BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:33 PM

"but it is a lie to state that they are common throughout Britain.
Uttre madness
Why will you not respond to what has been put up if it isn't because of your insane hatred for minorities
Whee is your evidence that they are telling lies?
Nutty as a bag of cashews
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:33 PM

I was using the stats that bobad provided and you know it. I've made it clear in several posts that I'm sceptical about those puzzlingly-low numbers. However, I see you're still minimising rape and sexual assault (you now appear to be trivialising the latter...) in favour of your narrow, blind agenda which involves talking up Jews as victims at all costs. You're up shit creek without a paddle on this one, Keith. Be thankful that most people on this forum aren't reading your posts in this thread. I'd change the subject sharpish if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:36 PM

"but in my mind such notices are not common."
Where are your historians of yesteryear Keith
Dave may have held that opinion but that's all it is - an opinion, which he put reasonably
It would carry weight if he offered evidence to support it.
Please respond to what has been put up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:12 PM

So I see Shaw is trying to make some bizarre equivalence between rape and anti-Semitic hate crime - scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:39 PM

The problem is, Jim, that evidence for the lack Of something is impossible to furnish so my opinion is all I have to go on. My opinion is that from my point of view these notices are not common. From the traveler's point of view they may well be. I have asked before and don't recall getting an answer. What do you mean by common? How many pubs would you say display such notices? Help us out here!

In the meanwhile, has anyone noticed that the complainants about little sojourns into the pleasanter things of life are happy to move off topic to argue about other things? Wonder why that is?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:39 PM

The problem is, Jim, that evidence for the lack Of something is impossible to furnish so my opinion is all I have to go on. My opinion is that from my point of view these notices are not common. From the traveler's point of view they may well be. I have asked before and don't recall getting an answer. What do you mean by common? How many pubs would you say display such notices? Help us out here!

In the meanwhile, has anyone noticed that the complainants about little sojourns into the pleasanter things of life are happy to move off topic to argue about other things? Wonder why that is?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:59 PM

rish Travellers win discrimination case after Wetherspoon's pub refuses them entry
They said they were turned away because they had come from the Traveller conference which was being held next door.

Nov 17th 2016, 8:39 PM 43,473 Views 9 Comments Share37 Tweet Email2

Image: PA Archive/PA Images
A GROUP OF Irish Travellers has won a discrimination case against a Wetherspoon's in London which didn't let them in.
The Traveller Movement, along with its 18 co-claimants, brought the case to court after a delegates from a conference were refused entry to the Coronet Pub on Holloway Road, north London, five years ago.
Wetherspoon's has settled the case and has apologised to everyone affected by the incident.
The firm also agreed to pay the legal costs of all claimants.
Stereotype
The judge in the case said the manager of the pub adopted "the stereotypical assumption that Irish Travellers and English gypsies cause disorder wherever they go".
Chairman of Wetherspoon, Tim Martin, said more is being done to make sure an incident like this doesn't happen again.
He said: "This is the first time in our 37 year history that a case of discrimination for refusal of entry to a Wetherspoon pub has gone to court. I apologise to those who were not allowed in the Coronet pub and we have put in place improved training and management systems to try to prevent a recurrence."
Yvonne MacNamara, chief executive of the Traveller Movement and one of the claimants in the case said she hopes the judgement sends a message to publicans that they cannot judge people because they are travellers or gypsies.
She said:
This is a real David vs Goliath story and with any luck will show that no matter how big a company you are, you cannot get away with discrimination.
"We are absolutely delighted that the case is finally settled and I sincerely hope this will be serve as a firm warning to pubs and other service providers across the country that discrimination against gypsies and travellers will no longer be tolerated."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 05:00 PM

It wasn't me making equivalence, boobs. It was Keith who stated, utterly incorrectly and without checking his facts, that both rape and hate crime affected only "tiny" proportions. So who's making the equivalence, boobs? Me or him? And who was it who provided the comparative statistics? Me or him? Jayz, I was even polite enough to use yours!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:03 PM

As I've been mildly horrible to you today, Dave (and let's face it, the bingo episode, bitter taste though it leaves in the mouth, is in the past - more or less), I'll make recompense by informing you of a superb dish made with a type of pasta that I have only been able to obtain in Morrisons (bearing in mind that I live in the boondocks). I did mention it earlier, but it turned out so well that I feel that the whole planet needs to be regaled with it. The pasta is chitarra spaghetti, thicker than ordinary spaghetti and square in cross-section. Proceed as follows. You need 250g pasta.

For two people. Put three tablespoons of EV olive oil in a frying pan. Finely slice two cloves of garlic into the cold oil. NEVERNEVERNEVERNEVER use a garlic crusher. Throw it away. Take 250g of the best cherry toms you can get your hands on and cut them in half. You also need a small glass of decent white wine, dried chilli flakes, a half-teaspoon of sugar (Italian chefs' secret weapon), a teaspoon of salt or less (to taste) and a big handful of wild rocket, roughly chopped.

Gently sautée the garlic. After a few minutes add a goodly pinch of chilli flakes. The amount you add is entirely your responsibility, but the dish does need to be spicy. After another minute, add the toms and salt and turn up the heat. When they start to soften, add the wine and let it bubble. Turn down the heat and simmer uncovered for five minutes or more. Meanwhile, boil the pasta in plenty of salted water. I found that it took 15 minutes. It will be less if you use ordinary spaghetti or linguine. Two minutes before you reckon the pasta is done, throw the rocket into the sauce.

Drain the pasta, not too fastidiously, but keep a bit of pasta water just in case it's a bit dry (it probably won't be). Throw the pasta into the sauce. Stir it around. Whack it into two bowls, drizzle a bit more EV olive oil on top, eat, then make love. No cheese. Definitely no cheese, no matter what your instincts tell you. It sounds like it shouldn't work, but it's a sensational dish. Cheers to Gino for the inspiration.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:03 PM

One more time
British Anti-Discrimination Legislation and
its Protection for Gypsies and Travellers
'…Gypsies and Travellers are still experiencing
discrimination of the most overt kind:
'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs' signs
disappeared decades ago, but the 'No Travellers' signs,
used intentionally to exclude Gypsies and Travellers,
are widespread indicating that discrimination against these groups
remains the last 'respectable' form of racism in the UK.'
Legal Action Group (2004)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:25 PM

Nick Cohen tears a layer of skin off of Jeremy Corbyn in Sunday's Guardian: Don't tell me you weren't warned about Corbyn

The Tories have gone easy on Corbyn and his comrades to date for the transparently obvious reason that they want to keep them in charge of Labour.

In an election, they would tear them to pieces. They will expose the far left's record of excusing the imperialism of Vladimir Putin's gangster state , the oppressors of women and murderers of gays in Iran, the IRA, and every variety of inquisitorial and homicidal Islamist movement, while presenting itself with hypocritical piety as a moral force. Will there be 150, 125, 100 Labour MPs by the end of the flaying? My advice is to think of a number then halve it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I accept that among you there are true far leftists who won't care. You want, and may get, a "radical" Labour party that will spend decades in opposition waiting for the glorious day when voters realise their mistake.

I don't think your imaginary victory is worth waiting for. You don't have a radical programme that a 20th-century Marxist or any other serious thinker would recognise. All that's left of the far left is a babble of sneers and slogans. But, let me be fair, by your own lights you have a strategy, and are not complete fools.

The majority of Corbyn supporters are another matter. Labour MPs are biting their tongues now and letting Corbyn show himself for what he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:29 PM

So, not being awkward Jim but I know it will be asked anyway. That was in 2004. Is it still going on 13 years later? If so someone in authority needs a slap.

Steve - Sounds wonderful. Will a very small quantity of chilli do? I like it but Mrs G can only take a bit. Funny thing with me and chilli. Most sorts are fine. Others can set off my asthma. Usually Thai dishes and the oddest one of all was chilli ice cream in Whitby some years back. I seem fine with Mexican food so I guess it is some sort of regional chilli that sets it off.

Talking of making love I found out how to do it back to back some years ago.

Invite another couple...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 08:04 PM

There is no "Sunday Guardian," boobs. Jeez, don't you and keef ever check anything? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM

Don't tell me you weren't warned about Corbyn
Nick Cohen

Sunday 19 March 2017 00.04 GMT Last modified on Sunday 19 March 2017 10.03 GMT

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 08:34 PM

There is no Sunday Guardian, boobs. There is also no link in your post. "Sunday's Guardian" simply shows that you are out of touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:19 PM

the guardian

Don't tell me you weren't warned about Corbyn
Nick Cohen

Sunday 19 March 2017 00.04 GMT Last modified on Sunday 19 March 2017 10.03 GMT

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:36 PM

That's the website, boobs. There is no "Sunday's Guardian." The fact that you referred to such a thing demonstrates your total lack of reliability, as if we didn't already know. Do try to check your facts before posting, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:46 PM

"That was in 2004. Is it still going on 13 years later?"
Whhhat#s changed to stop it Dave ?
No sign of enlightenment regarding Travellers
Major recinded the Caravan and camping laws in 1994, leaving Travellers no legal right to stop anywhere.
We were in Bristol in 2004 and it was still going strong and the Witherspoon case was two years ago.
Far from being welcome by the settled community, the lot of Travellers has worsened.
This, from the Runnymede Trust report of 2015

"We have also repeatedly highlighted our concerns over the inequalities faced by the Gypsy and Traveller community. We have published a number of research reports, produced guidance to raise awareness of their legal rights and undertaken strategic litigation – including recent wins not just against pubs (for unlawful refusal of service) but also against Government (for unlawful discrimination in recovering planning applications)."
If you are arguing that things have changed (they certainly hadn't four years ago), then you have to show when and how
The only thing that has changes is the Travellers have become more organised and aware of their rights and have won support to challenge this racist behaviour.
The articles I have put up date as follows; 2014, 2014, 2009, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2015
If things have changed, what exactly and when
Both yours and Keith's case rest solely on your argument that you haven't seen them - had you seen them in the past and they suddenly disappeared, or is it that you have had no contact with Travellers ever?
Where did this enlightenment suddenly come from since 2004?
who cares about Travellers now?
ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE, NOT MANY
OR THIS
OR EVEN THIS
Sorry Dave - doesn't make sense - not from you anyway.
I expected a little more from you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:56 PM

Dave, chilli is kind of the point of that dish! If Mrs G. is not a chilli fan, then it may not be the dish for you. But how can one live without frequent lashings of chilli! I am severely perplexed here, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:03 AM

No, it isn't my case, Jim, and you are missing the point. From my point of view and from Keith's point of view the signs are not common because we do not look for the. So we are right. From the traveler's point of view the signs are all too common because they affect them and because you have direct contact with the travelers, you are right.

The point is the truth can be different if seen from different perspectives. Remember the old blind men describing an elephant tale? They all told the truth as they saw it. Sorry you are disappointed in me but the fact is that Keith is as right as you are. Neither of you is lying.

It does prove my other point though. We can strongly disagree without recourse to insults and invective. Thank you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:12 AM

BTW, Jim, I am not saying anything has changed. I asked if it had, you answered that it had not. Seemples:-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:21 AM

Steve,
However, I see you're still minimising rape and sexual assault (you now appear to be trivialising the latter...)

What a dishonest representation of what I said!

You trivialised the importance of hate crime because the victims form a small proportion of the population. You compared them to victims of lightning.
I chose a crime that none of us would trivialise but that also effects only a small percentage.
I could have chosen black unarmed victims of police shootings. However few the victims it is an issue that must be taken seriously, like hate crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:24 AM

Jim,
Dave may have held that opinion but that's all it is - an opinion, which he put reasonably
It would carry weight if he offered evidence to support it.

He did. His own personal experience of hundreds of pubs all over Britain.
Those of us who live here know from our own experience that they are not "common throughout Britain" because we never see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:32 AM

"The Observer - Official Site
https://www.theguardian.com/observer
Latest Observer news, comment and analysis from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice"

The Observer is the Guardian on Sunday, as we all know Steve.
Using that non-confusion to try and discredit a point shows how desperate you are to avoid discussing the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:13 AM

Referring to very low numbers of a category of crime is not "trivialising" the crime. I've said a number of times now that all hate crime is abhorrent, cloth-ears. The nature of a crime is not the same thing as the numbers of a crime. You ignorantly tried to make rape equivalent to hate crime against Jews by saying that they both affected a tiny proportion of the population. That is a complete misrepresentation, as rape and sexual assault affects hundreds of times more people than hate crime directed at Jews. I point to your deficiencies and you get all defensive. Tough.

The Observer is the world's first Sunday paper, founded in 1791. It joined the Guardian media group two hundred years later. It is an independent newspaper in its own right, with its own style and its own name and its own regular columnists and it has its own editor. It is completely inaccurate to refer to it as the Guardian on Sunday or Sunday's Guardian. Why you dig in like this when you are so blatantly wrong is anyone's guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:35 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/observer

or from the web:-

Latest Observer news, comment and analysis from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice.
Bit like musketeers really

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:49 AM

Well you might as well say that all Murdoch's papers are the same paper then! The point itself here is trivial. The fact that bobad is so easily confused as to refer to Sunday's Guardian when there is no such rag speaks volumes about his lack of accuracy and reliability, and the fact that both he and Keith think it's worth it to keep digging is just laughable. They must feel great now that you've joined in. Isn't life fun! Move on, lads!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM

This thread is now over 1500 posts long.

Interesting to point out that points put forward by Shaw/Carroll & Co have all been shown false.

Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? Shaw & Co denied there was any - false, Ken Livingstone still remains suspended from the Labour Party for his anti-Semitic views and comments. The Gnome stated that ant- semitism was no worse in the Labour Party than in any other organisation - false. If "Travellers" get to decide what constitutes "anti-Traveller" discrimination, then Jews get to decide what constitutes anti-Semitism and wrt the political parties in the UK the poll carried out by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism resulted in a sliding scale of trust with regard to the degree of anti-Semitism they expect to encounter within the UK's political parties. The question asked was as follows:

"Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?"

- 87% responded affirmatively in relation to the Labour Party;
- 49% for the Green Party;
- 43% for UKIP;
- 40% for the SNP;
- 37% for the Liberal Democrats;
- 13% for the Conservative Party.

So not the same across the board at all Gnome if you take the word of those who would be on the receiving end of it.

Carroll made a big thing about the rise in hate crime caused by the result of the Brexit vote and the increase in xenophobia in the UK. Bobad made the perfectly true statement that when it comes to hate crimes based on religion attacks against Jews far outnumber those against any other religious group combined - he even produced the figures and statistics to prove that. Carroll/Shaw & Co could come up with nothing to refute the claim made by bobad although Shaw ended up saying that hate crime figures are insignificant in the greater scheme of things, which sort of blows Carroll's hate crime tidal surge out of the water doesn't it?

Someone said they were tired of people dragging up old threads yet from our clique of "usual Suspects", we have threads dragged up from 2011, 2012 and 2014 - your arguments were successfully challenged, countered and refuted then and they have been here yet one more time.

"Travellers Not Welcome Here" signs (The 2011 thread resurrected by Carroll) - I have never ever seen one single example of such a sign anywhere I have travelled in the UK, yet Carroll says that they are common - false, they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:54 AM

Judge, jury and executioner now, eh? Let's hope for your sake that Ken's lawyers aren't reading this thread! And let me try to make things clear for the second cloth-ears of the day. The hate crime statistics as presented by bobad (the numbers, not the percentages) are indeed oddly very low. I have expressed, several times, scepticism about these tiny numbers. However, I can only go from the numbers so helpfully provided. As I've said several times, all hate crime is abhorrent and in no way have I trivialised the nature of the crimes, though I have asked about their nature and received no response to that. There is no equivalence between the numbers provided by bobad and the numbers of people affected by rape and sexual assault, an equivalence of the numbers made by Keith (he said they were both tiny proportions) before he'd checked his facts. That is my point, definitely not to trivialise hate crime directed against Jewish people. One such crime is one too many. But the numbers provided so far in this thread suggest that our countries are safe places for Jews to live in. You are many, many times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than you are to be a victim of an anti-Jewish hate crime. If a point is being made that the hate crime issue is so terrible that Jewish people are being driven out of Europe in droves, one suggestion made here, then I think I it's perfectly valid to look at the numbers and put them in the context of other kinds of violent crime. That is what I've done, and only that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

"hundreds of pubs all over Britain."
Hundteds - as many as that?
We must have either been turned away from or been told that they didn't serve Travellers, at lest a few hundred pubs in North London alone
It's a crazy argument unless you can back it up with a statement that in each case there were Travellers in the immediate vicinity - neither of you have.
Saying there were no signs on pubs not frequented by Travellers is like putting a "beware of the crocodiles" sign on the banks of the Thames.
No Travellers - no signs - now that makes sense.
The last survey estimated that there are around 50,000 men women and children Travellers on the roads of Britain today - making how many pub users among those?
A drop in the ocean nationally.   
"From my point of view and from Keith's point of view the signs are not common because we do not look for them."
Don't know about you - Keith says I am lying when I say there are; the statements indicate that to be the case and our own experience backs that up entirely
In the vicinity of the Mile End Road in East London, only two pubs would serve Travellers, The White Lion and the Roebuck - all others refused to serve them and most had notices up.
I understand that all that has changes is the nature of the notices (Travellers by appointment only" is common now)
Another trick is to either place the notices over the bar so they cannot be seen from outside, or simply to ignore a suspected Traveller until they give up and go away - that happened to us in Bristol a couple of times, until we worked out that we could get drinks if the Travellers say in another room and Pat or I placed the order.
"the signs are not common because we do not look for the. So we are right."
As meaningless than anything Keith has ever said Dave
All that means is you haven't come across them - I wonder how many Travellers you've come across??
You are right about one thing - I am missing your point - please help me out
Ireland has, up to now, had a far worse human rights record regarding Travellers than Britain (at least it did have up to the time John Major repealed the 1968 Caravan - then the gap narrowed somewhat)
A couple of weeks ago the government here took the first tottering steps to putting things right when it announced that Travellers were now recognised officially as a minority ethnic group - a small step, but at least they fall under the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Even if Britain ever gets around to that, May Blossom has decided to pull Britain out of the Convention which leaves Travellers at the not so tender mercies of inhumane thugs like Dagenham and Brownhills Councils and the police who allow travelers to stay around only when they are 'brown-enveloped' for doing so.
These signs are still common - as you say, if you didn't see them, it's because you didn't look for them
Up to July, if you had told be that there were many thousands of Travellers in the London area, I'd have suggested you sought help.
Within a year we had learned there to be at least 500 families living within five miles of our home
Surprising what you find when you start looking
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:24 AM

Steve,
But the numbers provided so far in this thread suggest that our countries are safe places for Jews to live in

Yes, and unarmed black males are safe from police guns and women from being raped, but that is no reason not to express concern about it.

You said,
So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about. Just about four times more likely to be a Jewish victim of a hate crime than to be struck by lightning. Sounds like a pretty safe country in which to be a Jew to me. You are talking this up in the same way as you talk up the "serious antisemitism problem" in Labour

(I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem. What do they know?)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:30 AM

"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously
No serious problem has been found and the evidence for this is that those who say there is a problem are unable to substantiate it with eith description of numbers involved
Until they do, there is no problem - either logically or legally
One crusade at a time otherwise you will become confused
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 10:01 AM

The Observer is the Guardian on Sunday, as we all know Steve.
Using that non-confusion to try and discredit a point shows how desperate you are to avoid discussing the issue.

That's just Shaw's usual attempt at deflecting from the content that he can't handle, just as he is trying to get his pack to do with threads that show him for what he is. It's so transparent that it's not even worthy of rebuttal.

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

One last time. The Guardian and the Observer are two different newspapers. They are independent of each other and they have different editors. I have a subscription to the Guardian but if I want the Observer newspaper I have to go out to buy it. The Observer is, quite simply, NOT the "Sunday Guardian!" They are in the same stable, they both have fairly low circulations and they do collaborate to an extent online in tbe interests of economy. BUT THEY ARE EDITORIALLY-INDEPENDENT, SEPARATE NEWSPAPERS! Aargh!! What part of this are you having such difficulty with?! Strewth! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

Sorry, Teribus, but I don't understand that poll. Who was polled? How many? When was the poll taken? Once again, these are questions that we need the answers too before the figures can be taken seriously. The question is also rather strange. Do you believe a party is too tolerant is not the same as do you believe a party is antisemitic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:33 AM

Steve, They share the same website.
If you retrieve an Observer article online it is shown under "Guardian."
You can not tell from the link which paper carried it.
I have posted Observer articles as Guardian without you even noticing.
I doubt that Bobad can buy copies.

Jim, unless you admit lying about me distorting what people actually said, QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 12:27 PM

Just more idiocy from the idiot Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 01:38 PM

"QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!!"
I have - interminably - try Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM
I listed your extremism - on Muslim implants, on the Belfast riots and on Traveller signs
You denied them all then you did exactly what I said you'd do - you went on to defend what you had just denied - the Traveller signs.
Your longest running lie is your claim that you have posted quotes on your disgusting "implants" theory
You never have nor will you
Nobody other than you (and the BNP) have ever made such a claim
You could prove me wrong by linking to those quotes NOW
But you won't as nobody has ever made such a claim for you to quote
Every time you ask for proof of your lying, this will be the first - until you actually link us to the quote
You will now probably lie again and claim you already have - if so - where
Anther lie to add to the list (unless, of course, you provide a link
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM

No Jim, do not try and pretend this is more ancient stuff.

EARLIER TODAY you posted,
"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously.

If I distorted those Labour people (in this thread or its predecessor, not long forgotten ones) THEN QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!

I SAY YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS JUST TODAY'S JIM LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 03:59 PM

"No Jim, do not try and pretend this is more ancient stuff."
Ancient stuff you confirm is still your belief when I raise it - as with the Traveller signs.
I told you you wouldn't link it - you lied
You asked for examples of your lying - I've just linked you to an earlier post and you set up a smokescreen
You lied - again
Don't ask for examples if you don't want them
Now - that link to thoe prominent people who told you muslims were implanted to rape children
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 05:28 PM

Jim 'n' Dave, this thread has descended into comedic madness. You could scarcely believe that these two near-lunatics could be stupid enough to carry on the way they do. Even Teribus is keeping his head down, sensible chap. I'm beginning to question my own sanity this end.


"Sunday Guardian." Bwahahaha! Omigod, and the corset shop's closed until tomorrow!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 05:52 PM

N'e mind eh, Steve. First day of spring today. Maybe it is spring madness or something? Can we get back on to sensible stuff? We had Polish kutleti for tea and seeing as the Mrs was out I did the sauce. Looked what we had in the fridge and combined some of your ideas into a strange fusion. Did some chopped celery and carrot in olive oil. Has a tub of cherry tomatoes that were best before the 4th of March so they got chopped up and put in. Bit of mild chilli powder (the Mrs didn't even notice) various other bits and a glass of really crap British red wine (don't ask). I simmered it for a while and then zzzzzd it with a blender. Poured it over the kutleti that I had previously fried in a little olive oil and served it on some Polish pasta cabbage parcel thingies. Bit like east European ravioli. I shall call the principle Politalian. Must say it went down quite well and I am still alive so it must have been OK.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:09 PM

Experimentation is the name of the game!

Got the hole in my drive more or less sorted at last, so came in knackered at six o'clock. Had cold meat and veg but needed an effortless spud recipe. Then I remembered the Mediterranean roast spuds. So easy! Scrub some salad potatoes. Cut into half-inch chunks, unpeeled. Get a baking tray and toss the spuds with EV olive oil, salt, pepper and a few little sprigs of rosemary. Put into a very hot oven. After ten minutes, chuck in some unpeeled garlic cloves, as many as you like. You can squidge a couple up first if you like. Give them another 25-30 minutes. Sorted!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:20 PM

It looks like the Labour party got rid of one more anti-Semite:

Former Black Notley Parish Council leader John Clarke was criticised after endorsing a social media post which said "The Rothschild family has used money lending and Israel to "take over the world". He said the post was an "oversimflified view of the world economy but containing a great deal of truth".

He was suspended last month and was then referred by the NEC's disputes panel to the national constitutional committee last Tuesday. Within hours of the decision, he annoounced he was leaving Labour, though his current Twitter bio suggests he was "purged".

Under the party's rules, when any member resigns under suspension it is automatically treated as an expulsion and they cannot be admitted for at least five years.

Jewish News

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:20 PM

Give it a rest, boobs. You're clutching at straws. There are six hundred thousand of us. You have approximately 59,999,987 to go. Stay busy! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:36 PM

There are six hundred thousand of us.

Six hundred thousand anti-Semites, that sounds about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:42 PM

You are the archetypal dullard, boobs. You never have anything to say. Review your last few days' posts. I have. No comment, no viewpoint, just bitter, sniping aggression. You are a very unhappy person, clearly. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:20 AM

Jim,
Ancient stuff you confirm is still your belief when I raise it - as with the Traveller signs.

I do not confirm your lies about the ancient stuff.
You stated that I defend "no travellers" signs which was a blatant lie.
I do not, but you are wrong to claim they are "common throughout Britain."

JUST YESTERDAY you posted,
"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously.

If I distorted those Labour people (in this thread or its predecessor, not long forgotten ones) THEN QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!

I SAY YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS JUST ANOTHER JIM LIE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:27 AM

Steve,
Confusing the Observer and the Guardian does not make a non-Brit "out of touch."
They are "sister" papers with an identical political stance and share a news website so no-one abroad can tell the difference.
You would have to get a calendar to check if the date was a Sunday!

It was just a desperate ruse by you to discredit a perfectly legitimate post from Bobad.

Now, this week Labour is all over the news again and not in a good way.
There is much to discuss.

1600 anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:42 AM

"I don't understand that poll. Who was polled? How many? When was the poll taken? Once again, these are questions that we need the answers too before the figures can be taken seriously." - the Gnome

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest Gnome. Fortunately the House of Commons Select committee on Anti-Semitism did understand it and accepted the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism results as being representative. But not to worry it serves if it gives you the head of another pin to dance on.

Shaw:
As far as me "supposedly" keeping my head down - I only ever post if I am responding to something that someone has said (You and the gang have had absolutely nothing of any importance to say for days now) or if I wish to make an observation of my own which I did on 20 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM when I summarised that every single contention that you and your pals have been posted to this thread (And that covers a myriad of subjects as you have dodged, deflected and diverted through this thread) have been challenged and shown to be false.

Carroll:
STILL cannot come up with one single post from Keith A that proves the latter a liar or someone who distorts the words of others. Wonder if Jom believes that anyone actually reads, or takes his posts seriously any more? But while we are on the subject of Travellers Jom - what are your views on modern day slavery as practiced in Traveller culture? (That should get him frothing for a bit