BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:27 PM

Been unavoidably distracted today, mainly by Besses junction/M60/M62/M6/M5/North Devon Link Road/A39. You bloody try it. My back's killing me. So I come back here to find this benighted thread going round in the same old negative circles. It's done its time. This thread is knackered. It's an ex-thread. Hey mods, let Keith crow that he's won. No-one cares. Shut the thing down. You'll never see what I'll buy you...

---

Closed. AND DON'T START ANOTHER ONE. This topic is totally exhausted. Capiche? --mudelf, speaking for many elves seconded by another elf

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:34 PM

Its OK, Dave, they're not halal ferrets.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:03 PM

Lovely little creatures, ferrets. Wonderful characters and very intelligent. I am most surprised that someone who says he campaigns against cruelty to animals would suggest that they were vermin and provide recipes to cook them. Even as a jest it is in very poor taste. Still, I suppose that a parasitic worm that has no original thoughts of it's own and survives only off the droppings of its masters can not do any better really. I would not suggest cooking and eating it though. Could make you ill!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:01 PM

Raggytash. I prefer them in a fricassee. There is a certain something about the action of chopping vermin into small pieces. It is very satisfying.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:52 PM

Interesting recipe Iain's, I,be never eaten ferret although my wife's family used to farm them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:42 PM

Awww c'mon now Gnome don't be so coy. If you are going to quote me quote the full sentence:

"Ken Livingstone still remains suspended from the Labour Party for "bringing the Labour Party into disrepute" for his defence of Shah's remarks."

The remarks being referred to here are those that Naz Shah says herself were anti-Semitic.

So Livingstone remains suspended from the Labour Party for his defence of anti-Semitic remarks.

What a pity those in Labour's NEC can't simply call a spade a spade.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:28 PM

4 skinned ferrets
Flour
Salt
Pepper
Butter
1 cup Sherry
1 can cream of mushroom soup
1 can cream of chicken soup
1 can cream of celery soup
1 jar sliced mushrooms

Cover whole ferrets with flour, salt and pepper. Brown in melted butter in heavy skillet over medium-high heat until nicely browned on all sides. Remove pieces from skillet and arrange in oven casserole with cover. When ferrets are browned, add 1 cup white wine or sherry to skillet. Then mix in 1 can cream of mushroom soup, 1 can cream of chicken soup, 1 can cream of celery soup, and 1 jar sliced mushrooms. Mix well and bring to boil, then pour over ferrets. Cover and bake in 325-degree oven for 1 to 1 1/2 hours, or until done and tender. Remove ferrets to serving platter and pour some of the sauce over, and serve the rest alongside. Serves 4.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 02:15 PM

No worries, Dave - The Professor can rant on without any help from me.

Pretty soon Inanes will be in the same category.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:58 PM

What was the phrase about the sole purpose of your threads? To keep them going endlessly?

Enough is enough.

Just leave him to it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:48 PM

Greg,
It says nothing about criticism of the State of Israel or of the Israeli government's actions being "antisemitic".

Of course it does not, and no sensible person would claim that.
However, some statements about Israel are anti-Semitic, e.g. comaparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, as Jim has often done.
Here is an extract,

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. 

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

 Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

 Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:37 PM

Dave,
The point I am making is that that argument should be discounted for all the reasons you have just given.

Yes, I grasped your "point" but is spurious.
There was no criminal offence to charge Labour's anti-Semites with, but there is for having sex with under-age children when it actually happens.

Anti-Semitism is a serious problem for the Labour Party, according to the Labour Party, but underage sex parties are not a problem for the Tories because there have not been any.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 11:58 AM

Greg. I always do my research!

Well then, Inanes, you'd best re-read the "Working Definition", this time for comprehension.

It says nothing about criticism of the State of Israel or of the Israeli government's actions being "antisemitic". In fact it clearly states the opposite.

And if you don't know what Boo's mantra is, you're the only one here that doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 11:40 AM

Greg. I always do my research! You must tell me what boo's mantra is. I am only familiar with the Vedic ones.


If you wish to reject a proposition, then to be taken seriously you need to offer some sort of argument to support your position.
Otherwise you are simply frothing and we already have a past master of that affectation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 10:57 AM

Keith, one of the arguments given by Tezzer was that there were no arrests and no convictions. The point I am making is that that argument should be discounted for all the reasons you have just given. You have failed to grasp the point once again so there is no point in my trying to remake it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:34 AM

but your little mate seems to rather heavily outnumbered on the world stage

Not so, Inanes. Do a little research before blindly adopting Boo's mantra.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:25 AM

Well greg that may be all very well but your little mate seems to rather heavily outnumbered on the world stage. This renders his opinions and scribblings somewhat worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:18 AM

From the same Blog-O-Pedia article you quoted, Boo:

"Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence political debate.

Antony Lerman, writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in September 2008, argues that the concept of a "new antisemitism" has brought about "a revolutionary change in the discourse about anti-Semitism". He writes that most contemporary discussions concerning antisemitism have become focused on issues concerning Israel and Zionism, and that the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism has become for many a "new orthodoxy". He adds that this redefinition has often resulted in "Jews attacking other Jews for their alleged anti-Semitic anti-Zionism". While Lerman accepts that exposing alleged Jewish antisemitism is "legitimate in principle", he adds that the growing literature in this field "exceeds all reason"; the attacks are often vitriolic, and encompass views that are not inherently anti-Zionist.

Lerman argues that this redefinition has had unfortunate repercussions. He writes that serious scholarly research into contemporary antisemitism has become "virtually non-existent", and that the subject is now most frequently studied and analyzed by "people lacking any serious expertise in the subject, whose principal aim is to excoriate Jewish critics of Israel and to promote the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation. Lerman concludes that this redefinition has ultimately served to stifle legitimate discussion, and that it cannot create a basis on which to fight antisemitism."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:04 AM

Sorry to disappoint you Greg but it isn't my definition but that of the 31 countries that adopted it including yours and the UK, its police force and the UK Labour party which is what is relevant in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:00 AM

Dave,
Antisemitism is a crime in the UK. If it happened there would have been a criminal investigation followed by arrests and convictions.

No. There is discretion. Shah admitted making anti-Semitic comments, but could not be accused of stirring up hatred.
"Antisemitism, as such, is not a criminal offence."
https://antisemitism.uk/law/introduction/


That stupid Tory woman was not arrested for using the most racist of all words.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 08:24 AM

It may be YOUR definition, Boo - and the definition of those using it for political advantage- but its not THE definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:53 AM

You asked why he was suspended. I responded. The fact is he was suspended for bringing the party into disrepute.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:39 AM

Yes gnome, a very cute response. Pray tell what were the reasons livingstone brought the party into disrepute? Disrepute simply cannot fall out of the sky- there are reasons for such findings. Let me refresh your memory.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ken-livingstone-suspension-labour-party-10158679

Not only do you appear to share the same party as livingstone but also the same inability to accept proven facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:27 AM

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party share the view that language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party have adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, see: IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism which is considerably broader than what you are trying to disingenuously portray, see: New Anti-Semitism from which I offer this excerpt for your edification:

New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the far left, Islamism, and the far right, and that it tends to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The concept generally posits that much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

But do go on pretending, it serves as a perfect example of the definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:00 AM

Hi Dave

<" It is pretty good isn't it Mike. Glad it is not just me :-)">

Yes and judging by the packed audience we are not alone.

Haven't seen any of the New Sweeny. Loved the old one though.

We are just watching some repeats of Death in Paradise. Corny but easy to watch and very funny in parts.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:33 AM

why did the suspension of Livingstone occur?

For bringing the party into disrepute as already stated by Tezzer in his post of 08 Aug 17 - 04:13 AM.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:23 AM

"Antisemitism is a crime in the UK. If it happened there would have been a criminal investigation followed by arrests and convictions."

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party share the view that language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism, and is as repugnant and unacceptable as any other form of racism."

Now gnome why did the suspension of Livingstone occur?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:36 AM

Antisemitism is a crime in the UK. If it happened there would have been a criminal investigation followed by arrests and convictions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:30 AM

Dave, the anti-Semitism may not have warranted criminal charges but we do know that Shah, Livingstone and others made those comments.
There is no evidence at all that those underage sex parties or pig shagging ever happened at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:23 AM

Steve,
Excuse me. There is a massive difference between paedophilia and abuse of post-pubertal but underage boys.

You did not specify post pubertal boys Steve.
You just said "underage boys."

How old were the non-existent boys Steve, and how do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:04 AM

You used the phrase 'No arrests, no convictions' to confirm that allegations were untrue. I am just doing the same.

Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:13 AM

Not the case at all gnome as well you know. All along Keith A has gone to great length and great pains to point out repeatedly:

That the Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism is the opinion of Labour's NEC, prominent members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Jewish members of the Labour Party and a certain Labour MP Naz Shah who openly admitted, acknowledged and apologised publicly in the House of Commons for, through her own ignorance, for making anti-Semitic remarks - All of which Shaw, and obviously you yourself, refuse to acknowledge. Ken Livingstone still remains suspended from the Labour Party for "bringing the Labour Party into disrepute" for his defence of Shah's remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:52 AM

No arrests, no convictions.

There have been no arrests and no convictions for racially aggravated crimes such as the antisemitism that some are being accused of but that does not seem to stop you from saying it is true. One law for you and your mates and one for everyone else Tezzer?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:48 AM

Shaw I suggest you read what I posted more closely.paedophilia:
"The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age."
Now depending on definition and situation that can mean any age up to 18 as puberty may not occur until age 16 for some males.

Now what were you saying?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:58 AM

So in short Shaw

1: You have absolutely no evidence at all to support your allegations. Having been given ample opportunity to provide some of this host of evidence you say exists - these turn out to be allegations, rumours and myths on examination - it therefore becomes simply more "Made-Up-Shit" from one of the "Usual Suspects".

2: No arrests, no convictions. (Any explanation for that Shaw?)

3: The Conservative Party per se, has never been investigated with regard to any underage sex scandal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 07:07 PM

Well I'm sorry you went to all that pointless effort. Several things. I said underage, not paedophilia. If I'd meant paedophilia, I'd have said paedophilia. But I didn't. Finally, anyone googling what I suggested they googled about those Tory underage sex parties in the 80s would have instantly recognised that the thing was not about paedophilia. I find that quite interesting. It seems to betray the fact that you didn't bother with the googling. "Adverse stories about Tories simply can't be true - I don't even need to look it up!"

Er, yes you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 05:36 PM

The definition of paedophilia is by no means clear cut.

Oxford English dictionary:Sexual feelings directed towards children.

merriam Webster:: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

The onset of puberty varies among individuals. Puberty usually occurs in girls between the ages of 10 and 14, while in boys it generally occurs later, between the ages of 12 and 16.

"There is a massive difference between paedophilia and abuse of post-pubertal but underage boys. Why don't you blokes apprise yourself of the difference?"

I see a problem already here! I recommend a study of the document
Definitions of Paedophilia - UWE Research Repository.(I am afraid my link kept failing when I tried to create it)

The definition of paedophilia varies depending on the dictionary used to define it, whether it is being used in a medical context, or in a legal context. It also varies by country.
It seems to me the inconsistancies that exist make any attempt to define the term rather meaningless. Sentencing generally seems more harsh as the victim becomes younger and the age of the perpetrator gets older. That to me is a far more critical result than using a word that means different things to different people of varying ages.
A prepubertal male could be any age from 12 to16 yet the UK and Ireland Paedophile database uses the following definitions:

    Infantophilia, or Nepiophilia, is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (usually ages 0–3)
    Paedophilia is used for individuals with a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger
    Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary sexual interest in 12-15 year old pubescents

Surely it is the crime that is the significant fact, not a name given to the perpetrator.

I admit I am totally confused and unable to obtain a consistent catchall descriptor for a paedofile

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:36 PM

Excuse me. There is a massive difference between paedophilia and abuse of post-pubertal but underage boys. Why don't you blokes apprise yourself of the difference? Why, even akenaton has shown that he knows the difference. All my posts refer to underage sex but never to paedophilia, which was not involved. What a pair of clowns. Jeri is dead right. We should ignore you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:13 PM

Keith. No single party has enough seats for a majority, Hence the majority that the Tories used to have no longer exists. No longer exists = wiped out. Anything else is just spin and not worth pursuing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:10 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Aug 17 - 12:42 PM

Bit rich that Shaw seeing as you are a proven liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:06 PM

It is pretty good isn't it Mike. Glad it is not just me :-)

Watched 'the Sweeney' film the other day with Ray Winstone in the Jack Reagan role. Not a patch on the original series but it had its moments. I really liked that they had a car chase with the Sweeney in a suped up Ford Fiesta and the villain in an F type Jag - I suppose no one who watched the original would miss the significance :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 02:40 PM

Hi Dave

<" Just caught the last half hour of 'Dirty Dancing">

Last year my good lady and I were in Llandudno. We noticed that Dirty Dancing was on at the Theatre there. Her indoors wanted to see it and persuaded me to take her. Needless to say that she won and we went...... < Whispering > I really enjoyed it !!! Must be getting old.   lol

Regards

Mike

I

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 02:23 PM

Steve,
I haven't said anything about "paedo parties."

Yes you have.
You said the Tories,
had a previous leader who exulted in sticking his dick into a dead pig's mouth (lie!) and which ran parties which exploited underage boys for sex.

Dave, the Tories have a reduced majority, but it has not been "wiped out."

How you two would set upon me if I made such careless "mistakes."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 12:42 PM

I haven't said anything about "paedo parties." Just goes to show, Keith, just goes to show. You have a HISTORY of being FRAUDULENT and VULGAR when it comes to reporting what people have said. You never learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 12:40 PM

My response to all the negativity about the Labour party.

They have wiped out the Tory majority despite all the bad press. Corbyn has brought a breath of fresh air into politics and Labour will win the next election.

No more to be said really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 11:01 AM

Any evidence for Tory paedo parties or Cameron and the pig?

Anything at all, or is it all just lies and made up shit?

I would never resort to shit like that.
Everything I have claimed was also claimed by senior and prominent Labour Party people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 09:02 AM

A great day of sport yesterday both Galway Minor and Senior hurling teams reached their All Ireland finals, the minors beating Kilkenny by one point, the seniors with a win over Tipperary by the same margin.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 05:16 AM

This is my hobby Steve.

Four Labour MPs including the Shadow Foreign Sec. demand that Corbyn states his position on Venezuela.

Numerous prominent and senior Labour people and the entire NEC which includes the leadership say that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
They do not say that of any other party and only Labour Jews have reported anti-Semitism from their own party.

You deny that Shah made anti-Semitic comments or advocated ethnically cleansing Jews from Palestine, even though she admits both. Even Dave is not prepared to support you on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:12 AM

Tell you what, Tezzer?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:47 PM

Missed Poldark last week due to being in Andalucía (as you know, Dave), so watched a double bill tonight. Idiotic but mighty and with great Kernow scenery. I don't care what anyone thinks. Blub.

And sod off, Keith. Get a hobby. It's never too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:40 PM

Dave the Gnome - 06 Aug 17 - 12:36 PM

Sorry - Wrong thread. Maybe saying daft things without realising it is catching...

Please tell us Gnome - after all you've been doing precisely that for more than long enough.