BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:34 AM

Next one to be reached will be Ben Vorlich at 3232.

Good game and we can do it in Metres for the earlier posts!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:26 AM

I'll claim 3560, a figure I found for Snowdon, I have walked up that one (probably up the railway track and down the miners track). Mountain walking was never particularly my thing but Pip (mum) was very keen. I believe she knew the Peak District well and used to hitch from Brum where she trained as a physio (before I was born) and stop at places like Edale. If she could pick her own "God's country" though, it would be the Carneddau

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

Nice one Steve :-D

Where do you stand Dave?

I though that was pretty bleedin' obvious. I like to stand at the top of Penyghent :-)

I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in making any comments about anything that Keith is involved in. Any comments that disagree with his already set mind will be ignored, called lies or twisted to suit his agenda. If anything like that is mentioned, the second line of defense is to call everyone who disagrees bullies with shitty moralities who are just getting at him. Makes a mockery of any decent discussion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 04:46 AM

No, but I wish Dave wouldn't make baseless assertions about mountain heights. According to my map, drawn up by a living cartographer and bought in a reputable mapshop, Penyghent is 2273 feet, not 2277. He's added four feet. Dave, you're NOT supposed to include your own height as you're standing on top. You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:46 AM

Another post about me Dave.

You raised the case of Shah and have no regrets, but you will not say if you think her comments were anti-Semitic or not!

The anti-Semitic nature of her comments are recognised by Shah herself and all the Parties including her own Labour Party, but not by Steve.
Where do you stand Dave?

Steve,
What was that again, Keith?

Shah advocated the transportation of the Jews from Israel, but you said it was a lie and called me a liar for referring to it.
I quoted the Guardian, BBC and Shah herself saying she did.
Do you have anything to say in support of your claim and accusation?

You have a record for making claims and assertions you can not justify.
Is this another?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:20 PM

I have Wainwright's Pennine Way Companion and I've never forgotten what he said about Penyghent after his oft-tedious journey from Edale to the Dales: "A real mountain at last!"

The first time I went up Penyghent was with Vicar Shaw of Oldham, no relation, one of the finest field botanists who ever lived. He was 77 by then. When I was in my twenties he was a good friend of mine and, a damn sight more famously, was a friend of Roy Lancaster. I had the good fortune to meet Roy a few years ago and we had a great banter about our reminiscences of Vicar Shaw. A year or so later, Roy made a lovely half-hour Radio 4 programme about the vicar which, to my chagrin, I failed to record. The time we went up Penyghent, Vicar Shaw was after one thing only, the sight of Saxifraga oppositifolia, the purple saxifrage. It's an arctic-Alpine flower that's rare in England though slightly commoner in Scotland. Its location on the limestone cliffs high on Penyghent is famous. You have to go in April or May to see the gorgeous rosy purple flowers. The vicar was amazingly fit for a 77-year-old and easily made it to the cliffs. He spent a good few minutes in private admiring the saxifrage and taking pictures. We were only a short step from the summit and eventually I asked him if he was coming to the top with us for the view. "What the bloody 'ell do I want to do that for! I've seen what I've come to see and I'll see you lot in the car park!"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM

What a great drive, Dave. God's own country. I've been hacking at my overgrown hedges for two days and getting big shoulder muscles. Looking good though.

What was that again, Keith? 🤠

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:25 PM

Having spent the day in one of the most beautiful of places I know we were pretty much on a high when we got back. Should I go to the gym? Nah. We had a walk through the local woods (Lyndhurst Wood)) ending up in our local for a couple of drinks. The Black Sheep bitter in there is to die for. Back home for a simple tea of assorted cheeses with various chutneys on toasted Polish bread. Yum!

I must say I do feel sorry for Keith but I will soon get over it I suppose.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:44 PM

Ha!
Silence from all of them on the actual issue.
They have no argument, and never did.
They just tried to dominate the discussion with false personal accusations and bullying again, but this time, they failed.

Let's try again.
Shah advocated the transportation of the Jews from Israel, but Steve said it was a lie and me a liar.
I quoted the Guardian, BBC and Shah herself saying she did.
Do any of you have anything to say in support of Steve's claim.



(Rag, I can't recall you defining "shameless" or anyone saying you did.
Anything on the actual issue Rag?)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:01 PM

For village shops try Hunters in Hemsley, a FABULOUS shop, I spend a small fortune every time I visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:49 AM

Penyghent is my all time favourite but the height (2,277 ) was passed by the count of this thread long ago. Drove past it today! It's Mrs G's birthday and I also picked up my new old car this morning - Another C-Max. We had a lovely drive out up Wharfedale then down Bishopsdale to West Burton. Contemplated going via Hubberhome and Langsthrothdale but I really fancied lunch at the White Lion just so we went via the lower road instead. Never been in before. Lovely pub. Food was quite expensive but well worth it. Went up Wensleydale to Hawes. Had a mooch round there including calling in my favourite village store - Elijah Allans - Then back via Ribblehead, Horton (hence Penyghent) and Settle. I would highly recommend it to anyone suffering from PMD (Post Mudcat Disorder)

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:40 AM

An Orca Killer Whale was washed up on the shore close by a couple of day ago. Local opinion seem to be that more Orcas are need to control the seal population which is devastating he fishing locally.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:35 AM

My favourite mountain of all the UK ones I've climbed is The Saddle in Kintail which is 3310 feet. I'll remember that when we get to post 3309 in this thread, then I'll bag it (what you call being an armchair Munro-bagger). That is, unless some swinish prat blatantly gets in before me again.

Or is it Penyghent... 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:51 AM

Er ........ professor, could you point to my definition of "shameless" I can't recall posting such.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:10 AM

Damn. But how appropriate! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:09 AM

The number assigned to this post (unless some swine swoops in with a quick bit of cross-posting) is the same as the height as Scafell in feet. Now that is, at long last, something interesting in this thread.

Or is it Scafell Pike...🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:06 AM

Keith, they are ideologues, ideologues don't discuss issues that challenge their ideologies they simply reject any fact that doesn't fit their internal belief system and turn on anyone who dares oppose it. Very little difference them and religious zealots.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:02 AM

All three of your posts this morning are - guess what - all about you, Keith. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 05:51 AM

Just personal stuff aimed at me and as usual, and as usual not a word about the issue.

Do you have anything to support Steve's assertion that it is all a lie and me a liar Dave?

Any of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:20 AM

More excuses, word twisting and wriggling from the master. No more to say. You have shown yourself up over and over again, Keith. Feel free to continue but I don't think I need to do any more to demonstrate what you are like. If you are so insecure that you feel the need to 'win' something I can compliment you on your mastery in making things seem other than they are. Most can see though it but you are really very good at it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:10 AM

Just to annoy you all, let's return to the actual discussion.
Shah advocated the transportation of the Jews from Israel, but Steve said it was a lie and me a liar.

I quoted the Guardian, BBC and Shah herself saying she did.
I was right and Steve was wrong.
Steve produced nothing but a series of personal attacks falsely accusing me of lies. Nothing on the actual issue.

Have any of you found anything yet?
Steve?
Dave?
Greg?
Jim?
Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:42 AM

Dave,
But I never said anyone was 'just a prat' did I poobad?

No. I said it about you and you objected.
But it was a fair comment.
You said she was a prat, but nothing more. Just a Prat.
You equated Shah with Morris, who used one offensive and unacceptable word in an otherwise innocuous statement while Shah spoke of "Jews rallying" and advocated the final cleansing of Jews from the Middle East!
Appalling, blatant racism which you appear not to take seriously.
Do you even acknowledge it?
Both Steve and Jim deny it is anti-Semitic at all!
You of course never actually commit yourself.

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

But none of you could question the evidence.
My "so called evidence" was quotes from Shah herself, BBC, Guardian and all Parties including Labour.
Instead you went for me personally.
Not that I care. Not for myself anyway. I get off on standing up to bullying intimidation. That's why I am always taking you people on.
I recognise your defeat when you abandon all pretence at argument and resort to personal attack.

I do not "cry abuse and bullying" as part of my case or in defence of myself. Quote me if I ever have, liar.

But you people are destroying debate on this forum. That is why I highlight it.
We used to get all shades of opinion on political threads before they were dominated by you bullies.
Now people stay away because normal decent people, unlike me, do not want to be subject to personal abuse by a whole gang of nasty bullies.

Steve,
The only person who wants to make this about you, Keith, is you.
Blatant lie.
I always object to you attacking me instead of my arguments.
All your attempts to smear me as a person by misrepresenting things said in unrelated, years old threads.
The accusations.
The name calling.
I seek none of it and always object to it, only to have Dave say I "cry abuse and bullying."
I do not.
I just object to it. I want to discuss the issues not defend myself from all your smears.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 05:25 PM

The only person who wants to make this about you, Keith, is you. That much is clear/blatant.

It's Adolf, boobs, not Adolph. Do try to at least get your friends' names right if nothing else. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:16 PM

But I never said anyone was 'just a prat' did I poobad? Remember. Just half a dozen posts ago?

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM
...
Again, I never quoted you as saying "just."
That was my word for your position.


So, there you have in black and white, from Keith himself. I never said anyone was just a prat. That was Keith's (mis)interpretation.

Good job that some people don't actually read what is going on isn't it Keith. If no one read it then you would get away with things like

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:56 AM

(Quote from me) When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

(Your response) If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

Followed closely by

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:50 PM

...
This is just a pedantic vendetta by a gang of would be bullies to try to discredit me because you have no answer to my actual case.

And

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM
...
Just pedantic nit picking because you have no reply to my actual case.
A nasty would be bully who will tolerate alternative views being expressed.

No wonder decent people will not express political views on this forum.
They know the will be hounded by a whole gang of bullies if they dare to antagonise any one of them.

But unfortunately for you people do read what is being said and what is more they can remember what happened more than 2 posts back.

You are quite right, Steve. You couldn't make it up :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:47 PM

Just calling her a prat is an inadequate response.......

It is the equivalent of saying about Adolph........"oh, he was just a prat".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:17 PM

While I was typing, Steve has made another post.

Nothing about any of the issues, just another comment about me.
That is what we have to expect now on Mudcat if we dare say anything without their approval.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:13 PM

Just a reminder what my case actually is.
What the wanna be bullies don't want posted.
They just want to make it all about me with pedantic nit picking in place of reasoned argument, because they have no argument.

Although the gang of five bullies deny it, Shah made grossly anti-Semitic statements.
That is not just my view. She now readily admits it, and all Parties including Labour recognise that fact
Just calling her a prat is an inadequate response to her blatantly racist comments.

She said, "The Jews are rallying!"

Guardian, "Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."


BBC, "The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

The bullies deny this is anti-Semitic.
It is just someone being a prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:12 PM

There's no point saying anything to you, Keith, unless it's taking the mick. You are just like McEnroe's umpire. You can NOT be serious. Ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:00 PM

Greg too.
Nothing whatever to say on the issue under discussion, just nasty attempted put downs to warn others what to expect if they dare express a view the gang don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM

Dave,
Just like it was your usage and not mine that said 'just'. I never made such a remark and so far you have failed miserably to link to one.

Again, I never quoted you as saying "just."
That was my word for your position.
She spouted nasty racism, and you just called it being a prat,

Just pedantic nit picking because you have no reply to my actual case.
A nasty would be bully who will tolerate alternative views being expressed.

No wonder decent people will not express political views on this forum.
They know the will be hounded by a whole gang of bullies if they dare to antagonise any one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:50 PM

Dave,
Yes it was. But it was your usage, not hers.

Yes, but I did not claim that she said the word.
It is entirely consistent with what she did say.
She was not ashamed at the time, and Rag's definition give "shameless" as equivalent to "blatant" and she actually did describe her words as "clearly anti-Semitic."
No deception. My description was entirely consistent with her expressed views.
This is just a pedantic vendetta by a gang of would be bullies to try to discredit me because you have no answer to my actual case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:28 PM

Well, I don't think I have heard anyone on here shouting 'I want a poo!'

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:24 PM

Only "often"? Not always?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:17 PM

Thanks Greg but I have Grandkids to play with and to be honest they often make a lot more sense.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:02 PM

Guess you lads just like playing with toddlers. Couldn't you just make or adopt some of your own? I've got an old pram I gould let you have.

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 06:18 AM

You really couldn't make this stuff up, could you.* I'm beginning to question my own sanity here! 😱🤡🤠🤓🤗👻🐸


*Well, Keith can...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:57 AM

My usage was accurate and correct

Yes it was. But it was your usage, not hers. Just like it was your usage and not mine that said 'just'. I never made such a remark and so far you have failed miserably to link to one.

Give it up, Keith. You have been caught out yet again and still you will not admit putting words in peoples mouths. Everyone knows that you have this peculiar habit already so stop digging.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:28 AM

Steve,
You!ve had four examples of the way in which you "adjust" the truth to fit your agenda.

No. Just your interpretation. No single quote of me lying, and there never will be.

Dave,
I simply did not equate antisemitism with being a prat.

That was the only criticism you made of Shaw, and compared her to Morris as just both prats.
I say that blatant racism is worse.

Rag,
Are you not an adult?
You provided this definition,


Definitions:
1.blatantly
ˈbleɪt(ə)ntli/Submit
adverb
in an open and unashamed manner.

Shah is ashamed of it now, but not at the time, so her anti-Semitism was "unashamed."

In this context "open" and "clear" are synonymous and she admitted to "openly anti-Semitic."

My usage was accurate and correct

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:13 PM

"You can not make me a liar just by claiming it.
I do not lie.
That is why none of you can quote me doing it.
...so quote me, liar."

You!ve had four examples of the way in which you "adjust" the truth to fit your agenda. Chapter and verse. Quoted. Clear as a bell. No, as BLATANT as a bell! You won't address what I've told you at all. Too bad. Just put your hands over your ears and shout la la la, Keith. It suits you. It's what you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:19 PM

You did Dave.
Shah spouted anti-Semitism and to you that just made her a prat.

I simply did not equate antisemitism with being a prat. There is no law to say you cannot make antisemitic comments if you are a prat or vice versa. In fact, if you make any racist comments, particularly if you are in the public eye you are definitely a prat and quite possibly other things.

You have failed dismally to show in any way shape or form to show that I said anywhere that being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'. The word 'just' was inserted by you in the same way that 'blatantly' was inserted elsewhere.

If I so chose I could refer to you as a prat. That does not stop you from being the thick cunt that someone else called you. Not that I would stoop to either of course but the two are not mutually exclusive. Not difficult to understand is it?

Now you have been caught in yet another lie and you are trying your best to wriggle out of it. It doesn't work. Everyone can see what has happened and they all know you too well. Deny away as I am sure you will but we all know the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 01:32 PM

Well I'm back in one of my favourite bars on the West coast of Ireland enjoying my first pint of decent Guinness in weeks.

I see that the professor didn't find an adult to explain the difference between "blatantly" and clearly.

Either that or he is clearly a blatant liar.

May drop in from time to time when I am not drinking and enjoying the music that abounds ............. and I can be arsed.

Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 12:10 PM

Steve
You can't dismiss your lies simply saying they didn't take place.

You can not make me a liar just by claiming it.
I do not lie.
That is why none of you can quote me doing it.
"Everything I've said is here in the threads in black and white."
Yes it is, so quote me, liar.

as "blatantly," with the pejorative undertones that "clearly" lacks,

I did not quote her as saying "blatantly" but her comments were blatantly anti-Semitic and she would not deny that.
She is ashamed of it now, but unashamed at the time. See Rag's definition.

It's your personality defect that never changes, Keith, so my examples never date.

Like all your gang's recent posts, personal about me and nothing about the issue we are supposed to be discussing.

If you could argue your case you would.
You can't so you go for me personally. An admission of defeat!

Dave,
I never equated being antisemitic with 'just being a prat'

You did Dave.
Shah spouted anti-Semitism and to you that just made her a prat.
To me it is worse.

Jim,
Your perogative but it proves nothing other than you disagree

Yes. But so does Shah herself, the Labour Party and every other Party.
Your case is that she and everyone else are lying or wrong, but you have it right!
Hardly convincing!

- SFA tyo doi with the Labour Party

Of course it is. She was a big part and an important example of the problem Labour has with anti-Semitism.

Why do you insist in continuing to flog this long dead horse ?

Because the dead horse is galloping all over you and trampling all your arguments into the dirt!

If you had the slightest concern for te Jewish people you would not continue to dodge Israeli support for antisemitic propaganda

I dispute that claim about Israel, but this thread is about UK politics not Israel.
You are obsessed!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:46 AM

"I admire how she has dealt with it and apologised. I only argue with those who deny her comments were anti-Semitic.
They were."
Your perogative but it proves nothing other than you disagree - SFA tyo doi with the Labour Party
"Why did you miss out that she apologised for her anti-Semitic comments and no longer believed them?"
This has been my ongoing position since the very first time you raised tis on the now deleted thread - I never omit things deliberately and I didn't here
Why do you insist in continuing to flog this long dead horse ?
If you had the slightest concern for te Jewish people you would not continue to dodge Israeli support for antisemitic propaganda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

Latest offering, Steve.

According to Keith I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'. When asked to produce evidence, this is what he comes up with. These are my exact words.

"They both made prats of themselves. That is a fact."

There we have it once again. I never equated being antisemitic with 'just being a prat' yet Keith insists that is what I said and that is his evidence. Unbelievable? It would be in any other circumstance but this is Keith we are talking about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:36 AM

You can't dismiss your lies simply saying they didn't take place. Everything I've said is here in the threads in black and white. I don't care whether the stuff I have on you is four years or forty years old. You could have cleared it up in a heartbeat by saying oops. It would never have been mentioned again. You thought you were going to get away with a loose and inaccurate remark. The way you expressed it suited your agenda better than the original, just as "blatantly," with the pejorative undertones that "clearly" lacks, better suited your agenda apropos of Naz Shah. I picked you up. It's your personality defect that never changes, Keith, so my examples never date. The oops never happens. Make it happen, Keith. I'll never mention it again. Just stop trying to take us for fools. You set our antennae a-twitching whenever you post. That's entirely your fault. You'll be picked up on your dissembling behaviour every single time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:20 AM

Dave,
I can't. Show me an example of where I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'.

"They (Shah and Morris) both made prats of themselves. That is a fact."
I replied that Shah was worse than just a prat because she actually made ant-Semitic statements.

I accused you of crying abuse and bullying. You agreed that Steve, Jim and Greg were "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

I do agree that they are bullies, but I never cried abuse or bullying.
I think they should stop it, but it has no effect on me and I have never objected about it for myself.
When they (and you) resort to personal abuse I see it as an admission of defeat.

Jim,
Shah apologised for her remarks and the matter was dropped by everyone except you

I admire how she has dealt with it and apologised. I only argue with those who deny her comments were anti-Semitic.
They were.

She was suspended whike the accusations were investigated - she was then reinstated
Why did you miss this bit out (rhetorical question)

I did not. Why did you miss out that she apologised for her anti-Semitic comments and no longer believed them?

Steve,
Naz never said that her remarks were blatantly antisemitic. You said she did say it.

She said they "clearly" were. She also has said she is now ashamed of them, but she was not at the time. That fulfils Rag's definition of "blatantly" so it was an accurate description.

Naz never said that she advocated the transportation of the Jews out of Israel. You said she did advocate it.

She did. I quoted the Guardian and BBC saying she did.

You said you didn't comment on a closed thread. But you lifted a quote from that closed thread in order to make a point

I made no comment. You referred to Joe's post and I clarified what thread it was and an extract of what Joe said.
I made no comment of my own.

Wheatcroft never said that AJP Taylor was fraudulent. You said he did say it.

It is a lie that I quoted him as saying that. I did not use quotes.
I actually quoted him accurately, in full, and in quotes.
And that was years ago! How desperate you are to get something on me, but still you fail!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 09:41 AM

Wheatcroft never said that AJP Taylor was fraudulent. You said he did say it.

Naz never said that her remarks were blatantly antisemitic. You said she did say it.

Naz never said that she advocated the transportation of the Jews out of Israel. You said she did advocate it.

You said you didn't comment on a closed thread. But you lifted a quote from that closed thread in order to make a point (a pretty nasty one - it was made in order to smear Jim), and the quote was out of context.

Lots more like these down the years. In every case you thought that just shifting the meaning would go unnoticed. You thought in each case that you'd get away with it. They all have one thing in common. You never retract. You never say oops, my mistake. No-one is bullying you. You want to get away with telling lies. Well we're not as stupid as you think. We can see you coming a mile off. Four instances there of you telling lies. I'm pretty sure that the others who post here have got their own examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 08:45 AM

"Yes, you never can, revealing yourselves to be liars."
Nobody tells lies Keith - this ha become a stonewalling poly
You demand a quote
You are given one
You ignorre it and a few postings later demand a quote
And so ad infinitum
You debate her to "win something" - want a list of how many times you have claimed "you lose"
Nobody else does this - we are here yto debate issues - you are here to "win" something
That is not what debating is about
Your present technique is to make your claim and then to ignore all evidence to the contrary and continue to make it
Stonewalling, pure and simple
What you don't ignore you deny out of had - a perfect example is the antisemitc support Israel is giving to Hungarian extremists which you dismissed as "lies" while your fellow right wingers were prepared to debate it as fact
Stonewalling again
You have debated BDS and will now probably declare it out of bounds because you refuse to discuss Israeli antisemitism on a thread concerning non existent antisemitism instgated by anti an BDS capaign by Israel #
More stonewalling
You have been given a list of facts about the countries you say support a ban on BDS - you ignore them - more stonewalling
You have moved from "a massive problem of antisemitism" to clinging to one sing piece of driftwood - Naz Shah, in order toi discredit the Labout Party
Utterly insane - even the right wing press have walked away from that one.
"She did not see it as a joke, and really advocated it."
She put it up as a blog five years ago - you don't "advocate it" as a blog- you raise it as a serious proposal at a Party meeting
It was before she was an MP - the Labour Party is not responsible for the views of every single member and to suggest and to suggest they are is spiteful propaganda
Shah apologised for her remarks and the matter was dropped by everyone except you
"She is a Labour MP and Labour suspended her over it."
Half the story again
She was suspended whike the accusations were investigated - she was then reinstated
Why did you miss this bit out (rhetorical question)
You said she confessed to antisemitism when what she actually said was ""I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," - half the ****** story again
Labour has proved beyond any doubt that no serious proiblm exists - the British people in the last fiasco of an election has shown this to be a non-event, yet you continue to re-resurrect long dead threads to show the world is wrong and you have "won" something
We can safely assume you are not going to respond to Israel's open antisemitism, just as we can assume you are not going to respond to the actual facts of the banning of BDS in France Britain and Canada
That is what you do - you ignore thenm and let them lie and fester, than raise them again
That is neither honest or intelligent debating - it's trying to "win" something
Tteh fact is simple - no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise - there is not "massive problem" of antisemitism in the Labour Party - there never has been and there never will be
They are siompley not that sort of Party
W can safely leave that to the Tories and their track record of racism, Little Englandism and Bigotry
Ukip, who you one valiantly supported as a serious party, as you do is a dead dead duck
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:56 AM

Yes you have Dave. Think back.

I can't. Show me an example of where I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'.

Not what I was accused of. I just said I agreed with Joe about something.

I accused you of crying abuse and bullying. You agreed that Steve, Jim and Greg were "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Exactly what I accused you of. There are plenty of examples of you complaining about abuse as well. Want me to get some?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:55 AM

Steve,
On top of that, you assigned a remark to Shah that she never made, about advocating the transportation of Jews out of Israel,

She did advocate that. I provided the quotes from the Guardian.
If you are saying I fabricated a quote, you are lying.
QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

blatantly ignore the fact that the map was intended as a joke

Because she took it seriously and advocated it for real.

You make things up, Keith,

QUOTE ME DOING IT THEN, LIAR!