antisemitic abuse "

First sentence of Guardian report (linked to by Jim!)
"Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people"."

So Corbyn WAS accused of incompetence as Teribus said, and he WAS accused of allowing anti-Semitic abuse to be perpetrated in safety.

" Labour is said to have been "demonstrably incompetent" in dealing with incidents of anti-Jewish abuse."

" Nevertheless, it{the report) is withering about the Labour leader's response to antisemitic attacks on his own MPs, and his understanding of modern forms of racism."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:41 AM

Quote from the report, as published in Huffington Post,
"The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic,"

Comment,
"The committee's strongly-worded report was agreed in full by the two Labour MPs on the panel - Chuka Umunna and David Winnick.

A third Labour member of the committee, Naz Shah, took no part in the inquiry after she was suspended from the party over anti-Semitic social media posts before later having the whip reinstated after apologising.

Corbyn gave evidence to the committee but the MPs questioned his understanding of the issue."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-for-lack-of-consistent-leadership-over-anti-semitism_uk_580337e6e4b0010a7f3e99cf

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 04:29 AM

So,Teribus, are you saying that your typing fingers are somehow not connected to your brain, unlike your gob? Feel free to expand on this curious phenomenon, though you'll have to type it as I can't hear you from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 04:43 AM

The whole report is available online. Interpreting what press sources say about snippets from it is sheer lunacy in the light of that. Do what I did, Keith, and read it end to end, and stop farting about for a change.

Naz Shah of s a member of the committee but was not party to this report. The other two Labour members are ardent Corbyn opponents. The rest are Tories. Should we see in it in that light? Well I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 05:56 AM

Your Huffington Post quote carefully edited out Corbyn's reply to this and you naturally neglected to link your quote.
The article adds nothing to what has already been discussed.
Corbyn's and others carefully edited out response.
"Responding, Corbyn suggested the report was biased against Labour, described the criticism of Lady Chakrabarti as "unfair" and said the committee "violated natural justice" by refusing her request to appear before it.
The Labour leader said: "The report's political framing and disproportionate emphasis on Labour risks undermining the positive and welcome recommendations made in it.
"Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of anti-Semitic incidents come from far-right sources, and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest anti-Semitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour Party.
"As the report rightly acknowledges, politicising anti-Semitism – or using it as a weapon in controversies between and within political parties - does the struggle against it a disservice."
Suspended Momentum vice-chairwoman Jacqueline Walker called on Labour to support those who had been "picked off" during the anti-Semitism "witch hunt".
Writing on Facebook, Walker called the report "more poison".

Nowhere is there any attempt to describe this so-called "antisemitism" so, until somebody does so, it does not exist - that is both natural justice and common sense
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 05:57 AM

So first the report was being misrepresented, now it can be discounted anyway because the committee was not left wing enough.
You are still in denial after all these months.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 06:06 AM

Why would I include Corbyn's denials of all criticism?
I was informing you of the report.

Here is an extract from it,

"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. This situation has been further exacerbated by the Party's demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism, as illustrated by the saga involving the suspension, re-admittance and re-suspension of Jackie Walker. The ongoing membership of Ken Livingstone, following his outbursts about Hitler and Zionism, should also have been dealt with more effectively. The result is that the Labour Party, with its proud history of fighting racism and promoting equal rights, is seen by some as an unwelcoming place for Jewish members and activists. (Paragraph 113)

21.The decision by the Leader of the Labour Party to commission an independent inquiry into antisemitism was a welcome one, notwithstanding subsequent criticisms. The Chakrabarti report makes recommendations about creating a more robust disciplinary process within the Labour Party, but it is clearly lacking in many areas; particularly in its failure to differentiate explicitly between racism and antisemitism. The fact that the report describes occurrences of antisemitism merely as "unhappy incidents" also suggests that it fails to appreciate the full gravity of the comments that prompted the inquiry in the first place. These shortfalls, combined with Ms Chakrabarti's decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Leader of that Party, and her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General, have thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent. Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the Committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her. It is disappointing that she did not foresee that the timing of her elevation to the House of Lords, alongside a report absolving the Labour Leader of any responsibility for allegations of increased antisemitism within his Party, would completely undermine her efforts to address this issue. It is equally concerning that Mr Corbyn did not consider the damaging impression likely to be created by this sequence of events. (Paragraph 114)

22.The recommendations of the Chakrabarti report are further impaired by the fact that they are not accompanied by a clear definition of antisemitism, as we have recommended should be adopted by all political parties. We remain unconvinced of the robustness of the Labour Party's code of conduct (and whether it will be effectively enforced), and the report does nothing to address a severe lack of transparency within the Party's disciplinary process. There are examples of Labour members who have been accused of antisemitism, investigated by their Party, and then reinstated with no explanation of why their behaviour was not deemed to be antisemitic. The Labour Party, and all other political parties in the same circumstances, should publish a clear public statement alongside every reinstatement or expulsion of a member after any investigation into suspected antisemitism. (Paragraph 115)

23.We see no good reason for the Chakrabarti report's proposed statute of limitations on antisemitic misdemeanours. Antisemitism is not a new concept: an abusive, antisemitic tweet sent in 2013 is no more defensible than one sent in 2016. If the Labour Party or any other organisation is to demonstrate that it is serious about antisemitism, it should investigate all allegations with equal seriousness, regardless of when the behaviour is alleged to have taken place. (Paragraph 116)

24.In its determination to be inclusive of all forms of racism, some sections of the Chakrabarti report do not acknowledge Jewish concerns, including its recommendations on training, which make no mention of antisemitism. This has generated criticism among some observers that antisemitism may be excluded from future training programmes. The Labour Party and all political parties should ensure that their training on racism and inclusivity features substantial sections on antisemitism. This must be formulated in consultation with Jewish community representatives, and must acknowledge the unique nature of antisemitism. If antisemitism is subsumed into a generic approach to racism, its distinctive and dangerous characteristics will be overlooked. In addition, the Labour Party's disciplinary process must acknowledge the fact that an individual's demonstrated opposition to other forms of racism does not negate the possibility that they hold antisemitic beliefs; nor does it neutralise any expression of these beliefs. (Paragraph 117)

25.The Chakrabarti Report is ultimately compromised by its failure to deliver a comprehensive set of recommendations, to provide a definition of antisemitism, or to suggest effective ways of dealing with antisemitism. The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with antisemitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic. (Paragraph 118)"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 06:27 AM

Well anyone can copy and paste reams of highly-selective stuff without comment. This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

Not left-wing enough? What a stupid remark. The person under attack is on the opposite end of the political spectrum to the majority of committee members, and the only two Labour members of the committee who put their signatures to the report voted no confidence in him this summer. By any measure, that flies in the face of what decent people would regard as fair play. That in itself undermines the report, though I must say I found a lot of it to be beyond reproach, not the bits we're supposedly discussing here, mind. We don't even have to question the integrity of the individual committee members (l don't feel any particular need to do that, frankly).

I invite anyone who wishes to comment on the content of the report to completely ignore the idiotic cherrypicking by Keith and whatever "press sources" he quotes (or, for that matter, Teribus's "news paper") and read the report. You will find that Keith's obsessive emphasis on Labour's issues is not reflected by the document. When you're up against the unreconstructed far-right, as we are in their cases, there is no alternative but to go to the source, the whole source and nothing but the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 07:42 AM

"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

Question. Why should anti-Semitism be dealt with separately from other forms of discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 07:55 AM

"I was informing you of the report."
Then the accused has no right to defend himself - not even to be linked to the source of the quote - just about sums up all this so-called Antisemitism garbage.
The accused has no voice, one of the accused is given no right to appear before her accuses, you deliberately edit out this fact and Corbyn's defence but include what goes before and what follows and still there are no details of what he or the Labour Party is accused of - Franz Kafka wrote a novel about this sort of "justice"   
THE TRIAL
Nothing in your long cut-'n-paste describes antisemitism in any way, not have any numbers been mentioned.
The clue to all this is included in your previous quote "his understanding of modern forms of racism."
What are these "modern form of racism"?
There is no explanation of what they are, but the time line between Labour's support for B.D.S. and the beginning of these accusations makes it clear what they are.
Criticism of Israeli terrorism is now being regarded as antisemitism by right-wing politicians and the press - making every decent, compassionate and humane person on this planet an Antisemite.
Only the politicians of the extreme right actually support Israel - with their silence.
Human rights groups, eye witnesses, medical teams sent in to mop up the dead, journalists, commentators, condemn what happened in 2014 - even Israelis and Jews throughout the world, including Holocaust Survivors have condemned the massacres.
Many are claiming thet Israel is a fascit state.
The Israelis and their supporters claim self-defence, as has every tyrannical despot in history.
This is the antisemitism that this squalid report is accusing Labour of.
If it isn't - what is it?
This isn't a defence of the Jewish People - Keith made that quite clear with his accusation of a 'pact of silence' by the Parliamentary Jews.
It is defence of an extremely dangerous fascist state by three people on this thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 08:16 AM

"Question. Why should anti-Semitism be dealt with separately from other forms of discrimination."
It shouldn't
Keith and his team have all indulged in extreme racist Islamophobia
Similarly to what Naz Shah apologised for and withdrew, they have suggested that Palestinians have no right to their territory and should be relocated in neighbour countries - if what Shah said was racist - so was this - in the extreme.
The accusation of Antisemitism is now being openly used to defend extreme right-wing political behaviour.
THIS SUM IT UP PRETTY WELL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 08:49 AM

Steve,
Well anyone can copy and paste reams of highly-selective stuff without comment

Yes, but I did not.
I gave a large extract from the conclusion, and it supports what Teribus and I have said all along, and rubbishes your claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:11 AM

Oh yes you did, Keith, a great big screed that you failed to comment on, bar putting a few bits in bold that you thought might help your case. Bobadism of the worst kind. I mean, why lie about something that we can all see with our own eyes? And if you think the report rubbishes my "claims" (whatever they're supposed to be), well I think that the Chakrabarti report rubbishes yours. Of course, you won't accept that, because, as we know, all Labour leftie types are scurrilous, cheating and lying bastards who cover everything up and are all antisemitic scumbags. Whereas your committee of mostly Tories coupled with just two Corbyn deniers is a positively saintly gathering, filled with such regal integrity and profound wisdom and neutrality, whose every pronouncement must be taken as gospel. They certainly didn't besmirch themselves by letting Shami give evidence, did they? Yep, that's about the size of it. Just go and take a running jump, why don't you. Go and see if you can find a dash of honesty somewhere before you come back.

Oh, and the rest of us, if we like, can easily read the whole report for ourselves. We don't need your bleeding chunks, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:17 AM

" all Labour leftie types are scurrilous, cheating and lying bastards who cover everything up and are all antisemitic scumbags." - Steve Shaw

Well you are one of them Shaw so you should know - you said it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM

"I gave a large extract from the conclusion"
Whre does it specify the type of antisemitism Labour is said to be guilty of?
Neither of you have given anything and you are responding to nothing you have been given.
Until you describe the antisemitism you accuse Labour of you have no case, no matter how many uncorroborated claims you put up.
It defies any form of logic and natural justice to claim otherwise - simple as that.
Your mate seems to have degenerated to Bobad's level of 'sling the insults' and do a runner
JEWS FOR JUSTICE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 09:54 AM

Is that the best you can do, Woodcock? My helpful suggestion to you is to post only when you have something non-trolling to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 11:12 AM

Steve,
And if you think the report rubbishes my "claims" (whatever they're supposed to be), well I think that the Chakrabarti report rubbishes yours.

The Parliamentary report rubbishes her report, and anyway she acknowledged to CH 4 News Presenter Cathy Newman's question, "Would you acknowledge now that the Party does have a serious problem with anti-Semitism?"
Chakrabarti, "I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."

Whereas your committee of mostly Tories

The committee reflects the balance of MPs in Parliament.
There are 6 Tories and 4 non Tories, but Shah had to drop out.

They certainly didn't besmirch themselves by letting Shami give evidence, did they?

She sat beside Corbyn, prompting him. They had her report.

Oh, and the rest of us, if we like, can easily read the whole report for ourselves.

But you said, "
The whole report is available online. Interpreting what press sources say about snippets from it is sheer lunacy in the light of that. Do what I did, Keith, and read it end to end,"

Why don't you produce some quotes from it that support your case?
Good luck with that!

Jim,
Whre does it specify the type of antisemitism Labour is said to be guilty of?

No need. Any and all types of anti-Semitism are covered.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 11:16 AM

Ah Shaw your little "tell" that you are getting annoyed is showing again.

Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia were made to Labours NEC by members of the Labour Party and by members of the Parliamentary Labour Party - that you and Carroll deny.

At one point over 50 members of the Labour Party were under suspension for this unacceptable behaviour, the NEC decided to put everything under wraps - so much for the transparency you boasted about Shaw - it is non-existent.

How many CLPs are currently under suspension for racism, anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 11:41 AM

"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia "
None were described
""
No they're not - how can you "cover" something without describing it
How ca they have been "coveed" if, as you claim, the accusers refused to make them public
No details no crime
Common sense and natural justice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 01:02 PM

Wouldn't this stuff make more sense in the other thread. It would save people writing, and reading, essentially the same posts in both.

And no, they shouldn't be merged, because there are a lot of other issues around the Labour Party that are being squeezed out,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM

Idiotic posts from both Teribus (not sure which "Shaw" it was supposed to be directed at, but it doesn't relate to me) and, naturally, from Keith. The report did not "rubbish" the Chakrabarti report. It did not specify the antisemitism accusations in any detail and did not accuse Labour of widespread or institutional antisemitism. I do not need to play your silly game of taking chunks of the report out of context. All your efforts so far have been extremely biased towards highlighting Labour's issues and have ignored the rest, which gives vital context. It's my view that the report was biased against Labour too (bearing in mind it was supposed to be about antisemitism in general) but it can't hold a candle to your strenuous and dishonest efforts. As I've already said, best to read the report end to end. Anyone who hasn't already done that will be amazed at the imbalance and bias shown by what Teribus and Keith are trying to perpetrate here.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:03 PM

not sure which "Shaw"

Considering The Colonel, its likely George Bernard.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:16 PM

"Any and all types of anti-Semitism are covered."
So the LabourPary are accused of claiming Jews commit Usury and carry out blood sacrifice!!
Even more idiotic than your old usual.
"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, "
What unacceptable antisemitism?
Maybe Keith's Usury and blood sacrifice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM

Can either of you explain why your world is one where it isn't necessary to read out the charges before convicting someone of something?
It sounds awfully like fascism to me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:56 PM

Well, considering that Teribus and Keith have has an "authoritative" select committee report to bolster their prejudices, they haven't exactly had their best ever day, have they? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM

Steve,
The report did not "rubbish" the Chakrabarti report.

Yes it did.
" The Chakrabarti report makes recommendations about creating a more robust disciplinary process within the Labour Party, but it is clearly lacking in many areas; particularly in its failure to differentiate explicitly between racism and antisemitism. The fact that the report describes occurrences of antisemitism merely as "unhappy incidents" also suggests that it fails to appreciate the full gravity of the comments that prompted the inquiry in the first place. These shortfalls, combined with Ms Chakrabarti's decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Leader of that Party, and her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General, have thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent. Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the Committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her. It is disappointing that she did not foresee that the timing of her elevation to the House of Lords, alongside a report absolving the Labour Leader of any responsibility for allegations of increased antisemitism within his Party, would completely undermine her efforts to address this issue. It is equally concerning that Mr Corbyn did not consider the damaging impression likely to be created by this sequence of events. (Paragraph 114)"

It did not specify the antisemitism accusations in any detail

Of course not. There were hundreds!

and did not accuse Labour of widespread or institutional antisemitism.

No-one has claimed that anyway.

Jim,
"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia "
None were described

NO, but we know that many accusations have been made, leading to two Labour and one Parliamentary enquiry and over 50 suspensions from the Party, so you can hardly deny them even if we do not have all the details ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 AM

"None were described"
You said it, and until that are, there is no case to answer because unspecified charges are unanswerable.
Thet is the point Kafka was making when he described the actions of an extremist State imposing its will on the people.
The only "antisemitism" Labour is guilty of is critiscising Israel - that is the "new racism" the report refers to.
"so you can hardly deny them "
Of course you can deny them if they are unspecified and unsubstantiated.
How can you possible charge anybody with anything without first reading out the charges?
Any criminal would get off scott free if the arresting officer didn't do that - any crime thriller fan knows that.
It is utterly stupid to suggest that you can convict somebody of something and not specify what.
You bloody well know this - that is why you invented your antisemitic 'Jewish pact of silence' to explain it away.
,font color=red>CONDEMNING ISRAEL FRO THE WAR CRIMES AND ATROCITIES THEY HAVE BEEN SAVED FROM STANDING TRIAL FOR BY U.S. VETOES IS NOT RACISM - IT IS CERTAINLY NOT ANTISEMITISM - THAT IS THE ONLY THING LABOUR ARE GUILTY OF AND I'M WITH THEM 100% ON THAT ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:40 AM

No-one has yet answered my question of why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

Come on professor you are making an issue of it so respond to this fundamental query.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM

That is criticism, much of it unjustified, not "rubbishing." If the committee has proper evidence, not just Tory surmise, that there was anything shady about Chakrabarti's peerage, etc., they should piss or get off the pot. To accuse Labour of awful timing, which I agree with, is not the same as demonstrating improper behaviour, of which there was none.

I'll tell you why antisemitism is being made a "special case," Raggytash. It isn't because it's different from other instances of racism. It's because there's a deliberate effort to conflate true antisemitism, which, if it's to have any meaning, must adhere to its traditional definition, with criticism of the policies and actions of the Israeli regime. If the people who propagate this dishonest notion (Keith and bobad being archetypal examples here) succeed, they will have protected the regime from any criticism of its vile activities. That's the aim and that's why they want to make antisemitism a special case. If I were Jewish, that would make me very nervous. We see Keith doing that here all the time, in complete denial of all the outrages of the regime. The unintended consequences of that are that we would no longer have a useful definition of antisemitism (the EU was wise enough to ditch a dishonest wider definition despite pressure from various pro-Israel lobby groups) and that it puts Jews in the firing line by making them collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli regime. That's what unjustified conflations do for you. This is what Jim and I are referring to when we describe people such as Keith and bobad as the true antisemites. They have a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:08 AM

Steve, the report says That Chakrabarti was completely undermined.
That is as rubbished as it can be, apart from the acting chair saying it was not worth the paper it was printed on.

Rag,
why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

You are the only person I know who thinks it should be.

Jim,
You said it, and until that are, there is no case to answer because unspecified charges are unanswerable.

They have been specified to the Labour leadership.
They exist. They are real. You look a fool when you deny them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM

"Rag,why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism. You are the only person I know who thinks it should be"

Actually I am quoting one of your posts professor, do you not even bother to read them?

Presumably you agree with the post seeing as you posted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:54 AM

As if I care what a bunch of Tories think.

"Rag,
why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

You are the only person I know who thinks it should be."

But you see, Keith, he doesn't think that. He's asking why people like you think that. So you are seriously misrepresenting him. You do it all the time. Dishonest, disreputable, disgusting.

And you clearly do think that. You're like a dog worth a bone when it comes to protecting Israel from any criticism (you deny all their outrages, every single one) and you want the wider definition of antisemitism. And don't say you don't, otherwise I'll have to remind everyone of those multiple posts of yours valiantly trying to espouse a long-defunct and discredited EU definition. You weren't like a dog with a bone protecting the Pakistanis in northern England against racist abuse, though, were you? In fact, you are seriously suspected of having joined in with it. Oh yes, antisemitism is your special case all right. Has been for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 10:58 AM

"They have been specified to the Labour leadership."
You have never provided a shred of proof of this - you invented a "Jewish cover-up" to explain it.
"You look a fool when you deny them."
Not as much as you look a fool when you accuse somebody of antisemitism and can't tell us what it is you are accusing them of.
How can you accuse somebody of something and not be able to tell us what you are accusing them of?
Bloody insane.
Are you still sticking to your "Jewish pact of silence story?"
You probably won't answer this - fine - I shall enjoy asking it over and ovr until you either answer it or go away.
One more time
ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING THAT THAT THE JEWISH LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ARE REFUSING TO DESCRIBE THE ANTISEMITISM OUT OF LOYALTY TO THE LABOUR PARTY?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM

Dog WITH a bone. Although dog WORTH a bone does have a certain ring to it...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 02:21 PM

Rag,
Actually I am quoting one of your posts professor,

If true, let's all see it Rag.

Steve,
But you see, Keith, he doesn't think that. He's asking why people like you think that. So you are seriously misrepresenting him.

You forget that he recently described anti-Semitism as "a different argument" to other racism.

And you clearly do think that.

I clearly do not. You are misrepresenting me.

You're like a dog worth a bone when it comes to protecting Israel from any criticism

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with criticising Israel.
When I recognise lying propaganda about anything I will always challenge it.

Jim,
"They have been specified to the Labour leadership."
You have never provided a shred of proof of this -

Yes I have. The Labour Party has carried out two enquiries into it, over 50 members have been suspended for it, the entire NEC has declared themselves appalled by it, and numerous prominent people including Corby himself have referred to it, so there is ample proof of it and no question that it is real and you are a fool to deny it.

Are you still sticking to your "Jewish pact of silence story?"

I never had one Jim.

ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING THAT THAT THE JEWISH LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ARE REFUSING TO DESCRIBE THE ANTISEMITISM OUT OF LOYALTY TO THE LABOUR PARTY?

I never have. They reported it to the relevant people in the party to deal with, and Smeath went public on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:35 PM

For chrissake turn the bloody record over, Keith. And even I don't disrespect Ruth Smeeth by misspelling her name.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 PM

And I suppose that some twat with nothing better to do is going to bag 800.