BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:46 PM

Dave,

OK - So we have no idea how many people were asked or when and where it was taken so we do not know if the poll is actually a significant representation

No, but Parliament will know all of that and Parliament considered it a reliable source of information.
They had no reason to doubt its reliability. What reasons do you have?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:35 PM

Steve,
"with an identical political stance"
Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

Opening sentence of "Observer" Wiki page, which Observer will have written,
"The Observer is a British newspaper, published on Sundays. In the same place on the political spectrum as its sister papers The Guardian and The Guardian Weekly"

Up your "big fat bottom" I think Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:30 PM

Considering your dishonesty before the rule change, I would suggest that you are the last person on earth to call anyone else a liar, bobad. I may make mistakes, Teribus, but I don't tell lies. I don't see the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
your sole argument that they are not common because "I've never seen one" is as mindless as it gets,

Nor has anyone else except you Jim!
How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:07 PM

I expcted on troll to back another
As I said to him - prove it
I don't tell lies - you people are such eejits that I don;t have to
A least I don't dredge up filth from fascist sites like The Whitte Supremist then deny having done it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:51 PM

Prove it

He has, many times, do keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:26 PM

"Three people on this forum have proven themselves to be liars:"
Prove it - and didn't you miss the supreme one - your friend Keith
You don't overburden yourself with accuracy either with your edited and unlinked cut-'n-pastes.
You are trolling with the best of them now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 12:38 PM

"Beyond the unwashed public's private and personal opinions of ......... (Whatever)

There you go Donuel - that is the attitude of the "liberal" Democrat elite that won Donald J Trump the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Three people on this forum have proven themselves to be liars:

1: Yourself
2: Steve Shaw
3: Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 11:19 AM

"87% responded that they thought the Labour Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;"
Given the massive campaign instigated by the people opposing BDS, it's surprising that the percentage isn't higher
The gutter press must be losing its edge
That same survey also finds that 45% of British people believe at least one stereotype of Jewish people is true, one in four believe two stereotypes and 17% believe three stereotypes.
2015 saw the largest rise in antisemitic crime recorded ever recorded in Britain with a rise of 26% in antisemitic crime and 51% leap in violence against Jews
It would be totally stupid to ignore the fact that this rise coincides with the massacres that were being reported from Gaza nightly on on our television screens.
There can be no other reason for that rise.
Implicating the Jewish people as a whole in Israeli war crimes is bound to have a detrimental effect on the safety and well-being of the Jewish people as a whole.
If you believe it to be antisemitic to criticise Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians, then equally, you must believe it is the Jewish people who are responsible for Gaza.
Just like "love and marriage", as the song says, you can't have one without the other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 11:05 AM

Based on a brief overview it seems to me that Steve is taking the high ground to the annoyance of a few.

Beyond the unwashed public's private and personal opinions of Semitism or Anti Semitism there is an issue that involves the most forbidden subject in the US. It is Top Secret and Israel fucked it all up. Back then it was codenamed Olympic games. It has gone further in operation nitro zeus. It is about cyber war with Iran. That war is currently held at bay in part due to the American Iranian Deal.

The Obama Netanyahu feud was about stuxnet betrayal and not merely settlements.

If you are uneducated to these realities, and I don't blame you, but I would refer you to the film 'Zero Days' for deeper view of the issues at hand that we are forbidden to discuss in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:29 AM

So, did the poll conclude that antisemitism was more prevalent in the Labour party than anywhere else?

You are just not getting into the swing of this Blackpool tower business are you? It was you that first mentioned the photograph -

By the way Gnome the incident you mention might have been that time in the summer of '75, I could send you a glossy 10x8 of it if you like.

So, you say you could send me a photograph and I play along with that. You then deny there was one! How could you? :-( Some will be bitterly disappointed.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:16 AM

About normal for most polls Gnome.

Why would you lie about an none-existent photograph?

What makes you think it was timed to coincide with anything?

IIRC Corbyn was elected in May 2015 the CAA report into anti-Semitism wasn't published until October 2015. When was it that the Co-Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club resigned again and what events led to that resignation would have naturally preceded the resignation. That resignation prompted the Royall Enquiry into the OULC, which in turn led to the Chakrabarti Enquiry into the Labour Party. Irrespective it would appear that the CAA poll was spot on the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:55 AM

Ahhhh. OK. Just short of 2000 people then. Not a significant sample. Wonder how they were picked? I also wonder about something. Mainly why it was timed to coincide with Corbyn's leadership. Still, may or may not have a bearing. What does have a bearing, and I note that you do not address the issue, is that the question posed does not ask whether there is antisemitism. Funny thing that.

What do you mean no one showed anything off Blackpool tower? The photo you promised arrived the other day and it does seem to be you. You mean it was not? Why would you lie about something like that? I have now forwarded it to ake seeing as he seems to have a fetish about such things.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:46 AM

Your poll of course is nonsense as the truth is that nobody showed anything off Blackpool Tower and we both know that.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism did however conduct a poll asking people - "Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?"

The result (Of a real poll Gnome) was that:

- 87% responded that they thought the Labour Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 49% thought the Green Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 43% thought UKIP were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 40% thought the SNP were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 37% thought the Liberal Democrats were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 13% thought the Conservative Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour.

Wonder what it was that made those polled think that? The poll sample by the way was 1,864, their campaign started in 2015, same year as Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:43 AM

"But you sure like reading and responding to the nothing I have to say, so what that tell us about you........lol."

Well I have the good manners to read your links and respond to them. In the last few days you've done little except make unhappy sniping little remarks. Join the Iains-and-Teribus club, neither of whom seem able to post without including an insult or two. It makes you look incredibly foolish, which saves the rest of us a job I suppose!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:34 AM

"THE" Steve Shaw, eh? I like it! Usually get called THAT Steve Shaw!

You won't annoy me, Teribus, ever. In fact, you may have started a trend. If the Observer (obvious, accepted and universally-recognised name) can become the Sunday Guardian (millions of people now scratching their heads in puzzlement), then maybe I'll start telling people that I live in Dumnonia. How are things up there in Deira, Dave? Fings ain't wot they used to be like in Aelfwine's time, eh?!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:00 AM

OK - So we have no idea how many people were asked or when and where it was taken so we do not know if the poll is actually a significant representation. But let us leave that for now and move on to the question.

"Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?"

This does not ask if the parties in question are more or less antisemitic that any others. So it in no way negates my point that the Labour party is not likely to be any more antisemitic than any others.

However, seeing as it is now acceptable to quote surveys without looking at how they were taken or whether the sample is representative I need to report the results of a recent survey taken about Mudcat posters. The question asked was "Who is most likely to show his arse off Blackpool tower?" the results were

- 87% responded affirmatively to Teribus
- 49% for Ake
- 43% for Iains
- 40% for the Bobad
- 37% for the Keith A
- 13% for the Steve Shaw

Who would have thought it, eh? I don't know how it was arrived at but the Mudcat (very) select committee anti-arse showing accepted so it must be true.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:44 AM

Shaw: You never have anything to say.

But you sure like reading and responding to the nothing I have to say, so what that tell us about you........lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM

"You quote the results of a poll and are not prepared to let us know how the results were arrived at and you are not prepared to comment on the question that was asked?" - The Gnome

As I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the poll in question I haven't got the foggiest notion how the results were arrived at - you prat. The "Campaign Against Anti-Semitism conducted the poll so maybe you should direct your questions to them. The Commons Select Committee obviously seemed to think the poll and it's results valid enough to quote them in their report to the House of Commons - good enough for me.

The question asked on the other hand was simple enough to understand to anyone with even basic English comprehension skills.

On the "Sunday Guardian" thing. As the Observer occupies the same political stance each Sunday as the Guardian does throughout the rest of the week, then "Sunday Guardian" seems to me to be an accurate and a very good way of describing the Observer - so good and so accurate in fact that I think I will adopt it just to annoy Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM

I can only seem to get into to Mudcat on my iPhone this morning, hence the typos. I'm going boggle eyed here!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:45 AM

Well I'm on the same place on the political spectrum of loads of other lefties but I don't have an identical stance to any of 'em because I think for myself and have an independent mind and a separate brain and a different vocabulary and my own style. This is a load of fluff from three of you to cover up for the fact that bobad is ignorant about the two newspapers. Monday to Saturday, Guardian. Sunday, Observer. Different title, different editor, different style, different typeface, different journalists, differ t sections, no G2, different columnists, distinct and proudly so and always has been. There is no Sunday Guardian. He simply didn't check (so what's new?) Easy-peasy!

And don't be so bloody rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM

"with an identical political stance"

Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

From the Observer/guardian website:-
Latest Observer news, comment and analysis from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice.
or from Wiki.:-
The Observer is a British newspaper, published on Sundays. In the same place on the political spectrum as its sister paper The Guardian.
Talking rubbish as usual Shaw.
If their own website recognizes no distinction between the two, other than title then you are just waffling on as usual.
Try and do a little homework!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:57 AM

Your whole post is unfocused nonsense, Teribus. Just a load of vague having-a-go.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:53 AM

Teribus - That doesn't surprise me in the slightest Gnome. Fortunately the House of Commons Select committee on Anti-Semitism did understand it and accepted the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism results as being representative

That is probably the worst example of a non-answer I have ever seen. You quote the results of a poll and are not prepared to let us know how the results were arrived at and you are not prepared to comment on the question that was asked?

Says a whole lot about how much you trust the poll itself. But that is par for the course. Until such a time as you are prepared to come back with a sensible answer I think we can safely ignore your nonsense.

You seem to have slipped back into old ways I'm afraid. You really need to work on your humour a bit more. I know it is difficult for a cantankerous old git but, honestly, it will be worth it in the end.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

"with an identical political stance"

Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:09 AM

"I do not confirm your lies about the ancient stuff."
But you constantly deny having said it, then, when you are presented wuith it, you go on to defend it, as you have just done with the Traveller signs and you have a doen times with your "Muslim implant" theory and many, many other topics, which confirms your dishonesty - quite enough for me.
Claiming Traveller signs are not commen then refusing to respond to the information that says they are is as dishonest as it gets and your sole argument that they are not common because "I've never seen one" is as mindless as it gets, as is persitently calling me a liar
Another mindless trait is persistently demanding answers to questions that have been answered over and over again - it is one on the common symptoms of senility.
Nothing new has emerged about Labour this week.
Those who wish to remove Corbyn because he is a Socialist and they are not and are more concerned with winning elections than actually introducing changes that will benefit the people of Britain - the Left versus the right within the Party is nothing new and until you are prepared to address what is going on, you are a waste of space in any discussion.
You keep producing statements by people who suit your particular nasty right-wing agenda and refuse to discuss them in depth.
You did so over your hopelessly failed "antisemitism" campaign and again and again dragged up statements by right-wing opponents who are trying to expunge anybody with decent socialist principles, either that, or you quote 'Friends of Israel' obeying the 'Their Master's Voice' call in order to get BDS removed from party policy
Responding to facile quotes from these people would be as meaningless as your putting them up.
All these matters can be dealt with by your responding to the overall facts of the situation - certainly not wasting time be dealing with individual quotes from one side of an internal party squabble.
Here's a point for you to respond to (or not, as I am sure the case with be)
These people opposing Corbyn at present are attempting an undemocratic internal coup in the Labour Party.
Corbyn has been elected twice, both times with overwhelming majorities, on a socialist programme.
Those trying to overthrow him are doing so in defiance of the majority of Labour Party members
They are an elected elite defying the democratic decision of the rank-and-file.
How democratic is that?
Britain needs a Labour Party which is a poor shadow of Tory politics like a fish needs a bicycle.
You want to discuss that - fine - we have a common ground of interest
You don't - piss of - I might as well argue with Norman Tebbitt, Nigel Farrago or Nick Griffin - there's little difference in what you are all saying
STILL NO IMPLANT QUOTE - YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THAT ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:42 AM

"I don't understand that poll. Who was polled? How many? When was the poll taken? Once again, these are questions that we need the answers too before the figures can be taken seriously." - the Gnome

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest Gnome. Fortunately the House of Commons Select committee on Anti-Semitism did understand it and accepted the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism results as being representative. But not to worry it serves if it gives you the head of another pin to dance on.

Shaw:
As far as me "supposedly" keeping my head down - I only ever post if I am responding to something that someone has said (You and the gang have had absolutely nothing of any importance to say for days now) or if I wish to make an observation of my own which I did on 20 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM when I summarised that every single contention that you and your pals have been posted to this thread (And that covers a myriad of subjects as you have dodged, deflected and diverted through this thread) have been challenged and shown to be false.

Carroll:
STILL cannot come up with one single post from Keith A that proves the latter a liar or someone who distorts the words of others. Wonder if Jom believes that anyone actually reads, or takes his posts seriously any more? But while we are on the subject of Travellers Jom - what are your views on modern day slavery as practiced in Traveller culture? (That should get him frothing for a bit

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:27 AM

Steve,
Confusing the Observer and the Guardian does not make a non-Brit "out of touch."
They are "sister" papers with an identical political stance and share a news website so no-one abroad can tell the difference.
You would have to get a calendar to check if the date was a Sunday!

It was just a desperate ruse by you to discredit a perfectly legitimate post from Bobad.

Now, this week Labour is all over the news again and not in a good way.
There is much to discuss.

1600 anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:20 AM

Jim,
Ancient stuff you confirm is still your belief when I raise it - as with the Traveller signs.

I do not confirm your lies about the ancient stuff.
You stated that I defend "no travellers" signs which was a blatant lie.
I do not, but you are wrong to claim they are "common throughout Britain."

JUST YESTERDAY you posted,
"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously.

If I distorted those Labour people (in this thread or its predecessor, not long forgotten ones) THEN QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!

I SAY YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS JUST ANOTHER JIM LIE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:42 PM

You are the archetypal dullard, boobs. You never have anything to say. Review your last few days' posts. I have. No comment, no viewpoint, just bitter, sniping aggression. You are a very unhappy person, clearly. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:36 PM

There are six hundred thousand of us.

Six hundred thousand anti-Semites, that sounds about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:20 PM

Give it a rest, boobs. You're clutching at straws. There are six hundred thousand of us. You have approximately 59,999,987 to go. Stay busy! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:20 PM

It looks like the Labour party got rid of one more anti-Semite:

Former Black Notley Parish Council leader John Clarke was criticised after endorsing a social media post which said "The Rothschild family has used money lending and Israel to "take over the world". He said the post was an "oversimflified view of the world economy but containing a great deal of truth".

He was suspended last month and was then referred by the NEC's disputes panel to the national constitutional committee last Tuesday. Within hours of the decision, he annoounced he was leaving Labour, though his current Twitter bio suggests he was "purged".

Under the party's rules, when any member resigns under suspension it is automatically treated as an expulsion and they cannot be admitted for at least five years.

Jewish News

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:09 PM

Experimentation is the name of the game!

Got the hole in my drive more or less sorted at last, so came in knackered at six o'clock. Had cold meat and veg but needed an effortless spud recipe. Then I remembered the Mediterranean roast spuds. So easy! Scrub some salad potatoes. Cut into half-inch chunks, unpeeled. Get a baking tray and toss the spuds with EV olive oil, salt, pepper and a few little sprigs of rosemary. Put into a very hot oven. After ten minutes, chuck in some unpeeled garlic cloves, as many as you like. You can squidge a couple up first if you like. Give them another 25-30 minutes. Sorted!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 05:52 PM

N'e mind eh, Steve. First day of spring today. Maybe it is spring madness or something? Can we get back on to sensible stuff? We had Polish kutleti for tea and seeing as the Mrs was out I did the sauce. Looked what we had in the fridge and combined some of your ideas into a strange fusion. Did some chopped celery and carrot in olive oil. Has a tub of cherry tomatoes that were best before the 4th of March so they got chopped up and put in. Bit of mild chilli powder (the Mrs didn't even notice) various other bits and a glass of really crap British red wine (don't ask). I simmered it for a while and then zzzzzd it with a blender. Poured it over the kutleti that I had previously fried in a little olive oil and served it on some Polish pasta cabbage parcel thingies. Bit like east European ravioli. I shall call the principle Politalian. Must say it went down quite well and I am still alive so it must have been OK.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 05:28 PM

Jim 'n' Dave, this thread has descended into comedic madness. You could scarcely believe that these two near-lunatics could be stupid enough to carry on the way they do. Even Teribus is keeping his head down, sensible chap. I'm beginning to question my own sanity this end.


"Sunday Guardian." Bwahahaha! Omigod, and the corset shop's closed until tomorrow!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 03:59 PM

"No Jim, do not try and pretend this is more ancient stuff."
Ancient stuff you confirm is still your belief when I raise it - as with the Traveller signs.
I told you you wouldn't link it - you lied
You asked for examples of your lying - I've just linked you to an earlier post and you set up a smokescreen
You lied - again
Don't ask for examples if you don't want them
Now - that link to thoe prominent people who told you muslims were implanted to rape children
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM

No Jim, do not try and pretend this is more ancient stuff.

EARLIER TODAY you posted,
"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously.

If I distorted those Labour people (in this thread or its predecessor, not long forgotten ones) THEN QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!

I SAY YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS JUST TODAY'S JIM LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 01:38 PM

"QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!!"
I have - interminably - try Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM
I listed your extremism - on Muslim implants, on the Belfast riots and on Traveller signs
You denied them all then you did exactly what I said you'd do - you went on to defend what you had just denied - the Traveller signs.
Your longest running lie is your claim that you have posted quotes on your disgusting "implants" theory
You never have nor will you
Nobody other than you (and the BNP) have ever made such a claim
You could prove me wrong by linking to those quotes NOW
But you won't as nobody has ever made such a claim for you to quote
Every time you ask for proof of your lying, this will be the first - until you actually link us to the quote
You will now probably lie again and claim you already have - if so - where
Anther lie to add to the list (unless, of course, you provide a link
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 12:27 PM

Just more idiocy from the idiot Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:33 AM

Steve, They share the same website.
If you retrieve an Observer article online it is shown under "Guardian."
You can not tell from the link which paper carried it.
I have posted Observer articles as Guardian without you even noticing.
I doubt that Bobad can buy copies.

Jim, unless you admit lying about me distorting what people actually said, QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

Sorry, Teribus, but I don't understand that poll. Who was polled? How many? When was the poll taken? Once again, these are questions that we need the answers too before the figures can be taken seriously. The question is also rather strange. Do you believe a party is too tolerant is not the same as do you believe a party is antisemitic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:17 AM

One last time. The Guardian and the Observer are two different newspapers. They are independent of each other and they have different editors. I have a subscription to the Guardian but if I want the Observer newspaper I have to go out to buy it. The Observer is, quite simply, NOT the "Sunday Guardian!" They are in the same stable, they both have fairly low circulations and they do collaborate to an extent online in tbe interests of economy. BUT THEY ARE EDITORIALLY-INDEPENDENT, SEPARATE NEWSPAPERS! Aargh!! What part of this are you having such difficulty with?! Strewth! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 10:01 AM

The Observer is the Guardian on Sunday, as we all know Steve.
Using that non-confusion to try and discredit a point shows how desperate you are to avoid discussing the issue.

That's just Shaw's usual attempt at deflecting from the content that he can't handle, just as he is trying to get his pack to do with threads that show him for what he is. It's so transparent that it's not even worthy of rebuttal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:30 AM

"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously
No serious problem has been found and the evidence for this is that those who say there is a problem are unable to substantiate it with eith description of numbers involved
Until they do, there is no problem - either logically or legally
One crusade at a time otherwise you will become confused
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:24 AM

Steve,
But the numbers provided so far in this thread suggest that our countries are safe places for Jews to live in

Yes, and unarmed black males are safe from police guns and women from being raped, but that is no reason not to express concern about it.

You said,
So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about. Just about four times more likely to be a Jewish victim of a hate crime than to be struck by lightning. Sounds like a pretty safe country in which to be a Jew to me. You are talking this up in the same way as you talk up the "serious antisemitism problem" in Labour

(I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem. What do they know?)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

"hundreds of pubs all over Britain."
Hundteds - as many as that?
We must have either been turned away from or been told that they didn't serve Travellers, at lest a few hundred pubs in North London alone
It's a crazy argument unless you can back it up with a statement that in each case there were Travellers in the immediate vicinity - neither of you have.
Saying there were no signs on pubs not frequented by Travellers is like putting a "beware of the crocodiles" sign on the banks of the Thames.
No Travellers - no signs - now that makes sense.
The last survey estimated that there are around 50,000 men women and children Travellers on the roads of Britain today - making how many pub users among those?
A drop in the ocean nationally.   
"From my point of view and from Keith's point of view the signs are not common because we do not look for them."
Don't know about you - Keith says I am lying when I say there are; the statements indicate that to be the case and our own experience backs that up entirely
In the vicinity of the Mile End Road in East London, only two pubs would serve Travellers, The White Lion and the Roebuck - all others refused to serve them and most had notices up.
I understand that all that has changes is the nature of the notices (Travellers by appointment only" is common now)
Another trick is to either place the notices over the bar so they cannot be seen from outside, or simply to ignore a suspected Traveller until they give up and go away - that happened to us in Bristol a couple of times, until we worked out that we could get drinks if the Travellers say in another room and Pat or I placed the order.
"the signs are not common because we do not look for the. So we are right."
As meaningless than anything Keith has ever said Dave
All that means is you haven't come across them - I wonder how many Travellers you've come across??
You are right about one thing - I am missing your point - please help me out
Ireland has, up to now, had a far worse human rights record regarding Travellers than Britain (at least it did have up to the time John Major repealed the 1968 Caravan - then the gap narrowed somewhat)
A couple of weeks ago the government here took the first tottering steps to putting things right when it announced that Travellers were now recognised officially as a minority ethnic group - a small step, but at least they fall under the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Even if Britain ever gets around to that, May Blossom has decided to pull Britain out of the Convention which leaves Travellers at the not so tender mercies of inhumane thugs like Dagenham and Brownhills Councils and the police who allow travelers to stay around only when they are 'brown-enveloped' for doing so.
These signs are still common - as you say, if you didn't see them, it's because you didn't look for them
Up to July, if you had told be that there were many thousands of Travellers in the London area, I'd have suggested you sought help.
Within a year we had learned there to be at least 500 families living within five miles of our home
Surprising what you find when you start looking
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:54 AM

Judge, jury and executioner now, eh? Let's hope for your sake that Ken's lawyers aren't reading this thread! And let me try to make things clear for the second cloth-ears of the day. The hate crime statistics as presented by bobad (the numbers, not the percentages) are indeed oddly very low. I have expressed, several times, scepticism about these tiny numbers. However, I can only go from the numbers so helpfully provided. As I've said several times, all hate crime is abhorrent and in no way have I trivialised the nature of the crimes, though I have asked about their nature and received no response to that. There is no equivalence between the numbers provided by bobad and the numbers of people affected by rape and sexual assault, an equivalence of the numbers made by Keith (he said they were both tiny proportions) before he'd checked his facts. That is my point, definitely not to trivialise hate crime directed against Jewish people. One such crime is one too many. But the numbers provided so far in this thread suggest that our countries are safe places for Jews to live in. You are many, many times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than you are to be a victim of an anti-Jewish hate crime. If a point is being made that the hate crime issue is so terrible that Jewish people are being driven out of Europe in droves, one suggestion made here, then I think I it's perfectly valid to look at the numbers and put them in the context of other kinds of violent crime. That is what I've done, and only that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM

This thread is now over 1500 posts long.

Interesting to point out that points put forward by Shaw/Carroll & Co have all been shown false.

Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? Shaw & Co denied there was any - false, Ken Livingstone still remains suspended from the Labour Party for his anti-Semitic views and comments. The Gnome stated that ant- semitism was no worse in the Labour Party than in any other organisation - false. If "Travellers" get to decide what constitutes "anti-Traveller" discrimination, then Jews get to decide what constitutes anti-Semitism and wrt the political parties in the UK the poll carried out by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism resulted in a sliding scale of trust with regard to the degree of anti-Semitism they expect to encounter within the UK's political parties. The question asked was as follows:

"Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?"

- 87% responded affirmatively in relation to the Labour Party;
- 49% for the Green Party;
- 43% for UKIP;
- 40% for the SNP;
- 37% for the Liberal Democrats;
- 13% for the Conservative Party.

So not the same across the board at all Gnome if you take the word of those who would be on the receiving end of it.

Carroll made a big thing about the rise in hate crime caused by the result of the Brexit vote and the increase in xenophobia in the UK. Bobad made the perfectly true statement that when it comes to hate crimes based on religion attacks against Jews far outnumber those against any other religious group combined - he even produced the figures and statistics to prove that. Carroll/Shaw & Co could come up with nothing to refute the claim made by bobad although Shaw ended up saying that hate crime figures are insignificant in the greater scheme of things, which sort of blows Carroll's hate crime tidal surge out of the water doesn't it?

Someone said they were tired of people dragging up old threads yet from our clique of "usual Suspects", we have threads dragged up from 2011, 2012 and 2014 - your arguments were successfully challenged, countered and refuted then and they have been here yet one more time.

"Travellers Not Welcome Here" signs (The 2011 thread resurrected by Carroll) - I have never ever seen one single example of such a sign anywhere I have travelled in the UK, yet Carroll says that they are common - false, they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:49 AM

Well you might as well say that all Murdoch's papers are the same paper then! The point itself here is trivial. The fact that bobad is so easily confused as to refer to Sunday's Guardian when there is no such rag speaks volumes about his lack of accuracy and reliability, and the fact that both he and Keith think it's worth it to keep digging is just laughable. They must feel great now that you've joined in. Isn't life fun! Move on, lads!