BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:13 AM

still lying about it I see, despite the truth being there for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM

Rag,
You referred to an expression "lying bollocks" an expression which Steve had not used.

I did nopt specify both expressions.
The expression I referred to was "bollocks" which was obvious to everyone at the time because Steve had just used it five times in one short post.
(Obvious to any honest person, who was not just seeking another smear to use.)

Steve,
I've scoured that thread again and I can't find a post before I challenged you on 16 December 2014 in which you had "already quoted the passage in full."

Dishonest Steve.
As you know it was in a parallel thread with all the same contributors including you.
If you had really "scoured that thread" you would have seen me point that out many times.

The FACT is that Wheatcroft rubbished both texts, whichever words he used and I did quote him in full.
The FACT is that in rubbishing those texts he rubbished your position and upheld mine.
The FACT is that you were just using that one word as a ploy to divert a thread that you were losing, exactly as you are trying to do again now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM

I really do think that when a dissuccion has reduced to "lying bollocks" and "Jom Carroll", it's had its day
Totally mindless
Life really is to short lads, you really are better than that
Leave these people to drown in their own swill - life really is too short
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:54 PM

He's lied for TWO YEARS about the Guardian piece. You have a long fight ahead of you, Raggytash. In its way it's a trivial matter. But it doesn't half expose the man for the disreputable bugger he really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:46 PM

The professor posted "I have shown that to be lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" at 09.01am on the 15th.

Which part of this can you not comprehend, is it really that difficult for you.

Steve has not used that expression, the professor was incorrect to attribute the expression to him.

For 2 days he has lied, prevaricated, twisted, squirmed and lied some more when the simple solution would have been to withraw the comment.

However the professor can NEVER admit that he has made an error can he.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM

Well Raggy, I must have read it because I copied it in it's entirety in my own post of 17 Feb 17 - 02:59 PM.

Bollocks WAS the expression Shaw used wasn't it? - It is plain enough to me that in his post of 09:01 Keith A is accusing Jim Carroll of spouting lying bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM

My apologies. The professors post was at 09.01 on the 15th not quiet the time I posted earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:06 PM

Good grief, look back at the professors post from 09.21 am on the 15th February.

Are you saying he didn't post this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:41 PM

Oh a "contretemps" is it Raggy? And here's me just thinking the "Usual Suspects" are just up to their old tricks "mobbing" Keith, like the bunch of Trolls that you undoubtedly are.

Who said that Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"? Keith A certainly DID NOT. So far only Shaw and you Raggy have claimed that he did.

In his response to Jim's inaccurate (As ever) and unsubstantiated (As always) accusation of making anti-Semitic remarks Keith A pointed out to Jim that he was lying and talking bollocks, ("to use the expression Steve Shaw had used five times two posts prior to Keith A addressing Jim Carroll). Jim Carroll by the way talks a great deal of bollocks on a vast array of subjects on this forum. In fact on that subject you Raggy are possibly his nearest rival in the talking bollocks stakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:10 PM

You are not prepared to answer a direct question as posed earlier.

Did Steve use the expression "lying bollocks" which is the source of this particular contretemps or is the professor lying.

It is either one or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:59 PM

Tag team rules is it Raggy?

Keith A is holding his own very nicely thank you very much. You want me to comment on something then make damn certain that it actually did happen. But however if you want to know if Keith A ever said that Steve had used the expression "lying bollocks" - pity to inform you but he never did. He did on the other hand comment on the five mentions of the word bollocks used by Shaw and then taken up like a baton in a relay race by the rest of your tag team. As a tag team you all lie rather a lot, you also misrepresent outrageously Shaw has just been caught doing so on another thread.

Here's the whole exchange:

Steve Shaw - 15 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

As we all know, many people on Mudcat talk bollocks. But now Raggytash and I are delighting, when exchanging notes on orchids, in talking literal bollocks. Very amusing! Well I think so anyway! The only people who disagree are those who talk the other kind of bollocks. They must think they have a monopoly on bollocks. Well bollocks to 'em, say I!

Here is Keith's response to Jim Cottall:

Keith A of Hertford - 15 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Jim, you accused me of making, "Probably the most antisemitic statement made of this forum."

I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such.

I find your lies and evasions despicable.

We have had real anti-Semitic posts from you. Would you like to be reminded?

Now then Raggy if you want examples of Jim's lying bollocks posted on this forum since 2007 ?????

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:28 PM

You may also wish to note that when I asked your stalwart supporter, Teribus, to quote where Steve had used that expression he has not answered.

I posed that question over 5 hours ago, he has not responded. Although he has posted to other threads on 7 different occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM

You referred to an expression "lying bollocks" an expression which Steve had not used.

It is all written down here for ALL to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:55 PM

I've scoured that thread again and I can't find a post before I challenged you on 16 December 2014 in which you had "already quoted the passage in full." The only prior reference I found was:

Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in th Guardian this week.

As far as I can see, had I not challenged you on the 16th you would not have been forced to quote the passage (which you didn't really need to do - God knows how many times I've posted it for you, including once today). The lie would have stood forever.

The simple fact remains that you said the Guardian had called Taylor fraudulent. It did not. You lied. And you won't admit it. All this demonstrates that you simply can't be trusted to be truthful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM

You misquoted him. I've just proved it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM

Read your own posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM

Rag,
No one except you professor, and you have denied time and time again that you claimed it despite it being here in black and white for all to see.

It is not.
I referred to the expression "bollocks" which had just been repeatedly used by Steve, not "lying bollocks" which had not.
How many times do you need that explained to you Rag?

Jim,
Keith has suggested three times now that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to identify Labour antisemitsm in preference to defending their party

Unlike you Jim, I have not suggested anything so ludicrous even once.
Repeating the lie does not make it anything but a lie Jim.

Steve, I had already quoted the passage in full.
No need to repeat the whole thing every time I referred to it.
There was no deception. I had quoted in full.
Wheatcroft was on my side against you. No need for me to misquote him.

And, over two years later, that is all you have on me and it is nothing.

Why not just discuss the issues instead of forever trying to smear the opponent?
Because you can't!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 11:06 AM

What Keith claimed on 16 December 2014 in the thread "I'm not an historian but....":

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

What Geoffrey Wheatcroft, an invited columnist (not "the Guardian," note), said in the Guardian on 9 December 2014 and what Keith was referring to:

That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

As you can plainly see, there was no remark made that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Keith not only said that that's what was said, he even put it in speech marks. He made it up. It wasn't true. Over two years on, he twists and turns but refuses to acknowledge that he told a porkie. An "oops, sorry" in his next post would have cleared it up. Had I not chased him up on this in subsequent posts, the lie would have stood, unremarked on. That's what people like Keith hope will happen. When they twist the facts (lie) in order to make a better case for themselves, they don't like to be challenged. Akenaton has recently told a lie in another thread about how his views generated threads with many thousands of posts. He was hoping no-one would challenge that. These people must think that the rest of us are idiots. Well we are not, and we shouldn't let them get away with such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM

"Worse than denying it they blame it on Jews. "
Once again Bobad
Keith has suggested three times now that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to identify Labour antisemitsm in preference to defending their party
Care to show your support for the Jewish people by commenting
No?
Thought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:04 AM

"I can answer that Rag! He never has and no-one has ever claimed it."

No one except you professor, and you have denied time and time again that you claimed it despite it being here in black and white for all to see.

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

Dave,
I shall just reiterate that once my point is made there is no need to keep repeating it.

But your point is not made!
Your unsupported claim that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties was knocked flat by the FACT that complaints have only come from within Labour, and the FACT that the leadership itself acknowledges the truth of it.

Your claim that Labour is at least addressing the problem is knocked flat by all those Labour insiders who say that nothing has been done.

We are still waiting for you to make your point with any fact at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:54 AM

Rag,
OK Terikins, show me where Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"

I can answer that Rag!
He never has and no-one has ever claimed it.
It was his use of the expression "bollocks" that I referred to.
How many times do you need to be told Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM

Rag,
Not the first time I have had to post this. Clearly "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" irrefutably "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression"
No doubt you will deny it again.

Of course, because I know what I meant.
Perhaps I should have typed "lying "bollocks" to use Steve's expression" but it seemed unnecessary because anyone reading it would have just read Steve's post and known what I meant.
Any honest person that is.

You revealed yourself as capable of deliberate, unequivocal and despicable lying long ago. I have it bookmarked if you would like reminding.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

But the fact remains that no one has said that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. Which is what you suggested.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:16 AM

DtG........No one has denied it bobad.

Worse than denying it they blame it on Jews. I was going to say unbelievably they blame it on Jews but, judging from their posting history, it is quite believable. You're running with a bad pack Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:14 AM

Not much time before I go into the wilds but I shall just reiterate that once my point is made there is no need to keep repeating it. Unlike those who are so insecure that they need to go on and on and on and on and on and...

Pissing contest and skunk springs to mind again.

:D tG

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

It's not troll feeding time yest Raggy - don't spoil him; he'll come to expect it
"Dent brewery"
Did you hear the story of the Brewery Worker (never been able to take Dent's seriously) who fell into the vat and droned?
His wife was called to the scene and she asked, "did he die right away?"
"No", came the reply, "he climbed out for a piss three times".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM

OK Terikins, show me where Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"

That should be easy for you shouldn't it?

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

Raggytash - 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

"The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong."

Only trouble with that Rag-arse for you and the rest of the "usual suspects" who have been "mobbing" Keith A now for over five years is that in flinging out these accusations of "lying" none of you have been able to come up with one single example of any lie he has told. Why is that Raggy?

This by the way will be yet another direct question that Raggy will fail to answer.

Looking through a number of current threads that have been hijacked by inane waffle and look at those participating (DtG, Shaw, Raggy, Jim) any claims by any of you of not acting in concert are patently meaningless and far from credible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:59 AM

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such. I find your lies and evasions despicable" (15.2.17 09.21am)


Not the first time I have had to post this. Clearly "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" irrefutably "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression"

No doubt you will deny it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM

Rag,
The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong.

Quote the lie then Rag. The expression I referred to was "bollocks" not "lying bollocks" as you falsely claim.

I remember you faking quotes from historians. When I found the originals, you had edited them to reverse their meaning in a blatant attempted, lying deception.

I will take no lectures on the truth from a liar like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong.

We all know you want to "win" whatever the cost, however much you are, and are proved to be, dishonest and deceitful.

The only person you are fooling is yourself, and you're probably not even achieving that.

Now that is truly sad.

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

Dave, what is it you imagine I have brought on myself?
I am not aware of anything.

This is not about the issue, it is about you

People try to make it about me, but I keep to the issue.

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is. You started the contention.

Completely untrue Dave!
All the complaints and accusations came from within Labour. I just reported them here, and found great amusement in people here arguing that all those prominent Labour insiders were wrong and that they knew much more about it!!

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is

Wrong again Dave. It was the contention of all those prominent Labour insiders, including the whole leadersip, that it is.
How can you possibly imagine that you know more about it?!!

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people.
A belief based on what Dave? Preconception and prejudice, or just a whim?

The FACT is that such complaints have not emerged from any other party.
Just Labour.
The FACT is that the whole leadersip and numerous prominent insiders acknowledge that it IS a particular problem for Labour.
The FACT is that many also claim that nothing is being done about it.

Now, what are YOUR facts Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:32 AM

Sad, Keith? I'll tell you what's sad!




No I won't...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:22 AM

Rag and Steve, it must be hard for you not having anything genuine to criticise me for.
Sorry.
You have been trying for over two years to smear me for misquoting Wheatcroft, who supported my argument on WW1 completely, when the sad fact is that I quoted the disputed passage in full and you just missed it.

Now bollocks gate is another attempt to make something out of nothing.
Steve made a post using the expression "bollocks" five times, and I commented on it.
Anyone reading my post would have just read Steve's and known exactly what I meant. You pretend not to, because you have absolutely nothing else on me and no answer to my arguments.

How sad all this scheming to smear me must look.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM

Maningitis, you didn't catch that in Manningham Lane did you. Could be nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM

It's a damn sight better than reading some of this crap, Jim :-)

Anyroads, still in the grips of man flu, or maybe maningitis, but by regular administration of appropriate drugs I am sure I can bravely soldier on with the weekend. The appropriate drug for this evening could well be something from Dent brewery.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:34 AM

" is a very well-crafted bit of silly escapism"
How dare you - what did Matt Busby say about football!!!
(Joking really - much prefer that Castle and (sighhhhh) Beckett).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 07:50 PM

I'm discriminating when it comes to telly and I don't watch it much, but Death In Paradise is a very well-crafted bit of silly escapism. It's only once a week and I have to brace myself for Question Time. Escapism balanced against self-flagellation. Life can't all be a vale of tears,dammit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 07:28 PM

"Am I to understand that tonight's was the last in this series?"
What happened?
Just watched it and Ardal O'Hanlon (Father Ted's Father Dougal) was the new detective
What am I doing with my life?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:21 PM

Ah, right. I think I was topping up my glass when next week's trailer was on...🍷🍷🍷

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:11 PM

Next week's I think, Steve. Catherine is standing for Mayor and another candidate is stabbed to death. The trailer indicates that Catherine is a suspect.

Cheets

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:07 PM

We love Death In Paradise. Am I to understand that tonight's was the last in this series?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:01 PM

Oh, and before you start going on about people going off topic remember this. It is your modus operandi to find any perceived weakness and dig and dig and dig at it until someone bleeds. You brought this on yourslef. You stated quite categorically I would be delighted to share my holiday stories, but in PMs. I get very annoyed when others start talking about such things on a discussion thread

Did you seriously not expect anyone to pick up on that in light of the tactics you use?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:38 PM

I was just going to switch off but you deserve an explanation at least, Keith. It is blatantly obvious that on this we are on a completely different wavelength. I am sure we have lot of things in common but politics is not one of them. I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is. You started the contention. It is up to you to prove it and, so far, you have not.

Let's face it though. This is not about the issue, it is about you. You do this in everything and, fair enough, if you enjoy arguing, then go for it. But don't expect people to fall in with it. Let us examine what is going on. Any debate is based around trying get someone to agree to something. We know that in this case, as in many others, you will never get people to agree with your points so what is the other motive? You like to win. That is proven with your constant 'You lose' comments. Again, fine, if you feel the need to win then feel free. You have won. Easy. But the victory is rather hollow if we do that isn't it. You want to prove people wrong and show what a mighty intellect you have. Again. Prove away. No skin off my nose and if it makes you feel better then it does do some good.

From now on I will make my point and you are free to disagree if you like but don't expect me to continue the argument so you can flex your intellectual muscles as if you were on a Californian beach. Greg came out with a wonderful expression the other day. "Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk". I intend to make it my maxim from now on.

Anyroads, on to much more interesting subjects. I admit being a philistine and enjoying the BBC series 'Death in Paradise'. I think they have made a brave move recently to replace Kris Marshall as the inspector with Ardel O'Hanlan. He really was quite good but I keep expecting him to say "Why is that then, Ted?". But then again, I have got used to Danny John-Jules not being a cat :-)

I may be on briefly tomorrow but after that I may be out of internet range. Did I mention I am going to Ribblehead?

:DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:17 PM

I am grateful that in less than 4 weeks I will be back in Ireland where I have far better things to do than argue with a pathological liar.

The thing that does surprise me though is that the ONLY person who does not recognise this fact is the liar himself.

Over the course of my life I have met and worked with many people with psychological disorders.

Seldom, if ever, have I ever met with someone as dysfunctional as this man.





Thank God I'm not a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

He does it all the time, Raggytash. Tell you what. I'll get him to waste even more his time by reminding him of how he did similar over Geoffrey Wheatcroft all those years ago, when he blatantly misrepresented what poor old Geoffrey said and refused to admit it. It's the refusing to admit it that grates, innit, if you let it. Which it doesn't with me, but how I love to remind him of his double standards. So typical of the man.

But why spoil a beautiful day! Dave, it's a bit early to expect the wildlife to have woken up much in t'Dales. You might catch a few of the smaller evergreen ferns such as wall-rue, maidenhair spleenwort and green spleenwort (a bit special, that one, but common enough on limestone rocks and walls). Lots of mosses and liverworts stand out at this time of year before all those big flowering wotsits get going. I've done the Ingleton waterfall walk several times. Don't slip! I'm envying you here!

Yours truly,

Steve (hyena-like forum troll for refusing to talk about LAP, aka "Labour's antisemitism problem," preferring instead to look up from mud to stars! )

Jim, I've "met" a number of young ladies from Bude, but can't discuss 'em in case Mrs Steve's discovered my password...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:36 PM

Rag,
" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, TO USE STEVE'S EXPRESSION"

Yes, I said that though I did not shout.
Steve's expression I referred was "bollocks" not "lying bollocks" for the simple and obvious reason that he did not use the latter.
He had used the former 5 times in a post just before mine.

Perhaps I should have identified the expression with quotes, but as Steve had just used it five times in one post the meaning would be obvious to anyone of intelligence and not deliberately trying to stir up an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

Dave, you can discuss anything you like, but you are clearly unable to make that point or explain how it can possibly be true in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

My point is that anti-Semitism is a particular problem for Labour and nothing is being done about it.
I have made that point by quoting numerous prominent people within Labour who are well placed to know the facts, all adamant that it is a particular problem and it is not being dealt with.

What have you produced Dave?
Sorry, but just stating a point is not making a point.

You had better just stick to the trains and flowers.
Off you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM

"Rag,You suggested Steve used the term "lying bollocks"

I suggested no such thing, you did.

"No I did not. He had just used the expression "bollocks" five times in one post and I referred to that, as I have repeatedly explained to you."

Yes you did "professor" It is here in black and white recorded for prosperity for all to see, you quote is below.

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, TO USE STEVE'S EXPRESSION"

Your quote, verbatim,you said Steve used the expression "lying bollocks" he did not and never has done as he stated very clearly.

You are completely unprincipled, dishonest, deceitful and you consider yourself to be a Christian.

I trust you can sleep easy with your lies.