BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:34 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:36 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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 - 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 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: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 01:53 AM

Ahem - WHEATCROFT!!!! - Steve Shaw - LYING GIT

"You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once". - [Steve Shaw LIE]

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.

That is the actual exchange you lying git, so where did he say it more than once?

Just remember folks that everytime Steve Shaw mentions WHEATCROFT (With or without the "Ahem" or the "Wheee"), all he is in fact doing is pointing up the fact that he is a lying bastard who has been caught out, who is too cowardly to acknowledge or own up to HIS mistake (Unlike Keith A of Hertford who Shaw and his pals have been stalking and mobbing on this forum now for over four years).

Oh by the way Shaw, couple of weeks have gone by now, and guess what? I'm still here, bobad is still here, Akenaton is still here, Iains is still here, Keith A of Hertford is still here - Your prediction was that bombarded by inane waffle from you and your pals we'd all be driven from the forum - just chalk it up as something else you got wrong - lying git.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:41 AM

"We all know the old Weatherspoons story. You have quoted it enough times."
You have a full description of how the Travellers are treated by a whole string of businesses in that article - your refusal to respond to says all that needs to be said about your cultural bigotry
The article points out the ongoing refusal to serve Travellers, you refuse to respond to that
You have not, on any occasion, even responded to the Wheatherspoon -case - it doesn't suit your bigoted racism
if these signs are not common, prove it - you have been given masses of evidence that they are
There are plenty of reasons why you haven't seen one - you have been told them, but the most likely one is that, like the good Christian you claim to be, you chose to pass by on the other side
You are a vicious racist twat
You refuse to tell us whether the account of the enslaving of a woman for eight years is a "massive over-representation of Christian slavery - if numerous cases of this Christian enslaving women is not a massive over-representation, why is it with Travellers?
Tou continue to call people liars yet you are the greatest proven liar on this forum - you have been given example after example of those lies and you ignore them and ask for more examples
To preempt your doing so again - if you don't tell lies, give us examples of your disgustingly racist "implant" theory.
ou won't of course, because it is the the most ongoing lie that you or anybody on this forum has told.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:50 AM

"you come here to lambast and insult anyone who dares to disagree with you." - the bleat of an increasingly frazzled lying git

Well no actually Shaw I don't. What I do is I respond to the sort of cliched rhetoric, lies, misrepresentations, half-truths and myths posted by such as yourself and your pals when you are engaged in mobbing other members of this forum usually on subjects you do not have the foggiest notion about.

That I do using logic, reason, common sense backed up by detail and facts that you and your pals somehow find impossible to refute, counter, or challenge.

Your default position is to throw out personal insult accompanied by downright lies coupled to baseless accusations and allegations (Your latest, another lie in an ever lengthening line of them, accuses Keith A of Hertford stating that the works of AJP Taylor and Alan Clark were "fraudulent" on more than one occasion - He did in fact make that mistake in a passing reference only once at the tail end of a post specifically addressing points made to him by Jim Carroll. When it was brought to his attention he immediately acknowledged the error and corrected it.).

Once the baseless accusations have been exposed and shown to be what they are you next resort to thread drift and deflection which finally lapses into inane waffle that for some bizarre reason at the moment seems to centre around what you stuff down your digestive tract.

Hate to burst your bubble Shaw but you do not run this site, you do not dictate who posts what and where. Moderators on this forum have publicly frequently censured you and your pals for your conduct on this site - they have never once addressed any such remarks to me in public or in private.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:16 AM

That I do using logic, reason, common sense backed up by detail and facts

You forgot to mention insults, invective and bluster. A discussion (remember - This is a discussion forum, not a debating society. You said it.) is as much about interacting with your fellow man as it is about the topic itself. What you state you gain in the above you more than lose in interpersonal skills.

they have never once addressed any such remarks to me in public or in private.

Maybe not to you, Teribus, but plenty about you.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:16 AM

I'm not in on this strange Wheatcroft argument, but it strikes me odd that someone like Keith, who stridently demands that we present evidence from "real historians' who sell their books in "real bookshops" should cite the opinion only of a journalist with no historical qualifications whatever on the work of one of Britain's recognised great historians whose historical importance has been compared to that of "Gibbon and MacCauley"
Funny what a little bit of jingoism does to some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:30 AM

Dave,
So telling someone that their morality is shit and that they have lied is not personal

I would only call someone a liar in connection with a specific lie that they have told, in this case your false claim that, "Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders."

To tell such a lie about me while criticising me for once using one word instead of two, with no deception, over 3 years ago and accusing me of having a "different morality" indicates a morality in yourself that I would describe as "shitty."
That is not personal abuse but a reasoned case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:36 AM

Steve,
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.

Certainly, but Teribus did just a few posts back,
"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."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:36 AM

To say that someone is a liar and that their morality is shit is personal abuse by anyone's reckoning. To deny it is not just stupid but bending the definition beyond all reason.

Not that I really give a shit about your opinion of me but I will happily bring this back every time you say you never use personal abuse.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:39 AM

Ah Gnome - I tend to deal with people in the same coin they themselves use - as previously stated no moderator on this forum has ever censured me over any post I have written publicly or privately, the same cannot be said for you, the Musktwats or that lying git Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:47 AM

Steve again,
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.

They had a legitimate reason for sending them into the camp, and no possible motive for wanting a massacre.
That is not a minority opinion except among despicable regimes with real blood on their hands."enter those camps to do the killing."

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,

I have yet to find one that does, Please suggest one.

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.

I quoted the Guardian accurately that day, but dropped one of the words used to dismiss the books some days later.
Sorry about that, but it did not alter the meaning.
Both books say the same thing and both were contemptuously dismissed by Wheatcroft.
Your seizing on one word instead of two was a desperate act of trivia because Wheatcroft supported my case not yours, leaving you with no genuine argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:50 AM

Jim,
if these signs are not common, prove it -

OK. None of us living here have ever seen one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:54 AM

Dave,
To say that someone is a liar and that their morality is shit is personal abuse by anyone's reckoning.

Not if you do it in relation to a specific and nasty lie of yours and in the context of your pursuing me for dropping one word three years ago.

I condemn such morality.
I do not call you random abusive names.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:55 AM

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

Shaw you are a tiresome fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:12 AM

Indy headline today,
"Labour members 'ripping up membership cards' in disgust at Ken Livingstone ruling, say furious MPs
Former London mayor had said he was expecting to be kicked out of party - but disciplinary panel instead re-instated him as a member"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:12 AM

Keith, no matter how you phrase it, calling someone a liar and immoral is personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' are. If you address the person instead of the issue it can be nothing but personal. If in addressing that person you suggest that their character is flawed, it is abuse. Whenever you say that you do not indulge in personal abuse I shall remind you of this.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

BTW - Ken Livingstone's excuse for what he said is that he was only stating the facts and what he said did happen so it cannot be antisemitic. Does that sound a familiar excuse to anyone? Does anyone here use it in reference to anti Muslim or anti Traveler rhetoric by any chance?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

"OK. None of us living here have ever seen one."
So what Keith plenty of others have
Mudcat is a very small puddle in this very big ocean of of ours and those who contributed to this discussion number no more than..... how many?
So less tan a dozen people have not seen them (actually - the toltal who actually sid that number less than six
The people who have seen them you dismissed as liars - a lose lose situation
Those who saw them are liars, those who didn't are proof that they don't exist
You are a bigoted racist and, like all racists, not very bright
Prove all those articles that say they are common are lies or you are lying
Simple as that
You have not had the honesty to even attempt to do that
And you dare to call others dishonest.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Wheatcroft"
Who the **** gives a toss about the opinions of an unqualified journalist
You busted a gut dismissing qualified historians because they were dead
Nutty or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 05:37 AM

Dave,
Keith, no matter how you phrase it, calling someone a liar and immoral is personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' are.

No matter how you deny it, calling someone a liar in response to them lying is not abuse, and neither is disparaging the morality of someone telling nasty lies about someone while criticising them for a trivial slip three years earlier.
You make yourself look ridiculous by claiming it is "personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' "
Of course it isn't!

Ken Livingstone's excuse for what he said is that he was only stating the facts and what he said did happen so it cannot be antisemitic.

I think he makes a fair point on that, but he also defended the admitted anti_Semitic comments of Naz Shah.

Jim, if they were "common throughout Britain" some of us Catters who live here would have seen one.
We have not.
Case proved.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:04 AM

I'm not bothered who posts what where, frankly, Teribus, but I know you're a man who likes evidence, and the overwhelming evidence from your postings is that you appear to have very little interest in the music that this site was established for. You come here to do battle below the line only. You've found a site where you can do that and to hell with what the site is supposed to be for. I don't mention this because I WANT you to post more above the line (more than just the one post in six months and very little before that!), but because I know you'd rather I didn't mention it. Compared with some of the invective you spout at anyone who doesn't agree with you, I'd say that was a very mild observation. You're getting very shouty and repetitive over the Wheatcroft saga (oops, there I go again - are you already doing pat-a-cake with Keithie again?), having completely missed the point I've patiently tried to make that your mate Keith set out to deceive, and you're now foaming at the mouth because you said I said the IDF went in when I said no such thing. I've explained precisely what my opinion is on that, it's based on the facts of the matter and your mate is busy revising the history. What more is there to be said, really?

Citing opinions, Jim? Is there such a word as mis-citing? 😂

I have a couple of music threads to visit now, so excuse me....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:39 AM

Shaw I really think you should try and tame your obsession with mudcat.
You are behaving as though you have some ownership rights. Do you get paid commission for exceeding 25 posts a day or do you have nothing better to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:53 AM

Perhaps Shaw you and your pals cannot come out with your cliché riddled ideological arguments above the line so you come out with none of the lies, misrepresentations and myths above the line.

I do read threads above the line and I do follow what is going on. It may come as a great surprise to you that while below the line there is probably nothing that Jim Carroll and I have in common - above the line however Jim and myself would generally on all topics appear to be in lock-step agreement on everything to do with what we see as being folk music.

Your take on the Wheatcroft thing is based on a lie, you contributed to the WWI was No Mans Land thread after Keith A had accurately quoted the passage from Wheatcroft's article and you did not comment or contest the point that Keith A was making - i.e. that the work of AJP Taylor and Alan Clark and the views they espoused had, in the light of subsequent information, been shown to be at worst, simply wrong, at least, ill-informed.

It was only after Keith made the passing reference to an accurately quoted passage on another thread that you decided to seize upon an error of omission that Keith A acknowledged and corrected immediately it was brought to his attention. Even then Shaw you refused point blank to discuss the content of Wheatcroft's article, instead you started a three year epic dancing on the head of a pin concerning Keith's error of omission and in that time NOT ONCE did you concede that he had acknowledged the error and corrected it, instead you embarked on a deliberate campaign of propagating the lie that he had done neither - that Shaw is utterly despicable, dishonest and cowardly at "Master-Class" level.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:57 AM

Steve,
the point I've patiently tried to make that your mate Keith set out to deceive

And failed Steve.
There was no deception and no need for it.
Everything he said supported my case.
Yours was the only deception trying to save face.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM

What time is The Archers on...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

"Do you get paid commission for exceeding 25 posts a day or do you have nothing better to do?"

Shhh! It's cash in hand only and I don't charge VAT. That's why I'm such an attractive proposition! Keep it yourself!

Have I told y'all yet about the glories of Vallage cheese? I have that with Bath Olivers and Morrisons Nero d'Avola for us tonight, together with my take on chunky guacamole with crudités (pretentious, moi?) and a stone-in nocellara olive or ten. Christ, I'm in a good mood. I feel one of those fun afternoons coming on.