BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:48 AM

Sorry Jim, here's me thinking that the UN was a erudite body ....


.....I'll go and stand in the corner. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:42 AM

"Fortunately Jom - only in your mind. The rest of the civilised world knows better."
The precision and erudition of your answer sweeps me off my feet
Bet you say that to all the girls
Is that really the best you can summon up?
Sorry - forgot who I was addressing - 'course it is!!
Didn't you know the United Nations was an antisemitic organisation Raggy?
That posting is four months old and ancient history - go wash your mouth out!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:15 AM

The civilised world said this:

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:39 AM

Fortunately Jim - only in your mind. The rest of the civilised world knows better.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:18 PM

Answer the questions Keith otherwise you are compounding your lying
You are still pursuing this crusade despite the fact that there is no evidence
Kangaroo courtism in the extreme
"Israel is far from being the worst country in the world"
Can' think of another that is ethnically cleansing an entire people to create a monotheistic state
an't think of another State which has single-handedly created as many refugees as Israel has.
Can't think of another that has blockaded a people for ten years
Israel is a fascist State in a party of the world that is a time bomb
Can't think of another State that has consistently avoided being charged with war crimes bu U S vetos
Can't think of another terrorist state with nuclear weapons
Can't think of another state that has persistently invaded its third word neighbour with heavy artillery, missiles and chemical weapons
Can't think of anoter state which cold-bloo=dedly fascilitates the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed refugees and then appointed the man forung to be responsible Prime minister
Britain and America sell arms to many states consistently committing war crimes and human rights abuses
It doesn't matter anyway - the fact that there are other States with a poor record doesn't alter what Israel is and what it is doig
It is a terrorist state
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 02:48 PM

Jim,
You have persisted on accusing lanboourr of Antisemitism

I have not. I have just repeated what senior, prominent Labour people say themselves.
People in a position to know the facts, unlike you and Steve.

Your "witnesses" fall into two categories

Really? What about your witnesses?
Sorry. You do not have any at all, right Jim.

Those who have direct links with the anti-BDS campaign

Israel is far from being the worst country in the world, so why single it out for a boycott?
Only an enemy of Israel would support that.
Most intelligent informed people do not, and certainly no decent democracy does. Only regimes that are really nasty places.
Your friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 08:32 AM

"If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!"
You say you are not obsessed you are
You have persisted on accusing lanboourr of Antisemitism and you refuse top pproduce on single scarp of evidence - not one - that is lying
Accusations are lies if they are persitently unfornded
Where is your evidsence for Labour's antisemitism
Your "witnesses" fall into two categories
1   Those who have direct links with the anti-BDS campaign - I have given you those links over and over again - you refuse to acknowledge them
That is lying
2   Those who wish to get rid of Corbyn as leader
You refuse to acknowledge either - that is lying
I have requested tht you explain how you can find somebody guilty of something without specifying what they have done (natural justice)
You refuse to respond - lying again.
I have asked you over and over again to tell us why the Jewish members have not gone to the press - you respond by saying they went to Corbyn - not my question - that is lying
You stated originally that they did not do so because of their respect for the party, then denied having said it when it was pointed out how antisemitic that was (evn though I put it up twice and you compounded it by saying "I'm sure they love the party" as a reply.
Your whole case has been a barrage of obsessive lies
You will not tell us why the Jewish members did not go public - that compounds your lie.
You can quote who the hell you like, but until you produce the facts of what they are accused of you have no case and you will contiue to lie.
If your case is illogical - as it is - and that is pointed out to you - unless you respond with reasonable answers you are lying on speed.
You know as well as anybody here that natural justice demands that a case is proved with evidence NOT ACCUSATIONS
How can anybody defend themselves from undescribed accusations - what kind of kangaroo court justice to you carry around in your head?
Now - one more time.
why didn't the Jewish members who claim there is antisemitism specify what form it took?
Refusal to respond with confirm you are lying, will confirm you know you have no case and confirm that you stand by your original antisemitic statemen
Answer my question
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:35 AM

Out of order, Teribus. Mind your own business. Do you wipe your bottom front to back, back to front or not at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Ah yes. Good old Dave Rich again. Round and round and round we go. 💤💤💤

And Keith, tsk. I try to wean bobad away from his adolescent wine habits toward a more mature attitude to finding a good bottle, all in order to make him a more cheerful and balanced chap, and what happens? Well, I get it in the neck from YOU! And you're supposed to be his friend and ally! By the way, you never have said what you thought of his equating us with pigs, having previously lamented the fact that we, unlike him of course, attack the man, not the topic. Got anything to say about that, hmmm? He's your mate, after all, and he WAS supporting you when he said it! Or are you, on this fine Christian Sunday, Cain to his Abel? Have you told God that you're not bobad's keeper? Yeah, that should fix it! 😇

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Steve Shaw - 29 Apr 17 - 05:31 PM - Only three in your car Shaw? No other members of your family wanted to be bored shitless by you then? Or was it your turn to transport t' whippet and t' pigeons?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:30 AM

Playing on the Internet I've found a fascinating site:

heritagemaps.ie

Should keep me amused for several hours and far more interesting than the tripe that is being spouted here by certain parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:58 AM

Y A W N .......... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

Steve, wine appreciation is subjective.
Bobad's view is as valid as yours.
We see again the bully teacher trying to ridicule and humiliate the child who dares to challenge your orthodoxy.
Wine appreciation is not a science.

Jim,
"I never have."
Back to lying again Keith

If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!

you dredge up combatants from both,

The people I quote are not dredged up. They are all senior and prominent Labour people.

I quote McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor and Corbyn's closest ally, Abbott who is very close to Corbyn, Watson the Deputy Leader, and prominent people like Khan and Thornberry on Labour Party matters.

Who knows more about what is going on inside Labour?
Not you and Steve!!

Why don't you quote people who challenge those views?

Because they would all be people like Steve who have no knowledge and who no-one has ever heard of.

You ignore the fact that the left has no recod of anti-Semitism

Here is a book about it.
"Book of the day
The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism – review
Dave Rich's new history reveals the origins of Labour's recent antisemitic scandal in a wider leftwing revival of prejudice "
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/13/the-lefts-jewish-problem-corbyn-israel-and-antisemitism-dave-rich-review

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 01:24 AM

"me" what?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 06:08 PM

Pretentious, moi? I never buy wine that costs more than a fiver, preferably on special. Pretentious isn't the word. Discriminating is the one you're looking for. Chardonnay still wine is the drink of the ignoranti, rather like Liebfraumilch used to be in the 70s. Avoid NZ whites which are all over-priced and usually too cloying. Sauvignon blanc can be good, mainly from France, maybe the odd Chilean, but there are some real shitters around. Pinot grigio, yawn. A good steely Italian white from Vesuvio, or the exceptionally dependable Viña Sol from Torres, is my recommendation for decent budget white. Some nice Marsanne from the south of France too, sunshine in a glass. Leave the Chardonnay for the kids and the Essex girls. About your level, actually. Someone's got to drink it I suppose. Oaky whites? I puke in your general direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:31 PM

It was all a bit of a bugger, Dave, and very last-minute. A two-car family entourage, brother, sister-in-law, her sister (all from New Zealand) plus me dad in one car, then me, Mrs Steve and me mum in my car. Met at the Lister and had a very tolerable lunch. Good old pub, though a bit too much oil in the beer batter. Then they went off up Gordale and we drove up t'other road to Malham Tarn, then over to Arncliffe, up to Litton then past me favourite mountain, Penyghent, down to Settle then 'ome. No getting out for a walk, all about taking 88-year-old mum for a nice ride. There'll be a next time, Dave, when I don't have quite so many people to keep happy!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 07:55 AM

Should have nipped in for a brew, Steve - We are only half an hour from Malham.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 07:18 AM

Chilean Chardonnay is so passé. Teenybopper booze.

A perfect selection then for I am young at heart and, unlike you, not a pretentious snob.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM

"I never have."
Back to lying again Keith
You started this lynching and have pursued from day one
Yu refuse to respond to the facts of the obvious agendas - B.D. S. and the fight within the labour party - you dredge up combatants from both, you quote them out of context of whare they stand - both as opponents of Corbyn and supporters of the Israeli regime, you refuse to tell us why, after a year, we still do not know what this "antisemistism" is and who is involved, you make up antisemitic reasons why the Jewish mambers don't go public, you deny having done so - now you won't explain why they don't simply support their fallow Jews and explain what is happening
"£hey made their complaints about the party to the party leadership,"
See what I mean
WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM SIMPLY IGNORING THE LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP AND GOING TO THE PRESS - THEY WOULD HAVE A WILLING EAR THERE.
wHAT IS STOPPING THE ISRAELI REGIME FROM MAKING PUBLC THE EVENTS =- THEY HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORTERS WITHIN LABOUR - WHY THE BLANKET OF SILENCE?
The answer is simple
The "antisemitism in the Labout Party is no mare than opposition to the Isreali ergime - pure and simple
The Israeli regime has decared that to criticise its policies is antisemitic - that is what Labour is being accused of
You have kept this up for a year now and we are no nearer knowing any of these answwrs
WE do know what Livingstone and Shah said - neither attacked the Jewish People so neither were antisemitic - my point exactly
Shah borrowed the idea of a Jewish researcher as a solution for the Palestine problem and Livingstone quoted historical facts about Zionism - not the Jewish people
Even if they were, two members of the Labour party is not "a serious problem"
Not believeablt that politicians lie to gain political advantage - you live in Britain don't you - lying is part of the job description.
No sane human being accuses somebody and perisits in doing so, whithout carefully laying out what they are guilty of, and no "decent" democratic society would ever condemn the accused without having all the information at hand
To do so would be vigilante lynch-law - that is what you are proposing here
What has Labout done
You suggest I am extremist left (I am not)
You ignore the fact that the left has no recod of antisemitism
The left parties in Britain were formed by, among others, Jews who had fled the pogroms of Europe - the left of Europe Included revolutionary Jews like Trotsky - Lenin (and Stalin) condemned antisemitism as "evil"
On teh other hand - rightist, German Indusrtial Capitalism financed a regime that sent six million Jews to their deaths - antisemism is a rightist philosophy - one of your political group's pet projects.
Answer the points or you ahve no case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:09 AM

Wasn't me Miss, it was some big boys...............



Isn't it about time you grew up and behaved like an adult.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM

Jim,
Nealy as unbelievable as continuin to acuse somebody something without specifying what they are supposed to have done

I never have.
I just report what is coming out of Labour.
It is not believable that they are all lying about it.
It is believable that you are wrong about it.

You didnt link to the Independent article,

Yes I did, but too long for a Mudcat clickie.

Now - why didn't the Jewish members go public

They made their complaints about the party to the party leadership, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.

after a year, we still have no idea what this antisemitism is

We know exactly what Livingstone, Shah and others have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 04:29 AM

Ye gods, that explains everything. Chilean Chardonnay is so passé. Teenybopper booze. Buttery, cloying juice. The fact that it's oaked (usually achieved by dangling oak staves or wood chips in it, not by oak-ageing in barrels) betrays its lack of balance in the first place. Next time try a nice, crisp, minerally Falanghina del Beneventano from Campania. No oak required. That'll wash away the horrid taste of that Chardonnay and sweeten your mood.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 08:43 PM

Have another vat of lukewarm flat Budweiser.....

Nah, I'm enjoying sipping a delightful little Chardonnay from Chile's Casablanca Valley. It is resplendent of grapefruit and lemon with a hint of tropical pineapple and just a faint touch of oak. It married quite nicely with my supper of peppered, grilled Atlantic salmon with a side of blanched rapini sauteed in extra virgin olive oil from Lebanon with homegrown organic garlic and chili flakes accompanied by a salad of butter/Boston/bibb lettuce with a homemade vinaigrette of extra virgin olive oil, white balsamic vinegar, Dijon mustard, homegrown organic garlic, a soupçon of anchovy paste and a few macerated capers from the Middle east.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 08:05 PM

""It is not believable that they are all lying about it."
Nealy as unbelievable as continuin to acuse somebody something without specifying what they are supposed to have done
Can you describe the nature of this antisemitism Keith and who is involved?
POINT THE POINT - WHY HAVEN'T THE VICTIMS COME FORWARD AND DESCRIBED WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM?,   
You didnt link to the Independent article,
John MacDonnell is a wannabe Labour Leader who wishes Corbyn to be removed so he can lead the party.
The article makes th point that there is no specific evidence to show that there is a problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party
""Jeremy believes he is completely non-discriminatory. He would never be hostile to someone in the street. But he is, if you like, anti-Semitic along the institutionalised lines of the Metropolitan police in the 1990s, when they messed up the Stephen Lawrence ……
A Labour Party spokesman directed The Independent to a tweet, which read: "Sunday times attack story from a source from another political party who never worked for Labour. Not serious."
He did not give a concrete example that Mr Corbyn was anti-Semitic. But instead he stressed that was the perception of Mr Corbyn and the party, and Mr Fletcher criticised his reaction to those reports."
Do this as long as you want - until you bring specified charges they are no more than accusations by interested politicians.
No evidence, no case
Now - why didn't the Jewish members go public - why the Jewish Members of aprliament - after a year, we still have no idea what this antisemitism is - why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:56 PM

Weak, Shaw, very weak. Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:50 PM

Have another vat of lukewarm flat Budweiser, why don't you. Your bitterness is showing through! You're sussed! 🤡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:38 PM

Give it up Shaw, you've become an obsessive, boring and repetitive old fool. I don't think too many here really give two farts about your silly little imperatives, your yapping poodles excepted of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 06:49 PM

Anyway, bugger all that ordure. We took me mum for a drive round a bit of the Yorkshire Dales today. We started off with a spot of lunch at the Lister Arms in Malham. Very nice too. Then we drove up to Malham Tarn taking in the view of Malham Cove, then back to the road to Arncliffe. Beautiful village. As Mother hadn't yet run out of energy (she's 88 and very infirm), we drove up Littondale to the top end, just short of Halton Gill, then left over the top road past Penyghent back down to Stainforth and Settle then home. Very leisurely was my pace. Would've loved to get out and walk to the cove, and/or to Gordale Scar and Janet's Foss, but today was all about giving Mother a nice ride out. The air was clear, the scenery was gorgeous and it was just a pity that the sun went in during the afternoon. Damned fine day. Go, Jezza!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 06:21 PM

Don't you worry, boobs, I can read all right, and my memory lets me down less often than yours does for you. When Keith made his rather vacuous comment about our being taught a lesson via Ward, you responded, in full support of Keith, by suggesting that it would be like teaching pigs to fly. Well let me just remind you of something, fellah. A few months ago you were pretending that you had to have a second identity as an anonymous guest in order that name-calling would be avoided, that we would be forced to address the issue, not attack the man. So what's happened? We're now equated with pigs, now that you're feeling bitter that you've been deprived of your dishonest anonymity and that your cover was blown (and don't lie again, please - I have chapter and verse from the mods that that's exactly what you did). Nice. Precisely what the Islamophobes do to Muslims. Compare them with pigs. Where did you learn that from I wonder? And what happened to addressing the issue, not attacking the man? And Keith, if you're reading this through your blue-tinted specs, let me ask you once again. No evasion this time. Do you support bobad's response to your post or not? If you evade the question again, well we know exactly where you stand, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:18 PM

Y A W N ............ Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 11:16 AM

Indy, 5 days ago,
"Jeremy Corbyn did little to counter reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and got "angry" when his team told him he needed to improve relations with the Jewish community, a former adviser has claimed.
Harry Fletcher told told The Sunday Times that the Labour leader was "uneasy" about being interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle and "did not understand" why he needed to be completely transparent about his past dealings with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Mr Fletcher served leader's communications and strategy adviser and was part of Mr Corbyn's four-strong leadership campaign team in the summer of 2015."

""What angered me most was their inability to understand why they're perceived as anti-Semitic," wrote Mr Fletcher, who worked alongside Mr Corbyn, his son, Sebastien, and now shadow Chancellor John McDonnell."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-anti-semitism-harry-fletcher-sunday-times-op-ed-a7697456.html

As I said,
"It is not believable that they are all lying about it.
It is believable that you are wrong about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 10:38 AM

Jim,
That's what I said Keith - he did it on behalf of Britain because there is no longer an accepted definition of the term

Now there is.

which is not antisemitism, by any accepted definition

All our mainstream parties are in agreement that his comments were anti-Semitic, as are yours.

The Israeli Justice minister bacame an antisemite when she declared all criticism to be anti-Semitic

No-one has declared any such nonsense.

You have never specified or quantified wat the "serious" antisemitism is in the Labour Party and until somebody does, it doesn't exist other than as an accusation.

It is not believable that they are all lying about it.
It is believable that you are wrong about it.

Your antisemitic claim that the Parliamentary Jewish members kept silent for the sake of the party still stands.

It never stood because I never claimed it.

If you did not mean this - why have they not made public all this "serious antisemitism" you are claiming

They have. They made their complaints about the party to the leadership, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.

If you don't tall people what a "criminal" has done, he has done nothing illegal.

I disagree. Lots of criminals are never identified.

"You defend Ward."
No I don't - I don't know anythiung about Ward

You deny his anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:44 AM

Whattsa matter Shaw, can't read?

No-one has to obey you any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 04:02 AM

You are an evasive hypocrite, Keith. Do you agree with bobad's post in which he was backing you up? Or would you rather shake him off?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:40 AM

That's what I said Keith - he did it on behalf of Britain because there is no longer an accepted definition of the term
Your additional post confirms that the "antisemitism" being claimed is largely criticiam of Israeli policy - which is not antisemitism, by any accepted definition.
Blaming the Jews for israeli policy is one of the listed examples of all definitions, but you and Israel do this every time you accuse those critics of antisemitism.
The Israeli Justice minister bacame an antisemite when she declared all criticism to be antisemitic
You have nothing more to say on this
You have never specified or quantified wat the "serious" antisemitism is in the Labour Party and until somebody does, it doesn't exist other than as an accusation.
Yo refuse to tell us why the Jewish members of parliament didn't go to the press, or why the Israelis themselves haven't brought specific chargesagainst Labout (they have no "love of the Party")
Your antisemitic claim that the Parliamentary Jewish members kept silent for the sake of the party still stands.
If you did not mean this - why have they not made public all this "serious antisemitism" you are claiming
If you don't tall people what a "criminal" has done, he has done nothing illegal.
Common sense and simple justice - in my world anyway
"You defend Ward."
No I don't - I don't know anythiung about Ward
Nothing he was accused of was antisemitic - it is not antisemitic to accuse Israel of crimes and Israel makes the the Jewish people resposible for its own actions
They can't have a denition which says that is antisemitic and make such an accusation.
You are not fir to belong to any Party other than the BNP or the neow moribund Ukip
Do not accuse me of
being antisemitic - that is antisemitic by definition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:39 AM

Y A W N .......... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:08 AM

Jim,
(as Erc Pickles noted) there is no agreed definition of the term,

"Among his proudest achievements as envoy was the key role he played in Britain becoming the first country to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism – for which he has been thanked by Theresa May."
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/without-our-jewish-community-we-would-be-a-lesser-nation/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:01 AM

Jim, the lesson for you is that your beliefs make you unfit to belong to any party, except on the far-Right or hard-Left.

You defend Ward.
The Lib Dems dumped him for saying what you say all the time.

Steve, you give me orders like a bad teacher to a pupil.
No-one has to obey you any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 10:00 PM

Answer plainly and clearly or just bugger off, please.

Lol.....what a dork!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 07:06 PM

You happy with that response to your post, Keith? He's your ally. Answer plainly and clearly or just bugger off, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 02:28 PM

There is a lesson for Steve, Jim.....

Teaching pigs to fly comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 06:27 AM

"He is considered "unfit."
Most politicians are "i=unfit"
He was not considered antisemitic, which is more to the point - and he was not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 05:46 AM

Your link Keith
"Mr Ward, who planned to stand in Bradford East - the seat he lost in the last election - caused controversy in 2013 when he accused "the Jews" of atrocities against Palestinians."
The Israelis do that every time they accuse critics of their policies - Ward is saying no more than they - or you, have been doing since day one.
Criticising Israel is not antisemitic and the fact that (as Erc Pickles noted) there is no agreed definition of the term, we have to go by what we know
Is John Clark's antisemitic tweet being treated with the same seriousness by the Tories as labout has accusations against their party, or are the Tories
a special case - as with their Islamophobia
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 05:25 AM

DMcG,
"In 2013, Mr Ward posted a tweet calling Israel an "apartheid state" and saying that "Zionists" were "losing the battle".
Mr Ward refused to apologise at the time and had the party whip withdrawn. "

That was not an election year.
The story has re-emerged because he applied to be a candidate again.
He is considered "unfit."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:54 AM

I think it is possibly a mistake to contrast the way Labour and LibDem dealt with similar issues of a comment by a member. You have to add a healthy dose of cynicism: we are in an election period now and LibDem do not want that to be a story - they are well aware of the distraction that "gay sex" row is having on their party and they have no wish to start another hare running. The action may well have far morw to do with campaign management than the rights and wrongs of the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:49 AM

Y A W N ............ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:29 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39723144

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tim-farron-under-pressure-over-lib-dem-candidate-accused-of-anti-semitism_uk_590093dce4b0af6d718a224a

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:26 AM

There is a lesson for Steve, Jim and the Labour Party in the David Ward story.

He has been deemed as "unfit to represent" the Lib Dem Party because,
"In 2013, Ward was criticised for accusing "the Jews" in Israel of "inflicting atrocities on Palestinians... on a daily basis".

Farron has said Ward's comments have been "deeply offensive, wrong and antisemitic"."

And,
"In 2013, Mr Ward posted a tweet calling Israel an "apartheid state" and saying that "Zionists" were "losing the battle".
Mr Ward refused to apologise at the time and had the party whip withdrawn. "

To tell such lies in the absence of any evidence and in the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary suggests a racial motive.

No informed intelligent person believes all that lying propaganda.
No decent democracy accuses Israel of those things.
Disseminating such lies makes you unfit to be a member of a decent democratic party.

It is time for you two to question your beliefs, and the motivation of your political mentors in feeding you such lies over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 17 - 04:52 AM

Dandelion wine is very good. Haven't made it for years but I always used half a pint of grape juice concentrate and a couple of pounds of sugar. You don't have to get rid of all the green bits but definitely no stalks. Give the flowers a good bit of agitation before maceratiing in order to expel the beetle larvae! It doesn't make you pee the bed.

Dandelions reproduce sexually (flowers, pollen, seeds, etc.) but they do it all by themselves without meiotic cell division, so we end up with hundreds of microspecies in which the individuals are genetically identical instead of one big species with lots of genetic variation. It's called apomixis. Brambles do it too. A similar thing happens with aphids and with workers in some species of social insects. Pesky greenfly and worker wasps are good examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 17 - 03:21 AM

Just found this article from the London School of Economics. Not exactly a hotbed of left wing activity -

Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn

Interesting read. I have read it all. Didn't take long but if you don't have the time or inclination, the forward is a good synopsis.

Also wanted to resurrect the thread to let Steve know that I have an excellent crop of dandelions this year :--)

Cheers

DtG