BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:56 AM

Dave,
But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania.

It was Steve who said it was what everyone else thinks, not me.

He said, "We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times."

I probably have told him 50 times what everybody else thinks, and it is what I think too.

Jim,
as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah,

Both found guilty by the Labour Party!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:47 AM

"As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant."
What you are trying to say is you have no answer to my points
Why should the opinion of a bunch of raving self-exposed racists be any more relevant to that of anybody else - especially on the question of racism
If I weer Keith, I'd be crowing "I won", but I don't go in for that sort of thing
If my opinion Is of no interest, why address me with your racist filth
"Yo Jim:"
I've always believed all racists are thick, but you exceed my wildest expectations
IF IT IS ANTISEMITIC TO BLAME THE JEWS FOR THE ACTIONS OF A FEW CRIMINALS, IT IS EQUALLY RACIST TO BLAME OTHER NATIONAL FOR CULTURAL GROUPS FOR THE SAME THING
"Both found guilty by the Labour Party!"
Since when have politicians been the arbites of right and wrong, especially those with a vested interest in seizing power for a particular party line?
Neither Shah nor Livingstone are guilty of attacking the Jewish people therefore they are not antisemitic and until they do, that is the way it will remain.
Corbyn's actions on Livingstone was correct - he disciplined him for insensitive behaviour not antisemitism - he was right to do so.
Pickles makes an interesting point in his article - there is no longer a workable definition of antisemitism so Britain has had to make up her own.
A survey finds that a quarter of British people have admitted to holding racist views.
You've been given the facts of what percentage of British people hole genuine antisemitic views about Jewish people
Why on earth should the views of the politicians they elect to parliament on antisemitism be worth a tuppeny fart
The Labour party does not have a problem with antisemitism - there is no earthly reason why they should have
On the other hand, when the Tories were accused of islamophobia, they confirmed that accusation by electing a racist as foreign secretary - they have yet to hold an enquiry
Which twin uses Toni - as the old adverts used to ask?
You have no case - only unproven accusations - noting has changed while I have been away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:59 AM

Different language
Different morality
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM

Found guilty of what, Keith? Can YOU give me the PRECISE WORDS they used that caused them to found guilty, and of what - the precise charge, please? That would clear this up. Who found them guilty? What were their legal qualifications? Antisemitism is a serious charge. Have the police been involved? Or are you going to say that what the Labour Party say is good enough for you? The Labour Party that you've been smearing for a living for months? I dont smear the Labour Party and a lot of what it says isn't good enough for me, and I'm a paid-up member. You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 05:53 AM

"You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers"
Don't know about cherrypickers
They're a classic pair of lemons
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Who is "attacking" Travellers and Muslims Jim?

What points are you trying to make? The only points you seem to bother about are those created by your own distortions.

In the case of Travellers, when it comes to instances, arrests and convictions for unlawful detention, exploitation and slaving that particular group IS Massively over represented - Simple statement of FACT - no attack on Travellers in general, nothing said about ALL Travellers at all.

In the case of sexual exploitation gangs a certain culture - Note that JIM "CULTURE NOT RELIGION" - is over represented.

Shah denied the right of the existence of the internationally recognised state of Israel to exist - she acknowledged that, putting it down to her own ignorance and publicly apologised for doing so - What you think Carroll is of no consequence whatsoever.

Livingstone was found guilty of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute with his ludicrous and offensive comments related to Hitler and Zionism - he has been under suspension since Spring last year and unless he too acknowledges the error of his ways and retracts what he has said then he will remain under suspension for another year, because the NEC of the Labour Party are too gutless to expel him, too gutless to stand up to the hard left Hamas supporters who have taken over the Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM

Not that this pair would be in the slightest bit interested but this is an opinion offered by British Jews - but what do the Jews know if they don't back up th opinions of a pair of raving racists
Jessica Elgot
Thursday 30 March 2017 07.00 BST Last modified on Thursday 30 March 2017 07.01 BST

Ken Livingstone will appear before Labour's most senior body on Thursday, which will rule on whether he will be expelled from the party for comments he made linking Adolf Hitler to support for Zionism.

The former mayor of London, who has been suspended from the party for 11 months, said he would present evidence to the national constitutional committee (NCC) to back up his claims in a series of TV and radio interviews that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" before he "went mad".

In a statement before the hearing, Livingstone said he had not broken any Labour party rule and said he would blame expulsion on the political balance of the committee rather than his own conduct. His case will be presented by Michael Mansfield QC.

"I am being attacked by the right wing of the Labour party because I support Palestinian human rights and strongly back our leader, Jeremy Corbyn," he said. "There is no real evidence against me, so hopefully the Labour panel will dismiss the charge against me. Only a biased and rigged jury could find against me."

Labour's national executive committee has referred the case to the NCC, the only body that can expel members. The meeting will be conducted in a private hearing of the NCC panel, despite calls from Livingstone for it to be made public.

Advertisement

Mansfield, who has previously represented families of victims at the Bloody Sunday inquiry and advised Corbyn during the legal challenge to the party's leadership election in summer 2016, will present Livingstone's case. His solicitor is Imran Khan, who has represented the family of Stephen Lawrence.

In a letter setting out the case against Livingstone, Labour's general secretary, Iain McNicol, said the former mayor must answer the charge that his conduct was "grossly detrimental" to the party, also citing his defence of Facebook posts by Bradford West MP Naz Shah.

Shah apologised for the posts which she admitted were antisemitic, suggesting transporting Jews from Israel to the United States. However, McNicol said, Livingstone then went on air to defend her and claimed the posts were not antisemitic.

"It is widely accepted and obvious that Ms Shah's posts were antisemitic and offensive," McNicol wrote. "Indeed, as stated above, Ms Shah herself accepted that her comments were antisemitic. So, too, did the spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn MP."

McNicol said Livingstone's comments about Hitler and Zionism had come unprompted to BBC London's Vanessa Feltz. "You deliberately introduced Hitler's alleged support for Zionism into the discussion with Ms Feltz, in the knowledge that, or reckless as to whether, it would cause offence to members of the Jewish community," McNicol wrote.

Livingstone will also present five witness statements from Jewish Labour party members in his defence, all five of whom are involved in anti-Zionist and Palestinian rights activism.

LSE professor Jonathan Rosenhead, a proponent of a boycott of academic collaboration with Israeli universities, said Livingstone's comments were "not perhaps expressed as elegantly as they might have been" but said he
did not find them "to be in any way antisemitic or offensive".

"It would be a tragic mistake if the Labour party were to find Ken Livingstone guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the party," he went on.

Walter Wolfgang, a former member of Labour's NEC, said in his statement: "As a Jewish member of the Labour party, who escaped Nazi Germany in 1937, I take the issue of antisemitism extremely seriously. Ken Livingstone has an outstanding record of fighting against racism and antisemitism. This hearing into Ken's actions is a travesty."

Another witness, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, the founding member of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, said Livingstone was being "pilloried because he is a prominent figure on the left of the Labour party".

"Those who allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredit the term," she said. "His track record in public office is a clear testament to his commitment to supporting the Jewish community and fighting racism in all its forms, including antisemitism."

The committee will also hear evidence from the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, Jeremy Newmark, who will appear at the behest of Labour's NEC and will be cross-examined by Livingstone's team.

Newmark, who has also submitted written evidence, said he hoped the panel would be focused on the issue of disrepute, rather than Hitler and Zionism. "I hope the panel will keep the hearing consistent to the charge, rather than allow it to be a trial of history," he said.

"I've agreed to give evidence because it is clear that whatever debate there may be about the facts or whether Ken's statements were antisemitic, the question is whether he has brought the party into disrepute. And I know from the acres of press coverage and the response we get campaigning in Jewish areas, the remarks have been damaging."

After the decision is made, the NCC may not issue any public statement but there is little practically that the committee can do to stop it being made public by the accused.

The committee, which has 11 members, is made up of representatives from trade unions, constituency labour parties, councillors and a socialist societies affiliated with Labour.

There is no comprehensive public list of the members, but the committee includes long-serving Labour councillors and activists, most of whom have been in the party for many decades from all sides of Labour's political spectrum. Their identities are not widely publicised to avoid external pressure on decision-making.

The committee is currently chaired by Rose Burley, a councillor and Labour member for 52 years, who also presided over the expulsion of George Galloway. Three of them will be on the panel that decides Livingstone's fate and a decision should be made as soon as the hearing ends or the following day.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/ken-livingstone-to-appear-before-labour-body-in-expulsion-hearing

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:19 AM

John McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor),
"you(Livingstone) deployed it (Hitler statement) to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah,"

Justifying anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM

I see on the BBC News website that yet another catholic priest has been imprisoned for abusing a young boy.

Are Christians over-represented in these cases???

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:33 AM

"Sadiq Khan joined those condemning the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone from Labour and said there is no place for him in the party because his views were "anti-Semitic".
The Mayor of London said Labour has to "do more" after Mr Livingstone was handed a further year-long suspension, rather than expulsion, over his comments about Hitler and Zionism."
Khan, "And if we are going to be zero-tolerant towards racism, Ken Livingstone has got to go."

"More than 100 Labour MPs have signed an open letter stating the sanction imposed on Mr Livingstone was a "betrayal" of Labour values. 
The hard-hitting letter states: "We stand united in making it clear that we will not allow our party to be a home for anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism." "

"Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said she was "shocked" at the leniency of the sanction and told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The Jewish community are really upset, and quite rightly so."

Rayner, "I want to see the sanction to be zero tolerance(for anti-Semitism), and if that means that he is excluded from the party then that should be it."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-calls-for-ken-livingstone-to-be-ousted-from-labour-over-antisemitic-views-a3509091.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:42 AM

"Mr Corbyn, a longstanding ally of the former London mayor, said: "Ken Livingstone's comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community.
"Labour's independently elected National Constitutional Committee has found Ken guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and suspended him for two years.
"It is deeply disappointing that, despite his long record of standing up to racism, Ken has failed to acknowledge or apologise for the hurt he has caused. Many people are understandably upset that he has continued to make offensive remarks which could open him to further disciplinary action."

"Labour deputy leader Tom Watson said it was "incomprehensible" Mr Livingstone had not been expelled, while former leader Ed Miliband said he was "appalled" at the lack of remorse being shown.
Mr Watson said the ex-London mayor's behaviour "discredits the party I love... I am ashamed that we have allowed Mr Livingstone to cause such distress. This shames us all, and I'm deeply saddened by it."
Shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, who led an inquiry into claims of anti-Semitism in Labour, said she was "horrified" by the way Mr Livingstone had behaved"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39499640

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:02 AM

""Labour deputy leader Tom Watson"
Who is a prove dishonest politician, an opponent of BDS, an opponent of Corbyn and chairman of Labour's Friends of Israel
An unbiased opinion, if ever I saw one!!!
Opinions from an in-fighting party group are not worth a fart in a thuderstorm if they are not backed with facts
Certainly the opinions of a pair of raving racist idiots like you pair of Laurel and Hardys who refuse to respond to given facts yet continue to scrabble around for meaningless quotes are worth even less
You choose to put up a load of non Jewish opinions in opposition to stated Jewish support for Livingstone - I reckon that confirms your antisemitism based on your own arguments - but we didn't need confirmation
Fuck unqualifies opinions of self-interested politicians - including crooks pKeith - where are your actual examples of Labour Party members denigrating the Jewish People?
You have yet to produce a single one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:03 AM

I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party as long as Corbyn ("our friends Hamas and Hezbollah") is leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:53 AM

"I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party"
And I can't see anybody in their right mind believing somebody guilty of anything unless the accusations are substanbtiated
People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable Bobad - that is your contribution to the welfare of the Jewish peole
Hope you are proud
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:18 AM

People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable

Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:30 AM

"Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it."
A getout for those who blame the Jewish people for the Crimes of Israel Bobad
You have never at any time been able to produce a single person who has attacked the Jewish people, yet you do constantly yourself for calling those who criticise Israel "Jew haters
You are making atrocities carried out by israel "Jewish" - you are by definition antisemitic
You are the leading antisemitism on this forum - accept that title with pride
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:31 AM

Just been listening to some very moving interviews with Israeli soldiers on a programme on Israel around Easter on Irish radio
One described methods of torture they are now told to use on detainees, such as DRYING OUT
He said many young soldiersare protesting at the methods they are told to use and are being put on report for doing so.
He described how farmers had to travel miles to get through checkpoints to get to their land on the other side of the wall

He told how soldiers close checkpoints when it takes their fancy and how one elderly farmer with his you7ng grandson passed out from the intense heat while waiting for the gate to be reopened - he sto soldiers danced in fromt of them as a n effort ton humiliate them while a third filmed them on hos mobile phone.
He ended his statement with obvious difficulty by saying, "in a few days time the world is honouring the man who died on the cross just a few miles from here - what kind of honouring is that?"
A "self-hating Jew", no doubt!
Great human beings eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:42 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:02 AM

I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. These murderers are celebrated as heroes and given a lifelong stipend that rivals what teachers earn which tells us a lot about where their values lie. In 2016 $137.8 million, about 10% of their annual budget when to rewarding the murderers of Jews. Nice to know that your government's aid monies are being used in this way, isn't it?

Great human beings eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:57 AM

"I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. "
Go count the number and compare them - p
Go count the land that has been stolen
Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians
One lot of killing does not wipe out another and only an inhuman little shit woulf claim otherwise.
Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal
You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people
Wear your badge with pride
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 12:38 PM

What kind of scum defend the actions ooof soldiers as just described?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM

For Jim,
John McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor),
"you(Livingstone) deployed it (Hitler statement) to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah,"

Justifying anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic Jim.

Is he a friend of Israel?

Or Diane Abbott?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM

"Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal
You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people" - Jim

Care to elucidate Jim and give us some details about this programme where "The Voice of the Jewish People" came out with these pronouncements? Who is "The Voice of the Jewish People"? And how was he or she elected to the position?

I do know that all members of the Israeli Government are elected by the electorate of Israel (Mostly made up of "Jewish People" Jim), and that those elections are held regularly which is more than can be said for the other inhabitants of the former mandated territory of Palestine (I think they last had an election about 12 years ago).

How many Egyptians have the Israelis killed in the last 38 years Jim?
How many Jordanians have the Israelis killed in the last 23 years Jim?

In both cases Jim the answer is none - the reason for that is they stopped trying to kill Israelis, they also stopped threatening the state of Israel, so Israel no longer had to fight them.

Now if your pal Jeremy Corbyn's pals in Hamas and Hezbollah tried the same approach then the people of Palestine might find their general lot in life improving - it won't happen of course as the "leaders" of the "Palestinian people" are not interested in any peace in which a state of Israel exists. As long as Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israelis, Israelis will exercise their right to defend themselves. The fact that the Israelis are more effective than their attackers does not mean that they must exercise more restraint - there is no equivalence when you are fighting for your very existence - Or should they all move to the US mid-West Shaw? Oh but wait a minute to suggest such a thing would be to deny Israel's right to exist and that is anti-Semitic. I know somebody who made that suggestion Shaw and so do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 PM

Well 8 hours have now elapsed since I posted about a catholic priest had been jailed for abusing a young boy.

Not one of the people who attempt to castigate the travelling community or the Asian community for perceived ills has deemed to respond.

Quelle surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:26 PM

Perhaps Raggy if you'd like to explain the basis for comparison it might help. You won't do that because you know you are doing a "Gnome" and comparing apples to oranges. Castigating Travellers and the Asian community??

So Raggy how many young boys have been abused in the UK since say 2004?
How many have been abused by Catholic Priests?
Does the "brand" of the religion have any significance?
Population of the UK is some 65 million, how many of them describe themselves as Christian? How many of them are Roman Catholic?
How many have been abused by others who could not be described as Priests, Roman Catholics, or Christians of any other denomination?

You see for you to make your statement you'd have to have all that information at your fingertips.

Now for the life of me I know nobody from any other section, or group in the UK that I can recall kept dozens, possibly hundreds, of people in inhumane and degrading conditions and exploited them working them like slaves for periods of up to a quarter of a century and milking them for every penny that could be squeezed out of them. Can YOU?

Same goes for the gang grooming, rape and sexual trafficking of vulnerable under-aged girls. In 12 cities in England the common denominator that linked the members of these gangs was what Raggy? Don't be shy in responding, influential members of their own communities felt compelled to commented on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:49 PM

Go count the land that has been stolen

No land has been stolen - that is a typical anti-Semitic trope.

Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians

Gaza is under a legal blockade against the importation, by their terrorist government of weaponry whose aim is to kill Israeli civilians. You will note that when Israel gifted Gaza to the "Palestinians" no blockade was in effect, it was established in response to missiles being launched against civilians by the terrorist government Hamas. No missiles = no blockade, it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:59 PM

So we're agreed then, Keith 'n' Teribus. No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:40 PM

No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

Right, they were suspended from the party, made to recant and apologize, reprimanded and vilified all because they were not guilty of anti-Semitism right Shaw, just like those Nazis who were only aiding the Jews in their project to relocate them to their ancestral homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 03:14 AM

OH JOY

Now just dying to hear "the cultural reason" why the good people of Oxford have to pay for clearing this mess up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM

Steve,
So we're agreed then, Keith 'n' Teribus. No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

No!
Shah was.
Livingstone's anti-Semitism is what "brought the Labour Party into disrepute."
Then there are the dozens of suspensions.
No other party has these problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 04:04 AM

So no condemnation of the individual in this case or a condemnation of the case I mentioned a few weeks back.

No surprise really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 04:26 AM

"OH JOY "
You people really are something else
You bust a gut demanding that we adhere to a law on antisemitism that has been invented by politicians to protect a terrorist state, yet on the other hand mount your own racist attacks on communities that don't suit your own bigoted tastes "rape implanted Muslims", "brainwashed Irish children", "slave-owning Travellers" - and now the oldest one in the book FLY-TIPPING.
For crying out loud have you no imagination beyond dredging the scummy bum-wipe press for racial smears?
It seems to happen every time another of your claims goes down in flames.
Fly- tipping in Britain is a common practice both by Travellers and the settle community in Britain - there are literally hundreds of shady London businesses which offer to dispose of your unwanted rubbish, take it away and illegally dump it.
A few were run by Travellers when the law allowed them to stop for a few weeks before moving them on but there are few left around to do that now - that is the case in most big cities - Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester
Travellers are highlighted because they are an easy target.
We had dealings for a time with a Travellers organisation in Wordsworth who had a solicitor working on their behalf (voluntarily)
Locals had complained about the rubbish that accumulated around the site and it was found that the bulk of it (old furniture and fridges mainly) had been dumped by locals who had taken the opportunity to dupm their unwanted rubbish on the Travellers site
The incident was fully covered and exposed by the local press, thanks to an enlightened editor.
Travellers accumulate rubbish naturally, as we all do, because many local firms refuse to handle it as they handle settled rubbish.
Waste disposal is a massive HUMAN problem - not a Travellers one.
NOT A TRAVELLER IN SIGHT
"SOME BLAME TRAVELLERS" SCAPEGOATING
And you racist scumbags try to lay the law down on Ansisemitism - what are you on!!!
Keith
Neither Livingstone or Shah were guilty of Antisemitism - neither attacked the Jewish people and no definition other than attacks on Jews is valid (as Eric Pickles pointed out)
Livingstone may have been insensitive and stupid when he reminded us of the historical facts surrounding THE ZIONISTS - NOT THE JEWISH PEOPLE and the Nazis, but that is not being antisemitic.
Einstein made the same points, groups like 'THE REAL TORAH' have it as part of their policy....
Many other Jews have taking it far further by suggesting that Zionism not only co-operated with the Nazis, (some say, to save Jewish lives, a did the Catholic Church in Italy), but are echoing Nazi policies in their behaviour towards the Palestinians.
Shah may have been stupid - but again, she did not attack the Jews.
She took a suggestion made by Jewish intellectual, Norman Finklestein and offered it as a solution to the current deadlock
The bum-wipe press where fully aware of this when they claimed she invented the solution - they even used Finklestein's map to smear Shah.
AS hard as you try, you will never make a case until you produce attacks on Jews - Israel isn't The Jewish People, Zionism is a political philosophy - it isn't The Jewish People.
It seems your "serious problem of antisemitism within the Labourt Party has narrowed down to two doubtfuls out of - how many members?
Yep - as serious as that!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:31 AM

My questions remain unanswered. A lot of fudging and a lot of skirting around, as expected.

Now, Teribus. Antisemitism crimes in this country are covered by the Public Order Act 1986. There is no new law based on your sacred definition. The government has formally adopted that definition. It has not "become law." Doubtless it will be used to determine whether an offence has been committed under the Act. Doubtless there will be few or no cases relating to criticism of Israel. Why not? Because the definition is unworkable. It has been adopted as a sop to pro-Israel pressure groups in order to keep them quiet at last. I remind you again that the definition is virtually identical to the 2005 EUMC definition that was dismissed as unworkable. That definition was drawn up by a body, soon to become defunct, that was "advised" almost exclusively by pro-Israel lobby groups. One fine day you'll see that the definition is actually injurious to Jewish people. If you discriminate against or attack Jews because they are Jewish, you are being antisemitic. Easy to define, easy to apply, a good definition for protecting Jewish people. The rest is politics and you know where that gets us.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

The interesting thing, Steve, is that the figures are available here. You know, that survey that Teribus seems to think I am using to compare apples and oranges. It makes for interesting reading in that there is a right wing neo-nazi theme seems to run though those prosecuted. It does not say whether any of them were Labour supporters but it becomes apparent that it is unlikely :-)

Not sure if we will get any response from Keith today with it being Good Friday and all that. Shouldn't good Christians use it as a day of reflection and, maybe, abstinence from usual activities? We are going for the traditional catholic food for tea and having salmon. To show that I am no longer frightened of the priest I am having Polish ham sandwiches for lunch though. Oh, and I am working as well. Nice to be in when the office and roads are so quiet. Will get time off at a more convenient time.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:54 AM

"OH JOY "
Forgot to thank you
Your sickening glee when you thought you had find yet another stick to beat yet another ethnic group confirms what a small minded goose-stepper you are - you and your "Christian" mate
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

It was soon to become defunct by 2005 is what I meant. It's long gone. Lunch at a very nice farm shop cafe at Boscastle for us then a stroll by the sea. The downside is that I'm paying for eight of us.😳

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:14 AM

Jim,
Neither Livingstone or Shah were guilty of Antisemitism

McDonnell says they both are.
Why would he lie?

Almost half of Labour's 229 MPs have signed an open letter warning that the decision not to expel Mr Livingstone over his comments is a "betrayal" of the party's values.
A total of 107 MPs, along with 48 Labour peers, put their name to the Jewish Labour Movement statement criticising the move to only hand Mr Livingstone an additional one-year suspension.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said in one TV interview(Andrew Marr)that the former London Mayor should be thrown out for offensive comments he made about Hitler and Zionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:15 AM

{{{Shudder}}}

You shouldn't say things like 'paying for eight of us' to a trainee Yorkshireman!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:39 AM

McDonnell says they both are. says they both are."
Is he the old McDonnel who had a farm - orwas that MacDonald
Both are equally qualified or otherwise to pronounce on what is or is not "antisemitism"
Quote away Keith - until you substantiate that either of the accused attacked the Jewish people, and util you are able to provide evidence you have no case - not even if Corbyn had wrung his hands and said they were guilty
Fortunately he is far too decent an individual to scapegoat innocent people "for the good of the party" (as you accused the Jewish members of doing)
Boris Johnson apologised for his racist remarks yet you pair of right-wing tossers said he wasn't a racist
It appears you believe the politicians you want to and reject those that don't suit your right-wing agenda.
Conviction without evidence based on accusation alone is lynch-law, not justice.
Go look up the legal necessities of proving somebody guilty - then you can go to your arm-raising rallies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 07:27 AM

"Emily Thornberry "
For the record, Emily Thornberry is a right wing opponent of Corbyn- a snob who tweeted photographs of a 'white van' parked in the street as part of her Rochester election campaign, a liar who claimed her relatives to have held military positions they did not hold and a politician found to be totally ignorant of contemporary politics.
She was accused of being a hypocrite for her behaviour on private education for her own children.
She joins your growing list of reliable (not) accusers - somebody you would not buy a used car from
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:32 AM

Talking of good Friday this tickled my fancy :-)

Jesus died to give us two bank holidays

Also brought to mind an odd situation back before licensing hours relaxation. We used to do the pace egg play every good Friday at the Lancaster Maritime Festival. Pubs used to shut about 2 I think coz it was Sunday hours. Then, lo and behold, through the blessed lord's intervention they relaxed pub hours on a Sunday as an experiment:-) It must have worked because they then extended it to all days. Well, it either worked or they never saw us suffering from the effects of the Pusser's Rum promotion.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:14 AM

Jim,
For the record, Emily Thornberry is a...

So what?
She is a prominent party member and knows much more about what is going on than you do.
Likewise the Deputy Leader, elected by the membership, whose views and knowledge you also try to dismiss.
Likewise Mcdonnell, who did not have a farm but who is Corbyn's closest ally and Shadow Chancellor.

They and all those Labour MPs think Livingstone should be expelled for supporting anti-Semitism expressed by Shah.
I think that their views are worth reporting on this.
Your dismissing of them shows how isolated and out of touch you all are.
Likewise your denial of anti-Semitism that is clear to all them and everyone else.
Who can you quote?(ha ha ha)
Just each other!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:18 AM

Ever seen my impression of Jesus on a rubber cross?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM

Dave, I enjoyed your piece mocking the core beliefs of Christianity.
Ha ha ha.

Perhaps you have some similar pieces on other religions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:28 AM

She is a prominent party member and knows much more about what is going on than you do.
Sh i a right-winger trying to rid the Labour Party of Corbyn and is using unfounded claims of antisemitism - pretty much the same as the rest of them are.
Career politicians, even the ones who tend to share his views, regard him as a liability - a threat to their careers.
AS far as the members is concerned, Corbyn is probably the most popular leader it has had in my lifetime - under his leadership. Labour has beme one of the largest in Europe - you never get that from the shits you keep putting up.
Whatever the Parliamentary careerists say publicly (the only views that reach the media) the membership is saying something different.
When will you get in into your extremist head that, until you substantiate these accusations they have no basis as far as antisemitism goes
I suspect you know this as you refuse to respond to the facts surrounding what both Livingstone and Shah said - neither attacked the Jews, both were reactions to Israel's war crimes and atrocities.   
As you are an enthusiastic supporter of these, you are never likely to face that fact head on.
Please, stop being boring and stop putting up opinions of people who have a vested interest in getting rid of Corbyn
ONE MORE TIME - NO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ACCUSATIONS - NO CASE TO ANSWER - BOTH COMMON SENSE AND NATURAL JUSTICE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:34 AM

Ken Livingstone's suspension issue has nothing to do with Naz Shah. It's about his saying that Hitler supported Zionism. Go and have a lie down, Keith. When you get up, tell us what YOU think either of them said that was antisemitic.

The lunch was lovely. Good value and fabulous grub. The fiscal damage was less than anticipated!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:36 AM

I have some for every occasion but I suspect that if I tried any other religion you would accuse me of antisomethingophobia. Nice try but no prize.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 01:03 PM

Jim,
ONE MORE TIME - NO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ACCUSATIONS - NO CASE TO ANSWER

The Labour Party disagrees with you.
Can you find anyone who does Jim, or are you isolated and alone in your views?

Steve,
Ken Livingstone's suspension issue has nothing to do with Naz Shah. It's about his saying that Hitler supported Zionism.

Nonsense Steve. Discussing Hitler's antics in the early thirties would hardly bring the Party into disrepute!

As McDonnell said, "This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that you(Livingstone) 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."

Dave, so singling out Christianity for ridicule on the most sombre day in the Christian calendar is OK, but not any other faith or you might be accused of prejudice!
That is milder persecution than Christians endure in say the Middle East and Pakistan, but persecution none the less.

A different morality indeed Dave.
Yours is shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM

"The Labour Party disagrees with you."!
When did they tell you that Keith
Please explain in as many words as ncessary how anybosyt can be found guilty of anything withhout it being specified
Otherwise, please stop being so mindbogglingly stupid
Apart from a lynching, can you please give a case where somebody has been ben punished for something unspecified (outside the pages of Franz Kafka)
You must be totally insane to make such a stupid suggestion
You have been given what is happening in The Labour Party - over and over again
The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge it makes it obvious that you have failed to "win" something, you have now resorted to your habit of lying
You have the arguments - where are yours
Stupid, stupid little obsessed man
No charges - no case to answer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:12 PM

But this is what you said:

"They and all those Labour MPs think Livingstone should be expelled for supporting anti-Semitism expressed by Shah."

They think Livingstone should be expelled for his comments about Hitler and Zionism, not Naz Shah's remark. What's the matter with you, Keith?