BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 09:15 AM

By way of a pleasant diversion - Just found this gem that I must visit in the spring. Only about an hour away.

Himalayan Garden, Grewelthorpe

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 08:58 AM

Just about to put the next batch of bread in the oven. A bowl of water in the bottom to ensure a nice crusty finish to it. Ymmmmmmmm !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 08:53 AM

Underpants arrived, Steve, and although the quality is not the best, they are pretty good. At £7.77 for six pairs I am not complaining. And - NO BUTTONS! :-) I got XL and they are the same as other XLs I have. I am not overweight. Just underheight...

Amazon link here

I would have posted a picture of me modelling them but you know there are some people on here obsessed with me and male nether regions. I don't want to get them too excited

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 08:01 AM

"Posted this on the World's thinnest books thread earlier, Jim."
I most certainly do Dave - still chucking, and will be all day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:30 AM

"I do not know anyone at all who has done that."
'Course you7 don't Keith - none so blind
"We have no such Nazis here Jim."
Wsan't talking about "here" - I was referring to right wing politics
"Stalin was of the Left "
Stalins main victims were "the left"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM

Jim,
I don't know a single left winger who made the hate-instigating accusation that an entire national and cultural people are implanted to rape children

I do not know anyone at all who has done that.

I know of millions of right wingers who sent six million Jews to the gas chambers

We have no such Nazis here Jim. We are talking about the Centre and Centre Right. Mainstream not extreme.

Stalin was of the Left and killed far more than Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 06:52 AM

Posted this on the World's thinnest books thread earlier, Jim. Thought you might appreciate it :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 06:47 AM

"Yes, your morality is different. Absent actually."
I know of millions of right wingers who sent six million Jews to the gas chambers
I don't know a single left winger who made the hate-instigating accusation that an entire national and cultural people are implanted to rape children
Don't boast of your politics Keith, it doesn't become you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 06:38 AM

Also interesting to note that you only quoted half of my post which substantially altered the meaning, Teribus. It was not that far up the list and you had gone to the trouble of cutting part of it. Why did you not quote the rest I wonder? Maybe this communication problem I mentioned?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 06:23 AM

The only mission I have on Mudcat is to enjoy myself, Teribus. I am happy to discuss anything with anyone but as it is blatantly obvious that some people just cannot communicate with each other I have given up even trying. The only rules on Mudcat are provided and applied by the moderation team. If they have any issues with what or how I post I am sure they will let me know. If you send any evidence of "name calling, personal attacks, smears and baseless allegations" to the team I am sure they will act on it accordingly. Remember to include the personal attacks you make though.

Cheers

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM

Points are introduced for discussion below the line here on Mudcat. That sort presupposes an exchange of views backed up by substantive facts and illustrative links to reinforce those differing points of view.

Now that is not what Dave the Gnome is about is it? The substantiation for making that observation:

Dave the Gnome - 02 Mar 17 - 03:04 PM

All is fair in love and war.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Surely after all these years you know what to expect. You cannot seriously expect anything to change can you?

When confronted with such verifiable fact supplied by the likes of Keith A in discussions, the standard response and default position is name calling, personal attack, smears and baseless allegations. Accompanied by point blank refusals to substantiate anything.

Of course we can expect much better than the utter sink level that you and your pals have driven this forum down to. Your latest "passive aggressive" veneer slips too easily.

We've seen far too many examples of "careful argument" from members of the little "leftie" clique you belong to (No pointless denials please your posting history makes a mockery of them). What's your "mission" Gnome? To drive anyone with any vaguely differing ideological views from your own from the forum? I can tell the lot of you now that you are onto a loser with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 05:27 AM

No need to go far to dig out examples, Raggy.

As you say, different morality.
Yours is shit.

Yes, your morality is different. Absent actually.

Both from Keith. Just above here.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 05:19 AM

You should what I do when I get abused (your partner Teri is the worst offender by far) I giggle, sometimes I laugh out loud.

You are not backward at giving out abuse yourself and, before you type it, no I am not going to dig out examples for you to deny them, I seen that tactic all too often.

We are not at school, we are all big boys, even you.

PS This forum is not real life.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM

Ah, so we are now really getting to it. I have no morals. You believe I am somehow inferior to you. Is that it? Keep going Keith, your supremacist beliefs were assumed before. They are now proven.

As to You say that because there are Left Wing members I should expect to be abused. Well, if I recall correctly, it was not the left wing of anything that created false Facebook IDs was it. Any form of extremism is wrong but any abuse you get is not for your beliefs. It is for your attitude. See above.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 04:11 AM

Dave,
I have been very careful never to be disparaging about different moralities, languages or planets. Never better or worse. Just different.

You say that because there are Left Wing members I should expect to be abused.
You say that they should be expected to go for personal attack, not argue their case.
In true Stalinist style they will not argue with opponents, just denounce them. "RACIST!" "LIAR!" "EXTREMIST!"

As in a show trial, they will smear and discredit you by misrepresenting your past.

You say I should not complain or defend myself.
I should meekly accept it or leave altogether.
They want my silence so they should have it.

You have just shown how nasty you people can be Dave.
Yes, Planet Left is a different place.
Yes, your morality is different. Absent actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 04:01 AM

Steve,
It was the first mention of the Guardian piece IN THAT THREAD,

Yes, but not in that discussion and to all the same people.
I had already quoted it in full. Both books were dismissed and the exact words used to dismiss them were not significant, and I had quoted them already anyway.
There was not deceit or attempt at it.
Wheatcroft was extolling my views anyway, so no need to lie about him.

The deception was yours, because you could not challenge my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:44 PM

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Shaw.

I thought you stated somewhere on this thread that you had read Geoffrey Wheatcroft's article on the 9th December, 2014? Now your last post causes me to doubt this:

"having quoted the whole bloody thing elsewhere a week before" - Steve Shaw

But he didn't did he? He only quoted the relevant passage not "the whole bloody thing" - You telling lies again Shaw?

Here is another one:

Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

The books were not rubbished, bobad dear chap

But Steve what is this?

Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 04:41 PM

"I have NOT stated that the books were not criticised"

So which one is it Sherlock? Either one is a Lie or the other is. Now I did read the Geoffrey Wheatcroft article - the whole bloody thing. I also know the names of the Historians who ripped Taylor's book and Clark's book to bits I even posted a list of them on one of the threads so with certain knowledge I can identify your first statement to bobad above as yet another of your deliberately told lies.

The threads were NOT about a book, an article, or even a passage in an article. Here you are attempting to say that they were - yet another misrepresentation of yours. I can remember some waffle from you about how crucial it was to get the wording right - but when asked you could not explain why and even said you didn't give a toss.

This is something that you dragged up and have been dragging it up whenever your a flailing about in any thread on any subject where you are losing the discussion. I would imagine that people are getting pig sick of it, so when it cropped up on this thread I decided to look into it - I found conclusive proof that you Shaw are a liar - I found that about one hour after you pointing out the error, Keith A acknowledged it, corrected it then just to make absolutely sure that everybody knew the part of the article being referred to the relevant passage was faithfully copied five times. In March 2017 you are still claiming that Keith A did not acknowledged the error and did not correct the passing remark he made about Wheatcroft's article - that is a Lie.

Dave the Gnome says all this is unimportant, the thread, the books, etc, etc - I agree. What is important is that you are an unrepentant liar, that you are a stalker and a troll and that the forum would a far better place without you and your little gang - this should come as no great surprise to you, after all it will not be the first time you have been told this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 05:48 PM

As you say, different morality.
Yours is shit.

Keith. You will note that I have been very careful never to be disparaging about different moralities, languages or planets. Never better or worse. Just different. And I genuinely believe it apart from the odd exception such as paedophilia and such. Strange to see that you judge someone as shit just because they are different. I wonder if this is the cause of your looking down upon anyone of a different political viewpoint, creed or culture. I think your superiority complex is showing at last and your mask of civilisation has slipped. Well done for coming out at last.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:41 PM

"Both books were most certainly "rubbished" Shaw dear chap. Both were subject to highly critical peer review and not solely by Geoffrey Wheatcroft - for you to state as you have done that Taylor and Clark's books were not criticised demonstrates your ignorance at best and yet another of your lies at worst."

But, Teribus, the only context in this argument is that framed by Keith's reference to the Guardian piece. I have NOT stated that the books were not criticised, so now YOU'RE telling fibs! I have no doubt that others apart from Wheatcroft have criticised the damn things, but Keith has repeated said that THE GUARDIAN "rubbished" the books (which it didn't) - not anybody else!   

"It was for all of roughly ONE HOUR. Hoping to get away with what exactly Shaw - this being an article, a book and a subject that you say you have no interest in - it was however an opportunity that you seized on to "stick it to Keith A" didn't you, after all he had been trouncing you in discussions on the other WWI threads. Only trouble was Keith A acknowledged the mistake and immediately corrected it didn't he..."

Rubbish! It was the first mention of the Guardian piece IN THAT THREAD, he knew the piece very well having quoted the whole bloody thing elsewhere a week before AND mentioned it one more time, and he LIED about what Wheatcroft had said, bare-faced! He thought we wouldn't notice! It's whst Keith does all the time. He's done it to me only this past week! Get to know the man better, Teribus! Positively fraudulent, I'd say! 😂😂😂 And may I remind you for the umpteenth time that, had I not picked Keith up on the lie, it would have stood for ever more. Let's just let lies be perpetuated, eh, much more moral than "sticking it" to the liar!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:40 PM

Teribus (note please that I am using your correct name on this occasion).

You and I, together with Jim, Greg, Dave, Steve, Keith, Ake and many others have been the target of much abuse over a prolonged period of time.

I doubt if you or any of the others lose any sleep about it, I certainly do not.

From my brief conversations with Dave he assuredly does not.

I can't speak for the other people, but again I would doubt if they give this forum any consideration when they are posting to it and certainly do not allowed their lives to be governed by it.

There is a very simple solution. If someone is offended by it they have a clear cut choice not to participate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:13 PM

Raggy, at the moment it does not appear that it is Keith A doing the complaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 03:52 PM

I would kindly suggest that you grow up. Your behaviour over the past few years is that of a spoilt brat in a junior school playground.

Please Miss, they're are picking on me, please Miss I'm being bullied.

It may have worked when you were an annoying little brat 60 years ago, but you're in a world with adults.

If you can't cope with it ....................... tough.

I have absolutely no sympathy with you at all.

You have a clear choice, if you don't like the (justifiable) criticisms of you, you can opt out.

Personally I think you enjoy the attention ........ my response to that is I think you are a sad bastard.

Your problem, not mine/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 03:37 PM

Dave, I would prefer a forum where people argue about the issues without getting personal.
The mods choose not to enforce it, but those are actually the rules here.

You say that everyone should be free to use any tactics to silence someone with differing views.
I say argue your case if you can, or leave it if you can't.

As you say, different morality.
Yours is shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 03:17 PM

Iains,

I still haven't looked at the biblical connection, nor will I.

You may think this is my loss.

I would defer and say I am not prepared to accept fairy stories.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 03:04 PM

I expect an argument. That is the point.
I do not expect to be called nasty names based on misrepresentations of posts made years ago!

Well, sorry you are disappointed, Keith. Various platitudes spring to mind. All is fair in love and war. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Surely after all these years you know what to expect. You cannot seriously expect anything to change can you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:32 PM

Dave,
Why would you "point out untruths spoken about" a right wing organisation on a forum with a large left wing membership and not expect an argument?

I expect an argument. That is the point.
I do not expect to be called nasty names based on misrepresentations of posts made years ago!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:30 PM

1000!

Not received the new undies yet but I'll keep you posted.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Why should anyone coming on Mudcat and putting reasonable views on reasonable topics be subject to such attacks

Why would anyone think that posting anything at all, let alone anything controversial, would not attract any response? Why would you "point out untruths spoken about" a right wing organisation on a forum with a large left wing membership and not expect an argument? Why would you prod a wasps nest and not expect to get stung?

I would say you must be mad but rather than that I am sure it is just

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

"Isaiah 5:21"
Iain Paisley is back - mind your bums lads
Jim Carroll

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

Dave,
I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it."

It is natural to whinge about such behaviour, and I also endeavour to resolve it personally by refuting all the false accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:27 PM

Jim,
So far, neither Keith nor Teribus have come us with anything of the enormity of entire cultures infected to rape children.

Of course not. What a ludicrous idea.

NO LINK AS EVER BEEN FOUND BETWEEN THESE CRIMES AND THE MUSLIM CULTURE - NONE!!!

No. And no-one here has ever suggested one.

You would be outraged if somebody claimed that all Jews were "culturally implanted" - why is it permissible for someone to make the same claim against Muslims
You won't attempt to respond to this - your responses seems to be confined to vitriolic abuse.

No vitriolic abuse. Sorry but I agree with you. It is not permissible.
Muslims include a vast range of different cultures.

a handful of statements from relatively unknown individuals and reject everything else that has been said.

Jack Straw (Home Sec), Ann Cryer MP, Lord Ahmed, Alibhai-Brown, Mohamed Safiq.
No other explanation for the over-representation was available then, and there views were carried by all the media.

Even if the handful of people Keith claimed ever made such a basically racist statement,

The whole media carried their views and in the whole world only YOU have claimed the to be racist.
Or can you find someone?

The Muslim community as a whole has rejected it, the Magistrates who trised tha cases rejected it - the police rejected it - the enquirers into the incidents rejected it.

None of that is true.


I brought this up because Keith asked for examples of hiw extremism - this is as extreme as it gets

It is not extreme to say that we are all implanted with our culture to some extent, it is not extreme for people with knowledge to say that the cultue is to blame, and it is not extreme to believe them in the absence of any other theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:20 PM

Wrong end of the stick yet again, Teribus. I am not complaining about anything as I have already pointed out in the statement "I would find it offensive to be accused of anything nasty BY SOMEONE THAT MATTERS TO ME and even then I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it."

You are another

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

And note that nowhere in that statement is there any indication that different is any better or worse. Just different. We obviously cannot communicate and have nothing in common so there is no point in even trying. I wonder why you seem to want to bang your head on a brick wall so much?

Good to see that so many people experienced the Facebook cloning though. Maybe now your mate will understand that he is not the only one that has been subjected to any abuse. He is the one who whiges most about it most though.

:D tG

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

Hey Raggytash.
Isaiah 5:21

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

Dave,
I would find it offensive to be accused of anything nasty BY SOMEONE THAT MATTERS TO ME and even then I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it

Well most people would be offended by anyone attacking them personally in public. You and your morality are clearly very unusual.

Why should anyone coming on Mudcat and putting reasonable views on reasonable topics be subject to such attacks, and why should they be criticised by the attackers for denying their accusations?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 01:54 PM

Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

1: The books were not rubbished, bobad dear chap. Calling a book "rather vulgar" is not rubbishing it. I've read some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time. Very enjoyable too!"

Both books were most certainly "rubbished" Shaw dear chap. Both were subject to highly critical peer review and not solely by Geoffrey Wheatcroft - for you to state as you have done that Taylor and Clark's books were not criticised demonstrates your ignorance at best and yet another of your lies at worst. I'm sure you have read "some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time" - very plausible - but I think in your case the meaning of "vulgar" was far different from what Geoffrey Wheatcroft meant by "vulgar".

2: "Calling it "fraudulent" WOULD be rubbishing it, but of course the only person in the world who ever called Taylor's book "fraudulent" was Keith, and he was hoping to get away with it

It was for all of roughly ONE HOUR. Hoping to get away with what exactly Shaw - this being an article, a book and a subject that you say you have no interest in - it was however an opportunity that you seized on to "stick it to Keith A" didn't you, after all he had been trouncing you in discussions on the other WWI threads. Only trouble was Keith A acknowledged the mistake and immediately corrected it didn't he Shaw as can be seen here:

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.

Hope this helps!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 01:22 PM

Gnome how hypocritical of you to advise somebody to ignore lies, insults, smears and baseless accusations, when you yourself didn't. Steve Shaw is on record as stating that he was not the sort of person to let any "lie on this forum stand" - albeit that he was the one doing the lying. And guess what Gnome, you and the rest of your little gang took great delight in making sure the pot kept boiling. One part of that gang (The Musktwats) have fallen silent, around the time that you yourself fell silent, you did occasionally post using a GUEST, identity but your posting style and comments made you easy to identify resulting in you ditching your GUEST identity.

It was on one of the early WWI threads in 2013 or 2014 that I commented on the "mobbing" and bullying that Keith A was being subjected to. You and your pals have been relentlessly stalking him ever since.

So on an open forum that anyone can read and anyone can contribute to Keith A must accept the treatment being dished out to him and ignore it. Care to tell me why? Akenaton is subjected to baseless accusations related to cruelty to animals and he is just to accept his name and reputation being traduced. Care to tell me why?

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Different indeed you and your pals are well known for your hypocritical double standards.

By the way your facebook tale is true and was shared by quite a few members on this forum, myself included, your experience was far from being unique. Quite rightly action was taken to take those pages down, it is equally natural, correct and understandable that when subjected to similar abuse on this forum steps are taken to end that abuse as well. On this thread two of your pals have been exposed for what they are - Liars - So now you are all complaining. For people who claim they are not a gang, your actions and your posting history, screams that the opposite is the case.

At some point or other this stalking by you and the little gang of ideologues has got to stop. If, in discussion, you and your pals cannot restrict yourselves to addressing the points made and countering the facts presented then remain silent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 12:52 PM

There's a very nice Italian deli called Roma next to Whitefield Morrisons. Just bought three jars of aglio alla Marchigiana and I may be chomping a handful along with this pot of gorgeous Nocellara olives, stone-in, by the time you read this. It's amazing that they can get garlic cloves to stay crunchy yet mild enough for you to be able to eat a dozen. Also bought some pancetta in the piece so that I can make Mrs Steve a carbonara at the weekend. They didn't have the pig's cheek I wanted but the pancetta looks just the ticket.

Now where's that bloody corkscrew! It's grim up north...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 12:18 PM

Didn't finish:
What kind of people would make an accusation like this knowing the effects it has on people's lives?
Even if the handful of people Keith claimed ever made such a basically racist statement, why believe them and not the thousands of Muslims who have totally rejected the idea that the acts of these criminals - what makes the so-called claims of a few more acceptable than the rest - are they more honest - are they greater authorities on Muslim culture - or do they just suit and already IMPLANTED BIGOTRY of Keith and people who think like him?
What sort of human being would target an entire culture on the basis of a handful of statements from relatively unknown individuals and reject everything else that has been said.
The Muslim community as a whole has rejected it, the Magistrates who trised tha cases rejected it - the police rejected it - the enquirers into the incidents rejected it.
If Keith "only believes it becaus all those prominent people said it was true"
NO LINK AS EVER BEEN FOUND BETWEEN THESE CRIMES AND THE MUSLIM CULTURE - NONE!!!
What have these people ever done to you?
I brought this up because Keith asked for examples of hiw extremism - this is as extreme as it gets
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

The books were not rubbished, bobad dear chap. Calling a book "rather vulgar" is not rubbishing it. I've read some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time. Very enjoyable too! Calling it "fraudulent" WOULD be rubbishing it, but of course the only person in the world who ever called Taylor's book "fraudulent" was Keith, and he was hoping to get away with it. Hope this helps!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 11:59 AM

"That's precisely why he and Carroll continually deflect with lies and misrepresentation and dredge up ancient posts. "
The invitation I have put out to Keith goes for you Bobad - produce the quotes Keith claims and I am happy to withdraw my accusations
Fail to do so and it is you who is lying
So far, neither Keith nor Teribus have come us with anything of the enormity of entire cultures infected to rape children.
You claim to have the interests of the Jewish people at heart - the Nazis made exactly the same claims about the Jewish culture - not a shred of difference
You would be outraged if somebody claimed that all Jews were "culturally implanted" - why is it permissible for someone to make the same claim against Muslims
You won't attempt to respond to this - your responses seems to be confined to vitriolic abuse.
Fine by me - it underlines your trollish behaviour and your dishonesty - a win-win situation from my point of view
What I am totally unable to figure out is if the people ever consider the effect that these statements have on Muslim families - the kids that get persecuted at schools, the women spat at in the street, the threat od arson attacks, the graffiti.... and all the shit that these accusations bring into their homes and lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 11:19 AM

Makes one wonder, if someone gets SO upset by it, that they actually bother to post to the BS section at all. Especially when that self same person rarely posts above the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 11:18 AM

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Sorry Keith, I really have tried to meet you at least part way but there is obviously no point any more. I don't know how to put it any plainer. I would find it offensive to be accused of anything nasty BY SOMEONE THAT MATTERS TO ME and even then I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it. I know we are all different and my way is not yours. But you never make allowances for that and I have had enough.

When anyone says anything, someone will disagree. Sometimes in a very robust manner. I accept that and suggest you do the same. Drop the martyr act or stop posting things that you know will cause a reaction.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:50 AM

Dave,
I would find your experiences despicable, and would have supported you and certainly not joined in with the abuse.
I would also not suggest that you just accept it and "get over it."

I did have a fake profile of me put up by some far right persons. Richard Bridge helped me deal with it.

the organisation that arranged it has now mutated into one that you defend vigourously.

I assume you mean Ukip.
I do not "defend them vigorously" but as they have no defenders here I do point out untruths spoken about them. That is all.

I think your claim that some unpleasant organisation mutated into them is such an untruth, or have you evidence?

I do not find it trivial to be falsely accused of nasty things.
I find it deeply offensive, and I doubt that many people would find it "trivial in the extreme" either.

I think most people would find such behaviour despicable, and question the motivation of those doing it.

Instead of suggesting I ignore it you should stop doing it yourself and suggest that your friends stop too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:32 AM

I do not find it trivial to be falsely accused of nasty things.

So, Keith, where were you when a certain right wing organisation set up a facebook page in my name to post obscene things about women and how I supported the extermination of immigrants? The page has now gone and the organisation that arranged it has now mutated into one that you defend vigourously. Not many people saw it and those who mattered knew it was not me so, in the overall scheme of things, it was pretty trivial.


Where were you when someone on here posted a happy little ditty about my dying in slow agony? He was a hateful little shite and is now no longer here so, once again, trivial.

If someone I cared about did any of these things it would be important. If someone or something I cared about was in danger, it would be important. Absolutely none of this crap is. Get over it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:28 AM

If anyone takes this part of the forum seriously they really do need medical help.

Psychiatrists at the ready !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM

Dave,
That fact that I chose to join in is entirely up to me but I do fully understand it is trivial to the extreme.

I do not find it trivial to be falsely accused of nasty things.
I find it deeply offensive, and I doubt that many people would find it "trivial in the extreme" either.

I think most people would find such behaviour despicable, and question the motivation of those doing it.

Instead of suggesting I ignore it you should stop doing it yourself and suggest that your friends stop too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 09:26 AM

I've just finished a jar that I made in 2015, it keeps for years.

I've got all the vegetables prepared for the Corned Beef Hash tomorrow night, 8 kilos of potatoes, 4 kilos of carrots 4 kilos of onions all peeled and chopped ready to cook tomorrow, just need to throw in 6 tins of chopped tomatoes. 5 1/2 kilos of corned beef in the fridge ready to dice at the last minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 08:51 AM

Ooooh - Whiskey please Raggy. I was contemplating going to the Moor and Coast June do but I see it ain't on this year :-( I am pretty sure I will be over some time before August but, if not, I know it will keep :-)

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 08:31 AM

Dave,
I'll keep a jar back, I have also added Whiskey to a couple of batches so you have a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

No need, Keith. Almost everyone else understands that when I say "and even less could give a fuck about" it is all encompassing. When I say it is a waste of time almost everyone else understands that it is a waste of time for everyone. Including me. That fact that I chose to join in is entirely up to me but I do fully understand it is trivial to the extreme. If you chose to take offence at any of it, that is entirely up to you but don't expect everyone to take you seriously.

Cheers

DtG