 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:49 PM Steve's more recent post is correct. On page 43 it says "Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees." It says nothing about debts built up because of past fees. Claims it did are either mistaken or a delibwrate distortion. In particular the NME interview did not claim Labour would cancel those debts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:55 PM I think in the NME he said that Labour would deal with the debt problem. Can you clarify what he meant? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:05 PM Yes. Here is a lengthy clip out of the NME interview: "Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I'm looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden. I don't have the simple answer for it at this stage – I don't think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all of this – but I'm very well aware of that problem. And I don't see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it." See? No promise to repay the debt. And a clear admission he didnt have a simple answer at that point. The only promise is to look at it and 'deal with' a lack of balance between those on £9000 a year compared to other years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:10 PM Yes I had already read it. Now what do you think he meant with "deal with it"? He was basically promising the (ex)students that they wouldn't have to pay it back; it's called a bribe. It's politics, dear boy, politics |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:21 PM Cheers, DMcG. Always happy to correct myself and to have the correction reinforced! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM No point in arguing, but since you have read it you will see he gives a list of ways that are not writing off the debt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:34 PM Bribe, Shakey? Come off it. You could say that any manifesto commitment by any party that favours one particular sector is a bribe, even if it's intended as a correction for unfairness. Thatcher predicated her whole premiership on bribes, if that's the way you want to look at it. She bribed council house owners with massive discounts. She bribed working people by privatising utilities and selling shares at disgracefully cheap prices. Pensioners, who actually vote, have been bribed for decades. The current rash of populist politics is no more than a set of bribes. If that's the way you want to look at it. Alternatively, you could just accept that it's politics, dear boy, politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Iains Date: 25 Jul 17 - 07:04 PM "Any improvement on the Standard and the Mail? 😂😂😂" Interesting the pack still insist on putting the source of the news first and promptly slag it off before trying to manipulate the content to their own agenda. Here is a wriggling labour clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4gZjLiNRbc The actual manifesto states: "Labour believes education should be free, and we will restore this principle. 1o one should be put off educating themselves for lack of money or through fear of debt.There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years. Since the Conservatives came to power, university tuition fees have been trebled to over £9,000 a year,and maintenance grants have been abolished and replaced with loans.The average student now graduates from university, and starts their working life, withwith debts of £44,000.Labour believes education should be free, and we will restore this principle. 1o one should be put off educating themselves for lack of money or through fear of debt.There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years.Since the Conservatives came to power, university tuition fees have been trebled to over £9,000 a year,and maintenance grants have been abolished and replaced with loans.The average student now graduates from university, and starts their working life, with debts of £44,000.Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees. University tuition is free in many northern European countries, and under a Labour government it will be free here too" So above is what the manifesto stated but the message spread by supporters and by the great leader went much further than the above and that is what they are being taken to task on.It may well be politics dear boy politics, but it is also bribery of young people led to believe that what they wanted to hear they actually heard, and as a result voted upon. The Romans called the crime AMBITUS. I think a case could be made for arguing electoral fraud. Perhaps those misguided quotes we hear of were the result of speaking in tongues, or more likely with forked tongues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 17 - 07:16 PM But the Tories had to abandon large tracts of their manifesto and sell their souls to the DUP in order to retain power. They are not going to do lots of things they said they'd do. Triple lock, anyone? The LibDems got their hands on a bit of power and immediately went back on their tuition fees promise. Manifestos are more aspiration than promise and 'twas ever thus. You are homing in, for ideological motives, on statements made which are of uncertain meaning that were not even part of a manifesto. Bully for you, the Mail and the Standard, but that's what partisans always do. Politics, dear boy, politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: DMcG Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:57 AM That is an odd choice clip, Iain. I expected to hear a Labour MP talking about student debt, which is the current point of discussion. Since you quoted from the Labour manifesto at length (and I congratulate you for that: I always read all the main parties manifestos before I vote) and go on to say "So above is what the manifesto stated but the message spread by supporters and by the great leader went much further than the above" I take it that you agree, whatever anyone else said, that the manifesto contains no promise to reduce student debt. I have also quoted at length from the NWE article in which Corbyn explicitly says "I don't have the simple answer for it at this stage". Do you agree that "I don't have an answer" is not the same as "I know! Let's pay off all student debt"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Iains Date: 26 Jul 17 - 04:16 AM Well Steve, the meat of the message was in the last paragraph. Let me elaborate. Sharon Hodgson MP Tweet: "Jeremy Corbyn: Labour could write off historic student debts. All those in their early twenties with student debt vote labour......... Students who have already paid £9000 per year on university tuition fees could have their debts cleared Jeremy Corbyn has revealed" and Imran Hussein is filmed saying:"Jeremy Corbyn has announced that the tuition fees will be abolished straight away from September if there's a Labour government, and that we will bring back immediately EMA."And also that every existing student will have all their debt wiped off". Looking around the table at the pupils he adds: "That's fantastic news, isn't it guys?" If those actions were not designed to make young gullible people vote labour then the moon must be made of green cheese. Now there are many ways of interpreting the above. They were out to deliberately mislead the electorate. They had no idea of the contents of their manifesto. They were indadequately briefed They were not safe to be allowed out on their own They would say anything to curry favour. They were out to buy votes.................................. The labour party is clearly caught both tweeting and in recorded footage proposing actions they are now trying to deny. I hope they have a method statement for backpedalling and that their risk analysis is up to par. Experience indicates backpedalling to be extremely hazardous. Long term they have probably done themselves considerable damage-students past, present and future are unlikely to forget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Jul 17 - 04:42 AM Experience indicates backpedalling to be extremely hazardous. What, you mean backpedaling on things like calling an election, increasing NI contributions and changing the funding for social care? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:00 AM Steve, Please back up your assertion that many prominent members of the Labour Party have said that the party is "more antisemitic than any other." I did not put that in quotes, but I refer you to the numerous people I have quoted saying that it is a particular problem for the Party. Dave, I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith. No you have not. You have just said she was a prat. We all make prats of ourselves at times, but we do not all post racist comments on social media. Since YOU brought her back into the discussion some weeks ago now, you have never said if you agree with Steve and Jim that she was not being anti-Semitic and did not advocate the transportation of Jews even though she freely admits she did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:11 AM Steve, To clarify, there was the promise to abolish tuition fees but no promise to cancel student debt. When we discussed it here most people took it to mean that. Front bench labour shadow Minister Imran Husain said at the time, "Every existing student will have all their debts wiped off." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:14 AM "I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith." No you have not. Yes I have. The fact that you do not accept what I have said is neither here nor there. I have still said it and see no point in taking it any further. We all make prats of ourselves at times, but we do not all post racist comments on social media. What, you mean like like Anne Marie Morris using the word 'nigger'? Which is what I actually brought up. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Shakey Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:24 AM @Steve 6:34 I agree completely. Just two clarifications.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:59 AM So you lied again, Keith. Tsk. 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM That's fine, Shakey, but let's keep this "bribes" malarkey in its proper wider context. It's what politicians do. And sweetshops. And supermarkets. I'm currently being bribed by M&S with 25% off six. It's not the right word. It might be in Nigeria or Zimbabwe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 26 Jul 17 - 10:35 AM Meanwhile out here on the Connemara it,s been a mixed day, sunshine this morning and torrential rain this afternoon. Tonight will be another session in a small village along the coast. Bliss! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:01 PM Dave, The fact that you do not accept what I have said is neither here nor there. I do accept what you have said. It is what you have not said that I ask about. Since YOU brought Shah back into the discussion some weeks ago now, you have never said if you agree with Steve and Jim that she was not being anti-Semitic and did not advocate the transportation of Jews even though she freely admits she did. Steve, So you lied again, Keith. Tsk. I have not lied. You have not even said what lies you are falsely accusing me of. Tsk tsk. We know for a fact that Labour has a serious problem because of statements from numerous prominent people including Sadiq Khan, Tom Watson, the current and former leaders of Scottish Labour, and the "entire NEC" which includes Corbyn himself. I can give the quotes again, but Dave does not like repetition and circularity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:13 PM Ya know, I'm beginning to think that the Professor is a love child of Donald Trump. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:30 PM Greg as ever, just personal abuse and nothing at all to say on the subject. The mods choose not to enforce it, but personal abuse is not acceptable on this forum, so neither are you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: MikeL2 Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:45 PM HI naah They all come from the Diane Abbot school of Mathematics. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:16 PM Cheap shot, Mike and I know it is beneath you. The things that Dianne Abbot has had to put up with in her career give her a good excuse to make the occasional cock up. In my opinion that is! Keith It is what you have not said that I ask about. There is an awful lot that I have not said about an awful lot of things. I am not going to discuss them with someone who just wants to score points in some bizarre contest that only he knows the rules of. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jul 17 - 06:41 PM From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM A post from Keith. "Dave, The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is." Very, very clear indeed, Keith. Dave says that the Labour Party is no more antisemitic than any other. You say that many prominent members say that it is more antisemitic than any other. So I ask you to name the names of the many prominent members who have SAID THAT LABOUR IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER. You can't name them. The reason for that is that your statement that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS HAVE SAID THAT IT IS is a downright lie. You know very well that there are NOT many prominent members who have said that Labour IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER. You hedge and ditch around, you fudge and you dissemble. But what you can't bring yourself to do is admit that the statement that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS HAVE SAID THAT IT IS is pure fiction. You can't support that statement. You lied. You lied over Wheatcroft and you still won't admit it after three years. I'm a very patient man, Keith. You are lying yet again here. I have all the time in the world. I won't drop this. You know that, you clown. God knows why you do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:46 AM Dave, I am not asking you to discuss anything. Just to clarify your views on Shah. Do you agree with Steve and Jim that her comments were not ant-Semitic and she did not advocate transportation even though she freely admits both, or with me that she did. I doubt that you are concerned about hurting my feelings by disagreeing with me. I am sure you do agree with me but are concerned about your friends' feelings. They are grown men Dave. They know that even friends can not agree on everything. Steve, Very, very clear indeed, Keith. Dave says that the Labour Party is no more antisemitic than any other. That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is. Yes. They have said that Labour has a serious problem with it, not other parties. Labour Jews have complained about the Party's anti-Semitism but none from other parties have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:50 AM These twots have had a go at antisemitism, misogyny, paedophelia - all a dead letter in the real world now I really can't see the point in feeding the trolls - thay produce nothing but hate-filled extremism, they always have "Do you not see anything wrong in that Jim? Putting more children at risk for political purposes?" If it were true it is reprehensible You have no concern for the welfare of children unless there is extremist right capital to be made from it You have been given masses of reports involving high placed establishment individuals involved in child-rape, abuse and possible murder - not a frown, not a murmur, not even an acknowledgement - certainly no concern for the victims You ride the victims of paedophelia as if they were chargers in your crusade against the Labour Party You are one sick, sadistic extremist individual More to ignore - you have had similar and your concern for child welfare is such that you chose to ignore them and press on with your hysterical campaign - children really do need concern such as yours to keep them safe Jim Carroll https://www.corbettreport.com/pedophiles-in-politics-an-open-source-investigation/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier https://news.vice.com/article/did-the-british-establishment-cover-up-a-political-pedophile-ring-a-new-zealand-judge-will-decide http://time.com/2974381/england-land-of-royals-tea-and-horrific-pedophilia-coverups/ https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/20520-the-u-k-government-pedophiles-who-got-away-with-spiritual-murder http://www.newagora.ca/evidence-of-organized-pedophilia-and-child-trafficking-implicates-governments-media-churches-and-charities/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:20 AM NBC, 1 hour ago, "Anti-Semitism Claims Hound U.K.'s Labour Party Despite Rise in Polls" http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/anti-semitism-claims-hound-u-k-s-labour-party-despite-n781621 Just labour Steve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:23 AM Guardian, "Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem " https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn Just Labour Steve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:43 AM (Oh God, this is fun...) You're at it again, Keith. There is not a scintilla of doubt that you said that many prominent Labour members have said that Labour is more antisemitic than any other. You have tried to fudge around this. But you have FAILED to provide a single name of a prominent Labour member who has said specifically that Labour is MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER, let alone the many such names required in order to support your claim. Nothing to do with "serious antisemitism problems" or the fact that they didn't also happen to mention other parties in the same breath, etc. (Why would they?) That is not what you claimed. You claimed that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS SAID THAT LABOUR IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER..Now either you come up with a long list of names of those many prominent members who said that, with quotes pertaining to those remarks they are supposed to have made, or we will conclude that you are up to your usual trick of making things up and hoping we won't notice. It's a vulgar and fraudulent tactic, Keith. In fact, it's telling lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Dave the Gnome Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:51 AM Dave, I am not asking you to discuss anything. Just to clarify your views on Shah. Why? What does it matter to you what I think about someone that neither of us even know? This is why I will not play your game. You have a hidden agenda that you will use to try to win your game. Whatever it is. I am no longer prepared to help you to play it. I have already given you the solution - You carry on believing that you have won. Easy. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:59 AM Dave, Why not. Steve, FAILED to provide a single name of a prominent Labour member who has said specifically that Labour is MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER, I never claimed they said that specifically. They have said that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism and not one of them has ever said that any other Party does. Deny that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:00 AM Still no response to establishment paedopheile Hypocritical as it gets Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:00 AM Jim, who are you addressing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jul 17 - 06:09 AM Oh yes you did claim that they said that specifically. For the umpteenth time: Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM Dave, "The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other" That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is. Clear as a bell. You said exactly that. Bang to rights. But now you can't back it up and you're refusing to admit your inexactitude. No list of many prominent members, no quotes. You are compounding your lie. Your behaviour, as ever, is scurrilous, dishonest and thoroughly disreputable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:11 AM "Jim, who are you addressing?" The feller who has attempted to link the Labour Party to paedophilia yet refuses to even acknowledge the establishment's long history in the practice Who the hell else would I be addressing Keith? If the cap fits Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:30 AM Incidentally The two "antisemitism links you provide One is over a year old - nothing has been proved since then and nothing new has emerged It was about criticism of Israel and BDS then and it still is The more up-to-date link refers only to there not being enough Jewish candidates Unfortunate, but not explained and not antisemitic You are still grasping at straws - you always have Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:11 AM "but many promininent members have said that it is (more anti-Semitic than any other)." And they have, but not in so many words. Having lost the actual debate you are again just desperately trying to get me on something, but all you can do is nit pick trivia. OK. I withdraw "but many promininent members have said that it is." and insert, "but many promininent members have said that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism which, they have not said about any other Party, and which no-one else has either" Also only Labour Party Jews have complained about their party's anti-Semitism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:15 AM Jim, "Jim, who are you addressing?" The feller who has attempted to link the Labour Party to paedophilia yet refuses to even acknowledge the establishment's long history in the practice Not me then. I do not claim that any party has a particular problem with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:28 AM Also only Labour Party Jews have complained about their party's anti-Semitism. No Labour party Jew has ever described supposed antisemitism other than linking it to criticism of Israel - which is not antisemitic And still yuo refuse to acknowledge establishment paedophilia Point made, I think You are a predatory hypocrite who ponces on the suffering of raped children Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jul 17 - 09:13 AM You "withdraw." Well that didn't take long, did it, Keith. Just a couple of days to wrestle out of you the fact that you made something up and hoped you'd get away with it. And you did not withdraw with good grace. You prattle on about my nitpicking and "losing." You are a ridiculous man. Finally, your replacement statement is just as stupid. Who are theses hordes of prominent members? And why would they rattle on about other parties when the debate was within their own party? We know that you and Teribus like to indulge in that schoolyard "he does it as well, Miss!" stuff, but the rest of us are a bit more grown up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: bobad Date: 27 Jul 17 - 10:09 AM From Keith's link: There's a certain section of his supporters, not all of them, that really struggle to understand that you can be a Jew and in the party and also support Israel without being a supporter of the right wing," said Hannah, who asked that her name not be used for fear for her safety. "It's black and white to them. If you have any sympathy for Israel, they are triggered and can't control themselves." Hannah said that since Corbyn became the Labour Party's leader in 2015, she has received "countless" anti-Semitic messages on social media, including a particularly distressing photo of a man with a knife in his back and the caption, "Serves him right, he trusted a k---," using racial slur for someone of Jewish descent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: MikeL2 Date: 27 Jul 17 - 10:10 AM Hi Dave <" Cheap shot, Mike and I know it is beneath you. Yeah I must have been feeling a bit nasty that day. Dianne has never been a favourite of mine but that was a bloe below the belt. Glad to hear she has overcome her illness regards Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jul 17 - 10:32 AM Ah yes, boobs, the uncorroborated testimony of a single biased witness... prove that she wasn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:23 PM Jim, No Labour party Jew has ever described supposed anti-Semitism Yes they have. (E.g. Ruth Smeeth) And still yuo refuse to acknowledge establishment paedophilia I do, but this thread is about UK politics. You are a predatory hypocrite who ponces on the suffering of raped children A filthy lying piece of personal abuse that you will never substantiate with anything like a quote. Utterly despicable and totally unacceptable. I have not accused any party of paedophilia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM You "withdraw." Well that didn't take long, did it, Keith. My replacement statement said exactly the same thing. It is only Labour that has a serious problem with anti-Semitism. That shows how pathetically trivial your objection to my wording was. I have made the same point with words even you can not challenge! Who are theses hordes of prominent members? People like the Deputy Leader, the Mayor of London and the entire NEC. And why would they rattle on about other parties when the debate was within their own party? Of course they would make the case that other parties had the same problem, if only it was true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:40 PM "Not me then. I do not claim that any party has a particular problem with it." I have put three lots of links up indicating the massixve (your choice of word) problem that the establishme4nt has with paedophilia - including leading Tory politicians - you have ignored them all and gone on to make your facile accusations about Labour "If you mean paedophilia, I don't either but the behaviour of those Labour councillors who kept it quiet was despicable." Yes you Keith You are incredibly stupid to put something up and deny it on the same thread, yet you do so constantly Poncing off raped children, as you did with your "Muslim implants" One real sicko Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:51 PM Meanwhile on the Connemara another sessions beckons this evening. Last night we had banjo, mouthorgan, concertina, autoharp bodhran and several guitars, music from Ireland, England, Scotland and France, a great night. Tonight the landlord, a great bloke, will play guitar, mandolin,banjo, sings with a fantastic melodeon player, good business, what more could a man want? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Raggytash Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:53 PM That Guinness should have read guiñness!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:35 PM Your replacement statement said an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT thing to your original claim that many prominent Labour Party members said that the Labour Party "is more antisemitic than any other." If you seriously think that that means the same thing as "Labour has a serious antisemitism problem" then you clearly are having severe difficulty with the English language. The far simpler explanation, and the one I've come to prefer, is that you are an inveterate liar. |