BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:33 PM

By the way, Billyboy, thanks for this:

"Zionists inside Germany represented a tiny minority of Germany's Jewish population."

Excellent! So criticising Zionists for collaborating with Hitler can't POSSIBLY be antisemitic then. Antisemitic means that you hate all Jews. You can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticise only a selected tiny minority of Jews, such as those Zionists in Germany. So I ask again: why has no-one said that Ken is an antisemite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:26 PM

"National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from."

Well, the extreme distemper of this stupid remark, not to speak of the sheer illiteracy of the sentence, makes me conclude that you've been on the booze and that it's way past your bedtime. I don't normally resort to that, but, on the other hand, I don't like my good self or the perfectly decent blokes who you also mention being equated with Nazis. You are totally out of order, completely intemperate and completely disgraceful. Why don't you toddle off and post something in the music section? That would be a rarity but it might just sweeten you a bit. Or you could just wait until you've slept off whatever is addling your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:12 PM

Ah Gnome - you obviously haven't read Jim's link either - suggest that you do, along with some history of Germany 1933 to 1939 - then and only then will you have some feel for the situation.

You will find that:

- German Jews considered themselves to be Germans first and foremost and loyal Germans at that.

- Zionists inside Germany represented a tiny minority of Germany's Jewish population.

- The World Zionist Organisation was extremely vocal in their opposition of Nazi erosion of the rights of German Jews.

- Zionist organisations inside Germany found themselves as the only "organised Jews" in a country where their predicament could only be described as having one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. They theorised and cobbled together proposal after proposal to offer the Nazis that would allow Germany's Jews to leave - all were discussed, but the Nazis never had any intention whatsoever of entering into any real negotiations, they just kept offering that glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel - it served to keep the Jews quiet - the Nazis wanted their wealth and their businesses.

- There was no collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionist organisations inside Germany, as stated above it was the latter who tried desperately to enter into negotiations with the Nazis to save Jewish lives that traffic was strictly one way.


National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:06 PM

"The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:
No it wasn't."
Beg pardon Bobad - my mistake
The author of the article is based on quotes from Lucianda Berger - my description above is of that good lady, not the author
Same thing applies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:00 PM

There was no Nazi collaboration with the World Zionist Order, or indeed with German Zionist organisations, although the latter did try to negotiate with the German Nazi Authorities but were led by the nose and ripped off at every single opportunity

Just how stupid a statement is that? If there was no collaboration how could they have been 'led by the nose'. To have been in that position there must have been some collaboration in the first place. Unless of course we are talking Hertford English rather than standard English.

list all the complaints of anti-Semitism that have emerged from any other party.

An even more stupid statement. Can you list the complaints of antisemitism against the Nazi party in the 1930's? I guess there were not many so, by your measure I suppose the Nazi party were not antisemitic!

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:49 PM

The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:

No it wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:27 PM

The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:
Interestingly, while she supported Israel vehemently in Parliament, she was criticised by them for not supporting them enough because of wishing to advance her career
So - two agendas, an Israeli poodle and a political careerist.
Berger was the Director of Labour Friends of Israel for three years, but stepped down before the 2010 general election to stand in Liverpool. She was a committee member of the London Jewish Forum, an organisation dedicated to the promotion of Jewish life in London, but stepped down when she was elected to Parliament in 2010.
Second parliamentary term (2015–present)
In May 2015, the UK Independence Party suspended Jack Sen, a candidate who wrote to Berger on Twitter that she would rather have part of the budget sent to Poland/Israel than have it spent on child benefits.
"Not true. Just your made up shit Jim. It has an opposition and a free media that criticise its policies every day."
Says so in the definition - anybody linking Isreali actions with The Jewish people are antisemites


"Unless you can come up with some others there is clearly a massive over-representation of Travellers convicted of slavery, as I said."
"Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case. How many can you think of?
Otherwise it is a massive over-representation."

"Quote one Jim. You are just lying about me again."
"For a tiny ethnic group that is unequivocally a massive over-representation."
"Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation.
There may be many possible explanations, but it is a massive over-representation and that is all I ever claimed."
"merely pointed out a massive over-representation in recent convictions."
"Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case. How many can you think of?
Otherwise it is a massive over-representation."
THere you go Keith
Continue with your hate campaign - I would love a debate with you on a "massive over-representation of clerical child rape
You are a piece of racist scum - Muslims - brainwashed Irish children, now travellers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:50 PM

Think you've mashed the Hertford spuds many times over, Steve - but it doesn't seem to make any lasting impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:20 PM

Because I THINK it has a rotten regime. I was in a hurry to go and mash the spuds.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:18 PM

Zionist and Jew are not the same thing. The Catholic Church collaborated with Mussolini. By saying that, I'm not condemning the whole of Christianity. Catholic and Christian are not the same thing. Not only that, not all Catholics agreed with that collaboration. So Zionist and Jew are not the same thing. If I say I dislike Zionism, in no way am I saying that I dislike Jews. And I dislike people who are telling me what I'm saying. I'll tell YOU what I'm saying. There is nothing, NOTHING antisemitic about saying that Hitler supported Zionism. We can argue the fat over whether that's true until the cows come home. But there is no argument about the fact that it is not an antisemitic remark. If you disagree, let's be having your precise reason why. Your reason, not according to a "definition." Tell me why you think that saying Hitler supported Zionism is an attack on all Jews. Had I been around when Zionists were fighting for a Jewish state I would have been opposed on political grounds, not because I hate Jews. That's the way the world works and no religion has the right to trump political discourse. But I do not oppose the existence of Israel now. Israel is a fact and that is also the way the world works. In fact, I support the state of Israel in that I want it to become a real, progressive democracy. So far, I think it falls short of that. That does not mean I'm antisemitic any more than it means I'm anti-America because it has a rotten regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM

Reuters, 10 hours ago,

"Britain's opposition Labour Party suspended former London Mayor Ken Livingstone for saying Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism, but was accused of being too soft on the veteran politician.
The row comes against a backdrop of criticism within Labour and in the Jewish community, rejected by party leaders, that Labour has had a persistent problem with anti-Semitism under hard-left leader Jeremy Corbyn.
"Ken Livingstone's comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community," Corbyn said in a statement on Wednesday.
Under pressure from Jewish community leaders and Labour members of parliament who argued Livingstone should have been permanently expelled rather than just suspended for two years, Corbyn hinted that further action could be taken."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-politics-labour-antisemitism-idUSKBN1770QY

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

Steve,
Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?"

Er, their disciplinary committee found him guilty of it Steve.

100 British Labour MPs have denounced their own party for failing to significantly discipline a prominent anti-Semitic member.

Is this happening in any other party, or is it just a problem for Labour?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:28 PM

Jim,
To Israel - all who critisise its policies are anti-Semitic

Not true. Just your made up shit Jim. It has an opposition and a free media that criticise its policies every day.

Steve,
You think that the Tories and UKIP harbour not a trace of antisemitism.

I am sure that they do, but their Jewish members have experienced nothing to complain about, while Labour's Jews are furious about how they are treated.

Jim,
your vicious racist attacks on the Travelling Community,

Quote one Jim. You are just lying about me again.
"No Traveller signs" are not common throughout Britain. Fact.
Travellers are over-represented in recent convictions for slavery. Fact.
That is all I have ever said about them.
If you are not lying, quote me.

Dave,
Keith, nothing you have listed indicates that the Labour party is any worse than anyone else. Just better at accepting responsibility.

Not true. They are very bad at accepting responsibility, and the other parties have had no complaints to accept responsibility for!
If that is not true, list all the complaints of anti-Semitism that have emerged from any other party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:14 PM

"I haven' read '51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.', but I know the author not to be an antisemite and afre seeing to and people like yo perform, I will make a point of doing so - argument by name-calling always makes me supicios that people have something to hide" - Jim Carroll

I certainly hope that by now you have read all 404 pages of it Jim. I'd suggest that your pals Gnome and Shaw do as well - because it doesn't say what you think it does, it most certainly does not say what Ken Livingstone says, or thinks, it does.

There was no Nazi collaboration with the World Zionist Order, or indeed with German Zionist organisations, although the latter did try to negotiate with the German Nazi Authorities but were led by the nose and ripped off at every single opportunity. What they were attempting to do was save lives and they did save a few thousand. By the way there was no arrangement whereby the SS trained and armed Zionists prior to allowing them to emigrate to Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:39 AM

But according to Keith's reasoning, Teribus, Livingstone has not said anything antisemitic. All he has done is repeated facts. That seems to be the excuse used most often by Keith. Travelers are over represented in cases on slavery. Not anti traveler. Pakistanis are over represented in grooming cases. Not anti Pakistani. The Nazi party, of which Hitler was the head in case you had forgotten, collaborated with Zionists. Not anti Semitic.

Keith, nothing you have listed indicates that the Labour party is any worse than anyone else. Just better at accepting responsibility.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM

"The Stench of the Anti-Semitic Old Right That Hangs Around Ken Livingstone"
Opinions written by Colin Schindler, who actively opposes B.D.S. and regards opposition to Israel as "antisemitic" - he includes protests in support of the Palestinian people as such, even by Palestinians themselves.
He lectures on occasion in Tel Aviv and has been criticised by his students as doing so
What else if his opinion goint to be.
"Hitler made a deal with the Zionists? Really? Pity no details of this deal have been put in evidence, or was this deal only struck with A. Hitler "
You are (deliberately?) not reading what is being put up again Teribus.
"'Fifty One Documents - Zionist collaboration with the Nazis'" is there for the perusing, and if you ever stop behaving like a schoolyard bully - Ken Livingstone - right or wrong, did not snatch his opinion out of the air, as you dishonestly suggest, Jews like those who make uo 'The True Torah' have been making the same accusation since the war.
Your blustering bullshit really does expose a distinct self doubt in what you have to say
"working definition of antisemitism"
As often as those defending Israel put this definition up, they need to respond to the fact that Israel, and anybody who defends her behaviour with accusations of "antisemitism" is being as "antisemitic and Jew-Hating" as anybody by ignoring one of it's most fundamental inclusions "HOLDING JEWS COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:06 AM

The Stench of the Anti-Semitic Old Right That Hangs Around Ken Livingstone
Haaretz

Yet Livingstone's public pronouncements have spoken of 'collaboration' and 'collaborators' – a term which conjures up Vichy France and Vidkun Quisling in the minds of many. The insinuation is that the Zionists of the time willingly and deliberately worked with the Nazis, not to rescue Jews, but because they quietly approved of Hitler's revolution in German society.

Why, the sentient observer might ask, would he make this incendiary claim? For that, it is important to dissect the narrative and imagery of the mindset of many on the far Left – a mindset related to the notion that current-day Israelis are Nazis, Gaza is the Warsaw Ghetto and besieged Palestinians are the 'real Jews'.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 10:45 AM

I am behaving very much as an adult Jim. If I am wrong about anything and it is pointed out to me I am adult enough to acknowledge my mistake and correct my error. Keith A of Hertford has demonstrated exactly the same degree of honesty, integrity and maturity. YOU and your pal Shaw on the other hand have not.

Now back to Naz Shah who said nothing anti-Semitic according to Shaw, despite the lady herself admitting what she had tweeted WAS anti-semitic. So I suppose this rests on the "Shaw definition" and that Naz Shah only wanted the "Israeli regime" to be lifted and shifted to the mid-west of the USA, or did she state her support for the idea that the entire State of Israel be moved to the USA? As this was demonstrated by the borders of 1923 Palestine being superimposed on a map of the USA it would appear to be the latter. In which case Naz shah in that tweet is stating quite clearly that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination, that the State of Israel is illegal and that the Jewish people have no right to a self-governing country - Which is about as anti-Semitic as you can get.

Now onto Ken Livingstone - Hitler made a deal with the Zionists? Really? Pity no details of this deal have been put in evidence, or was this deal only struck with A. Hitler and nobody else apart from KL knew about it? The SS were supposed to have armed and trained German Jews to prepare them to fight in Palestine? What at the same time as they were burning Synagogues and Jewish businesses and homes in Germany? At the same time as even the SS were solely reliant on the German army for weapons and training? For fucks sake read the very well documented history of the period - the whole bloody thing is a ludicrous fantasy. Nor surprised at all that Shaw and Carroll swallowed it.

As far as definitions go:

What is Antisemitism?

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a "working definition of antisemitism" which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism's longstanding call for the British government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, following which the British government formally adopted the definition.

Hey guys, guess what? Inveterate liar and hypocrite Steve Shaw KNOWS BETTER cos "teacher's never wrong" - don't know who thinks he's kidding but he doesn't impress me one f**kin' iota.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

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

- 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.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour).

- Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour 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 characterise Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 10:16 AM

Tell you what I'm going to do Keith
You obviously have no intention of desisting with your vicious racist attacks on the Travelling Community, by far the most vulnerable in Britain, on the verge of being ethnically cleansed out of existence – so I think it's time to put your "massive over-representation" invention to the test.
Over the last few decades, the Christian Church, in Ireland in Britain and as far afield as Canada and America, has been blown apart though disclosures of clerical sexual abuse that have gone back certainly throughout the twentieth century and even beyond – the first case of Clerical sexual abuse was recorded as far back as The Book of Kells.
Not only have clerics made sexual use of children that fell within their reach, but their church hierarchy have colluded in that abuse by covering it up and by the offenders being passed on to parishes where their "little weaknesses" are not known.
Up to the present day the Vatican has refused to reveal details of those abuses and allowed the victims to achieve some sort of justice, or at least, peace of mind.
These abuses have been centred on the Catholic Church, but it is obvious that they include other Christian churches, your own included.
You refuse to comment on the two Salvation Army Christians who imprisoned a young woman for eight years, during which time they raped and sexually abused her, beat her, starved her and kept her in conditions in which it would be illegal to keep an animal.
It seems to me that, if the actions of a small handful of criminals, who happen to be Travellers, represent a "massive over-representation" by the Travelling community, using your own 'logic' that has to be the case with the Christian church and its many hundred of clerical abuses.
Not only that, taking another of your inventions, as the abuses spread to all levels of the Church, it seems possible that the Christian Church is "culturally implanted" to rape children – if that can be applied to Muslims, why not Christians?
While I have serious doubts about your claim, you say you are a Christian, so you should be able to give us an insider's view
I have no desire to upset or insult people on this forum whose beliefs I respect, ut I really do think too and Teribus have been given your head (whoops – not a tactful term as far as clerical abuse goes!!) for long enough.
I worked with Travellers for thirty years and I found them warm, generous and welcoming; I was also able to see what damage racism like yours and Teribus's did to them and their families.
One more mention of "massive" or even "small over-representation" and I will start a thread of my own to see how your theory holds up when applied to other cultures and races.
When that runs its course, I may even start one to see if the third of British people questioned who admitted holding and expressing racists views represents yet another "nmassive over-representation" or "cultural implant"
Waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 09:52 AM

"Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?"

They have: Jo Coburn asked Labour MP "Is Ken Livingstone anti-semitic?"

Hitler wasn't a zionist; he colluded with Zionists because it suited him as part of his aim to get as many Jews out of Germany as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 09:31 AM

Back in the UK for a month, before toddling back to Erin. Thankfully we travelled overnight as there were over 100 miles between Holyhead and home, parts of the M62 were down to one lane !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 09:03 AM

That's it, Keith. You are truly a fanatic. You think that the Tories and UKIP harbour not a trace of antisemitism. What planet are you on? You've rewritten the Middle East history of the early 1980s. You've scurrilously, without evidence, smeared the whole of the travelling community. Now you're lying about the Labour Party again. Give me a list of all those Labour members who have been FOUND GUILTY OF ANY UNEQUIVOCAL CHARGE OF ANTISEMITISM. Won't take long, will it, Keith? And you have not answered my questions. What part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic? Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?" You are a smear specialist, aren't you? You smeared the British Pakistani community, you smeared the traveller community, you smeared the Labour Party. You dedicate yourself to smearing anyone who doesn't fit your cosy Tory middle-England Christian warm beer down the pavilion mindset and you don't care whether you have evidence or not. You are an exceptionally nasty piece of work, aren't you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 08:27 AM

"Decent, liberal democracies embrace the definition."
But Israel has rejected it
" it is antisemitic to implicate the Jewish people in the actions of teh State of Israel"
To Israel - all who critisise its policies are antisemitic
Can't pick and mix a definition - it has to be all or nothing
"No complaints of any kind of racism or intolerance to deal with."
The Tories were accused of serious Islamophobia a year ago - they appointed a racist as foreign secretary
I suppose that's doing something about it - helping it be more effective
Your facts and figures are forely missing something - the facts
You invented "over-representation" and have never produced a single individual to back up your claim - not even phantom ones.
You are very much a part of racism in Britain - a fanatical one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:36 AM

Steve,
So in order to become a decent democracy all you have to do is sign up to Keith's antisemitism definition.

You have it about face Steve.
Decent, liberal democracies embrace the definition.
Nasty, intolerant, abusive regimes do not.

he's proved to us what a bunch of slave-driving bastards travellers are in general

How could I prove something which I have stated is untrue.
You resort to lying about me again because you are losing so badly.
I merely pointed out a massive over-representation in recent convictions.

And, when I quote one of the many Labour dissidents, what is the point of you people pointing out that they are Labour dissidents!???
Ha ha ha ha.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

Dave,
So, no facts and figures at all then, Keith,

Plenty of facts Dave.
The FACT that the Labour Party alone is riven with complaints about the attitude to women, gays and Jews.
The FIGURES are the dozens of members facing disciplinary action for anti-Semitism.
No other Party has anything like that Dave dear, or has there been something that everyone has missed? Do tell us about it.

Thought not. Until you can prove that Labour suffers from antisemitism more than anyone else

Proved beyond question Dave.

in fact the only party that has the guts to do anything about it

Ha ha ha !!
The other parties have nothing to do anything about!
No complaints of any kind of racism or intolerance to deal with.
Labour has had nothing but such complaints for months now.
Facts and figures for you Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:00 AM

"Voting for Blair"
Voting for scumbags like Blair had s.f.a. to do with racism, opposition to which has remained unchanged since Labour was founded by the Trades Unions and immigrants like the Jews fleeing pogroms
The nearest not New Labour have given to any form of racism is to adopt an opportunist approach to winning votes by compromising on immigration, but somebody with your outlook, who thinks it is acceptable to force immigrants to wear yellow stars and who believes mass murderer had something to sat worth listening to can't possibly have a problem with that
Your comments on soacism are crap as you as far away from a real socialist as it would be possible to imagine - personally, I hope to the gog I don't believe in that I don't live to see your brand of National Socialisam come to fruition again - I was born when it was at it's most vicious, I hope I don't go out to see it jackbooting its way through Eurpe again.
Corbyn is the one shining light in a party that has been taken over by right wing predators and career politicians seeking a tenure for life.   
If he fails, let's hope that genuine socialists have the nouse to take Ireland's example and build a few alternatives cable of challenging the status quo (though that took the self-destruction of the Irish Labour Party to make that a possibility)
Jim Carroll

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

"Labour are still the "party with such a long, proud history of fighting against racism, for equality and for what is right".

What a ridiculous statement!......Where have you been for the last forty years? Voting for Blair and lapping up the kudos of victory in three elections no doubt.

All that Labour ever stood for is long gone, look at the rump of the Parliamentary Party, most of them pro EU with their snouts just itching for the money trough. The most corrupt and undemocratic shower we will ever see, "liberals" to a man (and woman), they disgust me.

Corbyn doesn't yet have a party to lead, he is leader in name only of a gang of self serving dissidents ready to knife him at the first opportunity......Mr Corbyn has a very weak movement of socialists which will never gain electoral power in the near future...I don't think Mr Corby will live to see a real socialist government, but it will come by necessity some day....It wont be pretty or much fun, but by that time it will be a matter of survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:35 AM

Steve: "So 'commonly accepted' means accepted by 31 countries out of nearly 200."

Keith: "Yes, it is just the decent and tolerant democracies.
The rest of the 200 are the nastiest regimes on Earth. Your friends."

So in order to become a decent democracy all you have to do is sign up to Keith's antisemitism definition. Don't worry about fixing corruption, rigging elections or repressing your own minorities. Sign on this line and you'll become decent! Do you realise how idiotic your comment looks, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM

Don't ask Keith for facts and figures, Dave. After all, he's proved to us what a bunch of slave-driving bastards travellers are in general by highlighting almost three court cases against them in about four years! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:20 AM

Yvette Cooper, as well as being one of the right-wing Labour cabal who managed to hand power to Cameron twice and which is dedicated to undermining Jeremy Corbyn at every opportunity, is a supporter of Labour Friends of Israel. I note that neither she nor the Labour Party have dared to utter the words "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite." Nor dare they say that "Hitler supported Zionism" is an antisemitic remark. Why won't they say these things? Because Ken is as un-antisemitic as it's possible to be, that's why. He visited Israel and forged links with left-wing groups there. As mayor of London he regularly met with the city's Jewish groups and he introduced public Hanukkah celebrations in Trafalgar Square in 2005. He gave unstinting support to minority ethnic groups and campaigned for racial equality and equal rights for LGBT Londoners. He did this in the teeth of often racist or homophobic derision from the Tories and the media, branded "loony left," remember? He did as much as anyone to change attitudes to minorities. You don't do all that if you're antisemitic. On two or three occasions he's made undiplomatic remarks that have got him into trouble, but then he has had a hawkish right-wing media on his back for decades. Not a single antisemitism accusation against him has stuck. You are a hypocrite for singling out a man who has done a damn sight more to help ethnic minorities in this country, including Jews, than anyone in the shoddy party that that you support. I include Blairites in that as well. Why not. They're just as bad.

Now use your brain for once and tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic, i.e., attacking Jews because they are Jews. Let's see if you can manage, for once, to answer without telling me what someone else thinks. I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:49 AM

Those dozens and everything else are your "facts and figures" Dave.

So, no facts and figures at all then, Keith, just newspaper articles showing that Labour are still the "party with such a long, proud history of fighting against racism, for equality and for what is right". I linked a survey about antisemitism once that showed the highest figures were amongst UKIP members but you dismissed that even though it was based on actual figures rather than assumptions. Can you link me with anything to show the percentage of antisemites by political party? No? Thought not. Until you can prove that Labour suffers from antisemitism more than anyone else and is in fact the only party that has the guts to do anything about it you will excuse me if I totally ignore you.

Now, off to walk up to the towers with my youngest grandson shortly. The sun is shining but there is a bit of morning chill in the air. Perfect day for it. I shall report back later.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:35 AM

Yvette Cooper
"She served in the Cabinet between 2008 and 2010 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions."
After Labour left government in May 2010, Cooper and her husband Ed Balls were both mentioned in the press as a potential leadership candidates when Gordon Brown resigned as Leader of the Labour Party.
Before Balls announced his candidacy, he offered to stand aside if Cooper wanted to stand, but Cooper declined for the sake of their children, stating that it would not be the right time for her
In 2015, she was nominated as one of four candidates for Labour leader following the party's defeat in the 2015 general election and the resignation of Ed Miliband
Cooper came in third place,"
There you have it Keith - a wannabe but faieled Labour leader and opponent to Corbyn.
Very much a part of the Old Guard and an opponent of change
Unproven and undefined antisemitism is as good a ladder to the top of the heap as anything else
Let's see if she breaks the silence and actually discusses the antisemitism instead of using it as a way to the stars
More shite about decent democracies that sell arms to despots I see
Mindless crap Keith
If they didn't things that Israel weren't true they would be outraged at such an appalling accusation throughout the world and stand up for them - or are they too "decent" to stand up for a nation that is being vilified unfairly?
Your stonewalling is showing again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:03 AM

Huff Post article yesterday by Yvette Cooper , Labour MP for Normanton, Castleford and Pontefract, and chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee
Headline,
"Saying Anti-Semitism Has No Place In Labour Is Not Enough - We Have To Stand Up And Make It True"

Opening para.,
"Last night's decision by Labour's NCC disciplinary panel was utterly wrong. It isn't enough for the Labour Party to say the words "zero tolerance of anti-Semitism" we have to put them into practice. Yesterday the party's institutions failed to do so. For a party with such a long, proud history of fighting against racism, for equality and for what is right - this is a dark moment. But it is a moment we must not let just pass."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette-cooper/ken-livingstone_b_15827362.html

"Facts and figures" Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:54 AM

Steve,
So "commonly accepted" means accepted by 31 countries out of nearly 200.

Yes, it is just the decent and tolerant democracies.
The rest of the 200 are the nastiest regimes on Earth. Your friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:50 AM

Dave,
Facts and figures for it being worse in the Labour party than anywhere else please Keith.

Ha ha ha ha!
You don't follow the news much Dave.
No other party has been riven by complaints from within about intolerance of women, gays and Jews.
The Indy has not run headlines about members of other parties tearing up their membership cards.
No other party has had to suspend dozens for alleged anti-Semitism.
Those dozens and everything else are your "facts and figures" Dave.

Steve,
Naz Shah didn't say anything antisemitic.

According to your view of anti-Semitism maybe.
You have proved yourself incapable of recognising the real thing.
The Labour NEC recognised it for what it was, and Shah herself admitted it was anti-Semitic and that it stemmed from her ignorance of history.
Perhaps ignorance is your problem too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:32 AM

"Better than asking a liar Shaw."
Why don't you start behaving like an adult Teribus?
Your strutting used to at least provide some entertainment - now you have joined the happy band of trolls who just insult
Is being asked to justify your arguments really that difficult?
How the mindless have fallen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 10:37 PM

Better than asking a liar Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:00 PM

Christ, Jim. You are asking a man to think who has never shown the slightest evidence that he is equipped to do such a thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:47 PM

"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
That's what I said Bobad - every time to screech "Jew hater" or "antisemite" whenever somebody criticises Israel, that's what you are.
As Israel has now made this a permanent response to their war crimes - they are an antisemitic state
I don't for one minute believe you will respond to this, but that's what you do and it's what defines what you are.
Think on't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 05:48 PM

So "commonly accepted" means accepted by 31 countries out of nearly 200. Can you improve on that number? 😂 Thing is, you keep on chuntering out this "definition." It's getting a bit boring and it's very forced. Whats wrong with saying that antisemitism is hating Jews because they're Jews? Clear, simple, unarguable, nothing to do with states or regimes. Can you argue with that? Give it a whirl!

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

There is antisemitism, which means hating Jews because they are Jews.


As adopted by 31 of the world's countries including the Government of the UK, the UK police forces and the UK Labour Party:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

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

- 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.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- 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.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:35 PM

There is no such thing as Labour antisemitism. There are no brands of antisemitism. There is antisemitism, which means hating Jews because they are Jews. I'm glad you accept that Ken was dealing in facts. Here's another fact for you. Naz Shah didn't say anything antisemitic. What a shame she saw the need to save her skin by admitting to something she didn't do. Isn't it amazing that you cling on to one statement from a woman you revile as if she's somehow saintly just for saying that one thing. Forget the NEC. Forget the Labour hierarchy. I'm a Labour Party member and I'm the first to admit that the NEC and hierarchy are dysfunctional. Just think for yourself and examine what she actually said. You never do that, Keith, and you're not going to do it now. You're going to tell me that you're right because of what someone else thinks, never what Keith thinks. You're hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM

DOESN@T COME CLEARER THAN THIS
"Not true. It is now defined in law."
And Israel and Bobad choose to ignore that Law by describing criticism of Isreal Antisemitic - so have you
You can't have a valid law if the signatories choose to ignore it
"n the eyes of your government and its police force this post of yours is anti-Semitic. "
I am no longer living in Brtain and am not subject to their laws while I live elsewhere
As I said
"You can't have a valid law if the signatories choose to ignore it"
Ad I repeat "I have never at any time in my life attacked the Jewish People
Your filty and cowardly lie says I have - yo are a cowarddly and dishonest scumbag
And still you accept Keith's antisemitsm - my ideal Jewish hero is Dov Landau, who is yours - Adolpf Eichmann
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:13 PM

"Yes, the one elected to his post by the membership.
One of many (most?) politicians who fiddled expenses at that time.
What is your problem with Labour Friends of Israel?"
Doesn't alter the fact that he is a crook and he works for Israel
What's your point?
"It does not, which is why you have no evidence for your ludicrous claim."
These people operate in secret but is chairman of Friends of Israel, has announced his opposition to BDS and each time accusations of antisemitism have been he Watson coincided with him returning from Israel in that capacity
You have been given the dates.
Too much of a coincidence for all but those it doesn't suit
"It does not, which is why you have no evidence for your ludicrous claim."
Yes it does - prove the coincidences are coincidences

Tom Watson sings 'Am Yisrael Chai'
Watson begins singing to his audience while delivering a speech to Labour Friends of Israel in which he repudiates anti-Semitism, attacks moral bankruptcy of BDS Movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:58 PM

Facts and figures for it being worse in the Labour party than anywhere else please Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:29 PM

Dave, you did not deny that Labour anti-Semitism exists, but you claimed it was no worse a problem than for other parties.
It clearly is.

Jim,
The Israel - BDS connection that Terribus, Keith and Bobad said did not exist

It does not, which is why you have no evidence for your ludicrous claim.

Dave again,

From what I understand Keith does not consider it antisemitic to state facts either. Bit of a poser that one init poos?

There is nothing wrong with stating facts, but KL tried to use those facts as a defence for Naz Shah's anti-Semitic comments. That is the issue.

Jim again,

Crooked politician forced to resign as cabinet minister for expenses fiddles who is a chairman of Friends of Israel" (do you mean?

Yes, the one elected to his post by the membership.
One of many (most?) politicians who fiddled expenses at that time.
What is your problem with Labour Friends of Israel?

Steve,

Well, Ken wasn't expressing an appalling view. He was stating a fact!
That would be OK but he tried to use those facts to defend Naz Shah's anti-Semitic statements.

Jim,
Yours and Israel's overuse of the term has made it completely meaningless

Not true. It is now defined in law.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:09 PM

Well I'm in good company with Churchill too in that he wanted to defeat the Nazis but I still hated the bastard.

"Commonly-accepted." Have you done a survey then? Got numbers for us? Or are we only counting those decent democracies of Keith's? Like the UK for example, that decent democracy that sells arms to and trains the Saudi forces so that they can cause thousands of children to starve in Yemen? Got a list of the decent democracies who have adopted your "definition" who do deals with a country that publicly beheads 300 people a year? These things get a bit blurry when you dig, don't they? So who's "commonly accepted" it then?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:03 PM

In the eyes of your government and its police force this post of yours is anti-Semitic. It marks you as an anti-Semite. You don't get to invent your own definitions and laws - that's not the way things work in society. Make your donation now and I expect to see a copy of the receipt.


User Name         Thread Name         Subject         Posted
[PM] Jim Carroll         BS: Palestine (657* d)         RE: BS: Palestine         23 Oct 11

I have claimed that there are comparisons ("echoes" is the word I used) to be drawn between the behaviour of the Nazis towards the Jews, and that of the Israelis towards the Palestinians

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 01:50 PM

You really are going to maintain your spinelessness by not responding to my offer or refusing to criticise Keith's antisemitism - a hypocrite a coward and a liar
Sounds like something out of The Wizard of Oz
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 01:07 PM

"Commonly-accepted"......Exactly!