BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:14 PM

Steve,
No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith.

No.
I will not debate with you what is and is not anti-Semitism.
There is an accepted definition. You dispute it, but what is your opinion worth?

The Labour Party accepted that her comments were anti-Semitic and she herself agreed, so who cares whether you do or not.

Dave,
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?

I only know what Labour people tell us Dave.
He was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute through his anti-Semitism.

Why should I research it for you? You can read what Labour people say as easily as I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:08 PM

"Priceless Jom, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". "
As devoid of an answer as that eh?
That you don't accept facts that don't suit you doesn't make them lies - I thought every moron knew that
You have produced nothing to prove they are wrong - you never have and you never will
Even if I was wrong would not make me a liar, it would make me wrong
Only a mean-minded twat would suggest otherwise
Is that the best of my "lies" you can come up with   
I reckon that proves you a liar, doesn't it you have produced nothing but denials and buffoonish mistakes - where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars" - where is your proof that are - if you claim they are prove liar you must have the proof - where is it?   
You've obviously spent the day searching for my lies and come up with - zilch!
You are a pathetic liar - all racists are.
You and Keith are a matched pair - no brains - no knowledge - no principles - no honesty and no self respect
If you had the latter ytou wouldn't spend so much time humiliating yourself by behaving like a schoolyard bully
Adults don't do that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 05:38 PM

Ah, OK. Got it now then. Someone who is in the club says it is so, so therefore it must be true. Funny thing is, I remember someone on here calling someone else a thick c**t. I guess if someone said it, it must be true. As to why they actualy said it, well, why should I research it for you? You can read what Mudcat people say as easily as I can.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:04 PM

I didn't ask you to debate what is and what isn't antisemitism. I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic. You've lost courage, haven't you. You know that you'll be shot down whatever you say. Have you actually got more respect for her than I have? I think she was a bloody idiot and I think she grovelled in order to save her own skin. I can't respect that. Typical bloody politician. But I want to know what YOU think was antisemitic about her comment. Man up, Keith. You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark. Stupid, yes. Lousy timing, yes. Antisemitic? Definitely not. If you disagree, let us know precisely why. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial. Yet it's the Labour Party, and only the Labour Party, that you ever invoke in order to confirm your prejudices against its members accused of antisemitism. You don't even invoke yourself. Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride. You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong. You hate the Labour Party but when it says something that fits your agenda it suddenly becomes a paragon. Your arguments are expedient, disreputable and highly dishonest, not to speak of of remarkably shallow.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:35 PM

Bloody brilliant recipe here, Dave, gleaned from a pack of Sainsbury's Vittoria cherry tomatoes (which have been very good lately). The quality of the cherry toms is paramount. This would do for a lunch for two, but if you also have a pot of hummus with something to dip you have a meal for two in front of the telly. It's just assembly, no cooking.

Peel two ripe avocados and slice them into strips. Two's quite a lot but one isn't enough, but I love the buggers, so what the hell.

Take one ball of cow mozzarella (buffalo is too sloppy and wet for this recipe). Don't buy own brands. They're shit. Buy Galbani. Drain and slice it into thin pieces the size of a 50p.

Take 200g or a bit less of your loveliest cherry toms and cut them in half.

Get a fancy serving dish, shallow, and arrange the slices of cheese and avocado sort of alternating. Don't sweat it. Throw the tomatoes on top in casual fashion. Sprinkle a sparse quantity of freshly-ground pepper over it all. Easy tiger. Tear a few fresh basil leaves on top, then splash on top the finest extra virgin oil you can get your hands on (recommendation: Marks and Spencer Tuscan - ten quid but you will not regret it and it will last for ages). It's the tastiest grub I ever eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:36 PM

By the way, that's called tricolore salad, red, white and green, the colours of the Italian flag!

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

Next week for two nights I'm cooking for seven or eight people. Some of them will not eat pork, prawns or mushrooms on religious grounds, and one of them is a non-piscivore vegetarian. Now there's a challenge. I'm planning a big pasta bake for one evening, gambling slightly on the fact that some veggies will eat parmesan and mozzarella in spite of the calf rennet. I won't countenance substitutes. It consists of layers of cheese, orecchiette pasta and tomato sauce (left chunky - none of that passata smoothie for me!) with a hit of chilli and basil, baked in the oven. It's one of Italy's favourite dishes. For the other evening I'm doing a bean stew, mixed beans with whatever I have to hand but definitely including cannellini and borlotti, maybe a chickpea or two, with tomato, onion and chilli, with lemony ciabatta dumplings. Plenty of parsley in there. If they don't like it they can bugger off!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM

Jim,
where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars"

Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events.
If that is not true, quote something.

Steve,
I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic.

She and the party leadership agreed it was anti-Semitic.
That is enough for me.

You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark.

Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism.

. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial.

Not true at all. I am an ex-Labour voter who would like to be able to vote for them again.

Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride.

How would I know what goes on inside the party?
I read what insiders say, and repeat it here.
What is wrong with that?

You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong.

You are making shit up now. If I have ever expressed either of those views quote me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:40 AM

No cooking for me today. Glorious weather and...

Wait for it...

Haworth beer festival:-)

Just had Yorkshire smoke house kippers (not Whitby but next best) with scrambled egg for breakfast. Going to try some Goan chicken soup for lunch then bus to Keighley and on to Haworth. Then, who knows:-) Probably get a steam train back to Keighley around tea time.

Off to Ingleton again tomorrow with Grandsons and Daughter in law.

We are going to try a variation on your orzo dish on Monday. Daughter I-L is piscavore veggie so going to use fish pie mix instead of pancetta.

Wish me luck for all events :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

Try a Festive Jaloise .............. Sprout Pie

Par boil sprouts, mix with thinly sliced onion, red & green bell peppers, chestnuts with a cheese sauce in a puff pastry case.

Sounds bloody awful but is in fact wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:03 AM

I love talking grub. I'm getting inspired. We're having chicken arrabbiata tonight (often have it with salmon but we've had that this week already). I like big chunky rigati pasta instead of slippery little penne which I've never been that keen on. Reminds me of those nasty little pots of cold congealed "pasta salad" that supermarkets sell. Shoulder of Gloucester Old Spot tomorrow (bought at Gloucester Services, though their carrier bags have Tebay on them!) with tons of crackling and all the trimmings.

Seems like your speciality is chicken, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

By the way, Keith:

"Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism."

Not so. No-one has "defended antisemitism." Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said. She was stupid, but she said a stupid thing about Israel, a country, and she didn't mention Jews. Her remark was a reaction to the behaviour of the Israeli regime. Not antisemitic, whatever she said in order to save her career. I can't respect that. At least Ken has stuck to his guns. The pillock hasn't done either himself or the party any good but he's a tough sod, unlike Naz, and he hasn't wavered.

I don't defend Ken and I don't defend Naz. They have both been idiots. Being an idiot doesn't mean that you're antisemitic, as Jim said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

"Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events."
Stop doing this Keith - your arguments went down the pan years ago
The only people who witnessed the events were the killers, the survivors and the Israelis who facilitated the massacres
You have dismissed the survivors as "liars", Israel "disappeared" the killers who were prepared to give an account of what happened and Israel is the accused and must be judged on that fact
What we have to go on are the independent researches of those who reported on the matter, the independent enquiry which found Israel "probably responsible for the massacre" and simple common sense.
Even Istreali soldiers testified as to Israel's guilt.
You have already said that you are just putting Israel's case - fine by me - it puts everything you claim into perfect context "they didn't do it because they say they didn't do it"
Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did - your shite about "decent democracies" staying silent is just that - shite
If they were half decent they would not stay silent and watch as Israel is "unfairly accused of what that they are - what kind of decency is that?
You will continue to ignore this last point - also fine by me.
Like all of my postings - none is for your benefit - I don't waste time with closed and empty minds
The usual bollocks about you bizarre 'guilt without charges' Labour antisemitism
More distortions about your voting Labour - you boasted of voting for Blair - a war criminal who narrowly missed being indicted for same
That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party
No sign of Teribus - he must be still looking for my "lies" and those of the "proven liars" - so he may be some time,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:28 AM

"I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was anti-Semitic" - Shaw

Naz Shah "My words were anti-Semitic"

Extract:

Ms Shah apologised in April for online posts, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States.

Labour has now reinstated the Bradford West MP, who in her first interview about the controversy blamed her "ignorance".

"I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," Ms Shah told BBC Radio 4's World At One.

In a Facebook post in 2014, before she became an MP, Ms Shah shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict - relocate Israel into United States", with the comment "problem solved".

That Shaw is denying the right of the internationally recognised Sovereign State of Israel to exist - Anti-Semitism according to the internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism and according every single political party in the UK.

Bottled it Shaw - didn't mention Jews - "relocate Israel into United States" - Just who the f**k do you think she meant relocating to the United States by shifting Israel to the United States you lying git.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:34 AM

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus
Then that makes you a liar£hat was originally the suggestion of Jewish Norman Finklestein
Bit stupid to call anybody a "lying git" with your current track record
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:58 AM

Jewish members of the Labour Party are right to chide Livingstone and those in the party who wouldn't expel him for "enabling" anti-Semites to support Labour. But Livingstone, who in his pigheaded obstinacy didn't apologize, even after being found guilty of all charges and receiving his minor sentence, is doing us all a favor. (Some in Labour actually believe he's causing trouble out of envy that the much-less-talented Corbyn unexpectedly became party leader.)

The crass offensiveness of his tirades has made many more level-headed voices on the left admit that Jews, like any other minority, have a right to define for themselves what's abusive to them, and that while Zionism's merits and flaws can be discussed and disputed, ascribing any connection between Zionism and Nazism is anti-Semitic. The outrage Livingstone has caused on the British left has forced even his old friend Corbyn to limply repudiate him, and this case is now reverberating far beyond.

Anshel Pfeffer - Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:13 AM

Reuters yesterday,
"Labour lawmaker Wes Streeting told Livingstone on BBC news late on Tuesday: "Your poor judgment, your crass remarks and your lack of apology brings the Labour Party into disrepute."
Fellow Labour member of parliament Luciana Berger, who has suffered anti-Semitic abuse, said the party had reached "a new low".
"Why is anti-Semitism being treated differently from any other form of racism?" she wrote on Twitter."

Steve,
Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said.

I do have time for most senior Labour people.
Labour found them both guilty of ant-Semitism. Why should anyone care what your very biased view is? Your view of anti-Semitism has been proved wrong. The definitions you rejected are accepted by everyone else. You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Jim, you specified Fisk and Siegel.
They saw nothing that contradicts Israel's version.
If that is not a FACT, quote them!

Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did

That would be your "verified facts" again.
You could not produce a single one, remember!!

That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party

True. This lot could never be elected once, never mind three times in a row!

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus

You have told lots about me Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Well let me see what we have then Jim?


Jim Lie #1:

You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign.

You can tell us all now that when, after this had been pointed out to you that you still persisted in stating that he had been forced to resign - that being untrue and you knowing it to be untrue meant that you were deliberately lying.

Jim Lie #2

You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila refugee camps in 1982 and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium.

You can now acknowledge that your figure of 3,500 is far from being factual is only at best an unverified "estimate" and that during extensive work done at the Camille Chamoun Stadium the remains of not one single body has been uncovered.

Jim Lie #3
Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria.

Admit that there are no records of the British Government selling any weapons to the Syrians, and that despite being asked and given every opportunity to do so you have not in five years come up with any proof to substantiate your claim that they did.

Jim Lie #4
That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial.

Despite being given links to his Court Martial papers and a full account of his arrest, trial and subsequent execution you still persisted with your lie.

Jim Lie #5
That Brigadier Frank Percy Crozier summarily executed sentries who fell asleep on duty.

Blatant lie, only two such executions took place in the entire course of the war and they took place in Mesopotamia a theatre of war in which Frank Percy Crozier never served. Both men were tried and found guilty by Court Martial.

Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list.But the five given above will serve to keep the pot boiling for the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:51 AM

You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Oh, he definitely knows what most accept as anti-Semitism but he has to continue the charade of insisting on his own invented definition otherwise he would have to own up to his guilt which, just like Livingstone, he doesn't have the moral courage to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Well, Teribus, quoting Naz Shah as if she was some ex cathedra-talking guru is very amusing. She is a left-wing Labour MP and I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything. But she suddenly speaks with the sword of truth - when it suits you. Israel is not Jews. Israel is a country containing a quarter non-Jews as well as a good number of Jews who detest what their government does. Antisemitism is attacks targeted at just Jews, Billyboy, no-one else. Naz Shah was reacting in a stupid way to the actions of the Israeli regime. She did not say that she hated all Jews and wanted them all moved to America. In fact, she didn't mention Jews at all. She did not say that the Jews in Israel should all be moved. Now that would have been antisemitic. And she was being totally out of order but she was not at all making a serious suggestion. I can't call her stupid for grovelling, because the grovelling had the desired effect of saving her skin. I dislike Naz Shah and she has a bloody long way to go in order to prove that she can be a serious politician. But she did not make an antisemitic remark, and all those people in the party who say she did are saying it because they are scared of not saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:06 AM

You're trolling, bobad. That is a content-free post solely intended to goad.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:26 AM

You're trolling, bobad. That is a content-free post solely intended to goad.

And posting your food snobbery on a thread about the Labour party is what Shaw?.......HYPOCRITE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:55 AM

"I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything"

You are a slave to ideology Shaw - I am NOT, so I am not surprised that that is the way you'd think.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:09 AM

Hah bloody ha. So tell me which policies of Naz Shah you heartily stand behind. You and Keith are the two most led-by-the-nose ideologues it's ever been my misfortune to encounter.

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling. I would estimate that all bar about four people who read these benighted threads welcome it as a leavening of the bread (now there's an idea - I might come back to that). Clearly, your understanding of trolling is about as hazy as your understanding of antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:15 AM

"You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign."
I accepted his resignation was not accepted
Even if I had been wrong - it was not a lie - I did not invent it.
You used pedantry to absolve his deadly incompetence
THat, as far as I am concerned, is lying.
"You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila "
Nope - I said "up to - the figure is not known thanks to Israeli cover-up
and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium."
That is a lie - I said some of the bosies were buried there - I alsop pointed out that ther were mass graves in and around the camp and that some were found thrown by the roadside - it's all there in the links.
At no time have I ever claimed that all the bodies were buried under the stadium
You continue to lie
"Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria."
Nope - Keith turned my "sniper ammunition" into "a few sniper rifles"
The ammunition was licenced and sold
You claime first, nothing ws sold, then no licence was ever issued, then it was issued but rescinded, then it was for sporting equipment, then the order came too early to be used by the Homs snipers, then teh ammunition that was sold was the wrong size for Assad's weapons (no size of ammunition was ever specified)
Your whole defence of this sale had been a constant string of lies and inventions)
"That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial."
I know nothing whatever of the execution of Crozier - my only reference to summary executions was to provide evidence that they happened.
You are lying - I persisted in nothing regarding this
If pigs started to fly and you did provide evifdence of anything you said, I would have been incredibly stupid to ignore it
Do you want to lik me to my persisting in this or anything I have been guilty of when evidence was provided?
Now fuck off and provide some evidence - any moron can invent a list
And then you can provide us with proof of the dishonesty of "proven liars
"Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list"
I would like you to start - you have provided nothing but unqualified accusations
Your long list is a lie, but it falls well within your capabilities to prove me wrong
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling.

By my definition it is trolling and goading, and like what was once posted here by some hypocrite:

WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:16 PM

I have looked up three WW1 sites and cannot find any reference to Crozier
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:18 PM

Steve,
So tell me which policies of Naz Shah you heartily stand behind.

I do not share her political views, but have no reason to believe that she is lying about this issue.
What reason do you have to believe she is lying Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:28 PM

Liar Jim,
fully exposed as atrocity denying, Imperial brutality and the persecution of ethnic minorities

Will you support this deranged slander with quotes?
How? It is all made up shit. You lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:45 PM

World Socialist Website yesterday

"Over the last days, a flood of op-eds and editorials have appeared in the national media demanding Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn expel Livingstone, his long-time ally. In the five days to Friday, more than 50 articles have appeared in the UK national media, with a significant number demanding Livingstone's head.
(Not just me then!!!)
This offensive is being led by the Guardian, whose front page Thursday was dominated by the headline, "100 Labour MPs condemn decision not to expel veteran over Hitler remarks."
It was referring to the letter signed Wednesday by 107 MPs, nearly half of the parliamentary party and including eight members of Corbyn's shadow cabinet, along with 47 Labour peers. The letter reads, "We stand united in making it clear that we will not allow our party to be a home for antisemitism and Holocaust revisionism. We stand with the Jewish community and British society against this insidious racism."
On Wednesday, the Guardian editorialised that the NCC decision was "wrong" and sent a "terrible message." Livingstone's comments were a "grotesque misreading of history" and "Most Jews think it [Livingstone's language] was hurtful. But a Labour committee has decided not to mind their pain."
The Guardian proclaimed of the NCC decision, "An ugly conclusion is inevitable: Labour values Mr Livingstone's membership over the fight against antisemitism."
Guardian columnists Suzanne Moore, Jonn Elledge and Anne Perkins all weighed in with vitriolic denunciations of Livingstone."
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/07/livi-a07.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:48 PM

I wasn't talking to you.


I'm very happy that my food posts make you cross, boobs. Tonight I'm going to make a very spicy tomato sauce with lashings of garlic, chilli and parsley. While that's simmering away I'll boil up some rigatoni pasta and stir fry some chicken breast cut into small pieces. The chicken goes into the sauce, the pasta is drained (following the golden rule of keeping some pasta water) then the pasta goes into the sauce. Loosen with pasta water if necessary. I might drizzle a bit of EV olive oil on top, but probably not parmesan on this one. Chicken arrabbiata, washed down with Nero d'Avola. Glorious. Arrabbiata has nothing to do with Arabs. It means angry. Would suit you, boobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:52 PM

We can read perfectly well without your tendentious emboldening of text if you don't mind. Buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM

"fully exposed as atrocity denying, Imperial brutality and the persecution of ethnic minorities "
You've had the evince
You are a racist (you've had that)
You personally have assisted the persecution of travellers in describing them as slavers
You have personally persecuted Muslims in describing them as culturally implanted perverts prone to raping underage women
You have denigrated Irish children as having been brainwashed to hate
Which of these have you not had put up over and over again - none!!!
You continue to deny the facts of Israel's favourite massacre yet refuse to put up a single fact other than Israel says they didn't to it
If this is not true - where are your arguments
You have lied distorted facts, invented withnesses and refused to respond to argument in pursuit of all of these
You are one sick cookie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 02:29 PM

I'm very happy that my food posts make you cross, boobs.

Lol!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 02:34 PM

Lots Of Love to you too. Wazzock.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 02:37 PM

[Shall I use fresh chillies, or am I too knackered and fit only to resort to chilli flakes...]

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:58 PM

Thing is, Keith, your bold-bespattered post contains every man and his dog's opinion, largely people with agendas, and not a hint of what you think. Though it isn't exactly hard for us to work out. Typical. I've been trying to get you to tell us what YOU think for days. Why won't you tell us? After all, Iains, akenaton and Teribus tell us what THEY think.

Oh, hang on, in view of that I'm beginning to understand your lack of conviction...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:09 PM

Anyway, I'm not bragging but the arrabbiata was a triumph. Dave, got the pasta tubes in Morrisons and it was as good as it gets. Cooked beautifully. It was Signature pennoni rigati. Like penne but much bigger tubes and made with bronze die. Well worth the extra money.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:22 PM

"So tell me which policies of Naz Shah you heartily stand behind."

Perhaps you could elaborate on what Naz Shah's policies are you lying git. You could them explain why I as a free thinking human being should be required to agree with her or indeed anyone in order to comply with you soddin' ideas as to what should be what.

Get it through your thick head you lying git that your and your opinions on anything mean and matter not one jot to me. You are a typical union bully boy and I despise everything you stand for.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:39 PM

So stop responding then (and have another vat of beer while you're at it - amazing how your mood changes as the evening wears on...). It's absolutely amazing that a bloke who claims not to give a shit can get so worked up about someone he doesn't give a shit about. I think we call it insecurity...😂😂😂

Calm down, dear! ❌❌❌

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:57 PM

Jim Lie #1: Kitchener's resignation.

"Even if I had been wrong - it was not a lie - I did not invent it."

Ehmmmm Jim you stated on numerous occasions that Kitchener WAS FORCED TO RESIGN - It was then pointed out to you that according TO ALL records that Kitchener was appointed to Asquith's war time Cabinet as Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 and remained in that post until he died when HMS Hampshire was sunk on the 6th June 1916. EVEN AFTER you had been informed of this YOU STILL came out with that downright LIE that Kitchener had been forced to resign. YOU DID INVENT IT BECAUSE IT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED AND NOBODY APART FROM YOU HAS EVER LAID CLAIM THAT IT DID - YOU TWAT.

jim LIE #2: Sabra-Shatila

NO BODIES WERE BURIED UNDER THE CAMILLE CHAMOUN STADIUM - NONE REPEAT NONE HAVE BEEN FOUND - FACT

Jim LIE #3 Britain sold weapons to Assad

"The ammunition was licenced and sold"

An export licence was issued in 2009 - there is no record whatsoever of any sale, or delivery ever having been made - FACT - IF Jim you have any information that contradicts that statement then produce it, or shut up about it - you lying twat.

Jim LIE #4 Crozier - I will dig the exchanges up and confront you with them. Might take a bit of time but I will do it and then you can be confronted with your own "Wheatcroft moment" and I will delight in posting it anytime you claim that you never lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 07:09 PM

I wouldn't bother, Teribus. You're having a terribly worked-up evening. Why not make yourself a nice cup of cocoa and go and tuck yourself in?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 07:13 PM

Fuck me I've never heard anybody drone on so incessantly about effin pasta with chicken and a tomato sauce as though it was somehow bloody exotic, no doubt washed down with some cheap plonk - the phrase "Never mind the quality feel the width" comes to mind. Mind you the pasta was Morrison's Signature, as though that signifies anything you pretentious prat - whazza matter you lying git? Can't you make it yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 07:41 PM

"Fuck me..."

Perhaps later, dear. Shall we share a vat of wine first? In your case, another vat?

And, for your information, even good pasta is cheap. This stuff was £1.40 a bag, half the bag enough for the two of us. That's pasta costing 35p per person. Not exactly fare to get pretentious about, eh? And the in-crowd all know that dried pasta is every bit as as good as anything you can make with a stupid home pasta machine, the piece of kit the most likely to become redundant the quickest.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 01:46 AM

Jim,
You personally have assisted the persecution of travellers in describing them as slavers

Another lie! If it is not, quote me doing it, liar.

Likewise the rest of your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 01:56 AM

I have just watched Thursday's Question Time.
Daiane Abbott said Ken keeps on making "spurious and hurtful and hatemongering links between hitler and Zionism that have appalled most of us in the Labour Party."

Member Gerard Coin, Unite leadership candidate, "Yes he should go. His comments are an affront to the six million Jews who lost their lives in the Holocaust, and their families."
"In the Labour Party and the Labour movement there is an issue about anti-Semitism," He had received hate attacks for talking to a Jewish paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 02:45 AM

Steve,
I've been trying to get you to tell us what YOU think for days. Why won't you tell us?

Because then you would use your "nasty teacher" tactic of ridicule, insult and put down.
That is why I quote senior Labour people, and you even try it with them! Naz Shah is lying! She does not really think her remarks were anti-Semitic! She can not be believed if she contradicts you!

You used the tactic against me when we discussed the definitions of Anti-Semitism. I was just a fool for accepting definitions that were rejected and defunct.
You were proved wrong about that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 02:49 AM

And Steve, your food ramblings do not irritate me at all.
It is an ignominious retreat from a lost debate.
An abject surrender.
It cheers me no end!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 03:18 AM

Teribus
You are now emabarking on a damage limitation exercise to cover up your "You lied" foot-in-mouth
You listed my "lies" which iin fact where no more than things I have disagreed with you on – if someone disagrees with you they must be telling lies – extreme megalomania
I asked you to qualify them – nothing, you bat a retreat from something you can't substantiate, as you always do.
Now you are hysterically shrieking you were right about things you have not provided a shred of documented evidence on.
You are not interested in these subjects – you certainly have not even a basic knowledge of them and you haven't the intelligence to acquire any - "why did the Falangists have to be transported from the airport – the Stadium was a ruin so it couldn't have been used for anything, bulldozers not capable of assisting with the burial of bodies…….." a whole list of basic facts that you knew nothing whatever about – nothing!!!
When eye witness and researched accounts contradict your belligerently stated "facts" they are all "proven liars" yet you refuse to provide that proof of their having told lies.
Now you are stating something that you cannot possibly have any information on.
Both eye witnesses and researchers have claimed that budies were buried at the Stadium – you say they are "proven liars" and say that is not true
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS – SHOULDN'T YOU CONTACT SOMEONE AND PASS THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION ON – OR MORE TO THE POINT – ARE YOU ******* INSANE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE WE WOULD ACCEPT YOUR WORD ON THE BASIS ON NOTHING?"
Who else, apart from yourself (and Keith, of course), is making such claims
You have given nothing whatever in the form of documented evidence to back up what you are saying, so it can only be assumed that you have made it up – every single shred of it.
Once again – I've shown you mine – now you show m yours.
I still look forward to your producing proof about your "PROVEN LIARS" - in my hole I do, as they say over here.
Mad as a bag of ferrets – you and your hate inciting racist mate
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 04:43 AM

And Steve, your food ramblings do not irritate me at all.
It is an ignominious retreat from a lost debate.

But this is not a debate to be won or lost. If it was there would have been formal rules that would have resulted in this being over weeks ago. This is a discussion which has no such rules and cannot be won or lost.

So on to important things. The beer festival yesterday was brilliant. Not too crowded but enough there for it to be lively. It goes without saying that the beers were excellent. I tried about 9 or 10, in half pints of course! They were all good:-) I also had a lavender gin and a Moroccan spiced goat burger! Off to Ingleton soon. There are much better things in life than pointless and seemingly endless discussions:-)

DtG