BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:00 AM

"Voting for Blair"
Voting for scumbags like Blair had s.f.a. to do with racism, opposition to which has remained unchanged since Labour was founded by the Trades Unions and immigrants like the Jews fleeing pogroms
The nearest not New Labour have given to any form of racism is to adopt an opportunist approach to winning votes by compromising on immigration, but somebody with your outlook, who thinks it is acceptable to force immigrants to wear yellow stars and who believes mass murderer had something to sat worth listening to can't possibly have a problem with that
Your comments on soacism are crap as you as far away from a real socialist as it would be possible to imagine - personally, I hope to the gog I don't believe in that I don't live to see your brand of National Socialisam come to fruition again - I was born when it was at it's most vicious, I hope I don't go out to see it jackbooting its way through Eurpe again.
Corbyn is the one shining light in a party that has been taken over by right wing predators and career politicians seeking a tenure for life.   
If he fails, let's hope that genuine socialists have the nouse to take Ireland's example and build a few alternatives cable of challenging the status quo (though that took the self-destruction of the Irish Labour Party to make that a possibility)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

Dave,
So, no facts and figures at all then, Keith,

Plenty of facts Dave.
The FACT that the Labour Party alone is riven with complaints about the attitude to women, gays and Jews.
The FIGURES are the dozens of members facing disciplinary action for anti-Semitism.
No other Party has anything like that Dave dear, or has there been something that everyone has missed? Do tell us about it.

Thought not. Until you can prove that Labour suffers from antisemitism more than anyone else

Proved beyond question Dave.

in fact the only party that has the guts to do anything about it

Ha ha ha !!
The other parties have nothing to do anything about!
No complaints of any kind of racism or intolerance to deal with.
Labour has had nothing but such complaints for months now.
Facts and figures for you Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:36 AM

Steve,
So in order to become a decent democracy all you have to do is sign up to Keith's antisemitism definition.

You have it about face Steve.
Decent, liberal democracies embrace the definition.
Nasty, intolerant, abusive regimes do not.

he's proved to us what a bunch of slave-driving bastards travellers are in general

How could I prove something which I have stated is untrue.
You resort to lying about me again because you are losing so badly.
I merely pointed out a massive over-representation in recent convictions.

And, when I quote one of the many Labour dissidents, what is the point of you people pointing out that they are Labour dissidents!???
Ha ha ha ha.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 08:27 AM

"Decent, liberal democracies embrace the definition."
But Israel has rejected it
" it is antisemitic to implicate the Jewish people in the actions of teh State of Israel"
To Israel - all who critisise its policies are antisemitic
Can't pick and mix a definition - it has to be all or nothing
"No complaints of any kind of racism or intolerance to deal with."
The Tories were accused of serious Islamophobia a year ago - they appointed a racist as foreign secretary
I suppose that's doing something about it - helping it be more effective
Your facts and figures are forely missing something - the facts
You invented "over-representation" and have never produced a single individual to back up your claim - not even phantom ones.
You are very much a part of racism in Britain - a fanatical one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 09:03 AM

That's it, Keith. You are truly a fanatic. You think that the Tories and UKIP harbour not a trace of antisemitism. What planet are you on? You've rewritten the Middle East history of the early 1980s. You've scurrilously, without evidence, smeared the whole of the travelling community. Now you're lying about the Labour Party again. Give me a list of all those Labour members who have been FOUND GUILTY OF ANY UNEQUIVOCAL CHARGE OF ANTISEMITISM. Won't take long, will it, Keith? And you have not answered my questions. What part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic? Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?" You are a smear specialist, aren't you? You smeared the British Pakistani community, you smeared the traveller community, you smeared the Labour Party. You dedicate yourself to smearing anyone who doesn't fit your cosy Tory middle-England Christian warm beer down the pavilion mindset and you don't care whether you have evidence or not. You are an exceptionally nasty piece of work, aren't you, Keith?

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

Back in the UK for a month, before toddling back to Erin. Thankfully we travelled overnight as there were over 100 miles between Holyhead and home, parts of the M62 were down to one lane !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 09:52 AM

"Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?"

They have: Jo Coburn asked Labour MP "Is Ken Livingstone anti-semitic?"

Hitler wasn't a zionist; he colluded with Zionists because it suited him as part of his aim to get as many Jews out of Germany as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 10:16 AM

Tell you what I'm going to do Keith
You obviously have no intention of desisting with your vicious racist attacks on the Travelling Community, by far the most vulnerable in Britain, on the verge of being ethnically cleansed out of existence – so I think it's time to put your "massive over-representation" invention to the test.
Over the last few decades, the Christian Church, in Ireland in Britain and as far afield as Canada and America, has been blown apart though disclosures of clerical sexual abuse that have gone back certainly throughout the twentieth century and even beyond – the first case of Clerical sexual abuse was recorded as far back as The Book of Kells.
Not only have clerics made sexual use of children that fell within their reach, but their church hierarchy have colluded in that abuse by covering it up and by the offenders being passed on to parishes where their "little weaknesses" are not known.
Up to the present day the Vatican has refused to reveal details of those abuses and allowed the victims to achieve some sort of justice, or at least, peace of mind.
These abuses have been centred on the Catholic Church, but it is obvious that they include other Christian churches, your own included.
You refuse to comment on the two Salvation Army Christians who imprisoned a young woman for eight years, during which time they raped and sexually abused her, beat her, starved her and kept her in conditions in which it would be illegal to keep an animal.
It seems to me that, if the actions of a small handful of criminals, who happen to be Travellers, represent a "massive over-representation" by the Travelling community, using your own 'logic' that has to be the case with the Christian church and its many hundred of clerical abuses.
Not only that, taking another of your inventions, as the abuses spread to all levels of the Church, it seems possible that the Christian Church is "culturally implanted" to rape children – if that can be applied to Muslims, why not Christians?
While I have serious doubts about your claim, you say you are a Christian, so you should be able to give us an insider's view
I have no desire to upset or insult people on this forum whose beliefs I respect, ut I really do think too and Teribus have been given your head (whoops – not a tactful term as far as clerical abuse goes!!) for long enough.
I worked with Travellers for thirty years and I found them warm, generous and welcoming; I was also able to see what damage racism like yours and Teribus's did to them and their families.
One more mention of "massive" or even "small over-representation" and I will start a thread of my own to see how your theory holds up when applied to other cultures and races.
When that runs its course, I may even start one to see if the third of British people questioned who admitted holding and expressing racists views represents yet another "nmassive over-representation" or "cultural implant"
Waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 10:45 AM

I am behaving very much as an adult Jim. If I am wrong about anything and it is pointed out to me I am adult enough to acknowledge my mistake and correct my error. Keith A of Hertford has demonstrated exactly the same degree of honesty, integrity and maturity. YOU and your pal Shaw on the other hand have not.

Now back to Naz Shah who said nothing anti-Semitic according to Shaw, despite the lady herself admitting what she had tweeted WAS anti-semitic. So I suppose this rests on the "Shaw definition" and that Naz Shah only wanted the "Israeli regime" to be lifted and shifted to the mid-west of the USA, or did she state her support for the idea that the entire State of Israel be moved to the USA? As this was demonstrated by the borders of 1923 Palestine being superimposed on a map of the USA it would appear to be the latter. In which case Naz shah in that tweet is stating quite clearly that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination, that the State of Israel is illegal and that the Jewish people have no right to a self-governing country - Which is about as anti-Semitic as you can get.

Now onto Ken Livingstone - Hitler made a deal with the Zionists? Really? Pity no details of this deal have been put in evidence, or was this deal only struck with A. Hitler and nobody else apart from KL knew about it? The SS were supposed to have armed and trained German Jews to prepare them to fight in Palestine? What at the same time as they were burning Synagogues and Jewish businesses and homes in Germany? At the same time as even the SS were solely reliant on the German army for weapons and training? For fucks sake read the very well documented history of the period - the whole bloody thing is a ludicrous fantasy. Nor surprised at all that Shaw and Carroll swallowed it.

As far as definitions go:

What is Antisemitism?

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a "working definition of antisemitism" which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism's longstanding call for the British government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, following which the British government formally adopted the definition.

Hey guys, guess what? Inveterate liar and hypocrite Steve Shaw KNOWS BETTER cos "teacher's never wrong" - don't know who thinks he's kidding but he doesn't impress me one f**kin' iota.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

- Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour).

- Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:06 AM

The Stench of the Anti-Semitic Old Right That Hangs Around Ken Livingstone
Haaretz

Yet Livingstone's public pronouncements have spoken of 'collaboration' and 'collaborators' – a term which conjures up Vichy France and Vidkun Quisling in the minds of many. The insinuation is that the Zionists of the time willingly and deliberately worked with the Nazis, not to rescue Jews, but because they quietly approved of Hitler's revolution in German society.

Why, the sentient observer might ask, would he make this incendiary claim? For that, it is important to dissect the narrative and imagery of the mindset of many on the far Left – a mindset related to the notion that current-day Israelis are Nazis, Gaza is the Warsaw Ghetto and besieged Palestinians are the 'real Jews'.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM

"The Stench of the Anti-Semitic Old Right That Hangs Around Ken Livingstone"
Opinions written by Colin Schindler, who actively opposes B.D.S. and regards opposition to Israel as "antisemitic" - he includes protests in support of the Palestinian people as such, even by Palestinians themselves.
He lectures on occasion in Tel Aviv and has been criticised by his students as doing so
What else if his opinion goint to be.
"Hitler made a deal with the Zionists? Really? Pity no details of this deal have been put in evidence, or was this deal only struck with A. Hitler "
You are (deliberately?) not reading what is being put up again Teribus.
"'Fifty One Documents - Zionist collaboration with the Nazis'" is there for the perusing, and if you ever stop behaving like a schoolyard bully - Ken Livingstone - right or wrong, did not snatch his opinion out of the air, as you dishonestly suggest, Jews like those who make uo 'The True Torah' have been making the same accusation since the war.
Your blustering bullshit really does expose a distinct self doubt in what you have to say
"working definition of antisemitism"
As often as those defending Israel put this definition up, they need to respond to the fact that Israel, and anybody who defends her behaviour with accusations of "antisemitism" is being as "antisemitic and Jew-Hating" as anybody by ignoring one of it's most fundamental inclusions "HOLDING JEWS COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:39 AM

But according to Keith's reasoning, Teribus, Livingstone has not said anything antisemitic. All he has done is repeated facts. That seems to be the excuse used most often by Keith. Travelers are over represented in cases on slavery. Not anti traveler. Pakistanis are over represented in grooming cases. Not anti Pakistani. The Nazi party, of which Hitler was the head in case you had forgotten, collaborated with Zionists. Not anti Semitic.

Keith, nothing you have listed indicates that the Labour party is any worse than anyone else. Just better at accepting responsibility.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:14 PM

"I haven' read '51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.', but I know the author not to be an antisemite and afre seeing to and people like yo perform, I will make a point of doing so - argument by name-calling always makes me supicios that people have something to hide" - Jim Carroll

I certainly hope that by now you have read all 404 pages of it Jim. I'd suggest that your pals Gnome and Shaw do as well - because it doesn't say what you think it does, it most certainly does not say what Ken Livingstone says, or thinks, it does.

There was no Nazi collaboration with the World Zionist Order, or indeed with German Zionist organisations, although the latter did try to negotiate with the German Nazi Authorities but were led by the nose and ripped off at every single opportunity. What they were attempting to do was save lives and they did save a few thousand. By the way there was no arrangement whereby the SS trained and armed Zionists prior to allowing them to emigrate to Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:28 PM

Jim,
To Israel - all who critisise its policies are anti-Semitic

Not true. Just your made up shit Jim. It has an opposition and a free media that criticise its policies every day.

Steve,
You think that the Tories and UKIP harbour not a trace of antisemitism.

I am sure that they do, but their Jewish members have experienced nothing to complain about, while Labour's Jews are furious about how they are treated.

Jim,
your vicious racist attacks on the Travelling Community,

Quote one Jim. You are just lying about me again.
"No Traveller signs" are not common throughout Britain. Fact.
Travellers are over-represented in recent convictions for slavery. Fact.
That is all I have ever said about them.
If you are not lying, quote me.

Dave,
Keith, nothing you have listed indicates that the Labour party is any worse than anyone else. Just better at accepting responsibility.

Not true. They are very bad at accepting responsibility, and the other parties have had no complaints to accept responsibility for!
If that is not true, list all the complaints of anti-Semitism that have emerged from any other party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

Steve,
Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?"

Er, their disciplinary committee found him guilty of it Steve.

100 British Labour MPs have denounced their own party for failing to significantly discipline a prominent anti-Semitic member.

Is this happening in any other party, or is it just a problem for Labour?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM

Reuters, 10 hours ago,

"Britain's opposition Labour Party suspended former London Mayor Ken Livingstone for saying Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism, but was accused of being too soft on the veteran politician.
The row comes against a backdrop of criticism within Labour and in the Jewish community, rejected by party leaders, that Labour has had a persistent problem with anti-Semitism under hard-left leader Jeremy Corbyn.
"Ken Livingstone's comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community," Corbyn said in a statement on Wednesday.
Under pressure from Jewish community leaders and Labour members of parliament who argued Livingstone should have been permanently expelled rather than just suspended for two years, Corbyn hinted that further action could be taken."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-politics-labour-antisemitism-idUSKBN1770QY

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:18 PM

Zionist and Jew are not the same thing. The Catholic Church collaborated with Mussolini. By saying that, I'm not condemning the whole of Christianity. Catholic and Christian are not the same thing. Not only that, not all Catholics agreed with that collaboration. So Zionist and Jew are not the same thing. If I say I dislike Zionism, in no way am I saying that I dislike Jews. And I dislike people who are telling me what I'm saying. I'll tell YOU what I'm saying. There is nothing, NOTHING antisemitic about saying that Hitler supported Zionism. We can argue the fat over whether that's true until the cows come home. But there is no argument about the fact that it is not an antisemitic remark. If you disagree, let's be having your precise reason why. Your reason, not according to a "definition." Tell me why you think that saying Hitler supported Zionism is an attack on all Jews. Had I been around when Zionists were fighting for a Jewish state I would have been opposed on political grounds, not because I hate Jews. That's the way the world works and no religion has the right to trump political discourse. But I do not oppose the existence of Israel now. Israel is a fact and that is also the way the world works. In fact, I support the state of Israel in that I want it to become a real, progressive democracy. So far, I think it falls short of that. That does not mean I'm antisemitic any more than it means I'm anti-America because it has a rotten regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:20 PM

Because I THINK it has a rotten regime. I was in a hurry to go and mash the spuds.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:50 PM

Think you've mashed the Hertford spuds many times over, Steve - but it doesn't seem to make any lasting impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:27 PM

The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:
Interestingly, while she supported Israel vehemently in Parliament, she was criticised by them for not supporting them enough because of wishing to advance her career
So - two agendas, an Israeli poodle and a political careerist.
Berger was the Director of Labour Friends of Israel for three years, but stepped down before the 2010 general election to stand in Liverpool. She was a committee member of the London Jewish Forum, an organisation dedicated to the promotion of Jewish life in London, but stepped down when she was elected to Parliament in 2010.
Second parliamentary term (2015–present)
In May 2015, the UK Independence Party suspended Jack Sen, a candidate who wrote to Berger on Twitter that she would rather have part of the budget sent to Poland/Israel than have it spent on child benefits.
"Not true. Just your made up shit Jim. It has an opposition and a free media that criticise its policies every day."
Says so in the definition - anybody linking Isreali actions with The Jewish people are antisemites


"Unless you can come up with some others there is clearly a massive over-representation of Travellers convicted of slavery, as I said."
"Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case. How many can you think of?
Otherwise it is a massive over-representation."

"Quote one Jim. You are just lying about me again."
"For a tiny ethnic group that is unequivocally a massive over-representation."
"Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation.
There may be many possible explanations, but it is a massive over-representation and that is all I ever claimed."
"merely pointed out a massive over-representation in recent convictions."
"Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case. How many can you think of?
Otherwise it is a massive over-representation."
THere you go Keith
Continue with your hate campaign - I would love a debate with you on a "massive over-representation of clerical child rape
You are a piece of racist scum - Muslims - brainwashed Irish children, now travellers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:49 PM

The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:

No it wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:00 PM

There was no Nazi collaboration with the World Zionist Order, or indeed with German Zionist organisations, although the latter did try to negotiate with the German Nazi Authorities but were led by the nose and ripped off at every single opportunity

Just how stupid a statement is that? If there was no collaboration how could they have been 'led by the nose'. To have been in that position there must have been some collaboration in the first place. Unless of course we are talking Hertford English rather than standard English.

list all the complaints of anti-Semitism that have emerged from any other party.

An even more stupid statement. Can you list the complaints of antisemitism against the Nazi party in the 1930's? I guess there were not many so, by your measure I suppose the Nazi party were not antisemitic!

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:06 PM

"The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:
No it wasn't."
Beg pardon Bobad - my mistake
The author of the article is based on quotes from Lucianda Berger - my description above is of that good lady, not the author
Same thing applies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:12 PM

Ah Gnome - you obviously haven't read Jim's link either - suggest that you do, along with some history of Germany 1933 to 1939 - then and only then will you have some feel for the situation.

You will find that:

- German Jews considered themselves to be Germans first and foremost and loyal Germans at that.

- Zionists inside Germany represented a tiny minority of Germany's Jewish population.

- The World Zionist Organisation was extremely vocal in their opposition of Nazi erosion of the rights of German Jews.

- Zionist organisations inside Germany found themselves as the only "organised Jews" in a country where their predicament could only be described as having one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. They theorised and cobbled together proposal after proposal to offer the Nazis that would allow Germany's Jews to leave - all were discussed, but the Nazis never had any intention whatsoever of entering into any real negotiations, they just kept offering that glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel - it served to keep the Jews quiet - the Nazis wanted their wealth and their businesses.

- There was no collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionist organisations inside Germany, as stated above it was the latter who tried desperately to enter into negotiations with the Nazis to save Jewish lives that traffic was strictly one way.


National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:26 PM

"National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from."

Well, the extreme distemper of this stupid remark, not to speak of the sheer illiteracy of the sentence, makes me conclude that you've been on the booze and that it's way past your bedtime. I don't normally resort to that, but, on the other hand, I don't like my good self or the perfectly decent blokes who you also mention being equated with Nazis. You are totally out of order, completely intemperate and completely disgraceful. Why don't you toddle off and post something in the music section? That would be a rarity but it might just sweeten you a bit. Or you could just wait until you've slept off whatever is addling your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:33 PM

By the way, Billyboy, thanks for this:

"Zionists inside Germany represented a tiny minority of Germany's Jewish population."

Excellent! So criticising Zionists for collaborating with Hitler can't POSSIBLY be antisemitic then. Antisemitic means that you hate all Jews. You can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticise only a selected tiny minority of Jews, such as those Zionists in Germany. So I ask again: why has no-one said that Ken is an antisemite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:51 PM

"National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from."
You have yet to produce one lie I have told and your politics are far nearer National Socialism as anybody on this form than any other on this form - you racism runs neck and neck with theirs - your being forced out of your closet s probably the reason you have gone viral on your insulting everybody again.
I don't lie - prove I do.
Zionist association with Nazism seems to be a historical fact - as much as the Catholic Church's association with Italy's fascism.
I'm not suggesting it was part of their philosophy on the part of the Zionists - pragmatism seems to have played a part, at least, that it the impression I have gained from the litle reading I have done on the subject
Let's face it, Brtian appeased Hitler up to the point that they had no alternative - quite a lot of that went beyond paragmaitism - go read Rothermere's newspapers or the Right Club publications or see members of the Royal arselicking "Herr Hitler"
New Germany was to be "the bulwark against Bolshevism" as a famous cigar-smoking politician once remarked.
Denying all these facts, as Teribus and Keith have, alters that not one iota
Once more you arrogantly refuse to link any of your claims - perhaps you should have stayed in the pub - that sort of shite goes down better around closing time.
As for lies - your mate has just surpassed himself on the other thread - made my week
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:28 AM

Out of order Shaw??? Far from it you lying bastard - YOU old son have been caught out - YOU and your pals have YET, after four years and countless unfounded allegations, been unable to give one single example of either myself, Akenaton or Keith A lying. HELL you haven't even been able to counter with any sort of cogent argument anything that we have stated.

By the way Mr Teacher Sir - THERE WAS NO COLLUSION, please pay attention in the hope that that will penetrate your thick skull - in that belief "Red Ken" is living in a f**kin' fantasy world (His usual residence as most people have known full well throughout his time in public life) - instead of trying to be clever try reading the link that your pal Jim put up - it doesn't say what he thinks it does. As usual as you did in ALL the WWI threads you argue from complete and utter total ignorance - you don't have a soddin' clue - which is why on all those threads you, and your pals, got absolutely hammered and were made to look stupid. Perhaps you should stick to munching broccoli and as you want a musical dimension I've got a suggestion for your next CD Title - "Blowing out my arse" - as that would appear to be the orifice you do most of your communicating through.

Points of comparison between you and your mates and "National Socialists"??

- Your adherence to ideology over everything else.
- Raging intolerance to any other view than your own.
- Your belief in your superiority, which fosters a totally erroneous faith in the fact that you think you are never wrong (Other more honest individuals admit their errors and mistakes - You do not)
- You blatantly lie and fully expect to get away with those lies believing that by constant repetition it somehow becomes true and accepted as fact (Straight out of Joseph Goebbels bag of tricks that one Shaw).
- Your belief that mob rule is justified in order to get your own way.

Like all bullies you and your pals squeal like stuck pigs the second there is a "push back". OK for Jim to accuse people right, left and centre of being Nazis, but the minute that you and your pals find yourselves on the receiving end it's an indignant cry of "How dare you!!!" - I tell you how I dare Shaw - With remarkable ease you lying GIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM

You people need to remember that the accusations against Livingstone and others come from Labour not Mudcat.
We are just the messengers.

Huff Post yesterday,
"One of Labour's most senior former officials has urged Jeremy Corbyn to step aside in the wake of the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone.
Mike Creighton, Labour's Director of Audit and Risk Management until last month, said that it was "incomprehensible" that the former Mayor of London had been given "a slap on the wrist" despite being found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute.
Creighton, who effectively ran the party's legal, governance and disciplinary compliance team, said that it was time for Corbyn to consider "retirement" following the decision to suspend Livingstone for another year for his remarks about Hitler and Zionism."

"The former staffer, who has never before urged Corbyn to step aside, also claimed that he had advised the Labour leader to make a strong speech condemning anti-semitism last year at the height of the row, but was ignored."

"Creighton's remarks came amid strong condemnation by deputy leader Tom Watson and other Shadow Cabinet ministers of the ruling on Tuesday night by the party's disciplinary panel, the National Constitutional Committee (NCC).
With fresh calls for a re-think, HuffPost UK understands that both Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham will also criticise the decision."

"Deputy leader Watson said he felt "ashamed" by the NCC decision, declaring "my party is not living up to its commitment to have a zero tolerance approach to anti-semitism".
MPs including Shadow Cabinet ministers Keir Starmer and Barry Gardiner, Yvette Cooper, Lisa Nandy and Wes Streeting all united to criticise the failure to expel the former Mayor."

""All charges brought against the odious Livingstone were found proven. And yet, unaccountably, the punishment didn't even fit the least of these charges…"

"He said that the failure to expel Livingstone meant that "anti-Semitism has air to breathe in the Labour Party".
"And the Jew-haters and Jew-baters pretending that they are merely criticising the actions of the Israeli government have gained ground today."

"it gives carte blanche to the anti-Semites of the left and right – and mainly the Trotskyite left – to raise their evil standards on the parapets of the Labour Party. Apparently with Jeremy Corbyn's calm indifference."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-jeremy-corbyn-should-go-says-mike-creighton-former-labour-head-of-risk-management-tom-watson-anti-semitism-claims_uk_58e4b71fe4b0d0b7e1663303

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:41 AM

"You have yet to produce one lie I have told" - Jim (Kitchener) Carroll

You have got to be kidding haven't you Jim. The list of your lies is so long I haven't a clue where to begin. The number of lies that you have knowingly and deliberately told litters the threads of this Forum to such an extent that I don't have to search for any of them, I just have to wait until the next one comes along (You ARE that dependable) - in that respect you're rather like that Geyser, "Old Faithful", in Yellowstone National Park.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 04:07 AM

So then, Teribus, however you dress it up there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying. He was, in Keith's words, just the messenger. Not that I have any time for Red Ken and I believe he is a liability, but not for the reasons bandied about at the moment. In that respect he was just stupid. The point being that both you and Keith are applying once law to yourselves. "It was not me, I am only repeating what other people have said." and Livingstone, who was only repeating what other people have said.

On to much pleasanter things. Had a wonderful day with the Grandsons yesterday. Walked from our house and in minutes the youngest and I were on a farm track leading up the valley. Apart from much complaining about the smell of muckspreading he was really enjoying himself. He had control as he was carrying the whistle and compass :-) We made it all the way up to Lund's Tower and ate our sandwiches sheltered from the wind behind the parapet of said folly before making our way down another track through the hamlet or homestead of Bent. When we returned we had a bit of a rest and then all of us went for a car ride up to the second tower, Cowling Pinnacle, and walked the half mile to, yet again, Lund's Tower! Off to the baths today. This grandson minding business keeps you fit if nothing else :-)

Cheers

DtG

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 04:24 AM

"The list of your lies is so long I haven't a clue where to begin"
Surprise me and begin
Failure to do so will prove you a liar
You wandt a pissing cometition between who tells the most porkie- you and your lying mate - bring it on
I have never ever told a lie or deliberately attempted to deceive on this forum - ifI thought it necessary to do so I really wouldn't bother participation - you people are the only ones to have declared to have won something - go count how many times Keith has crowed "I won - you lose" - seven times on this thread alone.
This is a debating forum - not a 'who had the biggest willie' competition.
Lying is immaterial, as far as debating with you pair of brain-deads is concerned is totally unnecessary - your stupidity, ignorance and strutting arrogance makes lying a waste of time - you do our job by destroying your own crass arguments quite adequately.
"Kitchener"
Only a spiteful moron can turn describing a crass bureaucratic General who was forced into tendering his resignation as "resigning", as I did, a lie.
Kitchener probably caused the death of many thousand troops by sending the wrong shells
It may have been a mistake on my part to have claimed he resigned (anybody who crassly kills his own men should have) but it is not a lie - errors are not deliberate lies
I put your arrogantly put claims that The Sabra Shatila Stadium could not have been used as it was in a state of ruin down to your crass ignorance - I have never claimed it was lie
Similarly, your stupid ignorance in asking what the Falangists were doing at the airport - not lies, simple dogshit ignorance.
Your particular list is endless and going back as far as I can remember.
Only a smell-minded spitefully childish pratt turns mistakes which we all mistakes into lies
Go come back with a genuine lie of mine - I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's if I were mindless enough to indulge in such crap.
Keith has now gon viral on lying - go see his latest efforts on the 'Andrew Neil thread, where he claims the reverse on something he busted a gut on about Assad - mindlessly stupdi lying - not mistakes - giant porkies you could choke an elephant on
Yo want to claim I lie - prove it, don't allude to it with slime-ball accusations
You pollute this forum with your arrogance and your spectacular ignnorance
Keith
More meaningles opinions without either evidence and foundation
Meanwhile - back at the ranch
MASSIVE CHRISTIAN OVER-REPRESENTATION IN SEXUAL ABUSE AND PEOPLE TRAFFICKING
Do not ever again accuse Muslims or Travellers of being "over-represented of anything like this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

I find it quite funny when right wing racists, homophobes and the terminally intollerant start to call people Nazis. Just shows the limit of their imaginations :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:18 AM

You're a bad-tempered probably very old sod, I know that, Teribus. Take a chill pill.

You're not the messenger, Keithie. You're a dedicated, long-time smearer. Labour, travellers, Pakistanis. Maybe you're secretly a member of AIPAC. That's what they do to anyone who dares to criticise Israel in any way. Smear, smear, smear. I'm still waiting for you to tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic. I'm still waiting to hear why I have yet to read, among all the verbiage you go to so much trouble to reproduce, of anyone in the Labour Party saying the magic words "Ken is an antisemite."

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

And the Jew-haters and Jew-baters pretending that they are merely criticising the actions of the Israeli government: THIS

the anti-Semites of the left and right – and mainly the Trotskyite left: THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM

The word is baiters.

When I criticise the actions of the Israeli government, I'm not pretending anything. As I've said once before in the last 24 hours, I don't need anyone else to tell me what I'm really saying. I'll tell YOU what I'm really saying. It's amazing that people like you, Teribus and Keith, who come here with an extremely lopsided, inflexible and narrow agenda, always want to ascribe that same attribute to everyone who doesn't agree with you. Well why not cast out the plank. I like my country and hate my government. I support the right of Israel to not only exist but to prosper in security and peace. But I hate what the Israeli government does in many areas of endeavour, and, as I live in a free country, I shall say so if I like. Now I want you to dissect this post of mine (without pretending that you're a mind-reader) and tell me, without resorting to fatuous definitions or appealing to authority, if YOU think I've said anything antisemitic, and why you think it. Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:09 AM

Those are the words of your one of your fellow Labour Party members, described as one of Labour's most senior former officials. I agree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:41 AM

Oh, and of course the word is baiters and I was waiting with bated breath for you to tell me so. Unfortunately that's the way it's written in the quote I copied so I'd advise you to aim you rectification at the Huffington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Dave,
there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying.

If he had stated that historical fact in isolation he would not have been found guilty of bringing his party into disrepute.
He is charged with anti-Semitism.

He tried to use that historical nugget to justify Naz Shah's anti-Semitism. That is why he has been further suspended while expulsion is still being considered following outrage at the leniency showed.
(Outrage from within Labour, like all the complaints of anti-Semitism over the last year or so.)

No other party have had any of these issues.
Just Labour.

Steve,
re not the messenger, Keithie. You're a dedicated, long-time smearer.

Not true. I did not start this discussion, and have only reported what has gone on within Labour. None of it has come from me.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic.

I have never said it was. I have actually said it was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:56 AM

Steve,
I have yet to read, among all the verbiage you go to so much trouble to reproduce, of anyone in the Labour Party saying the magic words "Ken is an antisemite."

Of course you have.
Labour MP John Mann.
Mann told Livingstone, "you are a lying racist"
Asked if he thought Livingstone was anti-Semitic, Mann said, "Yes he is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-suspended-from-labour-party-for-antisemitism-and-hitler-comments_uk_5721fbd9e4b0a1e971cb2513

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Ah, but you see Keith, John Mann didn't use the specific word "antisemite" so Shaw will worry that bone for a couple hundred posts now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:09 AM

"and mainly the Trotskyite left:"
Trotsy was a jew - the Trotskyist movement was founded by Jews
All left movements are basically international and non-racist - most were founded by Jews
On the other hand, German right wing multinationalism sent six million Jews to their deaths - Capitalist industry in Germany used Jews as slave labour.
Antisemitism at its most extreme is a phenomenon of right wing politics
So when a a supposed supporter of the Jewish people who refuses to condemn having Parliamentary Politicians described as putting their politics before their culture and who persistently indulges in one of the basic no-nos of defined antisemitism, attacks the left - where does that put him politically
I would say on the side of those who carried out the Holocaust.
I don't suppose you'd care to comment on any of this honestly, would you Bobad!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:10 AM

Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism? " And I remind you again that no-one in the party has said that Ken Livingstone is an antisemite. Charged means nothing on its own, does it? I note that you ignored my post describing Ken Livingstone's legacy over decades by virtue of his fights for equality for all minorities and for an end to discrimination, and how he worked extensively with London's Jewish community. I suppose that when you are relentlessly confronted with Blair/Thatcher/Murdoch briefing against you you may learn how to be occasionally undiplomatic.

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as antisemitic (careful now - as I recall, she didn't even mention Jews) and I'll tell you why you're wrong. Don't bother telling me what some committee or definition says - I want to know what YOU think. That would be a first. You have GOT your own brain, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:25 AM

"He is charged with anti-Semitism."
And it is very noticeable that nobody here is prepared to discuss that "historical nugget - which has a fair amount of truth attached to it.
Personally, I think was stupidly insensitive to bring it up in the present atmosphere, but stupidity isn't antisemitism.
Livingstone allowed himself to fall into the hands of the Anti - BDS crowd, but nobody has proved antisemitism against him or anybody - stating historical facts isn't antisemitic
The clause in the definition that states that it is antisemitic to compare the action of the Israelis with the Nazis has always intrigued me - what if they are behaving like the Nazis, as many, including Jews have accused them of?
Can you have a definition that makes truth unacceptable?
If you can - why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:53 AM

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

See Keith's post of 07 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM, which I am sure you already have but, hey, anytime there's a bone for you to worry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:05 PM

"So then, Teribus, however you dress it up there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying. He was, in Keith's words, just the messenger." - DtG

OK then Gnome how did this "collaboration" manifest itself?

Collaboration:
NOUN
1: The action of working with someone to produce something:

2: Traitorous cooperation with an enemy:

Give us examples of this collaboration. There was none, and it is offensive and anti-Semitic in the extreme to state that any Jewish organisation would collude with the Nazis in the deaths of the German Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:21 PM

Steve
Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism?

If that had been all he said, yes.
It was not. He tried to use that to defend Shah's undisputed (except by you people) anti-Semitism.
His defence of anti-Semitism brought the party into disrepute. The party found him guilty.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as anti-Semitic

We all know what she said.
The party found it anti-Semitic. That is good enough for me. You did not. That signifies nothing!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:10 PM

No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith. And cut out the stupid and vacuous "you people." That's an expression often used to talk about "the other." "These people..." Heard the apartheid regime using that expression quite a lot. Why am I not surprised that you resort to it? By the way, I agree with Jim that Ken has been bloody stupid. But over the decades he's been a good man who has occasionally resorted to stupidity. As I said, it can't be easy behaving like an angel when you have a hawkish and hostile media, Thatcher and Blair at your throat for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:12 PM

"Kitchener"
Only a spiteful moron can turn describing a crass bureaucratic General who was forced into tendering his resignation as "resigning", as I did, a lie.
Kitchener probably caused the death of many thousand troops by sending the wrong shells
It may have been a mistake on my part to have claimed he resigned (anybody who crassly kills his own men should have) but it is not a lie - errors are not deliberate lies - Jim

1: At no point at all in his time as Secretary of State for War was Kitchener ever forced by anybody to resign - Not opinion, simple, well documented FACT - To state otherwise is a deliberate lie even although it may have been stated by someone writing in ignorance.

2: In 1914 when the British went to war, they had the smallest Army of all the combatant powers. An army geared to fight a mobile war, it was that capability that saved the BEF as a fighting force throughout the latter part of 1914 and much of 1915. They only had "field artillery" and the one single arsenal in the British Isles at Woolwich made two types of shells for the artillery arm of the British Army High Explosive and Shrapnel, the production of the latter was greater than the former because that is what the Army said it wanted - NOT Kitchener - who held no direct Army Command during the course of the war. Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War to do two things:

(a) Raise Britain's first citizen Army - Which he did successfully - Britain ended the war with an army ten times the size it was in 1914.

(b) Put Britain on a full time war footing in order to keep Britain in the War and keep it's armed forces supplied with whatever they needed. It was Kitchener who did the spade work that Lloyd George later took the credit for.

3: As Kitchener did not directly Command any military formation in the field he can hardly be guilty of crassly killing anybody. Yes it was a mistake on your part to state that he had been forced to resign and it would have remained as a simple mistake had you acknowledged that and corrected what you said - You did neither. Instead you maintained the line that he had been forced to resign and that, in the light of the fact that your mistake had been brought to your attention is where your simple mistake becomes a deliberately told lie.

SABRA-SHATILA:
Your claims are based upon the unverified stories told by proven liars as part of a propaganda campaign. Your claim is that a mass burial site is located under the only sports stadium in the area. A site that was in ruins at the time of the massacre, there was no construction effort on the site at the time you allege the bodies were buried. The site subsequently was the scene of massive ground and construction works in 1997 and again in 2015 - NOT ONE SINGLE BODY OR ANY HUMAN REMAINS AT ALL WERE UNEARTHED AT THE SITE - Tells me that there was no mass grave as YOU claim - another myth, another lie that you cling to like a limpet to a rock.

Lebanese Army and the Red Cross recovered and buried the bodies of those killed at Sabra-Shatila in 1982, they did so under the gaze of the world's press, UN Observers, the Lebanese Government and a host of other international bodies. Those were the only bodies found and they came to nowhere near the 3,500 ESTIMATE that you claim and lay at the door of Israel. By the way Carroll any ESTIMATE is NOT A FACT. To present it as such is a deliberate lie.

"Only a smell-minded spitefully childish pratt turns mistakes which we all mistakes into lies"

Priceless Jim, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". Only an ignoramus persists in repeating something that has been comprehensively demonstrated as being untrue as you have done "Ad nauseam" and expects it to be believed. Repeat something that is known to be untrue Jim means that you are telling lies.

"Go come back with a genuine lie of mine - I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's if I were mindless enough to indulge in such crap."

There are two examples given above. Your boast -"I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's" - were that true Jim, old son, you would have done so already. For years Keith A has asked you to supply just one example and you have pointedly failed to do so spectacularly at each time of asking. I challenge you to do so now - and my bet is that no such example will be forthcoming all we will get will be some name calling, accusations of being every "....ist" in creation, accusations of being guilty of every "....ism" in the book, along with your usual empty bluster and bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:00 PM

You somehow missed the other definition of collaboration, Teribus.

Collaboration is the process of two or more people or organizations working together to realize or achieve something successfully.

I wonder why that is? Whether the Nazis were serious or not the Zionists worked with them in the hope of achieving something sucessfuly. Still doubt that? Maybe you need to look up the Haavara Agreement. As I say, I don't have a lot of time for Livingstone but to nail him for something he just ain't done will not do any good for anyone.

Keith, you seem to know a lot about this so how come you have not let us know just what antisemitic statement he did make?

DtG