BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:44 PM

"... the morality that allows you to pursue me because once, three years ago, I said "fraudulent" instead of "vulgar and fraudulent"..

Ah, but it isn't that simple, is it, Keithie?   Sounds like a peccadillo the way you say it here. But it wasn't like that, was it? You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once. You want us to think that you're not thick and that you are the bearer of the sword of truth. But you read the Guardian the same as I did that day (unfortunately for you), and only a complete imbecile would have "innocently" made that mistake. It was so easy to interpret. But you thought you'd try to fool us. You had an agenda to prove us wrong, and, like those bad cops who have to get a result at all costs, you decided to lie. So Keith, what's it to be? Are you a liar or are you an imbecile? We'll accept either, I promise!

Are you there, Teribus?

Ahem.

WHEATCROFT!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:12 PM

Raggytash, you are clearly living the dream. Actually, living in north Cornwall on sunny spring days like today, I sort of know what you're feeling. I was in your area in 1977 and it was desolate but gorgeous (it wasn't a good summer!). One day...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:07 PM

Keithie baby, if I said that IDF soldiers went into the camps to kill people, I would be obliged if you could provide the quote. It's my opinion, take it or leave it, that the Israeli regime of the time was responsible for the massacres. Their troops were in total control of the area and they stood aside to allow the Christian phalangists, their allies, to enter those camps to do the killing. If you reject that you are in a very small minority and I suggest that you go and buy a history book written by a living historian in the last thirty years, preferably one on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. It will assuredly confirm what I've just said, what I've always accepted and what I've never strayed from. Gosh, will my patience know no bounds?

Ahem.


WHEATCROFT!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 05:48 PM

It's my party, not yours, so bugger off, Iains.

Touched a nerve, have we, Bill? One puny post in the music section from you in six months when I looked a couple of days ago. Not a lot more before that either. You are in this forum under false pretences. You have little or no interest in the music it seems (it seems - what else save your lack of above-line posting is there to go off?), yet you come here to lambast and insult anyone who dares to disagree with you. This forum is nothing more to you than an outlet for your spleen. Go on, prove I'm wrong. Post something worth reading above the line, you charlatan.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:40 PM

I took a drive this morning across the Bog Road, eight miles of barren, bleak, desolate land that is utterly and sublimely beautiful. At first appearance it looks incapable of supporting any human life, but once you know how to look and what to look for I found the remains of at least 6 houses. So people at one time must have eeked a living out of it.

Superb and serene, the only sound the wind and the bird song. A wonder to behold and one that I try to taste every few days when I'm out here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:29 PM

It was not personal abuse Dave. I don't do that.
...
You blatantly lied in a particularly offensive way. I just dropped one word that did not even change the meaning of what was said.
Your morality is shit Dave, but I would still not subject you or anyone else to personal abuse.

So telling someone that their morality is shit and that they have lied is not personal? Does anyone else see what is contradictory with the above statements?

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

Still, it matters not one jot. I was going to go to the gym tonight but seeing as it was such good weather decided to go for a walk instead. Set off as the church clock was chiming 6 and returned as it chimed 8. In between I went up the 'clough', a beautiful wooded stream, formerly part of Sutton Hall. Beyond the defined paths it goes up the valley quite steeply and it was rather muddy so I certainly did more than my workout. The wild garlic was abundant in the woods and the squirrels were busy doing whatever it is squirrels do. Past the top of the valley I wandered past a couple of farms, one where the farmer was busy trying to get his chickens in their hen house for the night. Looked fun! Walked back down the lane and as the sun was on its way down the bird song was glorious. The view down Airedale towards Embsay Crag was stunning in the late afternoon light. Many gardens had their forsythia in bloom plus plenty of other spring flowers I did not recognise. The blackthorn bloom is abundant but the hawthorn is just coming into leaf - So cast not a clout yet :-) As I got into the village I could not resist calling in my local for a swift pint of superbly kept Black Sheep. What more can a man ask for?

I wonder whether some on here ever stop to enjoy the simple things of life and if not, could that be a reason for the bile and bitterness we regularly see. Take it from me, Keith, when there is such joy to be had on my own doorstep your opinions and tortuous arguments fade into absolute insignificance. Make the most of whatever Hertford has to offer. If you cannot get out into the countryside try reading or taking in a film. Anything is better than trying to win points from people who are not even interested in the same game as you.

All the best

DtG

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

The penalty of another year suspension is not so much lenient as no real punishment at all. What message is that supposed to send to everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:36 PM

Indy headline a few minutes ago,

"Ken Livingstone suspended for another year from Labour after bringing party 'into disrepute' over Hitler Zionism remarks
It was widely expected that Mr Livingstone would be expelled from the party and some Labour MPs will likely see his punishment for breaching party rules as lenient"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:14 PM

Steve,
"I never said this in the first place! I do keep trying to tell you, you know."

You did say it, but now you deny it!

So do you believe they massacred refugees or not?

Jim,
A final word on Keith's insitence that I invented the claim that No Traveller signs were not common

We all know the old Weatherspoons story. You have quoted it enough times.
That does not mean the signs are "common throughout Britain."
They are not.
If they were one of us who live here would have seen one.
We still have not.

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

Dave,
Keep it up by all means, Keith, I am completely underwhelmed by your attempt at abuse. It is pretty poor even by the standards set by your mate. But I will give you some advice. Never again say that you do not resort to personal abuse or you can be certain your feeble attempt will be called as evidence to the contrary.

It was not personal abuse Dave. I don't do that.
I am disparaging the morality that allows you to pursue me because once, three years ago, I said "fraudulent" instead of "vulgar and fraudulent," while you tell nasty, vicious lies about me, claiming I said things I never have or would.
You blatantly lied in a particularly offensive way. I just dropped one word that did not even change the meaning of what was said.
Your morality is shit Dave, but I would still not subject you or anyone else to personal abuse.
I am better than that.
Different morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 02:36 PM

GOTCHA Shaw - Steve Shaw - 04 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM - What's the matter? There is one way to avoid being exposed as a lying git and is man up admit your error and pass on refraining from misrepresentations and telling other lies.

YOU of all people do not get to direct what and where people post on this forum you lying git.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:57 AM

"Seems to me that what you have stated quite clearly above there, you lying git, is that "the Israeli regime" massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps "
Whatever is seems to you - he didn't say any such thing - yo are the one porkying again
"THEY WEREN'T THERE."
Wheren't where - tey were turning refugees back from escaping - or maybe they sent their mothers to do that
" because they never entered the Sabra-Shatila Camps."
Not what was tated by eye witnesses
"The massacre was carried out by Lebanese Christian Phalangist Militiamen"
Who couldn't have carried out the massacre without the co-operation and active assisstance of the Israelis
You really are a load of arrogant bollocks
Not a shred of evidence to back up your shitty massacre denials
"I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things."
I watched Jewish heads of Shin Bet say this to camera
I read an Israeli General say exactly this
Jews I have been friendly with were saying this as far back as the mid- 1960s
Holocaust survivors said this after the Gaza massacres
Where's the hypocricy
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/uk-jewish-mp-israel-acting-like-the-nazis-who-forced-my-family-to-flee-from-poland-28478952.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:44 AM

Here is a fine example of his hypocrisy in this quote. He who often bleats "weasel words" at others comes out with this gem:

I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM

No, Woodcock. But you've always come here with a narrow, predetermined agenda about every topic you discuss and a propensity, to put it kindly, for missing the point (a nice way of saying that you deliberately set out to misrepresent). No-one is going to keep on reading forever your brainless and repetitive rants in which you attack anyone who even vaguely disagree with you and defend the indefensible, unless you have a little army of mindless sycophants to hand, of course. Now why don't you toddle off and post something in the music section? One post up there in about six months and precious little before that? You only come here to bluster and troll, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:15 AM

"On another of your pals misrepresentations - No IDF soldier massacred any inhabitants of any refugee camp - Another Shaw lie you don't seem fussed about." - Teribus

"I never said this in the first place! I do keep trying to tell you, you know." - Bleats Shaw

But from past experience we all know that Shaw is a lying git and guess what? We've caught him at it again!!!!

Steve Shaw - 31 Mar 17 - 02:33 PM

"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things.

Seems to me that what you have stated quite clearly above there, you lying git, is that "the Israeli regime" massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps - you said "when they did those things.

Only trouble with that of course you lying git is:

1: The Israeli regime (Who were not present in Beirut at the time) didn't massacre anybody in any refugee camp, it would have been impossible for them to do so - THEY WEREN'T THERE.

2: The IDF (Largely composed of Jewish Israeli citizens, WHO WERE in Beirut at the time) could not have massacred hundreds of civilians because they never entered the Sabra-Shatila Camps.

3: The massacre was carried out by Lebanese Christian Phalangist Militiamen and this massacre became one of a series of massacres that occurred during Lebanon's civil war.

So Shaw on this thread alone your lies related to the following subjects have been clearly exposed:

1: Wheatcroft and your lie about Keith A never having acknowledged an error he made, or the fact that he corrected it as soon as you pointed it out to him.

2: You lied further when you said that he deliberately repeated his error twice on the WWI, was No Mans Land Thread - I have looked through that thread and he didn't only two references to the Wheatcroft Article in that thread - a link to the complete article by an unnamed GUEST, and the second a quoted passage from the article by Keith A that was 100% accurate.

3: You lied when you stated that the Israeli regime was guilty of a war crime in that they had massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps they hadn't - it was a total misrepresentation on your part.

4: You lied when you then claimed that you had not said that Israelis had massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps when it is as clear as the nose on your face that you did.

Tell me Shaw have always been an inveterate liar and a hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 08:34 AM

It's just been reported that a British couple, Keith Baker and wife kidnapped a woman with learning deficiencies, from England, moved her to Craigavon, in Northern Ireland and both raped and sexually assaulted her over a period of eight years
Their victim was kept in "slave-like conditions over that period, where she was staved,beaten and imprisoned in appallingly filthy conditions
The neighbours say they had no idea off what was going on - one neighbour has just said "I though it was only domestic abuse". !!!!
Other women have come forward to report similar treatment, one woman had had three of Baker's children
The Bakers met when they worked together for the Salvation Army
Now is this an English, Northern Irish or Christian (Salvation Army) example of an "over-representation" of sexual slavery
Answers on a postcard please.
CHRISTIAN SLAVERY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 08:27 AM

Please, let's STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.

Carroll's usual fallback when the floor is being wiped with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 08:13 AM

"Nothing constructive to add as usual then, ake?"
Nope - no Homosexuals around to give a kicking yo or Muslims to Paki-bash - and Trump's war with the American people doesn't bear mentioning
"As I said before stupid spoiled children, too dense to be ashamed of your behaviour in discussion"
As the moderator said "don't feed the Troll"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 07:56 AM

Nothing constructive to add as usual then, ake?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 07:34 AM

"I'm not surprised the mods leave this festering thread running. There is too much comedy to be had.!".....Steve.


There certainly is, but the laughter is hollow. It is sad to see you and your little gang take such a beating when you have nothing to defend yourselves with intellectually or factually.
As I said before stupid spoiled children, too dense to be ashamed of your behaviour in discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 07:05 AM

A final word on Keith's insitence that I invented the claim that No Traveller signs were not common
Just to preempt his saying that he never made such an accusation
Nor has anyone else except you Jim!
How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?

This - from a Traveller newspaper - The Traveller Times, dated June 19th following the victorious case against J D Weatherspoons
It described, from personal experience, that Travellers were not only refused service in pubs, but also "restaurants, hotels, clubs, taxis, bowling alleys and other businesses"
I've no doubt that, as it doesn't suit Keith and Teribus's racist agenda, it will be passed off as more inventions by "lying eye-witnesses"
I very much doubt if an apology or a retraction will be forthcoming so there's an end to this particular stinking saga
Did you "win" that one as well Keith!!!
Jim Carroll

"No Travellers"? No more, say lawyers who fought Wetherspoon and won
Tide turns against "No Travellers allowed" after Wetherspoons cases
Mobile phones put the power to get evidence in your hands
Lawyers win compensation for Travellers turned away due to race
"We want to hear from victims of blatant racism", say Howe & Co
"The last bastion of acceptable racism has come crashing down. It is dead." These are the clarion calls and headlines that have greeted the landmark legal victories of Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers against the pub giant Wetherspoon, the largest pub chain in the UK with over 930 pubs.
We all know this has been going on for years: pubs, restaurants, hotels, clubs, taxis, bowling alleys and other businesses refusing entrance and service because you're a Traveller or Gypsy, or even because you're a friend of associate of Travellers.
"Sorry boys, can't serve you today." "Sorry ladies, no entry today I'm afraid."   It happens so often that some Gypsy and Traveller people just accept it as part of their lot in life. "Don't bother going in there, you won't get a pint."
But being refused service because of your race is not your lot in life, it is against the law. These recent court judgments show that at last, judges are starting to understand the grinding, everyday racism that Gypsies and Travellers have to put up with. Compensation is being awarded. We are the lawyers who won the case against Wetherspoon, and if you've experienced discrimination like this and can prove it, read on, because we can help YOU.
Make no mistake about it, the fight for equal treatment for Gypsies and Travellers has had an almighty boost from the seminal judgment of Judge Hand QC in the case of The Traveller Movement and others v JD Wetherspoon plc handed down on 18 May 2015 and from the following open admission of unlawful race discrimination made by Wetherspoon two weeks later in a second case brought by Irish Travellers in Cambridge. It's like buses – you wait for years for a good case to come along and suddenly there are two of them!
The facts are typical of cases where businesses discriminate against Travellers. In November 2011 the Traveller Movement held its annual conference in north London in a building next door to a Wetherspoon pub, "the Coronet". At the end of the conference delegates left the conference hall to go for a social drink next door. The first group to approach the pub included two Traveller women, a priest, a solicitor, and a policeman. Bouncers blocked their entrance with words to the effect of 'you're not coming in because you're from the Traveller conference'. In court Traveller and Gypsy witnesses, with immense dignity, exposed gut wrenching raw emotions of what it is like to have shouldered years and years of blatant racism.
The judge got it. He understood what it is all about. He said it all came down to "stereotypical assumptions", to "racial stereotyping" by the manager of the pub. The judge said that such attitudes could be boiled down to the "crude proposition that whenever Irish Travellers and English Gypsies go to public houses violent disorder is inevitable because that is how they behave". The judge found the pub to guilty of direct discrimination on the grounds of race and awarded each refused person £3,000 compensation for their hurt to feelings for "being temporarily denied a social occasion in the most convenient venue". The pub chain has to payout damages totalling £24,000. It's a wake-up call for service providers to stop their racist treatment of Travellers and Gypsies.
In the second case a group of Travellers went out in Cambridge on 27 February 2015 to celebrate the birth of a child and the birthdays of two members of the group. Several of them approached the doors to the Tivoli pub to be told "No Travellers tonight", although at first the bouncers and manager claimed there was a "bookings only policy" – how often are lame excuses used to mask the real issue of unlawful race discrimination. On the back of the court win in the first case, Wetherspoon caved in and openly admitted unlawful direct discrimination, offering each person refused entrance £3,500 in compensation.
Enough is enough. We all know of too many examples of wedding receptions cancelled at the last minute, of restaurants taking money up front, of restaurants happy to take your money for a take-away but not prepared to let you sit down, of pubs and clubs refusing entrance or throwing you out. There are too many examples of "not your kind", of "not your type". No longer do you have to move on to the next pub or the next club in the hope that someone will let you in. No longer do you have to be embarrassed and humiliated feeling somehow second-class. No longer do you have to hide your proud identity.
My law firm, Howe & Co in London, won the two Wetherspoon cases. I was the solicitor barred at the doors of the Coronet pub in the first Wetherspoon case, as I had been at the conference because I am a member of the board of the Traveller Movement. Howe & Co is absolutely committed to stamping out this prejudice wherever it raises its ugly head.
We have set up a powerful campaign team in Howe & Co to fight these cases. We want to hear from anyone who has been the victim of blatant racism and help them win compensation and get formal apologies. We take on these cases on a no-win no-fee basis, or with the help of Legal Aid.
You can help. Mobile phones are providing a revolution in proving discrimination claims. If you are a victim of discriminatory behaviour immediately record the incident on your phone. Take a video of what is happening. Make a sound recording. Ask the person discriminating against you if it is because you are a Traveller?   Record the reasons given for the refusal of service. If there are independent witnesses to the incident ask for their details.
The team of lawyers working on this campaign at Howe & Co includes our three partners – Martin Howe, Kieran O'Rourke and David Enright.   Together we can bring an end to this nasty soul-destroying prejudice and if service providers persist in their unlawful conduct we will make them pay in compensation, costs and loss of reputation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:08 AM

"t is a simple, unequivocal fact that I have only spoken of an over-representation and that is factually correct."
Then produce someone else saying it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 05:08 AM

"On another of your pals misrepresentations - No IDF soldier massacred any inhabitants of any refugee camp - Another Shaw lie you don't seem fussed about."

I never said this in the first place! I do keep trying to tell you, you know. Do you lie in bed of a night repeating something to yourself that you want to be true, but isn't, like a mantra, than wake up in the morning thinking it's really true? If you can't get a really simple thing like that right, rather like Keith with his "fraudulent", you haven't got a hope in hell of getting anyone to believe anything else you say.

As for keeping desperately quiet, well what else is there to say really? All I need to do is to keep desperately quiet and watch with amusement as you cut and paste your nonsense yet again and observe Keith as he unapologetically prattles on about how he triumphantly defeated me, made us all lose, yet doesn't play games, and predict when he will next mention decent democracies or bring up Labour's "serious antisemitism problem" or insinuate to us what bastards all travellers might be because of two court cases in four years. No wonder I keep accidentally wanting to mention "fraudulent" every time Keith posts. As for you, calm down, dear!   

I'm not surprised the mods leave this festering thread running. There is too much comedy to be had. Think I need a laugh this morning so I think I'll say "Wheatcroft" and set you off again, like Blackadder deliberately saying Macbeth. Now there a picture to conjure! I can just envisage you and Keith doing pat-a-cake with each other's hands and chanting "Hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck will make amends!" followed by tweaking each other's noses. Shall we give it a whirl?

Ahem


Wheatcroft....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:42 AM

Keep it up by all means, Keith, I am completely underwhelmed by your attempt at abuse. It is pretty poor even by the standards set by your mate. But I will give you some advice. Never again say that you do not resort to personal abuse or you can be certain your feeble attempt will be called as evidence to the contrary.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

Jim,
- you are using it as an opportunity to spread your hate and mistrust.

No Jim.
Your case against Israel is based on hate and mistrust.
We just presented you with the other side of the story.
The side that stands up to actual scrutiny, unlike yours based only on hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:23 AM

Dave,
the fact remains that without Steve's intervention the false claim would have remained.

Obviously I could not correct something if I did not know needed correction, but it did not require an "intervention" falsely accusing me of lying.
I had no need to lie about what Wheatcroft said. He was on my side.

Drawing a slip to someone's attention is quite different to such an "intervention."

I do not play games.
It is a simple, unequivocal fact that I have only spoken of an over-representation and that is factually correct.
Why did you lie I had said more?
Your shitty morality allows you to lie for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

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

"You have also been unable to fault a single statement of from Teribus or me.
That is because we have a case and you do not.
You lose.
Again."
Which sums up everything you post to this forum Keith - you are using it as an opportunity to spread your hate and mistrust.
You have no interest in debating or sharing your ideas - it is about "winning and losing"
Nobody "wins or loses" and only you even consider it as a reason for debate
I'm sure that the masses and masses of information you have provided have swayed everybody to your arguments and ideas - of course they have!!!!!!!
Maybe you will find more satisfaction in Euro-vision or one of the dancing programmes
There really is no room for "winners and losers" here.
I'd like to think I have dragged your sick campaign out into the open, but the pair of you have done that far better than any of us - Teribus with his blustering arrogance and you with your frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of foreigners and those from a different culture
I seriously hope that your recent vitriolic behaviour will mean you will never be taken seriously again on this forum.
You really are something - the pair of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:11 AM

because Wheatcroft's piece supported my case and ridiculed yours.

So, what was my case then, Keith?

No lie. You said that you would need your attention drawing to it to change it. I said that unless Steve had drawn your attention to it it would have remained as a false statement. How is that a lie?

Oh, and good to see that you are keeping to your statement that you never resort to personal abuse.

Your shitty morality allows you to lie about that for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

And you have the temerity to say you don't play games. You say one thing and mean another all the time. Chances are you will still deny personal abuse even in the light of the above.

At least we have drawn out the real Keith and now everyone can see you for what you really are.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:53 AM

Dave,
Not conjecture. Even Keith says the same.

No I do not. I said I would need my attention drawn to it, liar.
How else would I know it needed correcting otherwise, liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:49 AM

Jim, you said you had "verified facts" to back your case on Sabra.
So where are they?

You have also been unable to fault a single statement of from Teribus or me.

That is because we have a case and you do not.
You lose.
Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:45 AM

There was no deception or intent to deceive.
I had no need to change anything he said, because Wheatcroft's piece supported my case and ridiculed yours.

That was why Steve was reduced to making something from nothing.
It is what he does when he loses.

Dave, you accused me of saying something I never had or would say.
That is your different morality.
You lied about me in an attempt to further your case.
That is your different, shitty morality.

I have not played games.
It is a simple, unequivocal fact that I have only spoken of an over-representation and that is factually correct.
Your shitty morality allows you to lie about that for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:26 AM

"My only point has been that the phrase fraudulent to describe both books was false."

And the error was acknowledged and corrected within an hour of it being pointed out - something that you seem to fail to acknowledge. What else is patently obvious that you appear to be blind to is that your pal Shaw since that correction was made has constantly and deliberately misrepresented and lied about there being any correction or any admission of error.

HERE IT IS AGAIN GNOME

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"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."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

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

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

Your pal Steve Shaw is a lying bastard Gnome, there it is displayed above for all to see, and everytime Wheatcroft is brought up that will be posted to set the record straight. After all you did say that you weren't too keen on people misrepresenting things didn't you? Or, like your pal Shaw, are you a liar and a hypocrite too?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:19 AM

"Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation."
I think it's time we put a stop to this hate campaign ourselves
When the moderator said "don't feed the troll", this is exactly what we are doin by responding t this behaviour.
We should really know better, after all, it's not as if it hasn't happened before.
Keith started his hate crusade back on the Muslim thread - he took the behaviour of a handful of criminals who happened to be Muslims, deliberately misused a term that had appeared in the press, "over-representation", and applied the actions of those handful of criminals to claim they represented the culture of the Muslim People of Britain, a million and a half of them - he even went as far as to invent a "cultural implant" to cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community.
He has maintained that stance since, though he has invented a secret army of "witnesses" (who he refuses to quote", who, he claims, put the idea into his head.
AS far as I am concerned, that is pretty extreme stuff.
The last time anybody went so far as to publicly make a cultural link to a serious crime wa when the Nazis came up with cultural theories about the Jews - we know the outcome of that one only too well.
Not long after this, we got into an argument about the Irish Famine, in the course of which a historian was produced who had explained that, after Independence the new Irish State revised its education system to include the parts of history that had been omitted from the schools under the centuries of British rule - that of the Irish people who acted independently from the behavior imposed by the British controlled administration and had fought for self expression and self - government, the blossoming of Irish literature a movement now referred to in Ireland as 'The Irish Renaissance'.
Keith leaped on the explanation (by historian, Christine Kinealy) and transformed it into "brainwashing" - all of a sudden we had an entire young population of Irish schoolchildren who had been "brainwashed to hate the British", though Keith as never at any time able to explain how that "hatred manifested itself - the Irish, in general, don't "hate" anybody, (though they do have Keith's problem with Travellers that they have recently taken serious steps to rectify).
Now he's started seriously on Travellers.
He has taken the criminal behaviour of a minute number of criminals who happen to be Travellers, has picked up a term used by the press, slave-like conditions", and invented a "massive over-representation of slave-owning within the Travelling community"
Nobody, not even in the sewer-press, has ever made such a claim - this is entirely out of Keith's sick mind.
The incident is now a thing of the past, the press and society in general has forgotten the incident and it is remembered only as the act of a few criminals.
Keith has taken to it like a duck (or should that be a leech) to water and is now using it to denigrate and smear an entire community who really do have enough problems to cope with.
It is only a matter of time before he comes up with another "cultural implant" theory to back his claims
I think our moderator is right - by "feeding the troll" we are giving him the soapbox he needs to spread his hate and distrust.
I detested Margaret Thatcher every bit as much as a detest people who deliberately spread cultural and racial hatred and fear, but her saying "oxygen of publicity" is a very useful one.
Please, let's STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.
Jim Carroll
I have little doubt that this will be passed off as "lies" and "a personal attack", but every single word I have written is verifiable and tucked away in varios parts of the archive of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:11 AM

"he'd made the false claim in two threads" - Steve Shaw

Good heavens Shaw caught out in yet another lie.

: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"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.

Now the perception of the Great War that had formed in the late 1920s was strengthened all over again. Working-class lads had been sent like sheep to the slaughter by brutal and stupid generals, callously indifferent to the suffering they inflicted, a theme played much later and with repellent facetiousness by Blackadder. The upper classes as a whole stood condemned for wanton bloodshed."

The above was the first direct quotation from Geoffrey Wheatcroft's article in the Guardian by Keith A of Hertford and it is an accurate quote in all respects. PRIOR TO Keith A quoting that passage from Wheatcroft's article, there had been a link to the complete article posted by a GUEST. AFTER Keith A's post there was no other mention of this article or reference to it by anyone else on the thread that was subsequently closed on or round the 18th December, 2014.

So Shaw in which two threads did Keith a according to you make these false claims? (My bet folks is that Shaw will ignore this question and go desperately quiet on the subject - We may however be regaled at length on the subject of what next will be projected from between the cheeks his arse)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:08 AM

Now all of that Gnome suggests to me that there were no bodies buried under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium

Why are you telling me? I am not even involved in that discussion.

My only point has been that the phrase fraudulent to describe both books was false.

Do try to focus on what people are actually talking about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 02:46 AM

Not going to argue about conjecture, but if it is conjecture you want, your premise is doubtful as the relevant passage was subsequently quoted in full five times later in that thread, who is to say that that would not have happened at least once without Shaw's intervention.

Still doesn't get round Shaw's subsequent deliberate barefaced lies and misrepresentation which it appears does not matter to you at all, but as a proven lying bastard it does tend to colour my opinion of anything he posts.

On another of your pals misrepresentations - No IDF soldier massacred any inhabitants of any refugee camp - Another Shaw lie you don't seem fussed about.

Your pal Jim Carroll tried to say that the Israelis secretly disposed of 3,500 bodies by burying under a sports stadium they constructed in Beirut in 1982. Carroll misrepresents these claims as what he calls verified fact citing eye-witnesses who by their own accounts if you read them saw nothing of the sort. Other easily demonstrated discrepancies regarding this fairy-tale of Carroll's are:

1: Nobody was taken to the Camille Chamoun Stadium until after the massacre by the Christian Phalange Militia had ended.

2: The Israelis constructed nothing on that site at the time. The Stadium had been destroyed by them as the PLO used it as an ammunition dump.

3: Destroyed in 1982 the Stadium was not rebuilt until 1997, when it was completely rebuilt by British and Lebanese engineers - In that total rebuild no bodies, or human remains were unearthed - very strange that considering there were supposed to be 3,500 bodies buried there in haste and in secret in 1982.

4: The stadium was further improved and reinforced so that it could withstand an earthquake of 8.6 on the Richter scale in 2015, that work involved extensive and very deep ground works, and yet, as in 1997 no bodies, or human remains were unearthed.

Now all of that Gnome suggests to me that there were no bodies buried under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium as described by Jim Carroll and that the whole story was a fabrication, a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 01:44 AM

No matter how often you cut and paste it, Teribus, the fact remains that without Steve's intervention the false claim would have remained. Not conjecture. Even Keith says the same.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:03 PM

Well Gnome, talking about missing the point and misrepresentation, as these things seem important to you between trips to the pantry. Here's the exchange once again:

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"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."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

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

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

I am quite prepared to discuss things that have happened. I have not interest in discussing points based on conjecture. What we can see clearly is that for three years now Steve Shaw has deliberately misrepresented straight facts about the exchange quoted above by telling barefaced lies and that seems to be a point that you Gnome have missed by a Kerry Mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:40 PM

Of course Keith wouldn't have issued a correction had he not been challenged. It would have stood for ever more, and that was his clear intent as he'd made the false claim in two threads. Clear intent to deceive. It isn't as if the original article was complicated or difficult to interpret, Dave. Dead simple. "Taylor rather vulgar and Clark largely fraudulent" became "Taylor and Clark fraudulent." That is no accident. Even Keith isn't thick enough to do that by accident, and he did it twice. Still, it must be OK because Teribus, nitpicker-in-chief with the rest of us, excused it as being a "passing reference." 😂 And, Bill, I didn't say that the IDF carried out the slaughter, as much as you'd like me to have done. All there in the thread!

By the way, Dave, I prevailed on the wine front with Mrs Steve. A heavy day in the garden shifting one ton of hardcore, one ton of gravel and one ton of topsoil led me into a deserving state. Washed down the cold lamb, jacket spud with lashings of butter and purple sprouting beautifully. Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 04:13 PM

Yes, it is shit isn't it Keith. Just like your 'it is all I ever claimed' shit. Throw enough shit and some will stick. And you have thrown more shit than the chimps at Chester zoo.

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

I and many others can see through your shit and have had enough. Go and play your games with someone else.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 03:00 PM

Jim,
"The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me."
Utter and complete lies Keith but it doesn't matter
Anytbody who expresses that opinion as you did is a raving racist.

Utter and complete fact Jim, and they were all Left Wing and mostly Pakistani themselves, so all your name calling is futile.
It is all you can do when you lose.

Dave,
So, Keith, had Steve not have reminded us that the paper did not say what you said it did, would you have ever issued a correction?

I would need someone to draw it to my attention and object, as Steve did.

Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders.

Please quote me saying such shit, or withdraw that ridiculous accusation Dave.

Once again we are faced with facts that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:23 PM

So, Keith, had Steve not have reminded us that the paper did not say what you said it did, would you have ever issued a correction?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:21 PM

Cause and effect. Those guilty of these crimes were tried under a new law. Why do you think that new law was introduced? Just for fun maybe? Or perhaps it was to cover cases such as these. Why has it only been used those few times? Maybe it has served as a deterrent or perhaps it only ever intended to catch these cases which may have otherwise fallen through the net. Once again we are faced with facts that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders. Those more open minded realise that such facts can be indicative of many things other than the right wing agenda driven demonisation of people.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:20 PM

Back to the racist attacks on ethnic minorities
Safer ground there - they can't fight back
"The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me."
Utter and complete lies Keith but it doesn't matter
Anytbody who expresses that opinion as you did is a raving racist.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"...
It doesn't matter if the Archbishop of Canterbury told you to say it - it is your opinion and it makes you a raving racist - I already said,that, didn't I - doesn't matter - it's well worth repeating, especially in contact of your making the same thing about Travellers
May as well put your third historical statement - you can claim three of a kind then

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.
YOUrR THEME TUNE, I PRESUME
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:12 PM

Jim,
"You have produced not one!"
Ho-ho-ho!!!

Ho ho ho is right!
Not one of your much vaunted "verified facts" was ever produced.

Apart from misremembering the final death toll at Jenin (mostly gunmen. I might have been right for the civilians) identify one statement of mine that you can challenge.
More than one if you like.
Good luck with that Jim!

after once again having his arse kicked from hell to breakfast - time

I somehow missed each such incident.
Please jog our memories if such a thing really ever happened.

If anyone claimed that IDF ever "massacred hundreds of civilians" that is indeed a lie.

Dave,
So, Teribus, do you think for one minute that Keith would have posted the correction if Steve had not pulled him up on the misrepresentation?

I was happy to concede the discrepancy, but there was no deceit and I had already given the full quote. Wheatcroft had the same view as me so I did not need to misrepresent anything, and I did not.
Steve tried to make something out of nothing because he had lost the argument.
Again!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

Steve,
Just read Keith's 10.11am post again, folks. It's a masterclass in how to contradict yourself all over the place in a few short lines

There are no contradictions there.
Say what you think is one and I will explain it to you.

apropos of two court cases involving travellers.

It was four cases out five.
Ten convictions against one.
For a tiny ethnic group that is unequivocally a massive over-representation.

He did it with his cultural implant nonsense.

The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me.
I said I believed it because of the credibility of those it did come from.
It is still highly credible and certainly not "nonsense"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:51 PM

So, Teribus, do you think for one minute that Keith would have posted the correction if Steve had not pulled him up on the misrepresentation? You are, as ever, missing the entire point by a country mile but, if you do believe that the correction would have been forthcoming anyway, I just happen to have a business idea. All you need to send me is a few bank details...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM

Yet ANOTHER SHAW LIE.
And another attempt to save face after once again having his arse kicked from hell to breakfast - time
Grow up and stop being such a vicious git
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the galley - whoops - what a giveaway!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:00 PM

What a pity that, for all your supposed education and your career as a teacher, you do not seem able to read Shaw.

"he thought he was going to get away with"??? Keith A acknowledged the error within an HOUR and corrected his omission. Thought he was going to get away with what for an hour you lying Prat?

"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime." - Steve Shaw

Yes it is a terrible war crime Shaw only problem is that the IDF did not massacre hundreds of civilians" as you claimed they did - Yet ANOTHER SHAW LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:44 AM

"You have produced not one!"
Ho-ho-ho!!!
perfect way to end a wet, windy day
You have produces sweet fuck all, you never have and you never will. As well as a magnificent display of your vitriolic racism, you have added atrocity- denial in spades
Should see me though my old age comfortably
Have a good war, you two - watch out for the 'whizz-bangs
Jim Carroll
PS Don't tell any more lies otherwise you on't get your nose through the door.