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

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]


BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Steve Shaw 15 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM
Raggytash 15 Apr 17 - 05:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM
Raggytash 15 Apr 17 - 04:56 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM
Raggytash 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Apr 17 - 03:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Apr 17 - 03:46 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Apr 17 - 09:23 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Apr 17 - 09:02 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Apr 17 - 02:28 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Apr 17 - 02:12 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Apr 17 - 01:03 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Apr 17 - 11:36 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Apr 17 - 11:34 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Apr 17 - 11:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Apr 17 - 10:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Apr 17 - 10:14 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Apr 17 - 09:32 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Apr 17 - 07:27 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Apr 17 - 06:39 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Apr 17 - 06:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Apr 17 - 06:14 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Apr 17 - 05:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Apr 17 - 05:31 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Apr 17 - 04:26 AM
Raggytash 14 Apr 17 - 04:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM
Teribus 14 Apr 17 - 03:14 AM
bobad 13 Apr 17 - 08:40 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Apr 17 - 07:59 PM
bobad 13 Apr 17 - 04:49 PM
Teribus 13 Apr 17 - 04:26 PM
Raggytash 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 PM
Teribus 13 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 12:38 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 11:57 AM
bobad 13 Apr 17 - 11:02 AM
bobad 13 Apr 17 - 10:42 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 10:31 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 09:30 AM
bobad 13 Apr 17 - 09:18 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Apr 17 - 08:53 AM
bobad 13 Apr 17 - 08:03 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM

Had Ken Livingstone simply said that he didn't agree with the way Naz Shah was treated, there would be no problem. Had he simply said that he thought she'd said nothing antisemitic, the same - no problem. Read my lips, Keith. He is in trouble because he said that Hitler supported Zionism. It's very silly when you twist things around for absolutely no good reason.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:17 AM

I can guarantee that the professor would not be as forgiving.

I take umbrage that he objects to personal abuse when aimed at himself but he is quite capable of abusing others and seems to believe it is OK if he does it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM

No, fair's fair Raggy - He did drop the 'yours is shit' on 15 Apr 17 at 03:46 AM. I guess being reminded that Jesus said 'forgive them for they know not what they are doing' may have helped

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:56 AM

Correction Dave, he stated "Different morality indeed Dave, YOURS IS SHIT"

Bigoted, pure and simple.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

I do find your explanation that it is OK to attack Christians but not those of other faiths because of what you might be accused of offensive.

That was not the explanation and well you know it. It was that you would use anything I may say about Jews or Muslims to further your agenda.

Different language

I also said "I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith." but you chose to reinterpret that in your own way.

Different planet.

At least you are saying different morality rather than shit or no morality. Was that the lessom you learned on good Friday?

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

Keith
I knew you would totally disregard what a Jew said about Livingstone and go for self serving politicians
You are a fascist with more than a a hint of antisemitism thrown in
Are politicians lying - do bears shit in the woods?
You have had an outline of why these events are taking place - the political in-fighting, the opposition to BDS - all you have got are the unqualified accusations of self-serving politicians.
If they are not lying they are not making sense - you do not accuse anybody of anything without specifying what you are accusing them of - natural justice - common sense...... whatever you care to call it.
Please respond to what the article says - it is specific, it makes historical points from a Jewish point of view, and, as far as I'm concerned, it makes sense.
Ignore it and you again expose yourself as a fanatical right-wing hater of everything decent (Sabra Shatila and your persistent racism against Muslims, Irish "brainwashed" children and "slave-owning Travellers" has done that more than efficiently) - your choice

Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

"A different morality indeed Dave, Yours is shit"

Sounds like personal abuse to me. Coming from someone who has frequently objected to such comments it is a little bigoted to say the least.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:47 AM

I am sure that the last 2 sentences are what some have been saying throughout this whole sorry thread but others have said that no one else thinks that. Ah well, I guess if no one thinks that I must have just not read it. Or maybe Jonathan Rosenhead is either not alive, not a qualified historian or not published in mainstream bookshops. Or Free Speech on Israel is a radical organisation that no one should take notice of. No need to wait, Steve. I think the predictions are accurate

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:46 AM

Dave, I said nothing about how offensive your posts were to Christians, just that they single out Christianity for ridicule and mockery.
I do find your explanation that it is OK to attack Christians but not those of other faiths because of what you might be accused of offensive.
Different morality Dave.

Jim,
"The Labour Party disagrees with you."!
When did they tell you that Keith


I have posted reams of quotes from senior and prominent Labour people saying it.
You say they are all wrong or lying.
I think you are.

Steve,
They think Livingstone should be expelled for his comments about Hitler and Zionism, not Naz Shah's remark.

No.
McDonnell said, "This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:23 PM

Great piece of writing, Jim. Wish I'd seen that before.



Wait for it.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:02 PM

From Haaretz April 11th
Let's see if our two fanatics have the balls to respond to it
Jim Carroll

In Defense of Ken Livingstone
By FSOI Vice-Chair Jonathan Rosenhead.
Republished from Haaretz.
Ken Livingstone, enfant terrible of the British political left, was arraigned before a Labour Party tribunal last week for things he said in a radio interview in April last year. (He has been suspended from membership since that time.) The outcome of the hearing has produced a mighty uproar.
The affair has its origins in a surge of accusations of anti-Semitism against prominent Labour Party members in the early months of 2016. One casualty had been Labour MP Naz Shah, who at the time of the 2014 conflict in Gaza had tweeted extensively and not wisely. (She was then not yet an MP.) Livingstone rode in to her defense, and it was an interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio that led to the case against him.
One of Shah's re-tweets had been a quote from Martin Luther King: "Remember that everything that Hitler did in Germany was legal." Feltz asked Livingstone a question about Hitler, seemingly to pick up this point, but he misunderstood the thrust and responded with some views on Hitler's interactions with European Zionist leaders in the 1930s, which he had written about decades earlier. This response turned out to be a gratuitous own goal, with escalating demands that he be expelled –which peaked last week when the Labour Party tribunal failed to sack him, but 'only' extended his suspension.
It is a shame that Colin Shindler gave such a one-dimensional account of the Jewish community component of this furor. Shindler paints a picture of a British Jewish population all but united behind Israel and against Livingstone, except for a few "marginal" and "highly unrepresentative" types. Like me.
I need to declare an interest. Although my previous direct contact with Livingstone was limited to a conversation while walking down two flights of stairs after a public meeting some years ago, I was one of five Jewish Labour Party members who gave evidence for the defense at Ken's hearing a week ago. We testified in particular on the allegation that his remarks had been anti-Semitic. The oldest of us had got out of Germany as a child in 1937, with his parents lucky enough to make it two years later. My own back story is less dramatic. I grew up in a thoroughly Zionist family in Liverpool. I spent the summer of 1956 in Israel on the Jewish Agency's Summer Institute project. I celebrated without any doubts Israel's military victories from 1948 through to 1967. Many others have since then, like me, been forced by Israel's continuing treatment of the Palestinians to rethink and regret our former position.
It is true as Shindler says that the great majority of us (around 90 percent, according to a reputable 2015 survey) express some degree of attachment to Israel. Indeed I do myself. However what he glosses over is that more than 40 percent of respondents, when specifically asked, declined to describe themselves as Zionists. Those who self-describe as Zionist have actually decreased from 72 percent to 59 percent in just five years. My own subjective experience is that of those who still do identify as Zionists a substantial proportion express criticisms, some verging on disillusion, with the actual policies of successive Israeli governments.
It gets worse. What the survey calls "dovishness" increases the younger you are, and the more education you have. Among under-30s, the percentage who say they would support sanctions against Israel if they thought it would get Israel to negotiate for real with the Palestinians rises to 41%.
It is not only Shindler who paints a picture of a united Jewish community "up in arms" because the "anti-Semite" Livingstone has not been expelled. On the day of his non-expulsion Haaretz reported the Jewish Leadership Council as blasting the Labour Party. An article by Daniella Peled quoted incandescent condemnation by the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Holocaust Education Trust. The UK's Jewish communal organizations have indeed been jumping up and down and making a lot of noise, in unison. But this apparent unanimity is a construct.
These organizations effectively blanket out any coverage of this dissident, alternative Jewish perspective. It is as if the Jewish organizations which take a skeptical or downright critical view of Israel – Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Free Speech on Israel, Independent Jewish Voices, Jewish Socialist Group and others – do not exist.
So what did Livingstone say that makes his expulsion so compulsive? He said, in his now infamous radio interview, that when Hitler became chancellor "his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism…" This Transfer (Ha'avarah) Agreement is, perhaps unfortunately, solidly based in fact – and many more people probably know that now than did before Livingstone's gratuitous history lesson. The agreement was based on a unity of purpose (but not of motivation) between the Nazi regime and a range of European Zionist organizations, which lasted through to 1937. The Nazis wanted Jews out of Germany, and Zionists wanted Jews to settle Palestine. As a quid pro quo for the arrangement Zionists called off the economic boycott of Germany and gave other assistance to the faltering German economy.
How could this statement of facts be seen as anti-Semitic? One neat solution found by Livingstone's enemies was to misquote it, either as "Hitler and the Zionists collaborated"; or even as "Hitler was a Zionist." The host on a BBC radio program swore blind to me that Livingstone had said just that.
Quoting historical facts can hardly be anti-Semitic, which is presumably why the Labour Party didn't even charge him with it. The allegation was, rather, of "bringing the Party into disrepute" – a nicely vague and plausible accusation, for which he received a two-year suspension. No penalty was imposed on all those MPs and other Labour worthies from the right of the Party who seemingly thought they might be able to get rid of one of the Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's most effective supporters. They brought the party into disrepute but, of course, were not charged.
There are multiple casualties in all this. Foremost there is the truth, bent and misused for partisan purposes. Second, the Labour Party, brought even lower in popular esteem by the continuing disloyal attempts to unseat a leader with a radical mandate – and one who supports the Palestinian cause. Third, the fight against anti-Semitism. Until recently there was no doubt about what the concept meant, and that it was anathema to all but an unsavory fringe. Individuals and organizations who think that it can be raised into both a shield against criticisms of Israel, and a weapon for taking back control of the Labour Party, are trying to politicize the notion of anti-Semitism. Only the real anti-Semites will benefit from the resulting confusion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:28 PM

I am sure someone said that the people who are affected should be able to say what is offensive or not. I am officially a Christian so I should be able to say what is offensive to Christians or not. What I said was not offensive. I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith.

WTF are you on about Keith?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:12 PM

But this is what you said:

"They and all those Labour MPs think Livingstone should be expelled for supporting anti-Semitism expressed by Shah."

They think Livingstone should be expelled for his comments about Hitler and Zionism, not Naz Shah's remark. What's the matter with you, Keith?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM

"The Labour Party disagrees with you."!
When did they tell you that Keith
Please explain in as many words as ncessary how anybosyt can be found guilty of anything withhout it being specified
Otherwise, please stop being so mindbogglingly stupid
Apart from a lynching, can you please give a case where somebody has been ben punished for something unspecified (outside the pages of Franz Kafka)
You must be totally insane to make such a stupid suggestion
You have been given what is happening in The Labour Party - over and over again
The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge it makes it obvious that you have failed to "win" something, you have now resorted to your habit of lying
You have the arguments - where are yours
Stupid, stupid little obsessed man
No charges - no case to answer
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 01:03 PM

Jim,
ONE MORE TIME - NO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ACCUSATIONS - NO CASE TO ANSWER

The Labour Party disagrees with you.
Can you find anyone who does Jim, or are you isolated and alone in your views?

Steve,
Ken Livingstone's suspension issue has nothing to do with Naz Shah. It's about his saying that Hitler supported Zionism.

Nonsense Steve. Discussing Hitler's antics in the early thirties would hardly bring the Party into disrepute!

As McDonnell said, "This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that you(Livingstone) deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah, just apologise now and I'll tell you, Jewish members of the community will accept contrition and will forgive and move on but until we get some form of apology I don't think we can."

Dave, so singling out Christianity for ridicule on the most sombre day in the Christian calendar is OK, but not any other faith or you might be accused of prejudice!
That is milder persecution than Christians endure in say the Middle East and Pakistan, but persecution none the less.

A different morality indeed Dave.
Yours is shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:36 AM

I have some for every occasion but I suspect that if I tried any other religion you would accuse me of antisomethingophobia. Nice try but no prize.

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:34 AM

Ken Livingstone's suspension issue has nothing to do with Naz Shah. It's about his saying that Hitler supported Zionism. Go and have a lie down, Keith. When you get up, tell us what YOU think either of them said that was antisemitic.

The lunch was lovely. Good value and fabulous grub. The fiscal damage was less than anticipated!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:28 AM

She is a prominent party member and knows much more about what is going on than you do.
Sh i a right-winger trying to rid the Labour Party of Corbyn and is using unfounded claims of antisemitism - pretty much the same as the rest of them are.
Career politicians, even the ones who tend to share his views, regard him as a liability - a threat to their careers.
AS far as the members is concerned, Corbyn is probably the most popular leader it has had in my lifetime - under his leadership. Labour has beme one of the largest in Europe - you never get that from the shits you keep putting up.
Whatever the Parliamentary careerists say publicly (the only views that reach the media) the membership is saying something different.
When will you get in into your extremist head that, until you substantiate these accusations they have no basis as far as antisemitism goes
I suspect you know this as you refuse to respond to the facts surrounding what both Livingstone and Shah said - neither attacked the Jews, both were reactions to Israel's war crimes and atrocities.   
As you are an enthusiastic supporter of these, you are never likely to face that fact head on.
Please, stop being boring and stop putting up opinions of people who have a vested interest in getting rid of Corbyn
ONE MORE TIME - NO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ACCUSATIONS - NO CASE TO ANSWER - BOTH COMMON SENSE AND NATURAL JUSTICE
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM

Dave, I enjoyed your piece mocking the core beliefs of Christianity.
Ha ha ha.

Perhaps you have some similar pieces on other religions?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:18 AM

Ever seen my impression of Jesus on a rubber cross?

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:14 AM

Jim,
For the record, Emily Thornberry is a...

So what?
She is a prominent party member and knows much more about what is going on than you do.
Likewise the Deputy Leader, elected by the membership, whose views and knowledge you also try to dismiss.
Likewise Mcdonnell, who did not have a farm but who is Corbyn's closest ally and Shadow Chancellor.

They and all those Labour MPs think Livingstone should be expelled for supporting anti-Semitism expressed by Shah.
I think that their views are worth reporting on this.
Your dismissing of them shows how isolated and out of touch you all are.
Likewise your denial of anti-Semitism that is clear to all them and everyone else.
Who can you quote?(ha ha ha)
Just each other!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:32 AM

Talking of good Friday this tickled my fancy :-)

Jesus died to give us two bank holidays

Also brought to mind an odd situation back before licensing hours relaxation. We used to do the pace egg play every good Friday at the Lancaster Maritime Festival. Pubs used to shut about 2 I think coz it was Sunday hours. Then, lo and behold, through the blessed lord's intervention they relaxed pub hours on a Sunday as an experiment:-) It must have worked because they then extended it to all days. Well, it either worked or they never saw us suffering from the effects of the Pusser's Rum promotion.

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 07:27 AM

"Emily Thornberry "
For the record, Emily Thornberry is a right wing opponent of Corbyn- a snob who tweeted photographs of a 'white van' parked in the street as part of her Rochester election campaign, a liar who claimed her relatives to have held military positions they did not hold and a politician found to be totally ignorant of contemporary politics.
She was accused of being a hypocrite for her behaviour on private education for her own children.
She joins your growing list of reliable (not) accusers - somebody you would not buy a used car from
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:39 AM

McDonnell says they both are. says they both are."
Is he the old McDonnel who had a farm - orwas that MacDonald
Both are equally qualified or otherwise to pronounce on what is or is not "antisemitism"
Quote away Keith - until you substantiate that either of the accused attacked the Jewish people, and util you are able to provide evidence you have no case - not even if Corbyn had wrung his hands and said they were guilty
Fortunately he is far too decent an individual to scapegoat innocent people "for the good of the party" (as you accused the Jewish members of doing)
Boris Johnson apologised for his racist remarks yet you pair of right-wing tossers said he wasn't a racist
It appears you believe the politicians you want to and reject those that don't suit your right-wing agenda.
Conviction without evidence based on accusation alone is lynch-law, not justice.
Go look up the legal necessities of proving somebody guilty - then you can go to your arm-raising rallies
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:15 AM

{{{Shudder}}}

You shouldn't say things like 'paying for eight of us' to a trainee Yorkshireman!

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:14 AM

Jim,
Neither Livingstone or Shah were guilty of Antisemitism

McDonnell says they both are.
Why would he lie?

Almost half of Labour's 229 MPs have signed an open letter warning that the decision not to expel Mr Livingstone over his comments is a "betrayal" of the party's values.
A total of 107 MPs, along with 48 Labour peers, put their name to the Jewish Labour Movement statement criticising the move to only hand Mr Livingstone an additional one-year suspension.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said in one TV interview(Andrew Marr)that the former London Mayor should be thrown out for offensive comments he made about Hitler and Zionism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

It was soon to become defunct by 2005 is what I meant. It's long gone. Lunch at a very nice farm shop cafe at Boscastle for us then a stroll by the sea. The downside is that I'm paying for eight of us.😳


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:54 AM

"OH JOY "
Forgot to thank you
Your sickening glee when you thought you had find yet another stick to beat yet another ethnic group confirms what a small minded goose-stepper you are - you and your "Christian" mate
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

The interesting thing, Steve, is that the figures are available here. You know, that survey that Teribus seems to think I am using to compare apples and oranges. It makes for interesting reading in that there is a right wing neo-nazi theme seems to run though those prosecuted. It does not say whether any of them were Labour supporters but it becomes apparent that it is unlikely :-)

Not sure if we will get any response from Keith today with it being Good Friday and all that. Shouldn't good Christians use it as a day of reflection and, maybe, abstinence from usual activities? We are going for the traditional catholic food for tea and having salmon. To show that I am no longer frightened of the priest I am having Polish ham sandwiches for lunch though. Oh, and I am working as well. Nice to be in when the office and roads are so quiet. Will get time off at a more convenient time.

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:31 AM

My questions remain unanswered. A lot of fudging and a lot of skirting around, as expected.

Now, Teribus. Antisemitism crimes in this country are covered by the Public Order Act 1986. There is no new law based on your sacred definition. The government has formally adopted that definition. It has not "become law." Doubtless it will be used to determine whether an offence has been committed under the Act. Doubtless there will be few or no cases relating to criticism of Israel. Why not? Because the definition is unworkable. It has been adopted as a sop to pro-Israel pressure groups in order to keep them quiet at last. I remind you again that the definition is virtually identical to the 2005 EUMC definition that was dismissed as unworkable. That definition was drawn up by a body, soon to become defunct, that was "advised" almost exclusively by pro-Israel lobby groups. One fine day you'll see that the definition is actually injurious to Jewish people. If you discriminate against or attack Jews because they are Jewish, you are being antisemitic. Easy to define, easy to apply, a good definition for protecting Jewish people. The rest is politics and you know where that gets us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 04:26 AM

"OH JOY "
You people really are something else
You bust a gut demanding that we adhere to a law on antisemitism that has been invented by politicians to protect a terrorist state, yet on the other hand mount your own racist attacks on communities that don't suit your own bigoted tastes "rape implanted Muslims", "brainwashed Irish children", "slave-owning Travellers" - and now the oldest one in the book FLY-TIPPING.
For crying out loud have you no imagination beyond dredging the scummy bum-wipe press for racial smears?
It seems to happen every time another of your claims goes down in flames.
Fly- tipping in Britain is a common practice both by Travellers and the settle community in Britain - there are literally hundreds of shady London businesses which offer to dispose of your unwanted rubbish, take it away and illegally dump it.
A few were run by Travellers when the law allowed them to stop for a few weeks before moving them on but there are few left around to do that now - that is the case in most big cities - Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester
Travellers are highlighted because they are an easy target.
We had dealings for a time with a Travellers organisation in Wordsworth who had a solicitor working on their behalf (voluntarily)
Locals had complained about the rubbish that accumulated around the site and it was found that the bulk of it (old furniture and fridges mainly) had been dumped by locals who had taken the opportunity to dupm their unwanted rubbish on the Travellers site
The incident was fully covered and exposed by the local press, thanks to an enlightened editor.
Travellers accumulate rubbish naturally, as we all do, because many local firms refuse to handle it as they handle settled rubbish.
Waste disposal is a massive HUMAN problem - not a Travellers one.
NOT A TRAVELLER IN SIGHT
"SOME BLAME TRAVELLERS" SCAPEGOATING
And you racist scumbags try to lay the law down on Ansisemitism - what are you on!!!
Keith
Neither Livingstone or Shah were guilty of Antisemitism - neither attacked the Jewish people and no definition other than attacks on Jews is valid (as Eric Pickles pointed out)
Livingstone may have been insensitive and stupid when he reminded us of the historical facts surrounding THE ZIONISTS - NOT THE JEWISH PEOPLE and the Nazis, but that is not being antisemitic.
Einstein made the same points, groups like 'THE REAL TORAH' have it as part of their policy....
Many other Jews have taking it far further by suggesting that Zionism not only co-operated with the Nazis, (some say, to save Jewish lives, a did the Catholic Church in Italy), but are echoing Nazi policies in their behaviour towards the Palestinians.
Shah may have been stupid - but again, she did not attack the Jews.
She took a suggestion made by Jewish intellectual, Norman Finklestein and offered it as a solution to the current deadlock
The bum-wipe press where fully aware of this when they claimed she invented the solution - they even used Finklestein's map to smear Shah.
AS hard as you try, you will never make a case until you produce attacks on Jews - Israel isn't The Jewish People, Zionism is a political philosophy - it isn't The Jewish People.
It seems your "serious problem of antisemitism within the Labourt Party has narrowed down to two doubtfuls out of - how many members?
Yep - as serious as that!!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 04:04 AM

So no condemnation of the individual in this case or a condemnation of the case I mentioned a few weeks back.

No surprise really.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM

Steve,
So we're agreed then, Keith 'n' Teribus. No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

No!
Shah was.
Livingstone's anti-Semitism is what "brought the Labour Party into disrepute."
Then there are the dozens of suspensions.
No other party has these problems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 03:14 AM

OH JOY

Now just dying to hear "the cultural reason" why the good people of Oxford have to pay for clearing this mess up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:40 PM

No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

Right, they were suspended from the party, made to recant and apologize, reprimanded and vilified all because they were not guilty of anti-Semitism right Shaw, just like those Nazis who were only aiding the Jews in their project to relocate them to their ancestral homeland.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:59 PM

So we're agreed then, Keith 'n' Teribus. No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:49 PM

Go count the land that has been stolen

No land has been stolen - that is a typical anti-Semitic trope.

Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians

Gaza is under a legal blockade against the importation, by their terrorist government of weaponry whose aim is to kill Israeli civilians. You will note that when Israel gifted Gaza to the "Palestinians" no blockade was in effect, it was established in response to missiles being launched against civilians by the terrorist government Hamas. No missiles = no blockade, it doesn't take a genius to work that out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:26 PM

Perhaps Raggy if you'd like to explain the basis for comparison it might help. You won't do that because you know you are doing a "Gnome" and comparing apples to oranges. Castigating Travellers and the Asian community??

So Raggy how many young boys have been abused in the UK since say 2004?
How many have been abused by Catholic Priests?
Does the "brand" of the religion have any significance?
Population of the UK is some 65 million, how many of them describe themselves as Christian? How many of them are Roman Catholic?
How many have been abused by others who could not be described as Priests, Roman Catholics, or Christians of any other denomination?

You see for you to make your statement you'd have to have all that information at your fingertips.

Now for the life of me I know nobody from any other section, or group in the UK that I can recall kept dozens, possibly hundreds, of people in inhumane and degrading conditions and exploited them working them like slaves for periods of up to a quarter of a century and milking them for every penny that could be squeezed out of them. Can YOU?

Same goes for the gang grooming, rape and sexual trafficking of vulnerable under-aged girls. In 12 cities in England the common denominator that linked the members of these gangs was what Raggy? Don't be shy in responding, influential members of their own communities felt compelled to commented on it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Well 8 hours have now elapsed since I posted about a catholic priest had been jailed for abusing a young boy.

Not one of the people who attempt to castigate the travelling community or the Asian community for perceived ills has deemed to respond.

Quelle surprise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM

"Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal
You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people" - Jim


Care to elucidate Jim and give us some details about this programme where "The Voice of the Jewish People" came out with these pronouncements? Who is "The Voice of the Jewish People"? And how was he or she elected to the position?

I do know that all members of the Israeli Government are elected by the electorate of Israel (Mostly made up of "Jewish People" Jim), and that those elections are held regularly which is more than can be said for the other inhabitants of the former mandated territory of Palestine (I think they last had an election about 12 years ago).

How many Egyptians have the Israelis killed in the last 38 years Jim?
How many Jordanians have the Israelis killed in the last 23 years Jim?

In both cases Jim the answer is none - the reason for that is they stopped trying to kill Israelis, they also stopped threatening the state of Israel, so Israel no longer had to fight them.

Now if your pal Jeremy Corbyn's pals in Hamas and Hezbollah tried the same approach then the people of Palestine might find their general lot in life improving - it won't happen of course as the "leaders" of the "Palestinian people" are not interested in any peace in which a state of Israel exists. As long as Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israelis, Israelis will exercise their right to defend themselves. The fact that the Israelis are more effective than their attackers does not mean that they must exercise more restraint - there is no equivalence when you are fighting for your very existence - Or should they all move to the US mid-West Shaw? Oh but wait a minute to suggest such a thing would be to deny Israel's right to exist and that is anti-Semitic. I know somebody who made that suggestion Shaw and so do you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM

For Jim,
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 Jim.

Is he a friend of Israel?

Or Diane Abbott?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 12:38 PM

What kind of scum defend the actions ooof soldiers as just described?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:57 AM

"I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. "
Go count the number and compare them - p
Go count the land that has been stolen
Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians
One lot of killing does not wipe out another and only an inhuman little shit woulf claim otherwise.
Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal
You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people
Wear your badge with pride
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:02 AM

I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. These murderers are celebrated as heroes and given a lifelong stipend that rivals what teachers earn which tells us a lot about where their values lie. In 2016 $137.8 million, about 10% of their annual budget when to rewarding the murderers of Jews. Nice to know that your government's aid monies are being used in this way, isn't it?

Great human beings eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:42 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:31 AM

Just been listening to some very moving interviews with Israeli soldiers on a programme on Israel around Easter on Irish radio
One described methods of torture they are now told to use on detainees, such as DRYING OUT
He said many young soldiersare protesting at the methods they are told to use and are being put on report for doing so.
He described how farmers had to travel miles to get through checkpoints to get to their land on the other side of the wall

He told how soldiers close checkpoints when it takes their fancy and how one elderly farmer with his you7ng grandson passed out from the intense heat while waiting for the gate to be reopened - he sto soldiers danced in fromt of them as a n effort ton humiliate them while a third filmed them on hos mobile phone.
He ended his statement with obvious difficulty by saying, "in a few days time the world is honouring the man who died on the cross just a few miles from here - what kind of honouring is that?"
A "self-hating Jew", no doubt!
Great human beings eh?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:30 AM

"Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it."
A getout for those who blame the Jewish people for the Crimes of Israel Bobad
You have never at any time been able to produce a single person who has attacked the Jewish people, yet you do constantly yourself for calling those who criticise Israel "Jew haters
You are making atrocities carried out by israel "Jewish" - you are by definition antisemitic
You are the leading antisemitism on this forum - accept that title with pride
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:18 AM

People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable

Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:53 AM

"I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party"
And I can't see anybody in their right mind believing somebody guilty of anything unless the accusations are substanbtiated
People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable Bobad - that is your contribution to the welfare of the Jewish peole
Hope you are proud
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:03 AM

I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party as long as Corbyn ("our friends Hamas and Hezbollah") is leader.


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: 29 April 9:35 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.