 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:49 PM Go count the land that has been stolen No land has been stolen - that is a typical anti-Semitic trope. Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians Gaza is under a legal blockade against the importation, by their terrorist government of weaponry whose aim is to kill Israeli civilians. You will note that when Israel gifted Gaza to the "Palestinians" no blockade was in effect, it was established in response to missiles being launched against civilians by the terrorist government Hamas. No missiles = no blockade, it doesn't take a genius to work that out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:26 PM Perhaps Raggy if you'd like to explain the basis for comparison it might help. You won't do that because you know you are doing a "Gnome" and comparing apples to oranges. Castigating Travellers and the Asian community?? So Raggy how many young boys have been abused in the UK since say 2004? How many have been abused by Catholic Priests? Does the "brand" of the religion have any significance? Population of the UK is some 65 million, how many of them describe themselves as Christian? How many of them are Roman Catholic? How many have been abused by others who could not be described as Priests, Roman Catholics, or Christians of any other denomination? You see for you to make your statement you'd have to have all that information at your fingertips. Now for the life of me I know nobody from any other section, or group in the UK that I can recall kept dozens, possibly hundreds, of people in inhumane and degrading conditions and exploited them working them like slaves for periods of up to a quarter of a century and milking them for every penny that could be squeezed out of them. Can YOU? Same goes for the gang grooming, rape and sexual trafficking of vulnerable under-aged girls. In 12 cities in England the common denominator that linked the members of these gangs was what Raggy? Don't be shy in responding, influential members of their own communities felt compelled to commented on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 PM Well 8 hours have now elapsed since I posted about a catholic priest had been jailed for abusing a young boy. Not one of the people who attempt to castigate the travelling community or the Asian community for perceived ills has deemed to respond. Quelle surprise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM "Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people" - Jim Care to elucidate Jim and give us some details about this programme where "The Voice of the Jewish People" came out with these pronouncements? Who is "The Voice of the Jewish People"? And how was he or she elected to the position? I do know that all members of the Israeli Government are elected by the electorate of Israel (Mostly made up of "Jewish People" Jim), and that those elections are held regularly which is more than can be said for the other inhabitants of the former mandated territory of Palestine (I think they last had an election about 12 years ago). How many Egyptians have the Israelis killed in the last 38 years Jim? How many Jordanians have the Israelis killed in the last 23 years Jim? In both cases Jim the answer is none - the reason for that is they stopped trying to kill Israelis, they also stopped threatening the state of Israel, so Israel no longer had to fight them. Now if your pal Jeremy Corbyn's pals in Hamas and Hezbollah tried the same approach then the people of Palestine might find their general lot in life improving - it won't happen of course as the "leaders" of the "Palestinian people" are not interested in any peace in which a state of Israel exists. As long as Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israelis, Israelis will exercise their right to defend themselves. The fact that the Israelis are more effective than their attackers does not mean that they must exercise more restraint - there is no equivalence when you are fighting for your very existence - Or should they all move to the US mid-West Shaw? Oh but wait a minute to suggest such a thing would be to deny Israel's right to exist and that is anti-Semitic. I know somebody who made that suggestion Shaw and so do you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM For Jim, John McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor), "you(Livingstone) deployed it (Hitler statement) to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah," Justifying anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic Jim. Is he a friend of Israel? Or Diane Abbott? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 12:38 PM What kind of scum defend the actions ooof soldiers as just described? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:57 AM "I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. " Go count the number and compare them - p Go count the land that has been stolen Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians One lot of killing does not wipe out another and only an inhuman little shit woulf claim otherwise. Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people Wear your badge with pride Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:02 AM I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. These murderers are celebrated as heroes and given a lifelong stipend that rivals what teachers earn which tells us a lot about where their values lie. In 2016 $137.8 million, about 10% of their annual budget when to rewarding the murderers of Jews. Nice to know that your government's aid monies are being used in this way, isn't it? Great human beings eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:42 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:31 AM Just been listening to some very moving interviews with Israeli soldiers on a programme on Israel around Easter on Irish radio One described methods of torture they are now told to use on detainees, such as DRYING OUT He said many young soldiersare protesting at the methods they are told to use and are being put on report for doing so. He described how farmers had to travel miles to get through checkpoints to get to their land on the other side of the wall He told how soldiers close checkpoints when it takes their fancy and how one elderly farmer with his you7ng grandson passed out from the intense heat while waiting for the gate to be reopened - he sto soldiers danced in fromt of them as a n effort ton humiliate them while a third filmed them on hos mobile phone. He ended his statement with obvious difficulty by saying, "in a few days time the world is honouring the man who died on the cross just a few miles from here - what kind of honouring is that?" A "self-hating Jew", no doubt! Great human beings eh? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:30 AM "Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it." A getout for those who blame the Jewish people for the Crimes of Israel Bobad You have never at any time been able to produce a single person who has attacked the Jewish people, yet you do constantly yourself for calling those who criticise Israel "Jew haters You are making atrocities carried out by israel "Jewish" - you are by definition antisemitic You are the leading antisemitism on this forum - accept that title with pride Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:18 AM People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:53 AM "I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party" And I can't see anybody in their right mind believing somebody guilty of anything unless the accusations are substanbtiated People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable Bobad - that is your contribution to the welfare of the Jewish peole Hope you are proud Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:03 AM I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party as long as Corbyn ("our friends Hamas and Hezbollah") is leader. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:02 AM ""Labour deputy leader Tom Watson" Who is a prove dishonest politician, an opponent of BDS, an opponent of Corbyn and chairman of Labour's Friends of Israel An unbiased opinion, if ever I saw one!!! Opinions from an in-fighting party group are not worth a fart in a thuderstorm if they are not backed with facts Certainly the opinions of a pair of raving racist idiots like you pair of Laurel and Hardys who refuse to respond to given facts yet continue to scrabble around for meaningless quotes are worth even less You choose to put up a load of non Jewish opinions in opposition to stated Jewish support for Livingstone - I reckon that confirms your antisemitism based on your own arguments - but we didn't need confirmation Fuck unqualifies opinions of self-interested politicians - including crooks pKeith - where are your actual examples of Labour Party members denigrating the Jewish People? You have yet to produce a single one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:42 AM "Mr Corbyn, a longstanding ally of the former London mayor, said: "Ken Livingstone's comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community. "Labour's independently elected National Constitutional Committee has found Ken guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and suspended him for two years. "It is deeply disappointing that, despite his long record of standing up to racism, Ken has failed to acknowledge or apologise for the hurt he has caused. Many people are understandably upset that he has continued to make offensive remarks which could open him to further disciplinary action." "Labour deputy leader Tom Watson said it was "incomprehensible" Mr Livingstone had not been expelled, while former leader Ed Miliband said he was "appalled" at the lack of remorse being shown. Mr Watson said the ex-London mayor's behaviour "discredits the party I love... I am ashamed that we have allowed Mr Livingstone to cause such distress. This shames us all, and I'm deeply saddened by it." Shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, who led an inquiry into claims of anti-Semitism in Labour, said she was "horrified" by the way Mr Livingstone had behaved" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39499640 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:33 AM "Sadiq Khan joined those condemning the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone from Labour and said there is no place for him in the party because his views were "anti-Semitic". The Mayor of London said Labour has to "do more" after Mr Livingstone was handed a further year-long suspension, rather than expulsion, over his comments about Hitler and Zionism." Khan, "And if we are going to be zero-tolerant towards racism, Ken Livingstone has got to go." "More than 100 Labour MPs have signed an open letter stating the sanction imposed on Mr Livingstone was a "betrayal" of Labour values. The hard-hitting letter states: "We stand united in making it clear that we will not allow our party to be a home for anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism." " "Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said she was "shocked" at the leniency of the sanction and told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The Jewish community are really upset, and quite rightly so." Rayner, "I want to see the sanction to be zero tolerance(for anti-Semitism), and if that means that he is excluded from the party then that should be it." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-calls-for-ken-livingstone-to-be-ousted-from-labour-over-antisemitic-views-a3509091.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM I see on the BBC News website that yet another catholic priest has been imprisoned for abusing a young boy. Are Christians over-represented in these cases??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:19 AM John McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor), "you(Livingstone) deployed it (Hitler statement) to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah," Justifying anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM Not that this pair would be in the slightest bit interested but this is an opinion offered by British Jews - but what do the Jews know if they don't back up th opinions of a pair of raving racists Jessica Elgot Thursday 30 March 2017 07.00 BST Last modified on Thursday 30 March 2017 07.01 BST Ken Livingstone will appear before Labour's most senior body on Thursday, which will rule on whether he will be expelled from the party for comments he made linking Adolf Hitler to support for Zionism. The former mayor of London, who has been suspended from the party for 11 months, said he would present evidence to the national constitutional committee (NCC) to back up his claims in a series of TV and radio interviews that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" before he "went mad". In a statement before the hearing, Livingstone said he had not broken any Labour party rule and said he would blame expulsion on the political balance of the committee rather than his own conduct. His case will be presented by Michael Mansfield QC. "I am being attacked by the right wing of the Labour party because I support Palestinian human rights and strongly back our leader, Jeremy Corbyn," he said. "There is no real evidence against me, so hopefully the Labour panel will dismiss the charge against me. Only a biased and rigged jury could find against me." Labour's national executive committee has referred the case to the NCC, the only body that can expel members. The meeting will be conducted in a private hearing of the NCC panel, despite calls from Livingstone for it to be made public. Advertisement Mansfield, who has previously represented families of victims at the Bloody Sunday inquiry and advised Corbyn during the legal challenge to the party's leadership election in summer 2016, will present Livingstone's case. His solicitor is Imran Khan, who has represented the family of Stephen Lawrence. In a letter setting out the case against Livingstone, Labour's general secretary, Iain McNicol, said the former mayor must answer the charge that his conduct was "grossly detrimental" to the party, also citing his defence of Facebook posts by Bradford West MP Naz Shah. Shah apologised for the posts which she admitted were antisemitic, suggesting transporting Jews from Israel to the United States. However, McNicol said, Livingstone then went on air to defend her and claimed the posts were not antisemitic. "It is widely accepted and obvious that Ms Shah's posts were antisemitic and offensive," McNicol wrote. "Indeed, as stated above, Ms Shah herself accepted that her comments were antisemitic. So, too, did the spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn MP." McNicol said Livingstone's comments about Hitler and Zionism had come unprompted to BBC London's Vanessa Feltz. "You deliberately introduced Hitler's alleged support for Zionism into the discussion with Ms Feltz, in the knowledge that, or reckless as to whether, it would cause offence to members of the Jewish community," McNicol wrote. Livingstone will also present five witness statements from Jewish Labour party members in his defence, all five of whom are involved in anti-Zionist and Palestinian rights activism. LSE professor Jonathan Rosenhead, a proponent of a boycott of academic collaboration with Israeli universities, said Livingstone's comments were "not perhaps expressed as elegantly as they might have been" but said he did not find them "to be in any way antisemitic or offensive". "It would be a tragic mistake if the Labour party were to find Ken Livingstone guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the party," he went on. Walter Wolfgang, a former member of Labour's NEC, said in his statement: "As a Jewish member of the Labour party, who escaped Nazi Germany in 1937, I take the issue of antisemitism extremely seriously. Ken Livingstone has an outstanding record of fighting against racism and antisemitism. This hearing into Ken's actions is a travesty." Another witness, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, the founding member of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, said Livingstone was being "pilloried because he is a prominent figure on the left of the Labour party". "Those who allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredit the term," she said. "His track record in public office is a clear testament to his commitment to supporting the Jewish community and fighting racism in all its forms, including antisemitism." The committee will also hear evidence from the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, Jeremy Newmark, who will appear at the behest of Labour's NEC and will be cross-examined by Livingstone's team. Newmark, who has also submitted written evidence, said he hoped the panel would be focused on the issue of disrepute, rather than Hitler and Zionism. "I hope the panel will keep the hearing consistent to the charge, rather than allow it to be a trial of history," he said. "I've agreed to give evidence because it is clear that whatever debate there may be about the facts or whether Ken's statements were antisemitic, the question is whether he has brought the party into disrepute. And I know from the acres of press coverage and the response we get campaigning in Jewish areas, the remarks have been damaging." After the decision is made, the NCC may not issue any public statement but there is little practically that the committee can do to stop it being made public by the accused. The committee, which has 11 members, is made up of representatives from trade unions, constituency labour parties, councillors and a socialist societies affiliated with Labour. There is no comprehensive public list of the members, but the committee includes long-serving Labour councillors and activists, most of whom have been in the party for many decades from all sides of Labour's political spectrum. Their identities are not widely publicised to avoid external pressure on decision-making. The committee is currently chaired by Rose Burley, a councillor and Labour member for 52 years, who also presided over the expulsion of George Galloway. Three of them will be on the panel that decides Livingstone's fate and a decision should be made as soon as the hearing ends or the following day. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/ken-livingstone-to-appear-before-labour-body-in-expulsion-hearing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM Who is "attacking" Travellers and Muslims Jim? What points are you trying to make? The only points you seem to bother about are those created by your own distortions. In the case of Travellers, when it comes to instances, arrests and convictions for unlawful detention, exploitation and slaving that particular group IS Massively over represented - Simple statement of FACT - no attack on Travellers in general, nothing said about ALL Travellers at all. In the case of sexual exploitation gangs a certain culture - Note that JIM "CULTURE NOT RELIGION" - is over represented. Shah denied the right of the existence of the internationally recognised state of Israel to exist - she acknowledged that, putting it down to her own ignorance and publicly apologised for doing so - What you think Carroll is of no consequence whatsoever. Livingstone was found guilty of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute with his ludicrous and offensive comments related to Hitler and Zionism - he has been under suspension since Spring last year and unless he too acknowledges the error of his ways and retracts what he has said then he will remain under suspension for another year, because the NEC of the Labour Party are too gutless to expel him, too gutless to stand up to the hard left Hamas supporters who have taken over the Party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 05:53 AM "You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers" Don't know about cherrypickers They're a classic pair of lemons Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM Found guilty of what, Keith? Can YOU give me the PRECISE WORDS they used that caused them to found guilty, and of what - the precise charge, please? That would clear this up. Who found them guilty? What were their legal qualifications? Antisemitism is a serious charge. Have the police been involved? Or are you going to say that what the Labour Party say is good enough for you? The Labour Party that you've been smearing for a living for months? I dont smear the Labour Party and a lot of what it says isn't good enough for me, and I'm a paid-up member. You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers, aren't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:59 AM Different language Different morality Different planet DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:47 AM "As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant." What you are trying to say is you have no answer to my points Why should the opinion of a bunch of raving self-exposed racists be any more relevant to that of anybody else - especially on the question of racism If I weer Keith, I'd be crowing "I won", but I don't go in for that sort of thing If my opinion Is of no interest, why address me with your racist filth "Yo Jim:" I've always believed all racists are thick, but you exceed my wildest expectations IF IT IS ANTISEMITIC TO BLAME THE JEWS FOR THE ACTIONS OF A FEW CRIMINALS, IT IS EQUALLY RACIST TO BLAME OTHER NATIONAL FOR CULTURAL GROUPS FOR THE SAME THING "Both found guilty by the Labour Party!" Since when have politicians been the arbites of right and wrong, especially those with a vested interest in seizing power for a particular party line? Neither Shah nor Livingstone are guilty of attacking the Jewish people therefore they are not antisemitic and until they do, that is the way it will remain. Corbyn's actions on Livingstone was correct - he disciplined him for insensitive behaviour not antisemitism - he was right to do so. Pickles makes an interesting point in his article - there is no longer a workable definition of antisemitism so Britain has had to make up her own. A survey finds that a quarter of British people have admitted to holding racist views. You've been given the facts of what percentage of British people hole genuine antisemitic views about Jewish people Why on earth should the views of the politicians they elect to parliament on antisemitism be worth a tuppeny fart The Labour party does not have a problem with antisemitism - there is no earthly reason why they should have On the other hand, when the Tories were accused of islamophobia, they confirmed that accusation by electing a racist as foreign secretary - they have yet to hold an enquiry Which twin uses Toni - as the old adverts used to ask? You have no case - only unproven accusations - noting has changed while I have been away Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:56 AM Dave, But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania. It was Steve who said it was what everyone else thinks, not me. He said, "We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times." I probably have told him 50 times what everybody else thinks, and it is what I think too. Jim, as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah, Both found guilty by the Labour Party! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 AM As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant. All these things happening in the UK, in Europe and in the world and Labour have got absolutely nothing to say about any of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:35 AM Incidentally Your 'Eric Pickles (Erick Picckles, fort chists sake) definition of antisemitism reads: If that is true for antisemitism, it must be true for all racism against all races and groups Attacking Muslims or Travellers because of the behaviour of a small handful of criminals is a racist act, pure and simple - must be true, Eric Pickles says so. Ou perhaps you can explain why there is one set of standards for one ethnic grop and another for other groups Smells of racism to me!! I notice Pickles has carefully removed the clause which says it antisemitic to associate the Jewish people with the actions of the State of Israel - who is this political superman!!! Eric Pickles - you have to be joking!!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:20 AM "Yo Jim: Another case of non over representation of a certain group" So the behavior of a handful of criminals from a community numbering a million and a half can be linked to the entire community - again Being the raving out-of-the-closet racist that you have proven yourself, you would say that, wouldn't you You've certainly earned your B.N.P. spurs on this one, haven't you? Do they hand out the Irish Cross for actions above and beyond...? No action on any group as small as these has ny significance whatever to which national and cultural group they come from - this is pure "all black men have big dicks" primitive racism, pure and simple - back to 'the 'Windrush/Notting hill riots' days. If there was a shred of logic to your argument, every Christian in Britain and Ireland would be a potential Child rapist (a fact, you scum don't have the balls even to address) - utter nonsense. No change in your scummy behavior otherwise - no substation of your Labour Party claims, no response to your having lied about my being a liar and no proof about "proven liars" This really hasn't ben your year so far. Your Labour party "serious semitism" claims have become a your little Alamo around two as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah, neither of whom have attacked the Jewish people - which is what antisemitism is Both criticisd Israel - that is not antisemitism - the civilised world criticises Israel for its behaviour towards the Palestinian people - only the politicians stay silent out of self interest. When you lot produce examples of Labour politicians smearing Jews, you might have a case, until you do, you haven't simples! Please don't quote me the political definition of 'antisemitism' - not even the Israelis take any notice of that - they hide behind The Jewish People to void having to answer for their war crimes. Jim Carroll . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:40 PM Of course you believe those you quoted, Keith. Why else would you have quoted them? But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania. Not sure what enjoying telling someone they are isolated and ridiculous means but pulling the wings off insects seems to be about on par. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM I do believe the same as all those I quoted, which Steve said was "everyone else." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:48 PM Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks." Did he also say "Yes. The same as me." I could have sworn that was you... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:46 PM Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks." He was referring to my latest quotes. (Can you find any contradictory ones Dave?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM We all know what everybody else thinks. Yes. The same as me. Errrr, no. More little porkies I'm afraid Keith. What is the percentage of the population that agrees with you? What sample have you taken to prove this? Unsubstantiated claim once again. You are still suffering from this win and lose syndrome I'm afraid and this is still not a debate. As to I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this. If you genuinely feel that then I am sorry for you. You really need to find more enjoyment in life. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM Yo Jim: Another case of non over representation of a certain group Huddersfield this time 27 men and 2 women over 170 charges concerning 18 vulnerable underage girls over a period of 7 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:13 PM We all know what everybody else thinks. Yes. The same as me. Everyone except you Steve, but you still do not believe you could be wrong and everyone else right. I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:02 PM He can repeat it as often as he wants, he can repeat it on this thread for as long as you prats want to discuss weeds, wild flowers, recipes. He can repeat it as often as he wants because he happens to be telling the truth. As for having to explain anything to you Shaw? Well he certainly does not have to do that, even to attempt it would be a complete and utter waste of time - your definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism doesn't count for jack shit and by now everybody knows that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Apr 17 - 08:09 AM Ah, I see we're back to bold. How many more times are you going to repeat this stuff, Keith? Tell me instead what YOU think she said that antisemitic. The exact words that got her into trouble that showed her attacking Jews. Tell me instead what YOU think Ken said that was antisemitic. Man up, Keith. We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times. Quit the hand-wringing and the big messenger boy act. This is a debating forum, supposedly, not a forum for reporting your favourite newspapers and all those Labour people you clearly love so much that you treat them as gurus who speak ex cathedra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 04:10 AM The Independent, "The party's decision not to expel Ken Livingstone over his offensive remark that Hitler once supported Zionism will alienate the Jewish community, once loyal and naturally Labour. They were already heading out because they did not have much confidence in Jeremy Corbyn's stated policy of "zero tolerance" over anti-Semitism. The Livingstone affair was a chance for Labour to regain their trust. Flunked the test. Even Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, has admitted that Labour is "not living up to its [zero tolerance] commitment"." "Livingstone was defending Labour's Naz Shah for sharing anti-Semitic Facebook posts before she became an MP. She wasn't even defending herself in this matter, issuing a full apology and showing how to calm such a storm before it rages out of control. Livingstone, however, deliberately did the opposite, repeating his remark ad nauseam even though he knew it caused great offence. He appeared to love the limelight. Bizarrely, he claimed the case against him was part of a plot against Corbyn. The result has been another damaging episode that Labour could ill afford. For some Jewish Labour members, it will be the final straw. It will also offend a wider group of people. For many voters this affair also underlines an image of a party that seems to have remarkably little to say about the real world" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ken-livingstone-labour-anti-semitism-hitler-zionism-jeremy-corbyn-jewish-members-leaving-party-a7667836.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM Once again you put the case of Israel's enemies, known for their lying propaganda. None of those accusations stand up to scrutiny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 09:07 PM Very little point in demonstrating real antisemitic statements around here, Greg. Around here, antisemitism has nothing to do with Jews. It has everything to do with protecting a vicious regime that uses white phosphorus to illuminate its slaughter of children, that leaves hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets all over another country's farmland, which builds an apartheid wall that divides families and robs them of their olive groves, which oversees the massacre of civilians in refugee camps and which steals only the best land with the best water supplies from those of its citizens who happen to be non-Jews. So what we have to do is to lean on, blackmail and lobby till the cows come home all those vulnerable western democracies into accepting a definition that does nothing to protect Jews and everything to protect the regime. Nice! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Greg F. Date: 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 PM You want a REAL antisemitic statement? Check out Trump's mouthpiece Spicer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:06 PM That was poetic licence. It's all screwcaps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:05 PM No, it's just silly, round and round and round we go. There's no end to this. If I give you a recipe you tell me that I lose. Fine. Go and buy yourself a Big Mac. You have no time to cook but I do. Excuse me, I'm just sorting the jacket spuds, roast tomatoes and cold Gloucester Old Spot. Where's that damned corkscrew.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM I would have thought that that was obvious Keith just by reading the link I provided - but then Raggy doesn't really do reading, understanding he does even less - which I suppose explains the daft questions. Not silly Shaw just accurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 17 - 01:43 PM Rag, Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it. Au contraire, it is the same one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM Shah's comments date from 2014. So why, I wonder, did they only come to light when Corbyn took the leadership? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it. So we can presume you are saying he is incorrect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:35 AM You're just getting very silly now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM There ya go Raggy: UK Government definition of anti-Semitism That is the one that would now get you charged with inciting hate, or committing a hate crime in the UK - couldn't give a toss about anywhere else. The likes of Shaw and those who agree with him should take particular note of this bit: "The UK Government's overall policy is that it is up to the victim to determine whether a crime against them was motivated by any particular characteristics. This builds trust in the police among minority communities, and allows flexibility in our response." Or in other words Shaw, unless he is Jewish (Oy vey), DOES NOT get to determine what is anti-Semitic and what is not (More or less what bobad has been telling him for ages - in the UK it is NOW overall Government Policy). Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. |