BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:02 PM

The Iaraelis facilitated the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed civilians at the refugees in Sabra Shatila in September, 1982
Without their collusion, the killings could not have happened
They collected the killers from the airpor, armed them, tranported them to the camp, allowed access onto the site, provided illumination so the killing could go on uninterrupted, turned back the refugees attempting to escape, provided equipment to bury the bodies, prvided the killers with a meas of escape and eventually built a stadium over the site where most of the bodies were buried so the actual numbers would never be known
THese are verified facts
Next
"Did the use of cluster bombs have anything whatsoever to do with a legitimate and proportionate response to an attack on the sovereign state of Israel by a terrorist organisation based in a neighboring country?"
Did the attacks by a poorly armed ill trained third world force have anything to do with the attempts of the Isrieli regime have anything to do with attempts of a country with a well trained well armed nuclear facilitated army to drive a people who had occupied their land for many centuries out of their rightful homeland
Were the responses proportionate - go count the dead, go work out how many of those dead were non-combatants - including women and children
"When Israel is attacked, which it has been constantly, since its inception in 1948"
The State of Israel was born to the sound of Israeli grenades being tossed into occupied houses to make room for the new settlers
Is your response a defence of mass murder and war crimes
Yes it most certainly is.
And the music goes round and round......
"What would your words be you complete and utter SPRAT."
As does your infantile behaviour towards those whi=o disagree with you
Do you really have such little confidence in your case that you feel you have to bully and bluster and bully it through?
Rhetoriacal question - that's what schoolyard bullies do.
"Liar. If you are not lying quote me, liar."
I have done Keith, twice, and you repeated the accusation
I can't be arsed repeating something everybody knows to be true.
"According to the definition used by democratic countries including this one, it is."
Accordint the that definition, it is antisemitic to implicate the Jewish people in the actions of teh State of Israel
By calling those whho criticise Israel antisemitic, that;'s what you do, that's what Bobad does and that's what the Israeli regime does
The Israeli justice minister has even said punlicly that it it antsemitic to criticise Israeli policy
By doing so she made the definition null and cvoid.
The only workable definition of antisemitism is denigration of the Jewish people - nobody on this forum has ever done that other than you Keith by claiming that Jewish Parliamentarians have put the interest of their party above that of the Jewish People.
Bobad remains an appeaser as he refuses to condemn your antisemitism and he is shows where his loyalties really lie as he refuses to condemn the British government for selling arms to despotic states - including Muslim ones.
Checkmate, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:37 PM

Round and round and round we go, Teribus. Why would we expect to believe a word of what you say about Ireland or WWI when you indulge in such blatant revisionism apropos of those two massacres? And I'm really not going into that with you all over again.

Amazingly simple comfort food recipe tonight, thanks to Nigella (Christ, I LOVE that woman!). I've put my own twist on it. You need a bag of orzo pasta for this. It looks like rice but it's pasta. Even Morrisons sell it (sorry, Dave!)

This will do for two people.

Get a heavy-based pan and put a tablespoon of EV olive oil in it. Slice two garlic cloves into it. Cut up 150g sliced pancetta (or pancetta cubes) and throw it in. Sauté gently until the bacon goes a bit crispy. Don't burn the garlic. I will not consume brown garlic.

Throw 200g frozen BirdsEye peas into the pan. Turn up the heat a bit and stir for two minutes, add salt (easy, tiger) and pepper. Throw in 250g of orzo and stir like mad for a minute.

Add 625 ml boiling water. Keep the kettle hot as you may need a drop more later if the mix gets too thick. Stir like mad then simmer gently for ten minutes. You have to stir it a couple more times to stop the pasta from sticking.

When the orzo is al dente, stir in a big knob of butter (preferably unsalted) and a big handful of freshly-grated parmesan. Check the seasoning and add a bit more boiling water if it's too thick.

This is so easy and it's just brilliant. It's like a risotto, but it's quite different in character and it's a damn sight easier (though I do have a cheat's risotto recipe that cuts out all that ladling and stirring). A brilliant Friday night job when you can't be arsed to get complicated. You see, the difference between Teribus and me is that I adore good food and love to keep it simple. I'm a joyous and light-hearted sort of chap, as you all can see, while he's humourless and bitter. Though I love the fact that he refers to me as "pollack." I am guessing that he's an inveterate pie man who cares not a jot about what pastry is used. No wonder he's miserable.

Mind you, what's so wrong with pies....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 04:18 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. They would not be my words." - Pollack Shaw

1: When did the Israeli Regime massacre hundreds of civilians in refugee camps Shaw?

2: Did the use of cluster bombs have anything whatsoever to do with a legitimate and proportionate response to an attack on the sovereign state of Israel by a terrorist organisation based in a neighbouring country? Can't imagine why on earth the great Pollack would omit such a detail.

3: When Israel is attacked, which it has been constantly, since its inception in 1948, it is not the Israeli Regime that responds it is the people of Israel.

4: Now Shaw as - "They would not be my words" - What would your words be you complete and utter SPRAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:55 PM

"good music in the bar tonight with a great guitarist and singer with button accordion accompaniment ......... plus me and my good lady."

Well I suppose that that proves the old saying - Every silver lining has a cloud.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:55 PM

pressed by lobbyists

That plotting, all powerful Jewish lobby again.

the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:46 PM

Well, Keith, why don't we use our brains instead of relying on the lower authority of a definition drawn up by people pressed by lobbyists?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:33 PM

Jim,
KEITH'S 'JEWISH PLOT' THEORY -

Liar. If you are not lying quote me, liar.

Jim and Steve,
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic."
No it isn't - no criticism of a repressive regime is antisemitic if it is true

According to the definition used by democratic countries including this one, it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 02:33 PM

Well let's see. Plenty of horrible people in recent history have not been Nazis but have acted like Nazis. Idi Amin's regime acted like Nazis and Papa Doc's regime acted like Nazis. In saying that, I am not saying the the Ugandans acted like Nazis or that the Haitians acted like Nazis. 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. They would not be my words. There has never been an Amin or a Pol Pot in charge in Israel, let alone a Hitler. The Jewish people suffered terribly at the hands of the real Nazis and it serves no purpose to make the comparison in that manner. If we are to learn anything from history, we must be able to identify and condemn terrible war crimes against civilians. To me, along with those massacres and the bombing of Lebanon, the bombing of Dresden is in that category, and, worst of all, so are the nuclear attacks in Japan. You are not immune from this sort of criticism just because you are an Israeli leader. The argument may well be whether you think that the examples I've given are war crimes at all. You can argue that very clearly without bringing the ethnicity of the perpetrators into it. Churchill was a white Christian when he ordered the bombing of Dresden. If I were sitting here now arguing with you whether that was a war crime, neither of us would bring that up. Yet if I condemn the cluster bombs it's a case of "Ahah, you're only saying that because it was Israel, so you may be an antisemite!" Now that's what I call a double standard. And don't tell me that you won't say it. We routinely can't criticise those actions on this forum without being called antisemitic.

"The definition does not have that qualification because such a claim could never be valid."

Why not? Are you saying that Israeli leaders are imbued with some kind of special saintliness that prevents them from ever turning into an Amin or a Pol Pot?

But Nazis? Wrong word. Say plainly what you think the Israeli regime does wrong, the same way as you criticise the wrongdoings of everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:53 PM

Just wanted to get post 1918 to see if we could move on to the first world war as well. May as well go for the full set...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:39 PM

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic."
No it isn't - no criticism of a repressive regime is antisemitic if it is true
That would make millions of Jews antisemitic - a contradiction in terms
THE GATEKEEPERS
If that definition is valid, then you and Israel alike are antisemites by claiming all criticism is Antisemitic - Israel has done it , you do it all the time.
Let's cut to the chase and see where your loyalties lie.
I roundly condemn Britain for selling arms to repressive states like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria (not forgetting that the latter includes material used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.
Do you join me in that criticiam or are your loyalties in this with the government?
Simple yes or no will do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:21 PM

That is a criticism of Israel - not the Jewish people

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:14 PM

That is a criticism of Israel - not the Jewish people
JEWS THOUGHOUT THE WORLD now make the same comparison, including leading members of the Israeli establishment
AS Israel is the leadind State to implicate Jewish people in their crimes, that definition is no longer valid
My statement was "anything I have said that in any way critcises the Jewish people" - not the Israeli regime.
If there are "hundreds more", go and find one where I criticise the Jewish People.
You are a liar b=Bobad, and you know you are.
One of the points in your posting -
"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is anti-Semitic."
I have consistently condemned Britain's selling of arms to repressive Muslim states like Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia - each time I have done so, you have stayed silent - once again, you are a hypocrite in putting the interests of your government above those of the people who are fighting these despots.
, AND STILL YOU REFUSE TO COMMENT ON KEITH'S 'JEWISH PLOT' THEORY - ARE YOU TWO SLEEPING WITH EACH OTHER?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:08 PM

Not if the comparisons(of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis) are valid.

Did he actually write that?      Unfu**kingbelievable!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:04 PM

Steve,
Not if the comparisons(of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis) are valid.

The definition does not have that qualification because such a claim could never be valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:00 PM

Jim,
Keith when he claimed that the Jewish members in Parliament refused to specify the crimes Labour was accused of because they put the interests of the Party before those of the Jewish People,

If that is not a lie, quote me saying it.
I did claim that they reported it to Labour leadership to deal with, as did those complaining of misogyny and homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:56 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:51 PM

Yes but you're not listening, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:46 PM

Lol, the first hit I got from search:

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

There are probably hundreds more to be had if someone has the stomach for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

"Legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic."
Cite anything anybody has made that isn't legitimate and I'' cite you all the times you have shrieked Jew-hater all the times somebody has made any criticism of Israel
My offer of a generous donation to any named charity or anything I have said that in any wayy critcises the Jewish peoplke - that fact that you have never taken that offer up proves that you have never been able to come up with anything which acctually confirms it is you, not anybody else who is antisemitic.
Implicating the Jewish People in the crimes of Israel is not only antisemitic, but it is almost the direct cause of antisemitism in the world today - it paints targets on every Jew on the planet.
You have no interest in the Jewish people - if you had you would have condemned your friend Keith when he claimed that the Jewish members in Parliament refused to specify the crimes Labour was accused of because they put the interests of the Party before those of the Jewish People, making you not only an appeaser of antisemitism, but a hypocrite in pretending to have the interests of the Jewish People at heart
You are welcome to rectify that now - but you won't
Now - you given your list, point me to where I have ever made such statements
Again - I won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

that are the same

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is anti-Semitic."

If we give Israel massive economic and military aid and give it favourable trade deals, we expect Israel to use that aid to advance itself appropriately as a democracy. We can't have the same expectation of a country we don't help. We can have hope, that's all. No double standard. I give my child pocket money but not my neigbour's child. I don't expect my child to use it to buy peashooters and catapults for harassing the other kids. I hope my neighbour's child will also refrain from misusing HIS pocket money that way, but, as it wasn't me who gave it to him, I can't have the same expectation. No double standard. The EU consists of 28 countries all of which are signed up to democracy and human rights, among other things. We expect every country in the EU to fully live up to that, in return for favourable trade deals, better security and the free movement of citizens. It would be very nice if, for example, Turkey lived up to the same ideals, but it doesn't. We can hope for that but we can't have the same expectations as we have for EU countries. No double standard. I'm afraid that your definition is designed to obstruct criticism of Israel. Not Jews, by the way, Israel. More specifically, the Israeli regime.

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic."

Not if the comparisons are valid. My view is that it is not constructive to do so under any circumstances because there can't be a good outcome for criticism levelled in that way, no matter how well-justified. But any country has the potential to act in ways we observed during the Nazi regime. If they do, we have to be free to express our criticisms in the most full-blooded way. Otherwise, again, your definition is intended to protect Israel from criticism, no matter how outrageous the behaviour. When the Taliban or the Burmese generals or Mugabe act like Nazis, we say so, though we always have to justify the comparison by saying what actions they carry out thatbare the same as Nazi actions. Myself, I think it's always best just to describe the actions as plainly as possible. That usually ups the ante quite enough as it is with Israeli regime apologists without rattling on about Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

A great mixture tonight, trad tunes with some americana and some Irish songs old and new. The two guys playing are old friends of mine so I get a "guest" spot during the night which will "earn" me a pint or three.

Unlike many pubs in the UK, musicians and singers are almost revered here and the drink flows freely for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:53 AM

They're just a bunch of ignorant pollacks, Dave. Their posts are largely full of hake-mail. They make me pull faces at times - gurn 'ard, even. Good suggestion to Iains that he should mullet over, though. He simply doesn't know his plaice. Somebody needs to knock him off his perch. Just started raining here, by the way - must put on my mackerel get wet through...


What kind of music tonight, Raggytash? Sole? Enjoy. Don't forget your tuna. Hope you get home happy and breaming all over your face!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:47 AM

Legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.

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 is anti-Semitic.

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 is anti-Semitic.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is anti-Semitic.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:32 AM

"Very easy to verify according to the definition adopted by the majority of civilized countries,"
Show us one definition that includes criticism of Israel and does not include associating the Jewish people with the actions of Israel
Won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

Yet another glorious day out here on the Connemara, very warm and a gentle breeze, good music in the bar tonight with a great guitarist and singer with button accordion accompaniment ......... plus me and my good lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:20 AM

Bobad?   Jew-haters? How are you with that, Teribus?

Very easy to verify according to the definition adopted by the majority of civilized countries, the UK police force and the Labour party of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:57 AM

We had a Scotsman flying past our village earlier today. Hope it is a better behaved one than the one on here. I'm going to try and catch him on the return journey as I missed the Tornado.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:47 AM

I meant to add to the above posting - try putting a notice up saying "blacks by appointment only"
"I suspect it would be shaw and carroll, purely on the volume of burblings.
Another visit from another troll with nothing to say
I suggest yougo count the number of postings you have made that don't contain insults and compare them with the ones that do - but to so before the betting shop closes - I'd like to but a bet on thet one!!
Grow up for fucks sake - if you have nothing to say, say nothing like all children should
Whats is the matter with you morons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:35 AM

What I suggest you do, Iains, is review all of Steve and Jims posts to get the percentage of them that are insulting, patronising or defamatory. Then do the same with those from Teribus, bobad and ake. What you should end up with is facts rather than suspicions and at least it will keep you too busy to pester anyone on here for a month or two.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:18 AM

Dave and Steve are just stupid spoiled children

Ooooh, there is another couple of grand :-)

Steve - On yer motor pike and side carp or I'll sing you that Welsh classic 'Whale kipper whelk-on in the hillsides'. And I'm not codding.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:14 AM

Perhaps another thread ir required and then we can have a poll of who is regarded as the worst offender. I suspect it would be shaw and carroll, purely on the volume of burblings. Shaw 15000 since around 2006.
Jim 18000 since 2007. Me just over 400 since 1999. When it comes to insults I am definitely amateur status compared to you Shaw and yes I can cook and would not be seen dead in sandals. And I can eat most things but palm tree grubs in Nigeria is a bit too bush tucker for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:14 AM

"I have. I just wanted to make the point that it was a genuine issue and not at all racist to refer to it as you suggested."
The way it was handled by the press in making it a traveller issue rather than a criminal one was racist
It was a crime committed by criminals who happened to be Travellers, nothing more than that
You have been given examples in which similar types of activity are ignored by by Britain and not made "British" crimes, yet you and your ilk have raised them as examples of Traveller behaviour, and expanded on it - that is what makes it racist.
"Your claim that The Independent prints "racist hype" was laughable!"
The press in general goes in for such hype, the Independent being one of the better ones who, on this occasion, put the term 'slavery' in inverted commas, to their credit - most of the rest of the press didn't bother.
It has no place in an argument about prejudice against Travellers and it was racist for Teribus to have raised it here.
The description "slave" was a misnoma anyway, unless you include Dell Computers under the same heading
Still no comment on the far worse conditions we British benefit from - I don'rt wonder why, strangely enough!!
"I have never in my life ever seen any of these signs that your pal Jom "
Still the insecure "Jom" - always a sign that you are floundering and blustering.
The fact that you have not seen the signs in immaterial to this argument - neither had we until we started to be involved with Travellers.
Tou have been given masses of information on their existence, including references to how common they were - you choose to nit-pick about one case
"It doesn't bar or ban "Travellers" at all - which is probably why the CPS took no action in that particular case."
It does just that - if you had read what has been put up, signs worded like this wrere put up and had the same effect of barring Travellers. and, we have been told by Travellers, still do.
I very much doubt if the incidents got as far as the CPS - the police are noted for not bothering with such incidents.
In the mid eighties the Travellers mounted a campaign to get more sites and the vast majority were forced to camp illegally.
A small number of them moved onto prominent public land, contacted the local press and waited for something to happen - one of those demonstrations took place on Streatham Commom
A workmate who knew of my interest, told me (somewhat gleefully) that his brother-in-law and some of his friends from Streatham were intending to attack and burn one of the caravans to scare the Travellers off.
I thought about going to the police, but having had a number of experiences with them, instead I contacted Traveller activist, Roy Wells, who was camped a mile away from our home.
Roy contacted the police, but as an extra precaution, he went to the camp and put them on alert
As a further precaution, I told my workmate I had passed on the information.
The police did nothing - they never followed the report up, they never contacted Wells, they never contacted the Travellers on the site - nothing - no, not entirely true.
About a month later we got a visit from two boys in blue who asked us what contact we had with Travellers and would we report any criminal activity we came across ---- end of story.
I could spend days relating such stories, but I'm pretty sure you would pass it off as Carroll lies and bullshit.
THe police's attitude to Travellers was very much part of the "institutional racism" they found themselves guilty of after the Stephen Lawrence fiasco.
I have no doubt whatever that you have never been involved in a firebombing - your type never have the balls to get your hands dirty in following up your prejudices.
You racist stereotyping adds fuel to the hatred that already exists towards Travellers and, as far as I am concernd, you are as resonsible as the one who throws the firebomb and pours the petrol - "they also serve who only stand and wait", as the saying goes.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:05 AM

Well I suppose I'm in the clear, as I've been reported to the police several times for daring to point out the recorded negative aspects of male homosexuality ......so far I have had no communication from the police.....other than the "thought police". :0)

Dave and Steve are just stupid spoiled children, Jim has lost the plot a long time ago and no longer allows anything to register which contravenes his view of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:02 AM

I think that Keith, Teribus and Iains have haddock up to here with us, Dave. Especially Teribus. Eel be doing his nut, I reckon. Still, what a boring thread. So much nicer to fillet with recipes. Think I'll go out and get soused tonight....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:50 AM

I smoked one of them haddocks once. It was, hey, like, wild, man...

Anyone remember the Beverley Hillbillies? One of my lasting memories of it was Jethro dressed as Robin Hood collecting a bunch of hippy followers who sang about smoking crawdads.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:43 AM

Glad you addressed that to Teribus, as he is by far the worst offender on this forum. He can't post to address anything said by me, Jim, Dave or Raggytash without throwing in an insult, misusing our handles or calling us names. And I suppose that telling you to take your own advice would be pointless. And I never wear socks with sandals. Can you cook? Do you like smoked haddock? Are you a piscivore?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:33 AM

Teribus:- An interesting case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/4829932.stm
I believe further changes to the law on defamation in the UK occurred in 2014, as summarised below.

https://www.ft.com/content/374299f0-295a-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca

I think in America Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has a similar intent.

I think many post insults with gay abandon below the line on mudcat. Some belong to the give and take of debate/discussion, others are more of a character assassination and deeply resented and hurtful and should not be posted.
   Perhaps everyone should step back a pace and reflect on this, and if required, modify their behaviour. No one wants to stifle free speech, but be careful of those epithets_ they could bite back.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:30 AM

Well, up to now Steve I have been told that I am thick, that my shirts could make bell tents and that my morals are shit. None of which are true. How much do you think I would be in for if I sued the defamers? Or is it a pointless exercise?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:15 AM

"...indiscriminately calling people Nazis, fascists and racists on an internet forum. Remind you of anyone in particular who posts on this forum Carroll?"

Bobad?   Jew-haters? How are you with that, Teribus? OK is it because he's your mate? Or is it pointless to invite more pointless, inane invective from you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:10 AM

Is that a pointless Pointless question, Dave? Would it be pointless to try to get Keith to tell boobs to stop being sillily pointless?

Hey, "sillily." Whaddam I like! 😂

Would it be pointless to make a point about the pointlessness or otherwise of pointillism? Try to avoid pointed remarks. I really can't be doing with people acting sillily.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:08 AM

"Any minute now Keith'll be telling us to stick to the point." - Steve Shaw

Ah you mean something like you just recently did on this very thread Shaw:

""Why don't you try to be civil, address the issues raised here without your immature agenda and, well, just grow up?" - Steve Shaw

Tell me is there any particular reason that you wish to demonstrate to everybody who reads the contents of this forum that you are a liar and a hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:54 AM

"We say what we wish on line" - Mistaken belief by Jim Carroll

I'd advise you to look up a Crown Court judgement in the Case of Smith v Williams reported in the Guardian in 2006.

We can say what we wish online - Careful

Particularly liked this bit Carroll:

"The judge said Ms Williams must not repeat the defamatory remarks, or in any way suggest Mr Smith is a sexual offender, a sexual deviant, a Nazi or a racist or having any such tendencies."

Now making wild and unsubstantiated allegations and indiscriminately calling people Nazis, fascists and racists on an internet forum. Remind you of anyone in particular who posts on this forum Carroll?

Must check up and see if Ms Williams was indeed made bankrupt or whether she did pay Mr Smith's costs and damages. What was it you accused me of being on that other thread Jim? Oh yes a "Firebomber", a racist and a fascist wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:25 AM

Jim,
Aave we finished wit the "Traveller slavery" bit Keith

I have. I just wanted to make the point that it was a genuine issue and not at all racist to refer to it as you suggested.

Your claim that The Independent prints "racist hype" was laughable!

Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck

I have no idea what you are getting at, and I am sure I am not alone.
What exactly are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:06 AM

Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck

Yep, them Jews can make people make anti-Semitic comments, just how do they do that, such power they have. That would go along with their power to control governments, world finance and the media. You are probably under their mind control too, that would account for your anti-Semitic comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:43 AM

Out of 100 people how many said that this thread was pointless?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM

A lot of very very very pointless and very very very silly posts around here, Dave. Any minute now Keith'll be telling us to stick to the point. Pointless. I might try that scrambled egg recipe of yours but with chuckie-'en eggs, by the way. I never watch Pointless, by the way. I think it's a very very very silly programme.



Wibble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:28 AM

What a pointless, silly post.

Is it as pointless and silly as post saying how pointless and silly a post is? Especially when, as Steve has already commented, there are plenty of those around here anyway :-)

But, once again, you are entitled to your opinions and, once again, I am entitled to not really give a shit about them. Now, can we get back to the important stuff?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:07 AM

"Independent headline"
Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck
Let's see if someone comes up with an actual account of what this 'antisemitism' consists of, shall we - then we might have a real debate instead of the lynch law accusations we have had from you so far
Aave we finished wit the "Traveller slavery" bit Keith
Always happens when your excuses dry up
Jim
Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:01 AM

Independent headline (12hrs)

Third of voters may not vote for Labour because of alleged anti-Semitism, poll suggests
Finding comes as Ken Livingstone faces disciplinary hearing over 'anti-Jewish' comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jewish-news-ken-livingstone-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-a7659186.html