BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:14 AM

Not much time before I go into the wilds but I shall just reiterate that once my point is made there is no need to keep repeating it. Unlike those who are so insecure that they need to go on and on and on and on and on and...

Pissing contest and skunk springs to mind again.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:16 AM

DtG........No one has denied it bobad.

Worse than denying it they blame it on Jews. I was going to say unbelievably they blame it on Jews but, judging from their posting history, it is quite believable. You're running with a bad pack Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

But the fact remains that no one has said that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. Which is what you suggested.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM

Rag,
Not the first time I have had to post this. Clearly "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" irrefutably "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression"
No doubt you will deny it again.

Of course, because I know what I meant.
Perhaps I should have typed "lying "bollocks" to use Steve's expression" but it seemed unnecessary because anyone reading it would have just read Steve's post and known what I meant.
Any honest person that is.

You revealed yourself as capable of deliberate, unequivocal and despicable lying long ago. I have it bookmarked if you would like reminding.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:54 AM

Rag,
OK Terikins, show me where Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"

I can answer that Rag!
He never has and no-one has ever claimed it.
It was his use of the expression "bollocks" that I referred to.
How many times do you need to be told Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM

Dave,
I shall just reiterate that once my point is made there is no need to keep repeating it.

But your point is not made!
Your unsupported claim that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties was knocked flat by the FACT that complaints have only come from within Labour, and the FACT that the leadership itself acknowledges the truth of it.

Your claim that Labour is at least addressing the problem is knocked flat by all those Labour insiders who say that nothing has been done.

We are still waiting for you to make your point with any fact at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:04 AM

"I can answer that Rag! He never has and no-one has ever claimed it."

No one except you professor, and you have denied time and time again that you claimed it despite it being here in black and white for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM

"Worse than denying it they blame it on Jews. "
Once again Bobad
Keith has suggested three times now that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to identify Labour antisemitsm in preference to defending their party
Care to show your support for the Jewish people by commenting
No?
Thought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 11:06 AM

What Keith claimed on 16 December 2014 in the thread "I'm not an historian but....":

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

What Geoffrey Wheatcroft, an invited columnist (not "the Guardian," note), said in the Guardian on 9 December 2014 and what Keith was referring to:

That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

As you can plainly see, there was no remark made that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Keith not only said that that's what was said, he even put it in speech marks. He made it up. It wasn't true. Over two years on, he twists and turns but refuses to acknowledge that he told a porkie. An "oops, sorry" in his next post would have cleared it up. Had I not chased him up on this in subsequent posts, the lie would have stood, unremarked on. That's what people like Keith hope will happen. When they twist the facts (lie) in order to make a better case for themselves, they don't like to be challenged. Akenaton has recently told a lie in another thread about how his views generated threads with many thousands of posts. He was hoping no-one would challenge that. These people must think that the rest of us are idiots. Well we are not, and we shouldn't let them get away with such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM

Rag,
No one except you professor, and you have denied time and time again that you claimed it despite it being here in black and white for all to see.

It is not.
I referred to the expression "bollocks" which had just been repeatedly used by Steve, not "lying bollocks" which had not.
How many times do you need that explained to you Rag?

Jim,
Keith has suggested three times now that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to identify Labour antisemitsm in preference to defending their party

Unlike you Jim, I have not suggested anything so ludicrous even once.
Repeating the lie does not make it anything but a lie Jim.

Steve, I had already quoted the passage in full.
No need to repeat the whole thing every time I referred to it.
There was no deception. I had quoted in full.
Wheatcroft was on my side against you. No need for me to misquote him.

And, over two years later, that is all you have on me and it is nothing.

Why not just discuss the issues instead of forever trying to smear the opponent?
Because you can't!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM

Read your own posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM

You misquoted him. I've just proved it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:55 PM

I've scoured that thread again and I can't find a post before I challenged you on 16 December 2014 in which you had "already quoted the passage in full." The only prior reference I found was:

Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in th Guardian this week.

As far as I can see, had I not challenged you on the 16th you would not have been forced to quote the passage (which you didn't really need to do - God knows how many times I've posted it for you, including once today). The lie would have stood forever.

The simple fact remains that you said the Guardian had called Taylor fraudulent. It did not. You lied. And you won't admit it. All this demonstrates that you simply can't be trusted to be truthful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM

You referred to an expression "lying bollocks" an expression which Steve had not used.

It is all written down here for ALL to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:28 PM

You may also wish to note that when I asked your stalwart supporter, Teribus, to quote where Steve had used that expression he has not answered.

I posed that question over 5 hours ago, he has not responded. Although he has posted to other threads on 7 different occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:59 PM

Tag team rules is it Raggy?

Keith A is holding his own very nicely thank you very much. You want me to comment on something then make damn certain that it actually did happen. But however if you want to know if Keith A ever said that Steve had used the expression "lying bollocks" - pity to inform you but he never did. He did on the other hand comment on the five mentions of the word bollocks used by Shaw and then taken up like a baton in a relay race by the rest of your tag team. As a tag team you all lie rather a lot, you also misrepresent outrageously Shaw has just been caught doing so on another thread.

Here's the whole exchange:

Steve Shaw - 15 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

As we all know, many people on Mudcat talk bollocks. But now Raggytash and I are delighting, when exchanging notes on orchids, in talking literal bollocks. Very amusing! Well I think so anyway! The only people who disagree are those who talk the other kind of bollocks. They must think they have a monopoly on bollocks. Well bollocks to 'em, say I!

Here is Keith's response to Jim Cottall:

Keith A of Hertford - 15 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Jim, you accused me of making, "Probably the most antisemitic statement made of this forum."

I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such.

I find your lies and evasions despicable.

We have had real anti-Semitic posts from you. Would you like to be reminded?

Now then Raggy if you want examples of Jim's lying bollocks posted on this forum since 2007 ?????

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:10 PM

You are not prepared to answer a direct question as posed earlier.

Did Steve use the expression "lying bollocks" which is the source of this particular contretemps or is the professor lying.

It is either one or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:41 PM

Oh a "contretemps" is it Raggy? And here's me just thinking the "Usual Suspects" are just up to their old tricks "mobbing" Keith, like the bunch of Trolls that you undoubtedly are.

Who said that Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"? Keith A certainly DID NOT. So far only Shaw and you Raggy have claimed that he did.

In his response to Jim's inaccurate (As ever) and unsubstantiated (As always) accusation of making anti-Semitic remarks Keith A pointed out to Jim that he was lying and talking bollocks, ("to use the expression Steve Shaw had used five times two posts prior to Keith A addressing Jim Carroll). Jim Carroll by the way talks a great deal of bollocks on a vast array of subjects on this forum. In fact on that subject you Raggy are possibly his nearest rival in the talking bollocks stakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:06 PM

Good grief, look back at the professors post from 09.21 am on the 15th February.

Are you saying he didn't post this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM

My apologies. The professors post was at 09.01 on the 15th not quiet the time I posted earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM

Well Raggy, I must have read it because I copied it in it's entirety in my own post of 17 Feb 17 - 02:59 PM.

Bollocks WAS the expression Shaw used wasn't it? - It is plain enough to me that in his post of 09:01 Keith A is accusing Jim Carroll of spouting lying bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:46 PM

The professor posted "I have shown that to be lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" at 09.01am on the 15th.

Which part of this can you not comprehend, is it really that difficult for you.

Steve has not used that expression, the professor was incorrect to attribute the expression to him.

For 2 days he has lied, prevaricated, twisted, squirmed and lied some more when the simple solution would have been to withraw the comment.

However the professor can NEVER admit that he has made an error can he.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:54 PM

He's lied for TWO YEARS about the Guardian piece. You have a long fight ahead of you, Raggytash. In its way it's a trivial matter. But it doesn't half expose the man for the disreputable bugger he really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM

I really do think that when a dissuccion has reduced to "lying bollocks" and "Jom Carroll", it's had its day
Totally mindless
Life really is to short lads, you really are better than that
Leave these people to drown in their own swill - life really is too short
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM

Rag,
You referred to an expression "lying bollocks" an expression which Steve had not used.

I did nopt specify both expressions.
The expression I referred to was "bollocks" which was obvious to everyone at the time because Steve had just used it five times in one short post.
(Obvious to any honest person, who was not just seeking another smear to use.)

Steve,
I've scoured that thread again and I can't find a post before I challenged you on 16 December 2014 in which you had "already quoted the passage in full."

Dishonest Steve.
As you know it was in a parallel thread with all the same contributors including you.
If you had really "scoured that thread" you would have seen me point that out many times.

The FACT is that Wheatcroft rubbished both texts, whichever words he used and I did quote him in full.
The FACT is that in rubbishing those texts he rubbished your position and upheld mine.
The FACT is that you were just using that one word as a ploy to divert a thread that you were losing, exactly as you are trying to do again now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:13 AM

still lying about it I see, despite the truth being there for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:16 AM

Well the reality of the situation is Jim that if you and your pals didn't post such "contentious, ill-informed and idiotic" bollocks, to use Steve's expression (Please note the expression of Steve's that I am referring to here is the word Bollocks - the "contentious, ill-informed and idiotic" bollocks is my opinion of what you post) Then I for one would hardly ever post at all - to check that out take a look at my posting record with regard to:

(a) Length of time I have been a member
(b) Number of posts I have made (Far, far less than you and rest of the "usual suspects")
(c) Number of posts that I have initiated. ( Less than the fingers on one hand IIRC in 17 years)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM

Back to discussing the Labour Party.
The Independent 9 days ago,

"Former Labour parliamentary candidate(and current councillor) accused of anti-Semitism after retweeting a far-right meme"

"It suggested that Israel controlled both houses in the US House of Representatives and that the country, along with the Rothschild family, had taken over the world. 
He later apologised, saying he did not realise the user, Tinnelle88, was spreading far-right hate speech and conspiracy theories. But he had not deleted it at the time of publication."

"They (the Rothschilds) have since been the target of many unfounded conspiracy theories – many of which are anti-Semitic in nature. 
Mr Clarke's comments have reignited the controversy over anti-Semitism within the Labour party which has plagued leader Jeremy Corbyn over the past year.
The party was forced to confront a series of incidents last year including remarks made by members on Twitter and at public meetings."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-claims-candidate-fair-right-twitter-meme-a7570181.html

Huff. Post 12 hours ago on resignation of Simon Fletcher,

"But another Labour source told HuffPost UK: "Having got Corbyn elected in the first place he has reaped what he sowed.
"It's clear team Corbyn won't listen to anyone with a track record of delivery now. The last person to have masterminded a vote winning campaign has left the building."
"Simon made the hard left electable with Ken, clearly Corbyn was a bridge too far. Vaguely talented man realises very late in the day he's only ever worked for congenital idiots."
Another Labour insider said: "Don't forget that Simon Fletcher was a member of a Socialist Action, a Trotskyist group. When they are considered too moderate, it sends a really powerful message to everyone else that this isn't even a group that is willing to co-operate with other Trotskyist groups." "
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/more-pain-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-simon-fletcher-quits-as-campaign-chief_uk_58a7102ce4b07602a

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:43 AM

Well the reality of the situation is Jim"
No - the reality is if you didn't persist in talking down to people and insulting everybody who disagreed with you these threads would be far more useful and pleasant to be part of
Between you and your arrogance and Keith and his serial obsessive dishonesty, you've managed to turn this forum into a swamp
How about packing it in - the pair of you and behaving like adult human beings?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM

Nonetheless Keith, you lied in your teeth then and you're still at it now. Absolutely bang to rights. Trivial enough in the overall scheme of things, but the episode speaks volumes about your character failings. All you had to do was admit that you'd got it wrong. Teribus does that, Jim does that, I do that, Raggytash does that, Dave does that and bobad does that. I've provided enough here to show how you got it wrong, and the place in the thread is accessible (date and time above) for anyone who wants to see your disreputable behaviour in full detail. When you are arguing or debating with someone, it's crucial to know exactly who you're arguing with. That whole sorry episode, and your refusal to put your hands in the air, tells me that I can't trust a single word you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM

You really should verify your "facts" teri before you post.

Since 2002 when you first posted using the pseudonym Teribus you have posted on 8092 occasions.

Since 2001 when I first posted using the pseudonym Raggytash I have posted on 2884 occasions

Since 2001 when I first posted using the pseudonym Guest Raggytash I have posted on 3099 occasions.

2884 plus 3099 equals 5983, some 2109 posts fewer in a slightly longer time scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:59 AM

It ill-behoves you to draw attention to your posting history, Teribus. Bit of a drought above the line, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 12:36 PM

Of course there is a bit of a drought above the line Shaw. Threads above the line tend to be topic specific with less ill-informed, contentious, idiotic ideological bollocks, to use your own expression (Please note that the expression of Shaw's I am referring to is the word bollocks - the "ill-informed, contentious, idiotic ideological bollocks represents what I generally think of your contributions), so there is no need for intervention. Another feature in threads above the line is that there is none of the deliberate stalking and mobbing of contributors that goes on below the line. On the subject of traditional folk music in threads above the line I find myself generally in agreement with Jim Carroll, who when challenged to defend his views does so without the need for any supporting contributions.

Oddly enough Raggy I didn't bother looking you up as I regard you as more of "hanger on", compared to the rest of the crew but thank you very much for the correction.

Shaw - 14,425 member since 13th May, 2007
Carrol - 18,401 member since 6th December, 2007
Gnome - 16,088 member since 22nd June 2000

I'd look up Musket, but there were three of them which would skew the figures somewhat. Greg F. I simply do not bother with as he very rarely ever actually says anything (The noise he makes is like the music they play in a Lift {elevator for our American friends}). But I think you get the drift and general point being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

I'm surprised that you actually know about the ethos above the line, as you hardly ever go there. Well, except to read, I suppose you'll be telling us. But rarely to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

Steve,
Nonetheless Keith, you lied in your teeth then and you're still at it now.

No lies from me, now or then Steve.
Instead of always trying to smear, why not discuss the Labour Party as per the thread title?
Too humiliating?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM

Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:46 PM

Oh dear Shaw yet another thread where you have run out of steam and cannot resort to meaningless waffle - Otherwise recognised as "Complete and utter" bollocks, to use your expression to divert everybody's attention ( Please note the expression of Shaw's that I am referring to is the word "Bollocks" - the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of what Steve Shaw normally writes on any question under the Sun).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 02:43 AM

Now, Teribus, you don't have to be so personal about it...

What are the issues you'd like to address?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:17 AM

"Now, Teribus, you don't have to be so personal about it"
It appears he does have to Joe
It might be a good start if he addresses people in the name they chose
You suggested we did that quite a while ago - he is the only one to persist
It would remove some of the loutishness form his postings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:05 AM

Joe, is all the personal stuff directed at me not worthy of comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:14 AM

"Joe, is all the personal stuff directed at me not worthy of comment?"
I've just pointed out your own recently posted 'personal stuff' on another thread.
If you are going to indulge, don't whine when others follow suit
Your favourite "Muppet"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

Rather strange Joe that you do not find this (Addressed to Keith A) as being too personal - no resulting comment from you at all:

Steve Shaw - 18 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM

Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome.

What I posted was my honest opinion of what Shaw said.

Do I think Shaw posts "Complete and utter" Bollocks? - Yes I do, and I have now stated that opinion - an opinion on what Shaw has said - no personal remark or opinion of the man himself. I could have digressed to waffle on inanely about the first thing that came into my head, as Shaw and his pals have done, in an attempt to destroy the thread, but instead I responded directly to what had been posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 08:36 AM

"Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome."
Somewhat bland next to your years of persistent tirades of abuse, I thought
Want more examples - not really stared on it?
Latest examples
"Oh dear Shaw yet another thread where you have run out of steam and cannot resort to meaningless waffle "
"the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of what Steve Shaw normally writes on any question under the Sun!"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:36 AM

According to Carroll:

Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion

Seems as though Jim and his pals are the only people entitled to opinions - How typically "socialist" of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 02:32 PM

We had a lovely weekend in Ribblehead. My man flu did affect the walk in that it took us 4 hours to do the 5 mile walk but, in some ways, that made it all the more enjoyable. As I stopped to catch my breath every 5 minutes, I had time to enjoy the scenery more! Didn't catch many flowers, sorry Steve, but it was lovely all the same. Saturday evening was a dream as well. Thanks for joining us Raggy and Raggywife. Maybe if more people did the same we would all be a lot happier :-)

Sad to see it is the same old bollocks on here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:04 PM

You won't get many flowers this time of the year, Dave. It's bloody grim oop north in Feb. Glad you enjoyed it. Sod the bollocks. Let's turn every annoying thread into fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:06 PM

"Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion"
According to Teribus
Torrent of abuse = par for the course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:54 PM

Hi Ram Ho! fur Donal John,
Wi aw his tanterwallops on,
An' may he niver lack a scone,
While he mak's hi'lan' whisky.......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:56 PM

OOps wrong thread...sorry Jim