Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesonny

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]


BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Keith A of Hertford 13 Apr 17 - 07:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Apr 17 - 07:33 AM
Raggytash 13 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Apr 17 - 07:19 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM
Teribus 13 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 05:53 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Apr 17 - 04:59 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 04:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Apr 17 - 03:56 AM
Teribus 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 03:35 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 03:20 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Apr 17 - 03:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Apr 17 - 01:48 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Apr 17 - 01:46 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM
Teribus 12 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Apr 17 - 01:13 PM
Teribus 12 Apr 17 - 01:02 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Apr 17 - 08:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Apr 17 - 04:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Apr 17 - 09:07 PM
Greg F. 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Apr 17 - 03:06 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Apr 17 - 03:05 PM
Teribus 11 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Apr 17 - 01:43 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM
Raggytash 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Apr 17 - 11:35 AM
Teribus 11 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM
Raggytash 11 Apr 17 - 09:08 AM
Teribus 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 AM
Raggytash 11 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM
Teribus 11 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 17 - 02:07 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 17 - 01:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM
bobad 10 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Apr 17 - 11:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 17 - 11:18 AM
Teribus 10 Apr 17 - 09:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Apr 17 - 06:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 17 - 03:37 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:42 AM

"Mr Corbyn, a longstanding ally of the former London mayor, said: "Ken Livingstone's comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community.
"Labour's independently elected National Constitutional Committee has found Ken guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and suspended him for two years.
"It is deeply disappointing that, despite his long record of standing up to racism, Ken has failed to acknowledge or apologise for the hurt he has caused. Many people are understandably upset that he has continued to make offensive remarks which could open him to further disciplinary action."

"Labour deputy leader Tom Watson
said it was "incomprehensible" Mr Livingstone had not been expelled, while former leader Ed Miliband said he was "appalled" at the lack of remorse being shown.
Mr Watson said the ex-London mayor's behaviour "discredits the party I love... I am ashamed that we have allowed Mr Livingstone to cause such distress. This shames us all, and I'm deeply saddened by it."
Shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, who led an inquiry into claims of anti-Semitism in Labour, said she was "horrified" by the way Mr Livingstone had behaved"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39499640


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:33 AM

"Sadiq Khan joined those condemning the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone from Labour and said there is no place for him in the party because his views were "anti-Semitic".
The Mayor of London said Labour has to "do more" after Mr Livingstone was handed a further year-long suspension, rather than expulsion, over his comments about Hitler and Zionism."
Khan, "And if we are going to be zero-tolerant towards racism, Ken Livingstone has got to go."

"More than 100 Labour MPs have signed an open letter stating the sanction imposed on Mr Livingstone was a "betrayal" of Labour values. 
The hard-hitting letter states: "We stand united in making it clear that we will not allow our party to be a home for anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism." "

"Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said she was "shocked" at the leniency of the sanction and told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The Jewish community are really upset, and quite rightly so."

Rayner, "I want to see the sanction to be zero tolerance(for anti-Semitism), and if that means that he is excluded from the party then that should be it."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-calls-for-ken-livingstone-to-be-ousted-from-labour-over-antisemitic-views-a3509091.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM

I see on the BBC News website that yet another catholic priest has been imprisoned for abusing a young boy.

Are Christians over-represented in these cases???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:19 AM

John McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor),
"you(Livingstone) deployed it (Hitler statement) to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah,"

Justifying anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM

Not that this pair would be in the slightest bit interested but this is an opinion offered by British Jews - but what do the Jews know if they don't back up th opinions of a pair of raving racists
Jessica Elgot
Thursday 30 March 2017 07.00 BST Last modified on Thursday 30 March 2017 07.01 BST

Ken Livingstone will appear before Labour's most senior body on Thursday, which will rule on whether he will be expelled from the party for comments he made linking Adolf Hitler to support for Zionism.

The former mayor of London, who has been suspended from the party for 11 months, said he would present evidence to the national constitutional committee (NCC) to back up his claims in a series of TV and radio interviews that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" before he "went mad".

In a statement before the hearing, Livingstone said he had not broken any Labour party rule and said he would blame expulsion on the political balance of the committee rather than his own conduct. His case will be presented by Michael Mansfield QC.

"I am being attacked by the right wing of the Labour party because I support Palestinian human rights and strongly back our leader, Jeremy Corbyn," he said. "There is no real evidence against me, so hopefully the Labour panel will dismiss the charge against me. Only a biased and rigged jury could find against me."

Labour's national executive committee has referred the case to the NCC, the only body that can expel members. The meeting will be conducted in a private hearing of the NCC panel, despite calls from Livingstone for it to be made public.

Advertisement

Mansfield, who has previously represented families of victims at the Bloody Sunday inquiry and advised Corbyn during the legal challenge to the party's leadership election in summer 2016, will present Livingstone's case. His solicitor is Imran Khan, who has represented the family of Stephen Lawrence.

In a letter setting out the case against Livingstone, Labour's general secretary, Iain McNicol, said the former mayor must answer the charge that his conduct was "grossly detrimental" to the party, also citing his defence of Facebook posts by Bradford West MP Naz Shah.

Shah apologised for the posts which she admitted were antisemitic, suggesting transporting Jews from Israel to the United States. However, McNicol said, Livingstone then went on air to defend her and claimed the posts were not antisemitic.

"It is widely accepted and obvious that Ms Shah's posts were antisemitic and offensive," McNicol wrote. "Indeed, as stated above, Ms Shah herself accepted that her comments were antisemitic. So, too, did the spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn MP."

McNicol said Livingstone's comments about Hitler and Zionism had come unprompted to BBC London's Vanessa Feltz. "You deliberately introduced Hitler's alleged support for Zionism into the discussion with Ms Feltz, in the knowledge that, or reckless as to whether, it would cause offence to members of the Jewish community," McNicol wrote.

Livingstone will also present five witness statements from Jewish Labour party members in his defence, all five of whom are involved in anti-Zionist and Palestinian rights activism.

LSE professor Jonathan Rosenhead, a proponent of a boycott of academic collaboration with Israeli universities, said Livingstone's comments were "not perhaps expressed as elegantly as they might have been" but said he
did not find them "to be in any way antisemitic or offensive".

"It would be a tragic mistake if the Labour party were to find Ken Livingstone guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the party," he went on.

Walter Wolfgang, a former member of Labour's NEC, said in his statement: "As a Jewish member of the Labour party, who escaped Nazi Germany in 1937, I take the issue of antisemitism extremely seriously. Ken Livingstone has an outstanding record of fighting against racism and antisemitism. This hearing into Ken's actions is a travesty."

Another witness, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, the founding member of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, said Livingstone was being "pilloried because he is a prominent figure on the left of the Labour party".

"Those who allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredit the term," she said. "His track record in public office is a clear testament to his commitment to supporting the Jewish community and fighting racism in all its forms, including antisemitism."

The committee will also hear evidence from the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, Jeremy Newmark, who will appear at the behest of Labour's NEC and will be cross-examined by Livingstone's team.

Newmark, who has also submitted written evidence, said he hoped the panel would be focused on the issue of disrepute, rather than Hitler and Zionism. "I hope the panel will keep the hearing consistent to the charge, rather than allow it to be a trial of history," he said.

"I've agreed to give evidence because it is clear that whatever debate there may be about the facts or whether Ken's statements were antisemitic, the question is whether he has brought the party into disrepute. And I know from the acres of press coverage and the response we get campaigning in Jewish areas, the remarks have been damaging."

After the decision is made, the NCC may not issue any public statement but there is little practically that the committee can do to stop it being made public by the accused.

The committee, which has 11 members, is made up of representatives from trade unions, constituency labour parties, councillors and a socialist societies affiliated with Labour.

There is no comprehensive public list of the members, but the committee includes long-serving Labour councillors and activists, most of whom have been in the party for many decades from all sides of Labour's political spectrum. Their identities are not widely publicised to avoid external pressure on decision-making.

The committee is currently chaired by Rose Burley, a councillor and Labour member for 52 years, who also presided over the expulsion of George Galloway. Three of them will be on the panel that decides Livingstone's fate and a decision should be made as soon as the hearing ends or the following day.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/ken-livingstone-to-appear-before-labour-body-in-expulsion-hearing


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Who is "attacking" Travellers and Muslims Jim?

What points are you trying to make? The only points you seem to bother about are those created by your own distortions.

In the case of Travellers, when it comes to instances, arrests and convictions for unlawful detention, exploitation and slaving that particular group IS Massively over represented - Simple statement of FACT - no attack on Travellers in general, nothing said about ALL Travellers at all.

In the case of sexual exploitation gangs a certain culture - Note that JIM "CULTURE NOT RELIGION" - is over represented.

Shah denied the right of the existence of the internationally recognised state of Israel to exist - she acknowledged that, putting it down to her own ignorance and publicly apologised for doing so - What you think Carroll is of no consequence whatsoever.

Livingstone was found guilty of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute with his ludicrous and offensive comments related to Hitler and Zionism - he has been under suspension since Spring last year and unless he too acknowledges the error of his ways and retracts what he has said then he will remain under suspension for another year, because the NEC of the Labour Party are too gutless to expel him, too gutless to stand up to the hard left Hamas supporters who have taken over the Party.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 05:53 AM

"You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers"
Don't know about cherrypickers
They're a classic pair of lemons
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM

Found guilty of what, Keith? Can YOU give me the PRECISE WORDS they used that caused them to found guilty, and of what - the precise charge, please? That would clear this up. Who found them guilty? What were their legal qualifications? Antisemitism is a serious charge. Have the police been involved? Or are you going to say that what the Labour Party say is good enough for you? The Labour Party that you've been smearing for a living for months? I dont smear the Labour Party and a lot of what it says isn't good enough for me, and I'm a paid-up member. You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers, aren't you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:59 AM

Different language
Different morality
Different planet

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:47 AM

"As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant."
What you are trying to say is you have no answer to my points
Why should the opinion of a bunch of raving self-exposed racists be any more relevant to that of anybody else - especially on the question of racism
If I weer Keith, I'd be crowing "I won", but I don't go in for that sort of thing
If my opinion Is of no interest, why address me with your racist filth
"Yo Jim:"
I've always believed all racists are thick, but you exceed my wildest expectations
IF IT IS ANTISEMITIC TO BLAME THE JEWS FOR THE ACTIONS OF A FEW CRIMINALS, IT IS EQUALLY RACIST TO BLAME OTHER NATIONAL FOR CULTURAL GROUPS FOR THE SAME THING
"Both found guilty by the Labour Party!"
Since when have politicians been the arbites of right and wrong, especially those with a vested interest in seizing power for a particular party line?
Neither Shah nor Livingstone are guilty of attacking the Jewish people therefore they are not antisemitic and until they do, that is the way it will remain.
Corbyn's actions on Livingstone was correct - he disciplined him for insensitive behaviour not antisemitism - he was right to do so.
Pickles makes an interesting point in his article - there is no longer a workable definition of antisemitism so Britain has had to make up her own.
A survey finds that a quarter of British people have admitted to holding racist views.
You've been given the facts of what percentage of British people hole genuine antisemitic views about Jewish people
Why on earth should the views of the politicians they elect to parliament on antisemitism be worth a tuppeny fart
The Labour party does not have a problem with antisemitism - there is no earthly reason why they should have
On the other hand, when the Tories were accused of islamophobia, they confirmed that accusation by electing a racist as foreign secretary - they have yet to hold an enquiry
Which twin uses Toni - as the old adverts used to ask?
You have no case - only unproven accusations - noting has changed while I have been away
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:56 AM

Dave,
But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania.

It was Steve who said it was what everyone else thinks, not me.

He said, "We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times."

I probably have told him 50 times what everybody else thinks, and it is what I think too.

Jim,
as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah,

Both found guilty by the Labour Party!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 AM

As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant.

All these things happening in the UK, in Europe and in the world and Labour have got absolutely nothing to say about any of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:35 AM

Incidentally
Your 'Eric Pickles (Erick Picckles, fort chists sake) definition of antisemitism reads:
"Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews."
If that is true for antisemitism, it must be true for all racism against all races and groups
Attacking Muslims or Travellers because of the behaviour of a small handful of criminals is a racist act, pure and simple - must be true, Eric Pickles says so.
Ou perhaps you can explain why there is one set of standards for one ethnic grop and another for other groups
Smells of racism to me!!
I notice Pickles has carefully removed the clause which says it antisemitic to associate the Jewish people with the actions of the State of Israel - who is this political superman!!!
Eric Pickles - you have to be joking!!!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:20 AM

"Yo Jim:
Another case of non over representation of a certain group"
So the behavior of a handful of criminals from a community numbering a million and a half can be linked to the entire community - again
Being the raving out-of-the-closet racist that you have proven yourself, you would say that, wouldn't you
You've certainly earned your B.N.P. spurs on this one, haven't you?
Do they hand out the Irish Cross for actions above and beyond...?
No action on any group as small as these has ny significance whatever to which national and cultural group they come from - this is pure "all black men have big dicks" primitive racism, pure and simple - back to 'the 'Windrush/Notting hill riots' days.
If there was a shred of logic to your argument, every Christian in Britain and Ireland would be a potential Child rapist (a fact, you scum don't have the balls even to address) - utter nonsense.
No change in your scummy behavior otherwise - no substation of your Labour Party claims, no response to your having lied about my being a liar and no proof about "proven liars"
This really hasn't ben your year so far.
Your Labour party "serious semitism" claims have become a your little Alamo around two as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah, neither of whom have attacked the Jewish people - which is what antisemitism is
Both criticisd Israel - that is not antisemitism - the civilised world criticises Israel for its behaviour towards the Palestinian people - only the politicians stay silent out of self interest.
When you lot produce examples of Labour politicians smearing Jews, you might have a case, until you do, you haven't simples!
Please don't quote me the political definition of 'antisemitism' - not even the Israelis take any notice of that - they hide behind The Jewish People to void having to answer for their war crimes.
Jim Carroll

.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:40 PM

Of course you believe those you quoted, Keith. Why else would you have quoted them? But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania. Not sure what enjoying telling someone they are isolated and ridiculous means but pulling the wings off insects seems to be about on par.

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM

I do believe the same as all those I quoted, which Steve said was "everyone else."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:48 PM

Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks."

Did he also say "Yes. The same as me." I could have sworn that was you...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:46 PM

Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks."

He was referring to my latest quotes.
(Can you find any contradictory ones Dave?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM

We all know what everybody else thinks.

Yes. The same as me.


Errrr, no. More little porkies I'm afraid Keith. What is the percentage of the population that agrees with you? What sample have you taken to prove this? Unsubstantiated claim once again. You are still suffering from this win and lose syndrome I'm afraid and this is still not a debate.

As to

I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this.

If you genuinely feel that then I am sorry for you. You really need to find more enjoyment in life.

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM

Yo Jim:


Another case of non over representation of a certain group

Huddersfield this time 27 men and 2 women over 170 charges concerning 18 vulnerable underage girls over a period of 7 years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:13 PM

We all know what everybody else thinks.

Yes. The same as me.
Everyone except you Steve, but you still do not believe you could be wrong and everyone else right.

I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:02 PM

He can repeat it as often as he wants, he can repeat it on this thread for as long as you prats want to discuss weeds, wild flowers, recipes. He can repeat it as often as he wants because he happens to be telling the truth. As for having to explain anything to you Shaw? Well he certainly does not have to do that, even to attempt it would be a complete and utter waste of time - your definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism doesn't count for jack shit and by now everybody knows that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 08:09 AM

Ah, I see we're back to bold. How many more times are you going to repeat this stuff, Keith? Tell me instead what YOU think she said that antisemitic. The exact words that got her into trouble that showed her attacking Jews. Tell me instead what YOU think Ken said that was antisemitic. Man up, Keith. We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times. Quit the hand-wringing and the big messenger boy act. This is a debating forum, supposedly, not a forum for reporting your favourite newspapers and all those Labour people you clearly love so much that you treat them as gurus who speak ex cathedra.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 04:10 AM

The Independent,

"The party's decision not to expel Ken Livingstone over his offensive remark that Hitler once supported Zionism will alienate the Jewish community, once loyal and naturally Labour.
They were already heading out because they did not have much confidence in Jeremy Corbyn's stated policy of "zero tolerance" over anti-Semitism. The Livingstone affair was a chance for Labour to regain their trust. Flunked the test. Even Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, has admitted that Labour is "not living up to its [zero tolerance] commitment"."

"Livingstone was defending Labour's Naz Shah for sharing anti-Semitic Facebook posts before she became an MP. She wasn't even defending herself in this matter, issuing a full apology and showing how to calm such a storm before it rages out of control. Livingstone, however, deliberately did the opposite, repeating his remark ad nauseam even though he knew it caused great offence. He appeared to love the limelight. Bizarrely, he claimed the case against him was part of a plot against Corbyn.
The result has been another damaging episode that Labour could ill afford. For some Jewish Labour members, it will be the final straw. It will also offend a wider group of people. For many voters this affair also underlines an image of a party that seems to have remarkably little to say about the real world"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ken-livingstone-labour-anti-semitism-hitler-zionism-jeremy-corbyn-jewish-members-leaving-party-a7667836.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM

Once again you put the case of Israel's enemies, known for their lying propaganda.
None of those accusations stand up to scrutiny.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 09:07 PM

Very little point in demonstrating real antisemitic statements around here, Greg. Around here, antisemitism has nothing to do with Jews. It has everything to do with protecting a vicious regime that uses white phosphorus to illuminate its slaughter of children, that leaves hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets all over another country's farmland, which builds an apartheid wall that divides families and robs them of their olive groves, which oversees the massacre of civilians in refugee camps and which steals only the best land with the best water supplies from those of its citizens who happen to be non-Jews. So what we have to do is to lean on, blackmail and lobby till the cows come home all those vulnerable western democracies into accepting a definition that does nothing to protect Jews and everything to protect the regime. Nice!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 PM

You want a REAL antisemitic statement? Check out Trump's mouthpiece Spicer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:06 PM

That was poetic licence. It's all screwcaps.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:05 PM

No, it's just silly, round and round and round we go. There's no end to this. If I give you a recipe you tell me that I lose. Fine. Go and buy yourself a Big Mac. You have no time to cook but I do. Excuse me, I'm just sorting the jacket spuds, roast tomatoes and cold Gloucester Old Spot. Where's that damned corkscrew....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM

I would have thought that that was obvious Keith just by reading the link I provided - but then Raggy doesn't really do reading, understanding he does even less - which I suppose explains the daft questions.

Not silly Shaw just accurate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 01:43 PM

Rag,
Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it.

Au contraire, it is the same one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM

Shah's comments date from 2014.

So why, I wonder, did they only come to light when Corbyn took the leadership?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM

Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it.

So we can presume you are saying he is incorrect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:35 AM

You're just getting very silly now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM

There ya go Raggy:

UK Government definition of anti-Semitism

That is the one that would now get you charged with inciting hate, or committing a hate crime in the UK - couldn't give a toss about anywhere else.

The likes of Shaw and those who agree with him should take particular note of this bit:

"The UK Government's overall policy is that it is up to the victim to determine whether a crime against them was motivated by any particular characteristics. This builds trust in the police among minority communities, and allows flexibility in our response."

Or in other words Shaw, unless he is Jewish (Oy vey), DOES NOT get to determine what is anti-Semitic and what is not (More or less what bobad has been telling him for ages - in the UK it is NOW overall Government Policy). Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 09:08 AM

Would that be the same definition that the professor claims all decent democracies adhere to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 AM

I believe Raggy that that has something to do with laws not be retrospective?

The legal definition of anti-Semitism was officially adopted by UK Government and UK Police Forces on the 30th March 2016, Shah's comments date from 2014.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

If that is the case terikins why has Shah not been brought before a court.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM

"Now, Teribus, the thing is, read my lips, the map incident wasn't entirely serious now, was it?" - Shaw

Really? Now Shaw you read my lips - Go to a public place a state what Shah said - If reported you would be charged and found guilty of anti-Semitic hate - now how funny do you think that joke would be?

Not merely a matter of opinion Shaw, it is a matter of fact, a matter of law.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 02:07 PM

He and Shah are both lying then Steve, like the entire Labour leadership.
You expect to be taken seriously Steve?
Ha ha ha.

How much more likely that you have just got it wrong again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

What else do you love about John McDonnell, Keith? 😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:35 PM

John McDonnell,
"you(Livingstone) deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah,"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM

Steve,
You're even at it in the teacher thread now.

Why not? I am 3 years retired after forty years as a full time teacher.
You think you alone have anything to say?
Your ego knows no bounds.

Your stupidity grows by the hour.

Quote one thing then Steve, and we will see which of us is stupid.
You always resort to vacuous abuse in defeat.
You have no reply to my posts and nothing else you can say. Just name calling and bluster.
You lose again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM

Antisemitism is hatred directed towards Jews

Look up "new anti-Semitism" - people aren't as stupid as you think. Oh, and look up PC and euphemism while you're at it. Come to think of it check out "willful ignorance" too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 11:43 AM

Like hell, Keith. Your stupidity grows by the hour. You're even at it in the teacher thread now. Now, Teribus, the thing is, read my lips, the map incident wasn't entirely serious now, was it? She was repeating an extremely ill-timed and extremely unfunny "joke" that she'd seen somewhere else. I can't tell you enough how I resent the fact that she brought opprobrium down on the heads of Labour members. Bloody idiot. The biggest idiocy of all is that she had no regard for the inevitable fact that she would be shat on from on high as soon as the media got hold of it. And of course she was reacting to the actions of the Israeli regime. It isn't wrong to sympathise with the Palestinian side of things and she saw what was in her opinion the brutality of the regime towards people in Gaza. She did not mention Jews. Antisemitism is hatred directed towards Jews, not towards a regime she regarded as mistreating Palestinians in Gaza.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 11:18 AM

Steve, because you do not recognise the currently accepted definitions of anti-Semitism you may well be saying things obviously anti-Semitic to others including Jewish people.

They would then be justified in calling you an anti-Semite.
Happy with that?

Even John McDonnell recognises Shah's statements as anti-Semitic.
You really are isolated on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 09:35 AM

"The remark that got her into trouble did not mention Jews and was a response to the actions of a government" Steve (Lying Git) Shaw

That's right Shaw you never did answer that question I asked about what Shah said:

The following was the subtitle for a map of the United States of America with the outline of Israel superimposed in the centre.

Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict.
Relocate Israel into the United States...
The transportation costs will be less than 3 years defence spending


Naz Shah mentions Israel, she does not say anything about this only referring to the Israeli Government. Now then Shaw if you did take on Shah's advice who would you relocate if you did as she recommended - that would be the population of Israel wouldn't it - And the population of Israel is predominantly Jewish - So Naz Shah WAS talking about relocating Jews.

In stating what she did, she was of course being stupid, she was of course parroting what she thought was a message acceptable in her "socialist", right-on, left-wing, Hamas/Hezbollah supporting pals. What she was doing was denying Israel the right to exist - and that Shaw IS anti-Semitic - couldn't give a toss whether you agree with me or not - because if you stood up and stated the same today in public and someone reported you for doing it. Then you would be charged and found guilty of making anti-Semitic remarks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM

Steve,
Ignoring Keith's stupid post.

That is the problem Steve.
If anyone contradicts your preconceived views, you trivialise, ridicule and put them down. There is no point expressing alternative views however much evidence you can supply.
That is why I just quote senior Labour people to you.

There is nothing stupid in my post. Even Dianne Abbott and John McDonnel can see the anti-Semitism that you are blind to.
The Party is in dire straights since the takeover.
Loyal publications like New Statesman and Guardian are despairing of it.

I have shown all those things to you, but you just dismiss anything that challenges your worthless ideology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 06:23 AM

Ignoring Keith's stupid post. Teribus, you have just proved the point. She supports everything in Labour policy that you detest. Yet you trust her apropos of her grovelling confession. Odd. And I have not said she did nothing wrong. I've told you that I don't respect her and I've told you, several times, that she was stupid. I've told you that she has a long way to go in my estimation in order to restore her integrity. The remark that got her into trouble did not mention Jews and was a response to the actions of a government. Bad timing, stupid thing to do, no regard for outcome, I heartily disagreed with the comment - but not antisemitic. I don't care what she said in order to save her skin. She was not attacking Jews because of their ethnicity. If you're not doing that you're not being antisemitic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 03:37 AM

Steve, are you aware of a single person in the Party who has denied Shah's anti-Semitism?
No? Does that not tell you something?

Is there anyone in the world you can quote other than you, Livingstone and Jim?
No.

I will not discuss it with you for the reasons given, but you are utterly alone in your perception of what anti-Semitism is so there is no point anyway.

Now even the Guardian and New Statesman have turned away from what Labour has become since the hard Left took over.
People like you have destroyed a great movement.
Working people have been betrayed by the political ambition of a despised minority.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 26 June 2:50 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.