 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 17 - 06:25 AM It's not a debate at all, Dave. It's Keith mustering a massive list of other people who have said what he thinks too. At least what we think he thinks. He never actually tells us. And he's changed tactics now. It's not bold any more, it's exclamation marks. Finally, Keith, no-one ever proves anything about anyone here (except in rare cases, such as your misrepresenting Geoffrey Wheatcroft). Oops! There I go again! Pat-a-cake time! Where's Teribus when you absolutely don't really need him! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 09 Apr 17 - 08:07 AM Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:06 AM You're trolling, bobad. That is a content-free post solely intended to goad. Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions. From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:46 PM Not very literate, Teribus. Time of night I suppose. Are you feeling tired and emotional? That's two threads now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 17 - 08:21 AM Read HIS posts! I know that you guys tend to be rather selective as to what you read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 09 Apr 17 - 09:09 AM "You listed my "lies" which in fact where no more than things I have disagreed with you on" - Jim Carroll Just for once in your life Carroll will try and get a grip of REALITY. in fact where no more than things I have disagreed with you on NO, what I have stated is not just OPINION it is FACT Jim Lie #1 - Kitchener was not forced to resign, he was never even asked to resign, he never did resign he died in Office - YET you persisted with the untruth that he was forced to resign - A blatant lie that flies against DOCUMENTED RECORD. NOT just something we disagree on - YOU are simply wrong and YOU having had your error pointed out to you on numerous occasions still maintained your LIE. YOU Carroll are a liar. Jim Lie #2 - Both eye witnesses and researchers have claimed that budies were buried at the Stadium – you say they are "proven liars" and say that is not true WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS – SHOULDN'T YOU CONTACT SOMEONE AND PASS THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION ON – OR MORE TO THE POINT – ARE YOU ******* INSANE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE WE WOULD ACCEPT YOUR WORD ON THE BASIS ON NOTHING?" "WHERE IS MY EVIDENCE FOR THIS??" - How about the total absence of any bodies or any human remains on the site where these two witnesses and researchers of yours say they were buried? Perhaps you could provide some explanation why the Lebanese, the Syrians, the PLO would hide evidence of an Israeli massacre - IF any evidence of a mass grave that could be tied to the Israelis it would have been shouted from the rooftops to the world and its dog years ago - But the truth is NOT ONE SINGLE BODY HAS BEEN FOUND - NOT ONE, so yes you should accept my word on the basis that in the site your witnesses say that bodies were buried NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 17 - 12:27 PM I think that Naz Shah's comments were anti-Semitic. You do not, but arrogantly dismiss those of us who do. I quote prominent Labour figures whose view you cannot dismiss, and you ridicule me for that too. Shah herself? She is obviously lying about it, according to you. John McDonnell then, "This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that you deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah, just apologise now and I'll tell you, Jewish members of the community will accept contrition and will forgive and move on but until we get some form of apology I don't think we can." http://news.sky.com/story/john-mcdonnell-could-weep-over-labour-anti-semitism-row-10831684 You are incapable of recognising anti-Semitism Steve, and your opinion on it is worthless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 17 - 12:44 PM "For those who don't know, the New Statesman is a political magazine with progressive, left leanings." "Yet despite being more favourable to the Labour Party than any other party in British politics, it..." So what does it say about the Corbyn leadership? "Inside included a brutal editorial, penned by editor Jason Cowley, bemoaning the parlous state of the Labour Party in Opposition under Jeremy Corbyn. While admitting the magazine was opposed to the Corbyn leadership from the start, arguing the serial backbench rebel was "ill-equipped to be leader", Labour's ineffectiveness over Brexit seemed to be the last straw. It mused: "The electorate can smell that something is seriously wrong and is recoiling, but those closest to the triumvirate of the leader, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott seem oblivious to or unconcerned by the stench of failure." http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-statesman-protest-jeremy-corbyn-momentum_uk_58e73c75e4b058f0a02dd696 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 17 - 06:22 PM So tell me what you think she said that was antisemitic. What you think, not what anybody else thinks. I rarely resort to links here, preferring to tell you what I think. A very simple question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 09 Apr 17 - 06:41 PM She herself is honest and courageous enough to admit that what she said is anti-Semitic, you are not - that is the difference between her and you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 17 - 07:40 PM So tell me what else there is about Naz Shah's policies that you agree with. You and Teribus appear to be extremely selective about the things she says that you approve of. She's an avid supporter of Corbyn. You OK with that? He's a friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, according to you, and she supports him. You still OK? You hypocrites decry and revile everything that Corbyn and his allies say and do. But when Naz says something (in order to save her skin) that chimes with your narrative, well you're right behind her all of a sudden. This lying, disreputable, Corbynite hard-leftie all of a sudden becomes the bearer of the sword of truth. Do you realise how bloody stupid this makes you look? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 17 - 08:19 PM Anyway, never mind all that. Dave, the boned rolled shoulder of Gloucester Old Spot was sublime. Even better, there's cold meat enough for at least one or two more noshes. Damn good crackling too. Damned fine grub. We have veggies staying next week. Bugger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:41 AM "when Naz says something (in order to save her skin)" The epitome of integrity eh Shaw? Why would she have to say something "to save her skin" if there was nothing wrong with what she said in the first place? In short Shaw your assumption is ridiculous. Anyone who supports Hamas or Hezbollah deserves outright condemnation. Anyone who actively supports BDS believes in collective punishment of a nation and its people. Anyone who supports Corbyn's "leadership" of the Labour Party deserves nothing but ridicule - to date it has been non-existent and there would appear to be no light at the end of the tunnel, politically the man is a complete and utter disaster as a "leader". Even mild curiosity wouldn't prompt any sane individual to follow him. By the way, I know you are severely constrained and driven by your political ideology and a typical football supporters Pavlov-like, "black-and-white", tribal loyalty, but why should anybody have to agree with, or believe, everything any particular person says all of the time Shaw? Fortunately for the world we're not all brainwashed saps like you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 17 - 03:37 AM Steve, are you aware of a single person in the Party who has denied Shah's anti-Semitism? No? Does that not tell you something? Is there anyone in the world you can quote other than you, Livingstone and Jim? No. I will not discuss it with you for the reasons given, but you are utterly alone in your perception of what anti-Semitism is so there is no point anyway. Now even the Guardian and New Statesman have turned away from what Labour has become since the hard Left took over. People like you have destroyed a great movement. Working people have been betrayed by the political ambition of a despised minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Apr 17 - 06:23 AM Ignoring Keith's stupid post. Teribus, you have just proved the point. She supports everything in Labour policy that you detest. Yet you trust her apropos of her grovelling confession. Odd. And I have not said she did nothing wrong. I've told you that I don't respect her and I've told you, several times, that she was stupid. I've told you that she has a long way to go in my estimation in order to restore her integrity. The remark that got her into trouble did not mention Jews and was a response to the actions of a government. Bad timing, stupid thing to do, no regard for outcome, I heartily disagreed with the comment - but not antisemitic. I don't care what she said in order to save her skin. She was not attacking Jews because of their ethnicity. If you're not doing that you're not being antisemitic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM Steve, Ignoring Keith's stupid post. That is the problem Steve. If anyone contradicts your preconceived views, you trivialise, ridicule and put them down. There is no point expressing alternative views however much evidence you can supply. That is why I just quote senior Labour people to you. There is nothing stupid in my post. Even Dianne Abbott and John McDonnel can see the anti-Semitism that you are blind to. The Party is in dire straights since the takeover. Loyal publications like New Statesman and Guardian are despairing of it. I have shown all those things to you, but you just dismiss anything that challenges your worthless ideology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 10 Apr 17 - 09:35 AM "The remark that got her into trouble did not mention Jews and was a response to the actions of a government" Steve (Lying Git) Shaw That's right Shaw you never did answer that question I asked about what Shah said: The following was the subtitle for a map of the United States of America with the outline of Israel superimposed in the centre. Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict. Relocate Israel into the United States... The transportation costs will be less than 3 years defence spending Naz Shah mentions Israel, she does not say anything about this only referring to the Israeli Government. Now then Shaw if you did take on Shah's advice who would you relocate if you did as she recommended - that would be the population of Israel wouldn't it - And the population of Israel is predominantly Jewish - So Naz Shah WAS talking about relocating Jews. In stating what she did, she was of course being stupid, she was of course parroting what she thought was a message acceptable in her "socialist", right-on, left-wing, Hamas/Hezbollah supporting pals. What she was doing was denying Israel the right to exist - and that Shaw IS anti-Semitic - couldn't give a toss whether you agree with me or not - because if you stood up and stated the same today in public and someone reported you for doing it. Then you would be charged and found guilty of making anti-Semitic remarks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 17 - 11:18 AM Steve, because you do not recognise the currently accepted definitions of anti-Semitism you may well be saying things obviously anti-Semitic to others including Jewish people. They would then be justified in calling you an anti-Semite. Happy with that? Even John McDonnell recognises Shah's statements as anti-Semitic. You really are isolated on this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Apr 17 - 11:43 AM Like hell, Keith. Your stupidity grows by the hour. You're even at it in the teacher thread now. Now, Teribus, the thing is, read my lips, the map incident wasn't entirely serious now, was it? She was repeating an extremely ill-timed and extremely unfunny "joke" that she'd seen somewhere else. I can't tell you enough how I resent the fact that she brought opprobrium down on the heads of Labour members. Bloody idiot. The biggest idiocy of all is that she had no regard for the inevitable fact that she would be shat on from on high as soon as the media got hold of it. And of course she was reacting to the actions of the Israeli regime. It isn't wrong to sympathise with the Palestinian side of things and she saw what was in her opinion the brutality of the regime towards people in Gaza. She did not mention Jews. Antisemitism is hatred directed towards Jews, not towards a regime she regarded as mistreating Palestinians in Gaza. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM Antisemitism is hatred directed towards Jews Look up "new anti-Semitism" - people aren't as stupid as you think. Oh, and look up PC and euphemism while you're at it. Come to think of it check out "willful ignorance" too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM Steve, You're even at it in the teacher thread now. Why not? I am 3 years retired after forty years as a full time teacher. You think you alone have anything to say? Your ego knows no bounds. Your stupidity grows by the hour. Quote one thing then Steve, and we will see which of us is stupid. You always resort to vacuous abuse in defeat. You have no reply to my posts and nothing else you can say. Just name calling and bluster. You lose again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:35 PM John McDonnell, "you(Livingstone) deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah," |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM What else do you love about John McDonnell, Keith? 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 17 - 02:07 PM He and Shah are both lying then Steve, like the entire Labour leadership. You expect to be taken seriously Steve? Ha ha ha. How much more likely that you have just got it wrong again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM "Now, Teribus, the thing is, read my lips, the map incident wasn't entirely serious now, was it?" - Shaw Really? Now Shaw you read my lips - Go to a public place a state what Shah said - If reported you would be charged and found guilty of anti-Semitic hate - now how funny do you think that joke would be? Not merely a matter of opinion Shaw, it is a matter of fact, a matter of law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 11 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM If that is the case terikins why has Shah not been brought before a court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 AM I believe Raggy that that has something to do with laws not be retrospective? The legal definition of anti-Semitism was officially adopted by UK Government and UK Police Forces on the 30th March 2016, Shah's comments date from 2014. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 11 Apr 17 - 09:08 AM Would that be the same definition that the professor claims all decent democracies adhere to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM There ya go Raggy: UK Government definition of anti-Semitism That is the one that would now get you charged with inciting hate, or committing a hate crime in the UK - couldn't give a toss about anywhere else. The likes of Shaw and those who agree with him should take particular note of this bit: "The UK Government's overall policy is that it is up to the victim to determine whether a crime against them was motivated by any particular characteristics. This builds trust in the police among minority communities, and allows flexibility in our response." Or in other words Shaw, unless he is Jewish (Oy vey), DOES NOT get to determine what is anti-Semitic and what is not (More or less what bobad has been telling him for ages - in the UK it is NOW overall Government Policy). Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:35 AM You're just getting very silly now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it. So we can presume you are saying he is incorrect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM Shah's comments date from 2014. So why, I wonder, did they only come to light when Corbyn took the leadership? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 17 - 01:43 PM Rag, Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it. Au contraire, it is the same one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM I would have thought that that was obvious Keith just by reading the link I provided - but then Raggy doesn't really do reading, understanding he does even less - which I suppose explains the daft questions. Not silly Shaw just accurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:05 PM No, it's just silly, round and round and round we go. There's no end to this. If I give you a recipe you tell me that I lose. Fine. Go and buy yourself a Big Mac. You have no time to cook but I do. Excuse me, I'm just sorting the jacket spuds, roast tomatoes and cold Gloucester Old Spot. Where's that damned corkscrew.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:06 PM That was poetic licence. It's all screwcaps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Greg F. Date: 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 PM You want a REAL antisemitic statement? Check out Trump's mouthpiece Spicer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Apr 17 - 09:07 PM Very little point in demonstrating real antisemitic statements around here, Greg. Around here, antisemitism has nothing to do with Jews. It has everything to do with protecting a vicious regime that uses white phosphorus to illuminate its slaughter of children, that leaves hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets all over another country's farmland, which builds an apartheid wall that divides families and robs them of their olive groves, which oversees the massacre of civilians in refugee camps and which steals only the best land with the best water supplies from those of its citizens who happen to be non-Jews. So what we have to do is to lean on, blackmail and lobby till the cows come home all those vulnerable western democracies into accepting a definition that does nothing to protect Jews and everything to protect the regime. Nice! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM Once again you put the case of Israel's enemies, known for their lying propaganda. None of those accusations stand up to scrutiny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 04:10 AM The Independent, "The party's decision not to expel Ken Livingstone over his offensive remark that Hitler once supported Zionism will alienate the Jewish community, once loyal and naturally Labour. They were already heading out because they did not have much confidence in Jeremy Corbyn's stated policy of "zero tolerance" over anti-Semitism. The Livingstone affair was a chance for Labour to regain their trust. Flunked the test. Even Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, has admitted that Labour is "not living up to its [zero tolerance] commitment"." "Livingstone was defending Labour's Naz Shah for sharing anti-Semitic Facebook posts before she became an MP. She wasn't even defending herself in this matter, issuing a full apology and showing how to calm such a storm before it rages out of control. Livingstone, however, deliberately did the opposite, repeating his remark ad nauseam even though he knew it caused great offence. He appeared to love the limelight. Bizarrely, he claimed the case against him was part of a plot against Corbyn. The result has been another damaging episode that Labour could ill afford. For some Jewish Labour members, it will be the final straw. It will also offend a wider group of people. For many voters this affair also underlines an image of a party that seems to have remarkably little to say about the real world" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ken-livingstone-labour-anti-semitism-hitler-zionism-jeremy-corbyn-jewish-members-leaving-party-a7667836.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Apr 17 - 08:09 AM Ah, I see we're back to bold. How many more times are you going to repeat this stuff, Keith? Tell me instead what YOU think she said that antisemitic. The exact words that got her into trouble that showed her attacking Jews. Tell me instead what YOU think Ken said that was antisemitic. Man up, Keith. We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times. Quit the hand-wringing and the big messenger boy act. This is a debating forum, supposedly, not a forum for reporting your favourite newspapers and all those Labour people you clearly love so much that you treat them as gurus who speak ex cathedra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:02 PM He can repeat it as often as he wants, he can repeat it on this thread for as long as you prats want to discuss weeds, wild flowers, recipes. He can repeat it as often as he wants because he happens to be telling the truth. As for having to explain anything to you Shaw? Well he certainly does not have to do that, even to attempt it would be a complete and utter waste of time - your definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism doesn't count for jack shit and by now everybody knows that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:13 PM We all know what everybody else thinks. Yes. The same as me. Everyone except you Steve, but you still do not believe you could be wrong and everyone else right. I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM Yo Jim: Another case of non over representation of a certain group Huddersfield this time 27 men and 2 women over 170 charges concerning 18 vulnerable underage girls over a period of 7 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM We all know what everybody else thinks. Yes. The same as me. Errrr, no. More little porkies I'm afraid Keith. What is the percentage of the population that agrees with you? What sample have you taken to prove this? Unsubstantiated claim once again. You are still suffering from this win and lose syndrome I'm afraid and this is still not a debate. As to I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this. If you genuinely feel that then I am sorry for you. You really need to find more enjoyment in life. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:46 PM Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks." He was referring to my latest quotes. (Can you find any contradictory ones Dave?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:48 PM Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks." Did he also say "Yes. The same as me." I could have sworn that was you... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM I do believe the same as all those I quoted, which Steve said was "everyone else." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:40 PM Of course you believe those you quoted, Keith. Why else would you have quoted them? But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania. Not sure what enjoying telling someone they are isolated and ridiculous means but pulling the wings off insects seems to be about on par. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:20 AM "Yo Jim: Another case of non over representation of a certain group" So the behavior of a handful of criminals from a community numbering a million and a half can be linked to the entire community - again Being the raving out-of-the-closet racist that you have proven yourself, you would say that, wouldn't you You've certainly earned your B.N.P. spurs on this one, haven't you? Do they hand out the Irish Cross for actions above and beyond...? No action on any group as small as these has ny significance whatever to which national and cultural group they come from - this is pure "all black men have big dicks" primitive racism, pure and simple - back to 'the 'Windrush/Notting hill riots' days. If there was a shred of logic to your argument, every Christian in Britain and Ireland would be a potential Child rapist (a fact, you scum don't have the balls even to address) - utter nonsense. No change in your scummy behavior otherwise - no substation of your Labour Party claims, no response to your having lied about my being a liar and no proof about "proven liars" This really hasn't ben your year so far. Your Labour party "serious semitism" claims have become a your little Alamo around two as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah, neither of whom have attacked the Jewish people - which is what antisemitism is Both criticisd Israel - that is not antisemitism - the civilised world criticises Israel for its behaviour towards the Palestinian people - only the politicians stay silent out of self interest. When you lot produce examples of Labour politicians smearing Jews, you might have a case, until you do, you haven't simples! Please don't quote me the political definition of 'antisemitism' - not even the Israelis take any notice of that - they hide behind The Jewish People to void having to answer for their war crimes. Jim Carroll . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:35 AM Incidentally Your 'Eric Pickles (Erick Picckles, fort chists sake) definition of antisemitism reads: If that is true for antisemitism, it must be true for all racism against all races and groups Attacking Muslims or Travellers because of the behaviour of a small handful of criminals is a racist act, pure and simple - must be true, Eric Pickles says so. Ou perhaps you can explain why there is one set of standards for one ethnic grop and another for other groups Smells of racism to me!! I notice Pickles has carefully removed the clause which says it antisemitic to associate the Jewish people with the actions of the State of Israel - who is this political superman!!! Eric Pickles - you have to be joking!!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 AM As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant. All these things happening in the UK, in Europe and in the world and Labour have got absolutely nothing to say about any of it. |