BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 09:32 AM

""Palestinian" land. Under the principle of international law, uti possidetis juris, it is a part of Israel. Israel"
Under the principle of natural law and justice, it belongs to those who own it - the U.N. has reiterated that fact and declared the settlements illegal
The present situation is due to the hasty botch-up carried out by departing Britain, and has no standing whatever.
To drive the Palestinians out of land they have occupied for many centuries would be simple ethnic cleansing, which is what is happening - go look how the world viewed former Yugoslavia if you want a modern example
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 10:54 AM

Oh God. Don't argue with either of him. He's not worth it, and neither is he.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 10:59 AM

It's not for either of his benefits Steve
It's just cathartic to get if off your chest publicly
We should be grateful to these twots for the opportunity they give us
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:33 AM

Dave,
Neither of those can be be deemed as attacks on any person by anyone but the terminally deranged

No-one deemed it a personal attack, but your link did not just "make fun of a Christian tradition."
It ridiculed and mocked the core beliefs of all Christians.
Your impression of Jesus on a rubber cross might be hilarious, but I am sure you would not talk of it to your late father, or any Christian you would not wish to offend.

These were attacks on the Christian faith made worse because you made them on Good Friday, and made personal to me by your naming of me on that morning.

Christians have no right not to be offended, but what I object to is your singling out of that one faith for all your "humour."
That is what makes you a bigot.

I also object to your ludicrous claim that my "agenda" makes you do it, and not just that you know Christians will not bite back.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:41 AM

Jim,
Until you specify what you are accusing Labour of,

Nothing. I just report what prominent Labour people and most MPs complain of.

You are now a declared anti-Semite

Please quote my declaration to that effect, liar.

Re occupied land.
Turkey illegally occupies half of Cypress and took it not repelling an invasion in a war of defence, but in an unprovoked act of aggression.

Why no criticism or calls for a boycott Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:42 AM

Give it a f**king rest will you. Frankly if Dave has offended you bloody well done to him.

You are always bleating about being victimised or picked on, poor little you, all the big boys are getting at you.

It's about time you grew up and starting behaving like a adult.

Of course if you really don't like it you could drop out of this forum or threads where you get rattled ............. and I know exactly the response that idea will get.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:56 AM

It all just goes completely over your head Rag dear.
You understand nothing.
Be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:58 AM

Christ, he's rewriting the history of Cyprus now. He's even rewriting its name. Is there no end to his delusions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:59 AM

Oh I understand enough to realise your craving for attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 12:31 PM

Nothing. I just report what prominent Labour people and most MPs
Sit Keith - they have alluded to antisemitism - neither you nor they have specified what the charges are and until they do they are unfounded
"prominent Labour"
Back to your "real historians" do you never lkearn
You'd never heard of them until you7 sought them out and only then you took them because they were saying the right things
The majority of the Labour party supports Corbyn, but, as with the Jews, their opinion doesn't count
"Please quote my declaration to that effect, liar."
By declarinbg publicly that Jews have no opinion regarding antisemitism you aare a declarede antisemite
By declaring that Jews hid the nature of Labour antisemitism your 'Jewish pact of silence' makes yo an antisemite
IUf you are going to deny this again, pl;ease tell us why the Jewih MPs didn't go public as they easily could have
Failure to answer willleve you with your original statemnent
"Cypress"
I assume you mean Cyprus, nobody occupies trees any more.
I have beEn part of opposition to Turkish fascism since I moved to London in the sixties,
I signed petitions calling for a bycott, I took part in marches in North London and I attended protest meetins
A working man can only do so much
Nobody is attempting to ethnically cleanse Cyprus
I remind you that you presented Turkey as one of those "decent States" who was defending Israel by staying silent - I had to point out its fascist nature to you
Where were you while we were demonstrating - I didn't seem you on any of the marches!!
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 12:36 PM

Errr, Keith, my Dad found it hilarious. He was strong enough in his faith to laugh such things off. How dare you even presume to suggest that you can even guess what my late Father did or did not like. That really IS a shitty thing to do.

Different Morality

The link I provided may well have offended your sensibilities. To be honest, I could not give a toss. In your own words take it take it up with the writers of the article. It was sweet FA to do with me.

Different Language

Neither Christians or any other fantasists have any different rights to anyone else on the planet. Including you, except of course you are on a

Different Planet.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 02:07 PM

While the anti-Israel camp refuses to apply that principle to Jews, it also vaunts the anti-Zionist (read: anti-Semitic) Jew. The only time those on the far left deign Jewish opinions on anti-Semitism and Israel valid are when those opinions gel with their hatred of Israel.

These Jews are trump cards in the anti-Israel arsenal. Their value as people in the eyes of the BDS camp is derived from their identity, but they are not just tokens; they are weapons. We have made it clear that Israel and Jews are inseparable, and perversely, it is this connection that has lent credence to their anti-Semitic ramblings.

Anti-Zionist Jews are, of course, entitled to hold these opinions. Just as white supremacists are entitled to believe that the white race is superior to all others — and they certainly feel entitled. But that does not mean that those opinions are valid or acceptable; they are morally reprehensible, and so is the type of anti-Semitism enabled by and emanating from this fringe group of Jews.

The anti-Semitism of anti-Zionist Jews

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 02:30 PM

"While the anti-Israel camp refuses to apply that principle to Jews, "#
Who does here and will you provide an example of our doing so?
As you don't go in for that sort of thing I don't expect a reply
It is your mate who is describing a Jewish statement on The Labour Party as 'irrelevant'
Is that not "antisemitic" - if not, why?
Don't expect a response to that one either
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 02:46 PM

"According to the United Nations there were 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees driven out of their rightful home - ethnic cleansing on a massive scale" - Jim

Unprecedented!!!! Utterly unbelievable more like Jim as the non-Jewish population of the Mandate of Palestine in 1948 was only around 1.358 million, care to explain how 5.15 million could have been driven out of their homes? Were they attached by bungie cords and kept springing back?

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

"Utterly unbelievable more like Jom as the non-Jewish population of the Mandate of Palestine"
Are you really incapable of responding to a question without being abusive?
Nice to know I've got under your skin - again
SUGGEST YOU TRY HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:21 PM

Thanks for the link Jim - agrees with me that 5.19 million Palestinians were NOT driven from their homes in 1948.

Tell me Jim why did the Egyptians invade, occupy and steal Palestinian land in 1948 and then shut Palestinians up in refugee camps on what had been Palestinian land?

Tell me Jim why did the Jordanians do exactly the same thing to Palestinians in the West Bank?

I take it that you do acknowledge that in April 1948 both Gaza and the West Bank were part of the mandated territory of Palestine don't you? So how did they come to be under Egyptian and Jordanian control from 1948 until 1967?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 04:34 AM

Jim,
The majority of the Labour party supports Corbyn

Why don't you quote them then Jim?
Because they are people like Steve who have no knowledge and who no-one has ever heard of.

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!!

Nobody is attempting to ethnically cleanse Cyprus

Many of Greek Christian heritage were forced off their land.
You have never criticised Turkey over their illegal occupation on here, or called for a boycott.

Dave,

The link I provided may well have offended your sensibilities. To be honest, I could not give a toss.

I do not expect anyone to and I never objected to being offended.
I do object to you carelessly and gratuitously causing offence on this forum. It had nothing to do with anything being discussed.
I do object to your always and only criticising Christianity and never any other faith.
I do object to your claiming it is my fault that you do it.
I do object to being singled out by name as someone likely to be offended by what you were about to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 04:39 AM

Well known Mudcat liar Jim,


By declarinbg publicly that Jews have no opinion regarding antisemitism you aare a declarede anti-Semite

If that is not just another Jim lie, quote me declaring it.

It is your mate who is describing a Jewish statement on The Labour Party as 'irrelevant'

If that is not just another Jim lie, quote me.

I did say that Labour insiders are more likely to know what is going on than people who do not even live in this country and have no connection with the British Labour Party.
I did not specify Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

Keith

I do not expect anyone to and I never objected to being offended.
Why bring it up then?

I do object to you carelessly and gratuitously causing offence on this forum. It had nothing to do with anything being discussed.
Take that up with the moderation team

I do object to your always and only criticising Christianity and never any other faith.
I did not criticise anything. I linked an article and did not even complete a joke. When I do criticise religion you will note that I always refer to any branch of fantasy.

I do object to your claiming it is my fault that you do it.
Your fault that I do what? Your paranoia is showing

I do object to being singled out by name as someone likely to be offended by what you were about to post.
Where did I do that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 06:23 AM

"Well known Mudcat liar Jim,"
Didn't you just claim you don't go in for personal insults
Seems like it's Well known Mudcat liar Keith
"Why don't you quote them then Jim?"
How can you quote a majority Keith - they have vor=ted him into office twice.
You can quote who you like but until you produce solid evidence of antisemitism it remains an unsubstantiated quote from someone who either sees Corbyn as a liability or from those who have been been prompted by Israel to get rid of the leader who threatens to introduce BDS
If you can't produce actual evidence, the rest is agenda-driven rhetoric
I ASKED WHY THE JEWISH MPS DIDN'T GO PUBLIC WITH THEIR ACCUSATIONS - YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER, SO YOUR ORIGINAL ONE - THAT THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO A PACT OF SILENCE FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY STANDS
"If that is not just another Jim lie, quote me."
Are you actually denying that you refuse to respond to a Jewish writer because he has nothing worth saying on British antisemitism(sic)?
At least give this statement a little gap before you start denying having made it
"Thanks for the link Jim - agrees with me that 5.19 million Palestinians
were NOT driven from their homes in 1948."
Who on earth said they were - I gave you the number of refugees - that is the current number
"According to the United Nations there were 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees driven out of their rightful home - ethnic cleansing on a massive scale"
You really need to get whoever reads these things for you to be more accurate
Piss off, you arrogantly stupid little man
What a pair of ludicrous tossers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 08:37 AM

Dave,
I do not expect anyone to and I never objected to being offended.
Why bring it up then?

Because of all the actual objections to your behaviour.

I do object to your always and only criticising Christianity and never any other faith.
I did not criticise anything. I linked an article and did not even complete a joke.

yes. Criticise was the wrong word.
I should have said, "I do object to your always and only mocking and ridiculing Christians and never any other faith."

I do object to your claiming it is my fault that you do it.
Your fault that I do what? Your paranoia is showing

No. You claimed you did not attack other faiths because of my "agenda."

I do object to being singled out by name as someone likely to be offended by what you were about to post.
Where did I do that?

You identified me by name on Good Friday as one to whom it is a special day, and then posted your mocking attacks.

Jim, you can not quote me because you were lying.
It is also a lie about any "PACT OF SILENCE."
If it was not a lie then quote me.
They were not silent.
They reported their complaints about anti-Semitism to the Party leadership to deal with, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.
No "pact of silence." You made that up.

I am away now.
Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 08:48 AM

There were no objections but yours as far as I can see, Keith, but I am aware of what is currently happening in your life so we shall leave it there until you are fully recovered.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 11:51 AM

"They reported their complaints about anti-Semitism to the Party leadership to deal with, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny."
Not what I asked Keith - I asked why they didn't go public
Why didn't they - there was nothing stopping them
You are lying when you deny having said what you said
You've denied it before and I've put it up twice
Why bother putting it up yet again - you'll only ask for proof as if hadn't already done it
I'm really to old to be coping with childishly dishonest behaviour like yours
You want it again - I'll put it up next to your "implant to rape" evidence
Enough really is enough with your dishonesty
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 03:33 PM

Can you believe it? Soldiers stopped two Arab nurses who are cancer patients coming into Israel from Gaza for treatment and insisted on searching their possessions...

oh wait...

Today's news brief: "Forces find explosives among the medical equipment of two Arab nurses allowed into Israel for cancer treatment."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 05:44 PM

"I am away now."

With the fairies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 07:45 PM

"Can you believe it?"
Can you believe it
The Israeli Government facilitated the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed refugees, found themselves not guilty but indicted an Israeli General as being responsible for allowing it to take place, then, as a punishment, they elected him Prime Minister.
Jim Carroll

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

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: 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:49 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:39 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:18 PM

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

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: 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: 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.