BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 01:41 PM

Dave, it is binary.
You either agreed with Steve or me. She did or she didn't.

You never have any problem agreeing with Steve, but you could not bring yourself to say that he was wrong and I was right, and that is all this is.
Not rocket science.
Your denial just makes you look even more ridiculous.

It is not too late to tell us if you think Steve was right after all.
Do you think her comments including "The Jews are rallying" were not anti-Semitic even though she says they were.
Do you think she did not advocate transportation, even though she says she did.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 08:08 AM

Iains - 31 Jul 17 - 06:09 AM

"Before Corbyn appointed Keeley to the shadow cabinet, she said of him:"the current state of the party means we will not be able to mount an effective front bench opposition." Quite…

Hard to believe she is the mental health shadow secretary! Is her next promotion to shadow educashun secretary. I hope she is literate because she surely ain't numerate."

There hasn't been numerate in the Labour Party since it was formed. Their track record in Government has been consistently woeful.

On the Venezuela thing - I dare say to such as Corbyn and McDonnell Maduro's handling of Venezuela's economical and political problems is without fault - nothing must stand in the way of "socialist" ideology - the ruination of the country he was elected to govern must only be considered as merely a small price to pay along with the inevitable downward spiral. Corbyn and McDonnell would do the same to the UK in the blink of an eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 05:03 AM

No discomfort for me Keith but if it makes you feel better to believe that then I am glad to help. If you want other people to believe it then, in your own words, you will have to prove it or everyone will know it is just made up shit.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:55 AM

Times today,
"Corbyn is under pressure from MPs and socialist politicians in Europe to condemn personally President Maduro's violent regime in Venezuela.
British MPs from all parties called last night for the Labour leader to speak out after his historical support for the state's leadership. "

Labour MP Angela Smith, "I hope that my party leadership will as soon as possible condemn what's happening in the country and call for the release of opposition party political prisoners," she said.
Graham Jones, another Labour MP and chairman of the group, said: "I believe everybody in the Labour Party should condemn the Venezuelan regime because the first duty of any state is to look after its citizens. Venezuela has failed."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-mps-urge-corbyn-to-condemn-venezuela-0r8nnsqf7

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:51 AM

Venezuela is in a sorry state.
Corbyn praised it as a shining example to the world.
What went wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:45 AM

Not just me Dave.
Anyone with half a brain would know what your problem was.

You could have dealt with it in one honest and soon forgotten post.
Instead you allowed me to drag out your discomfort for weeks.
What a chump.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:21 AM

Which just shows what you are reaaly like and what you really know doesn't it, Keith.

I thought you were getting on with the programme and just trying to convince yourself you have won something but there you go making a pillock of yourself again.

Tsk, tsk. Ah well, I did try.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:11 AM

I do know the truth Dave.
If you agreed with Jim and Steve you would say so without hesitation.

You can not bring yourself to admit that I am right and they are wrong, but you know that to be the case.

Far from being annoyed I have hugely enjoyed your discomfort over this and the chance to take the piss.
How ridiculous you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 04:29 PM

The REALLY amusing bit is that you told him the truth he wouldn't, believe you.

He,d probably call you a liar and/or a loser😀😆😘

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:58 PM

I'm not saying. You can make up any explanation you like if it makes you feel happier.

But you will never know the truth.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:15 PM

Pathetic.
Here is my explanation.
You know very well that her comments were anti-Semitic and that she advocated transportation because she freely admits it.
You have to keep quiet about it because for over a year you have been supporting Jim and Steve while knowing them to be wrong and me right.

Your gang right or wrong, and never mind the truth.
Right Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 10:48 AM

If it is annoying you so much that I will not answer, Keith, all the more reason to keep schtum. I am not going anywhere.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:38 AM

For someone who hides behind "quotes" so often to say you have a çheek is a massive understatement

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:25 AM

Dave,
why are you so interested in my views on this one thing?

Because you are so reluctant to tell us!

After all your evasions and nauseating coyness I am sure we are all agog to know what it is you are so desperate to hide.

We have all stated our views.
Don't be such a diddums Dave.
Man up and state your view, or go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 07:55 AM

Emollient laws, ethics laws and nepotism laws do not apply to Royalty.
Treason is a rather sticky wicket however.


I am unclear regarding the Royal Titles>
King Donald certainly but
Ivanka - Princess, Lady in waiting
Lady - Melania
Jared - Duke, Exchequer, Count, Viscount
Eric - Marquess
Donald Jr. - Earl
Baron - Baron

?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 01:16 PM

Do you really have to be so aggressive, if so I really pity you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 12:35 PM

A simple solution. Very fitting from a simpleton. How many years before the road is totally hidden if hedge maintenance does not occur? I would guess about 5 years from boreens I have seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 12:24 PM

A simple solution . . . drive slower.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 12:21 PM

"the hegderows are full of fuschia in bloom, montbretia abound in the verges and self-heal, leafy hawkweed, tufted vetch, purple loose strive, common February, common valerian and silverweed are just a few of the flowers in blossom."
Roll On the 31st August when the flail cutters can come out in all their glory and tame the hedgerows again. This will make driving along narrow country roads marginally safer. Nice the nesting birds take precedence over the safety of humans.


https://www.npws.ie/news/hedge-cutting-notice-2016

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 11:22 AM

Will we make post 3560, Snowdon?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 11:21 AM

...post 3456, Liathach!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 11:19 AM

I'm claiming...

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

Meanwhile, another glorious day out here on the Connemara, the hegderows are full of fuschia in bloom, montbretia abound in the verges and self-heal, leafy hawkweed, tufted vetch, purple loose strive, common February, common valerian and silverweed are just a few of the flowers in blossom. I,m puzzled by one though. It looks like creeping buttercup but has 4 petals not 5.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 07:24 AM

It is not at all dangerous. Just pointless as are most conversations with you Keith. You have obviously not read or taken notice of anything I have said for years so why are you so interested in my views on this one thing?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 07:10 AM

Dave,
No-one else is afraid to say what they think, so why is it too dangerous for Dave?

If you are afraid to say what you think of Shah's comments, there is little point in reading what little you do have to say on the issues.

Ians is not my friend, and we have little in common except a contempt for the bullying tactics your little group uses to dominate all political threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 06:34 AM

It must be tough having friends like that, Keith. I almost feel sorry for you but you know what they say. You reap what you sow.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 06:09 AM

little gnomie.
All news is old news. The future cannot be news because it has not yet happened and therefore facts cannot be discussed.
b) I did not know you had to be a journalist to report news. Do you also need a degree in meedja studies? or does it have to be a mmember in good standing with assorted little gnomes.
c) The thread title is uk labour party discussion, what relevance is being an mp or nor an mp?

As you pathetic offering adds nothing to the discussion, only inanities, I presume you just popped in for a troll

Anyway here a little rabbit for the ferrets to chew on.
"Labour's shadow mental health minister Barbara Keeley claimed she was "confused about" her "Jeremys" when she appeared to contradict Jez's stated position on free movement this morning. During a bumpy media round, 5 Live's Nicky Campbell asked Keeley:

    Campbell: "Jeremy Corbyn has been explicit in saying that freedom of movement must end. That puts us up the creek without a paddle doesn't it?"

    Keeley: "Well it makes the situation worse."

    Campbell: "So why has he said it must end, freedom of movement?"

    Keeley: "It's a strange thing… it's a strange thing that he said that."

When Campbell pointed out that she was at odds with Corbyn's public position, Keeley rowed back and claimed she had in fact been talking about Jeremy Hunt, saying: "You've confused me about Jeremys". Lucky they had the same name, eh…

An hour earlier, Keeley did a Diane on ITV's Good Morning Britain, claiming that a 1% increase in public sector pay would cost £460 billion. The IFS says increasing public sector pay by 1% would cost between £1.5 and 2 billion. To be fair, she was only out by £458 billion…

Before Corbyn appointed Keeley to the shadow cabinet, she said of him:"the current state of the party means we will not be able to mount an effective front bench opposition." Quite…

Hard to believe she is the mental health shadow secretary! Is her next promotion to shadow educashun secretary. I hope she is literate because she surely ain't numerate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

What are you even doing on a thread you refuse to contribute to?

I shall copy your response to my question a few days back.

Why not?

But, just in case you did not notice, I have contributed and I have provide evidence to refute your contention. You just chose to ignore it.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 04:10 AM

Found it.
The first one was copied from the search list and wrongly linked your name to it.
I am so sorry, and I withdraw that quote, which was actually of Donuel.

The others are all copied from actual posts.

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

I am sorry if that is true Steve.
Please clarify what I got wrong so I can correct it at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 03:59 AM

One of those quotes ascribed to me in Keith's vacuous debate post has nothing to do with me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 03:54 AM

Dave your comparison was highly contentious and started the current debate, so I was stating fact not "alt-truth."

Why will you not state your position on what she said?
Jim has.
Steve has.
I have.
What are you so afraid of??

What are you even doing on a thread you refuse to contribute to?
Just personal attacks and shit stirring.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 02:02 PM

but you started it up again.

Are you sure about that, Keith? I have just looked back and I found that the first recent mention was just to put Anne Marie Morris's comment in context

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM

Putting it in perspective, it was not said in a racist context, and it was just one person's gross stupidity.

So, pretty much on par with Naz Shah's comments?

DtG

A bit more of your alt-truth I suppose Keith. I shall not burst your bubble though. If you think that you have rubbed someone's nose in anything, who am I to disillusion you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 12:41 PM

Dave, the Shah story is old news, but you started it up again.
Thanks.
I enjoyed rubbing your noses in it again.

Steve and Jim say her remarks were not anti-Semitic and she did not advocate the transportation of Jews.
She freely admits to both.

Do you still refuse to say if you support Steve and Jim on thatt?

Why are you so reluctant to actually engage in the discussion, instead of just sniping at contributors and stirring things up?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:35 AM

BTW, Inanes, your 'recent find' from the Torygraph dates back to April 2016, was written by someone described as a "parlaimentary sketchwriter" and opens with "Beat this for a piece of spin. Today the Labour party was in trouble over remarks one of its MPs, Naz Shah, made online in 2014 ". Trouble is will all of that, as you seem to need most things explaining to you is that:

A) It is old news
B) It is written by someone who cannot be described as a journalist and
C) In 2014 Shah was not even in the running to be an MP

No marks for content or effort I'm afraid. Must try harder.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:26 AM

You really must make up your mind as to what this forum is.

I have. It is a discussion forum. I stated that quite plainly did I not and it has been confirmed by your mentor. You really must pay more attention to what the grown ups say Inanes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:22 AM

Shrivelled little gnome. As I said, the potty putty has more sense! What a quaint contradictory little fellow you are. You really must make up your mind as to what this forum is. Your constant ducking and diving, bending and twisting of definitions make the more rational of us quite dizzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:00 AM

Oh, and just in case anyone wishes to accuse me of making the bit about Teribus up -

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

It is not a debating forum it is a discussion forum - vast difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 06:35 AM

I have used the same expression many times on this forum Inanes. I know you like to mimic your betters but do you need to be so blatant about it?

I did used to think it was a debate, Keith, but your mate Teribus put me right. If there is one useful thing he has done it is to open my eyes to that fact. I should have realised myself because these threads obviously do not follow the rules of debate and while I did try my best to help put that right I will be the first to admit that I failed to do so. I believe Teribus was referring to the following bits of information about Mudcat

www.mudcat.org

The Mudcat Cafe is a community of musicians, historians and enthusiasts that collect and discuss traditional folk and blues songs, folklore, lyrics, instruments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudcat_Café

The Mudcat Café is an online discussion group and song and tune database, which also includes many other features relating to folk music

Discussions do not really have winners or losers but if it makes you feel happier in yourself to believe you have won something, be my guest.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 05:11 AM

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

K of H. It is like debating with "potty putty" only the putty has more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:48 AM

Dave,
It has been stated quite categorically that this is not a debating forum

Really? By who?
Dispute, debate, discussion, call it what you will.
The fact is that you people can produce nothing to support your case or challenge mine.
So you lose.
Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, and other parties do not.

Like Steve you resort to pedantic debate on the precise meanings of words rather than their context and intended meaning.
Some examples of people debating Mudcat debates:

Steve Shaw, 04 Mar 17 - 06:40 PM .... When I am on a Christian web site and someone starts ranting about homosexuals, I quietly exit ...... I'm all for the rough and tumble of vicious debate, but that's not what is happening now.

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 12 Mar 16 - 08:08 AM
Unfortunately, you are hardly the man to be making these scattergun allegations. You yourself are more than capable of indulging in personal abuse, and, while you may say you welcome civil and serious debate

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 08:14 PM
Most forums dislike meta discussion. Live with it. You can be as civil as you like here in such debates,

Dave, you actually started this thread!!
How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:01 AM

I refer back to the original linked article and would suggest that a civil debate will stick only to facts that have been thoroughly vetted as true.

How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:30 PM
A good navigator of debates knows exactly how and when to change tack. I am not good myself.

McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:20 PM

Please stop stirring, Greg. If you disagree with something I have written here, fair enough. but there is absolutely no reason to be uncivil. It certainly does not make a positive contribution to a thread about "How to have a civil debate".

BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:57 AM
I was rather hoping that the thread would focus on how to have a civil debate

How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:39 AM

Leading by example is a good maxim that is often broken. I had a mentor who used to say 'Do as I say, not as I do', which is, in my opinion, the next best thing. I seriously doubt that anyone involved in this debate has never cast a stone but that is beside the point anyway. We are talking about how we should have a civil debate, not what has happened before

How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:05 AM
The rules of Mudcat debates are what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:30 AM

Labour gyroscope impersonation!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/naz-shah-labour-anti-semitism-and-a-piece-of-spin-that-will-make/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:14 AM

Creag Mhòr

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:14 AM

Which brings me to...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:12 AM

Yes, Keith. You are back with the program. Well done.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:09 AM

Steve,
"Apparently it did not convey what I intended."
Lie. You intended to convey exactly what you said,

Then why did I withdraw it as soon as you drew my attention to it?

I have conceded that point. Move on.

Dave,
    the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas:

The fact remains that you people can produce nothing to support your case or challenge mine.
So you lose.
Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, and other parties do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:03 AM

And the point of your posting is what, Teribus?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 03:01 AM

"Apparently it did not convey what I intended."

Lie. You intended to convey exactly what you said, an untruth of epic proportions, and your "adjusted" statement is completely different. You know it, I know it. So give over. Say one for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 05:49 PM

Again more pointless passive-aggressive shit from our little fat gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 01:37 PM

Dave, debate, discussion, call it what you will.

Another perfect example of using words to suit what you mean I'm afraid, Keith.

dis|cus¦sion
[dɪˈskʌʃ(ə)n]
NOUN

    the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas:
    "the committee acts as a forum for discussion"

debate
dɪˈbeɪt/
noun
noun: debate; plural noun: debates

    1.
    a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

The two are not the same thing at all. Only a debate results in winners or losers and that is usually decided by a vote. It has been stated quite categorically that this is not a debating forum and this thread is blatantly (or is it categorically?) not a debate. I could be unkind and say that you only try to debate on here because you have either been evicted from all proper debating forums of you know very well that you would not stand a cat in hell's chance in a real debate. But I do not have any facts to back that up so I will not.

Just keep insisting that you have won. We will keep ignoring you and that way everyone is happy.

DtG