BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 06:29 AM

Dave,
And in the meanwhile the current administration are taking us to hell in a handcart.

That is your view, but it is a minority one.
Diversionary tactics? How so? Nothing is stopping you criticising the government except your frantic preoccupation with trivia.
Labour's problems have been all over the news this week and are worthy of discussion. No diversion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 06:24 AM

To force him out of office in order to win votes for krypro-Tory policies would be as undemocratic as Thatcherism

Who is trying to force him out of office?
The Right want him gone but have given up trying.
According to this, Momentum now wants him gone too.


Blair and his cronies took over Labour and made it a krypto-Tory group - since then, it has been a series of disasters

I.e. winning elections!

Takling about a "trade union takeover" is right wing extremist shite.

There are no Right Wing extremists in Labour, or writing for the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 06:23 AM

Boris is in DC today. Stiff upper twit gentlemen.

Condolences for lives lost near Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 06:22 AM

And in the meanwhile the current administration are taking us to hell in a handcart.

Nice diversion tactics though.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 06:06 AM

The 'ludricity' lies in the first statement of the article Keith
"So he is not immortal after all? The part of the Labour party that supports Jeremy Corbyn is edging out of its fantasy that Corbyn will lead them to a great victory in 2020."
Corbyn was elected overwhelmingly to reform the party so that it could fight on genuine reform policies rather than the same old same old.
Until that happens, it doesn't matter to ordinary voters who wins the 2020 election - the consequences for the British people will be the same whoever takes power.
Blair and his cronies took over Labour and made it a krypto-Tory group - since then, it has been a series of disasters, from bumbling and corrupt MPs to illegal wars.
A right wing group within Labour has sought to maintain that position and has been happy to use the interference of a foreign power to do so.
The Trades Unions formed Labour in the first place - they had a voice in its running - it's what made it a workers party
The Atlee Government confirmed that the Unions should have a voice and together, they rebuilt Britain after the war
Since then, the Tories and Labour right have fought tooth and nail to silence the workers voice in British policies

Takling about a "trade union takeover" is right wing extremist shite.
It's ludicrous to attempt to discuss this question and ignore what is actually going on.
Corbyn has overwhelming support for his policies among the Labour membership.
To force him out of office in order to win votes for krypro-Tory policies would be as undemocratic as Thatcherism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:54 AM

💤🖕💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:11 AM

Guardian columnist 14 hours ago,

"A secret recording reveals that even Momentum has given up on Corbyn. Does anyone inside Labour have any idea how ludicrous this all looks? "

Do you Steve?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/secret-tapes-momentum-battle-owns-soul-labour-party

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:53 PM

Bugger...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 03:54 PM

Vardy, Alli, Lallana...go boys! Show those Germans who's boss! Button it, Tekebo!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 03:53 PM

"Car"
A youth was driving his girlfriend home after a dance.
He pulled off the road into a quiet lane and the began kissing and fondling
After a while things got incredibly steamy and he said, "get in the back"
"No" was the firm reply
They set to to where they'd left off until he could stand it no longer
"Get in the back" he said
"No"
Another five minutes later he tried again and received the same response
"No".
He straightened up, slammed the car into gear and raced away until he came to her house, where he jumped out, threw open the passenger door and demanded she got out.
In floods of tears, she obliged and made her way up her path.
He called after her, "You were as keen as I was, why wouldn't you get in the back?
She replied tearfully, " I wanted to stay in the front with you".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 02:04 PM

That was probably the one I remember, Raggy. Some cars on our street were damaged. We had a Reliant Supervan III at the time - Just like Del boy's but in turquoise rather than yellow. Being fibreglass it suffered no dents :-)

Far better than boring old politics any day!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

In that hailstorm in the late 70's my mates brand new Hyundai Pony (I think) looked like someone had been battering it with a toffee hammer.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 11:34 AM

I remember borrowing me dad's car to go to my girlfriend's house in Shaw and being forced to stop on the hard shoulder of the M62, just before the A627M turnoff in an incredibly scary hailstorm. That would have been 1973-ish. Down the corridor, second on the left, boobs. Don't forget to wipe your bum and wash your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 11:26 AM

Not long after that - between 1976 and 1980 (I know because of the house we lived in at the time) we experience hailstones like golf balls in June as well. That was in Swinton, Manchester.

Eeeeh, they don't make weather like they used to...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 11:25 AM

Shaw - 💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 11:09 AM

That match was at Buxton on 2 June 1975, Mike. Don't ask me why such a tiny fact as that stuck in my mind - I wasn't there!

Bobad - 💤

Teribus - 💤

Keith - 💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤

❌

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 10:33 AM

the persecution, ethnic cleansing an massacres of en entire national group on behalf of a fascist state.

Yes, that is what was done to the Jews by Hitler and his associates. No one here has defended that but there are some who defend the current fascists who have the same agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 09:57 AM

The oly deranged person is the one who spends the time defended the persecution, ethnic cleansing an massacres of en entire national group on behalf of a fascist state.

Yes, he does sound deranged.
Glad he never posts on here!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 09:53 AM

That wasn't snow, Mike. It was t'fallout from t'tripeworks...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 09:25 AM

"Jim, this is nothing to do with Israel!"
This is about whatever anybody who contributes to this discussion cares to make it - stick your censor's pencil up your censoring hole.
The oly deranged person is the one who spends the time defended the persecution, ethnic cleansing an massacres of en entire national group on behalf of a fascist state.
Watson is part of a plan to undermine the wishes of the Labour Party membership and he has shown himself prepared to do so wit the help of a foreign power (just like Trump)
The fact that part of the attempred denigration of the Party andd its leadership has been accusations originating in the Knesset makes srael very much a part of this discussion - just as Russia is part of any discussion of the American Presidency.
Do not attempt to interfere with anybody's right to give an opinion on anything, you fascist - who do you think you are, Benjamin Netanyahu?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:56 AM

Hi Dave

<" Snow in March, eh? Who'd have thought it :-) ">

That's nowt up ere. Went to watch Lancs play DEWrby in June some years ago and it snowed then and the day was cancelled.

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:51 AM

Jim, this is nothing to do with Israel!
Your obsession is making you deranged.

This piece in Huff.Post 12 hours ago seems to support Watson's case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/len-mccluskey-entryism-recapture-labour-take-the-party-over-tom-watson-video_uk_58d15315e4b00705db530c5d

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:49 AM

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:41 AM

"Whatever the truth of all this, how can anyone take them seriously with such shenanigans going on?"
Watson is a right wing crook who was forced to resign from Brown's Government because of his expenses fiddles
He voted for Blair's illegal war and against an enquiry into it.
He is also a leading member of Labour's Friends of Israel and is possibly a leading figure in attempting to implicate Labour in charges of anti-semitism.
The "shenanigans going on" are an attempt by the decent members to clean up the act of the party which has been in the hands of such people as Watson, and his fellow crooks for far too long.
You support the like of Watson and his ilk because he makes the right noises about Israeli atrocities - (see above)
"Watson was elected Deputy Leader by the membership. Why should anyone care what you think of him?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

What shenanigans there Dave?
She was a Remainer before the vote, but has since developed a positive view of Brexit.
She is not alone in that. Labour used to be anti-Brexit too.
Things change, and views and attitudes alter to accommodate a new situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:57 AM

I think that is perfectly true, Keith, and shenanigans is a good word for it. However when you look at this BBC news article and see what is happening to politics in general I think singling one party out as indulging in shenanigans is rather biased.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM

Re Labour, this week we have had the spectacle of the Deputy Leader claiming that Momentum and Unite are plotting to take over the Party, and he has a recording which seems to support that.
Momentum, Unite and McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor deny the charge and counter claim that Watson is trying to influence Unite's leadership election.

Whatever the truth of all this, how can anyone take them seriously with such shenanigans going on?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 04:22 AM

💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 02:59 AM

"you all seem to think that repeating lies eventually makes them true." - Shaw

Only problem with that Shaw is that you have yet been unable to pin one single instance of me ever having lied. As for repeating lies, how many times since December 2014 have you thrown your "Wheatcroft" lie in Keith A's face?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:02 PM

❤️😍😻💋👨‍❤️‍👨🌼🌈💝❌❌❌

💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:55 PM

Yep, get that tail between your legs and slink off like the lying weasel you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:41 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...🤡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:34 PM

Well Shaw, you've been shown to be a proven liar, a bigot, a hypocrite and a Jew hater. Is that succinct enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:19 PM

You see, boobs, you know I'm playing a dead straight bat here. You also know that the information I have about your double identity (which really is proof, no messing!) is contained in private messages only. You are gambling on the fact that it isn't ethical to publish them verbatim in the open forum. I can tell everyone here that your exposure as two people posting from the same internet address sits very badly with your denials and your specious claims that you were staying anonymous (whilst calling us Jew-haters and retaining your bobad identity elsewhere) in order to address the argument, not attract attacks on the man. It's all there in the threads. You think that your bad-tempered shouting and denials and insults are the way to divert away from this sorry stuff. Well that might impress your gullible little cabal but, well, as I say, bit of a gamble, innit! Don't worry, I'm a fluffy bunny really. But even fluffy bunnies don't like to be called liars by liars! 🐰🐇🐰🐇🐰

Anyway, enough of this entertainment! Sorry about the bad weather, Dave, though you seem to have sent it back!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:16 PM

Yahoo I'm in a top 3! In this sandbox that's credibility.
Unless one suffers from a peevish ignorance one needs to see that reading between the lines is not a form of lying but is rather simple supposition.

Unwashed public is obviously not politically correct but it was a challenge to come up with a term regarding people who do NOT know a lot about top secret programs concerning cyber warfare.
To be polite it is better to say "the uninformed" by all means.

As for the details of self expression, we all differ. You guys sometimes get lost in that forest of diversion. This thread is where I can rely on the bad boys to be itching for a fight.

I need no armor here since I have no ego to be damaged. I lost it and am delighted it is gone. When it comes to family however any nefarious harm would not go unanswered so do not think that no ego has anything to do with an acceptance of victimhood for loved ones.


I do not have an enemies list for any individual here since there is some nexus of agreement with anyone. Now back to the future of the next cyberwar...

The US dropped the first A bomb and the first deadly cyber strike with the interference of
Israel.
If you know or care about the advancement of cyberwar
What is your opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:55 PM

Hey Greg, how's it hanging? As for spectacles I do need and wear them that's why I can see clearly. I would recommend a seeing eye dog for you and the pack though.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:44 PM

Or, rather, you need spectacles.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:33 PM

My mood darkens? In your dreams Shaw. You are the one who has been shown to be a proven liar. I see you're squirming now and trying to deflect, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:28 PM

By the way, boobs, I'm six foot eight, built like a brick shithouse and have fourteen black belts in so many different oriental combat sports that I've forgotten what they are. If a parking space is a tad too small I just lift my car gently into it. I run a one-man operation which shifts Steinway grands up flights of stairs for concert pianists. That one man is me and I don't waste money on kit. I can build a complete concrete toilet block single-handed in three hours without a ladder. If I were me I definitely wouldn't want to meet me in a bad mood on a dark night. As for Jim, I'm saying nothing, but I think I saw him once and he scares me...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:19 PM

Funny, innit boobs, how your mood darkens when you're confronted by your own dishonesty. You know the truth, I know the truth, the mods know the truth, but methinks thou dost still protesteth too loudeth! That's twice now. You're lucky, mate. The mods chose to let it go whilst keeping an eye on you. We've probably bored them half to death with our nonsense by now and they probably think we deserve you. Have you complained to the mods that you think they're liars? Tell it to the Marines! 😂

The writing is on the wall! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin! You have been held in the scales and found wanting, old boy! Get thee to a vivisectionist!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:33 PM

Bobad, your cheating was confirmed by the mods

Nope, never cheated, you're a proven liar. If a mod told you I was posting under two identities then that mod is as much a liar as you. I don't need anonymity to call proven Jew haters what they are. If I were to meet you or Carroll in person I would not hesitate to tell you to your face what you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

You have sent us that shite weather you were having earlier, Steve. Woke up to snow, sleet, hail, wind, rain and, quite possibly, an alien invasion this morning. Well, maybe not the latter but I never know what I can get away with on here nowadays. Daughters were trapped. One on the 8am bus that did turn up and one at home because the 8:20 one did not! The latter was the lucky one. Buses could not make it down the slope from Haworth to Keighley. Gritters were caught with their pants down. Snow in March, eh? Who'd have thought it :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:30 PM

Keith, boring. Bobad, your cheating was confirmed by the mods. You did it to be able to call Jim and me Jew-haters from behind a wall. You were caught. You and the guest, identical styles. The "anonymous guest" had the same internet address as yours. That fact was divulged, though not the actual address, before you go off on one again. Just to confirm that you were one and the same person. I have the correspondence. Bang to rights, mate! You blokes rattle on about us being a pack. Well you, Keith, Iains and Teribus have undergone convergent evolution in that you all seem to think that repeating lies eventually makes them true. Well I've told you now and I'm not bothered. Have you actually got anything to discuss?

Good news, chaps! I've finally fixed my drive. Now all I have to do is get all the mud off it. I have a gorilla broom and I need a cloudburst. Watch this space! Primroses are amazing this spring. I can see both mud and stars! Aurora amber alert this evening!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:18 PM

They had no reason to doubt its reliability. What reasons do you have?

Well, Keith, what this survey boils down to is that 2000 people were asked their opinion on which party they felt was too tolerant of antisemitism. Remember the question?

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

That was it. It was, literally, an opinion poll. It asks about perceptions yet does not ask about any actual antisemitism nor does it provide any evidence of anything. Yet Teribus tries to use it as documentary evidence that the Labour party is more antsemitic than others. And you wonder why I question it?

Take a look at this article - key facts that you are probably wrong about - and then tell me how accurate public opinion is about anything.

Still, one thing in its favour for Teribus though. It does deflect attention from the Blackpool tower photograph fiasco,

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:26 PM

I f you like liars you must love SNL. I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:08 PM

Considering your dishonesty before the rule change,

No dishonesty whatsoever - another whopper from Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:59 PM

Steve and Jim,
You are talking this up in the same way as you talk up the "serious antisemitism problem" in Labour

I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem.
I did not distort what they said and can reproduce the quotes which were all from reputable media sources.
Do not claim distortion unless you can quote me doing it Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:48 PM

That post was meant for Keith but I see it applies very well to Teribus too!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:47 PM

Well let's stop repeating ourselves and just decide that you are, as ever, utterly deluded. Let's agree to agree on that. Good!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:46 PM

" I may make mistakes, Teribus, but I don't tell lies."

Oh but you do Shaw and I exposed them as such on this very thread if I am not mistaken. However if you want it one more time:

THE WHEATCROFT SAGA

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"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."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

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

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.