BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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

Would that be the same definition that the professor claims all decent democracies adhere to.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 AM

I believe Raggy that that has something to do with laws not be retrospective?

The legal definition of anti-Semitism was officially adopted by UK Government and UK Police Forces on the 30th March 2016, Shah's comments date from 2014.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

If that is the case terikins why has Shah not been brought before a court.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 05:13 AM

"Now, Teribus, the thing is, read my lips, the map incident wasn't entirely serious now, was it?" - Shaw

Really? Now Shaw you read my lips - Go to a public place a state what Shah said - If reported you would be charged and found guilty of anti-Semitic hate - now how funny do you think that joke would be?

Not merely a matter of opinion Shaw, it is a matter of fact, a matter of law.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 02:07 PM

He and Shah are both lying then Steve, like the entire Labour leadership.
You expect to be taken seriously Steve?
Ha ha ha.

How much more likely that you have just got it wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

What else do you love about John McDonnell, Keith? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:35 PM

John McDonnell,
"you(Livingstone) deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah,"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM

Steve,
You're even at it in the teacher thread now.

Why not? I am 3 years retired after forty years as a full time teacher.
You think you alone have anything to say?
Your ego knows no bounds.

Your stupidity grows by the hour.

Quote one thing then Steve, and we will see which of us is stupid.
You always resort to vacuous abuse in defeat.
You have no reply to my posts and nothing else you can say. Just name calling and bluster.
You lose again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM

Antisemitism is hatred directed towards Jews

Look up "new anti-Semitism" - people aren't as stupid as you think. Oh, and look up PC and euphemism while you're at it. Come to think of it check out "willful ignorance" too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 11:43 AM

Like hell, Keith. Your stupidity grows by the hour. You're even at it in the teacher thread now. Now, Teribus, the thing is, read my lips, the map incident wasn't entirely serious now, was it? She was repeating an extremely ill-timed and extremely unfunny "joke" that she'd seen somewhere else. I can't tell you enough how I resent the fact that she brought opprobrium down on the heads of Labour members. Bloody idiot. The biggest idiocy of all is that she had no regard for the inevitable fact that she would be shat on from on high as soon as the media got hold of it. And of course she was reacting to the actions of the Israeli regime. It isn't wrong to sympathise with the Palestinian side of things and she saw what was in her opinion the brutality of the regime towards people in Gaza. She did not mention Jews. Antisemitism is hatred directed towards Jews, not towards a regime she regarded as mistreating Palestinians in Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 11:18 AM

Steve, because you do not recognise the currently accepted definitions of anti-Semitism you may well be saying things obviously anti-Semitic to others including Jewish people.

They would then be justified in calling you an anti-Semite.
Happy with that?

Even John McDonnell recognises Shah's statements as anti-Semitic.
You really are isolated on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 09:35 AM

"The remark that got her into trouble did not mention Jews and was a response to the actions of a government" Steve (Lying Git) Shaw

That's right Shaw you never did answer that question I asked about what Shah said:

The following was the subtitle for a map of the United States of America with the outline of Israel superimposed in the centre.

Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict.
Relocate Israel into the United States...
The transportation costs will be less than 3 years defence spending

Naz Shah mentions Israel, she does not say anything about this only referring to the Israeli Government. Now then Shaw if you did take on Shah's advice who would you relocate if you did as she recommended - that would be the population of Israel wouldn't it - And the population of Israel is predominantly Jewish - So Naz Shah WAS talking about relocating Jews.

In stating what she did, she was of course being stupid, she was of course parroting what she thought was a message acceptable in her "socialist", right-on, left-wing, Hamas/Hezbollah supporting pals. What she was doing was denying Israel the right to exist - and that Shaw IS anti-Semitic - couldn't give a toss whether you agree with me or not - because if you stood up and stated the same today in public and someone reported you for doing it. Then you would be charged and found guilty of making anti-Semitic remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM

Steve,
Ignoring Keith's stupid post.

That is the problem Steve.
If anyone contradicts your preconceived views, you trivialise, ridicule and put them down. There is no point expressing alternative views however much evidence you can supply.
That is why I just quote senior Labour people to you.

There is nothing stupid in my post. Even Dianne Abbott and John McDonnel can see the anti-Semitism that you are blind to.
The Party is in dire straights since the takeover.
Loyal publications like New Statesman and Guardian are despairing of it.

I have shown all those things to you, but you just dismiss anything that challenges your worthless ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 06:23 AM

Ignoring Keith's stupid post. Teribus, you have just proved the point. She supports everything in Labour policy that you detest. Yet you trust her apropos of her grovelling confession. Odd. And I have not said she did nothing wrong. I've told you that I don't respect her and I've told you, several times, that she was stupid. I've told you that she has a long way to go in my estimation in order to restore her integrity. The remark that got her into trouble did not mention Jews and was a response to the actions of a government. Bad timing, stupid thing to do, no regard for outcome, I heartily disagreed with the comment - but not antisemitic. I don't care what she said in order to save her skin. She was not attacking Jews because of their ethnicity. If you're not doing that you're not being antisemitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 03:37 AM

Steve, are you aware of a single person in the Party who has denied Shah's anti-Semitism?
No? Does that not tell you something?

Is there anyone in the world you can quote other than you, Livingstone and Jim?
No.

I will not discuss it with you for the reasons given, but you are utterly alone in your perception of what anti-Semitism is so there is no point anyway.

Now even the Guardian and New Statesman have turned away from what Labour has become since the hard Left took over.
People like you have destroyed a great movement.
Working people have been betrayed by the political ambition of a despised minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:41 AM

"when Naz says something (in order to save her skin)"

The epitome of integrity eh Shaw?

Why would she have to say something "to save her skin" if there was nothing wrong with what she said in the first place?

In short Shaw your assumption is ridiculous.

Anyone who supports Hamas or Hezbollah deserves outright condemnation. Anyone who actively supports BDS believes in collective punishment of a nation and its people.

Anyone who supports Corbyn's "leadership" of the Labour Party deserves nothing but ridicule - to date it has been non-existent and there would appear to be no light at the end of the tunnel, politically the man is a complete and utter disaster as a "leader". Even mild curiosity wouldn't prompt any sane individual to follow him.

By the way, I know you are severely constrained and driven by your political ideology and a typical football supporters Pavlov-like, "black-and-white", tribal loyalty, but why should anybody have to agree with, or believe, everything any particular person says all of the time Shaw? Fortunately for the world we're not all brainwashed saps like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 08:19 PM

Anyway, never mind all that. Dave, the boned rolled shoulder of Gloucester Old Spot was sublime. Even better, there's cold meat enough for at least one or two more noshes. Damn good crackling too. Damned fine grub. We have veggies staying next week. Bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 07:40 PM

So tell me what else there is about Naz Shah's policies that you agree with. You and Teribus appear to be extremely selective about the things she says that you approve of. She's an avid supporter of Corbyn. You OK with that? He's a friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, according to you, and she supports him. You still OK? You hypocrites decry and revile everything that Corbyn and his allies say and do. But when Naz says something (in order to save her skin) that chimes with your narrative, well you're right behind her all of a sudden. This lying, disreputable, Corbynite hard-leftie all of a sudden becomes the bearer of the sword of truth. Do you realise how bloody stupid this makes you look?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 06:41 PM

She herself is honest and courageous enough to admit that what she said is anti-Semitic, you are not - that is the difference between her and you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 06:22 PM

So tell me what you think she said that was antisemitic. What you think, not what anybody else thinks. I rarely resort to links here, preferring to tell you what I think. A very simple question.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 12:44 PM

"For those who don't know, the New Statesman is a political magazine with progressive, left leanings."
"Yet despite being more favourable to the Labour Party than any other party in British politics, it..."

So what does it say about the Corbyn leadership?

"Inside included a brutal editorial, penned by editor Jason Cowley, bemoaning the parlous state of the Labour Party in Opposition under Jeremy Corbyn.
While admitting the magazine was opposed to the Corbyn leadership from the start, arguing the serial backbench rebel was "ill-equipped to be leader", Labour's ineffectiveness over Brexit seemed to be the last straw. It mused:
"The electorate can smell that something is seriously wrong and is recoiling, but those closest to the triumvirate of the leader, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott seem oblivious to or unconcerned by the stench of failure."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-statesman-protest-jeremy-corbyn-momentum_uk_58e73c75e4b058f0a02dd696

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 12:27 PM

I think that Naz Shah's comments were anti-Semitic.
You do not, but arrogantly dismiss those of us who do.

I quote prominent Labour figures whose view you cannot dismiss, and you ridicule me for that too.
Shah herself? She is obviously lying about it, according to you.

John McDonnell then,
"This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that you deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah, just apologise now and I'll tell you, Jewish members of the community will accept contrition and will forgive and move on but until we get some form of apology I don't think we can."
http://news.sky.com/story/john-mcdonnell-could-weep-over-labour-anti-semitism-row-10831684

You are incapable of recognising anti-Semitism Steve, and your opinion on it is worthless.

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

"You listed my "lies" which in fact where no more than things I have disagreed with you on" - Jim Carroll

Just for once in your life Carroll will try and get a grip of REALITY.

in fact where no more than things I have disagreed with you on

NO, what I have stated is not just OPINION it is FACT

Jim Lie #1 - Kitchener was not forced to resign, he was never even asked to resign, he never did resign he died in Office - YET you persisted with the untruth that he was forced to resign - A blatant lie that flies against DOCUMENTED RECORD.

NOT just something we disagree on - YOU are simply wrong and YOU having had your error pointed out to you on numerous occasions still maintained your LIE. YOU Carroll are a liar.

Jim Lie #2 - Both eye witnesses and researchers have claimed that budies were buried at the Stadium – you say they are "proven liars" and say that is not true

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS – SHOULDN'T YOU CONTACT SOMEONE AND PASS THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION ON – OR MORE TO THE POINT – ARE YOU ******* INSANE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE WE WOULD ACCEPT YOUR WORD ON THE BASIS ON NOTHING?"

"WHERE IS MY EVIDENCE FOR THIS??" - How about the total absence of any bodies or any human remains on the site where these two witnesses and researchers of yours say they were buried? Perhaps you could provide some explanation why the Lebanese, the Syrians, the PLO would hide evidence of an Israeli massacre - IF any evidence of a mass grave that could be tied to the Israelis it would have been shouted from the rooftops to the world and its dog years ago - But the truth is NOT ONE SINGLE BODY HAS BEEN FOUND - NOT ONE, so yes you should accept my word on the basis that in the site your witnesses say that bodies were buried NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 08:21 AM

Read HIS posts! I know that you guys tend to be rather selective as to what you read.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 08:07 AM

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

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


Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:46 PM

Not very literate, Teribus. Time of night I suppose. Are you feeling tired and emotional? That's two threads now...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 06:25 AM

It's not a debate at all, Dave. It's Keith mustering a massive list of other people who have said what he thinks too. At least what we think he thinks. He never actually tells us. And he's changed tactics now. It's not bold any more, it's exclamation marks. Finally, Keith, no-one ever proves anything about anyone here (except in rare cases, such as your misrepresenting Geoffrey Wheatcroft).

Oops! There I go again! Pat-a-cake time! Where's Teribus when you absolutely don't really need him!

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise the rest of your post.

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

"Fuck me..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Lie #1: Kitchener's resignation.

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

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

jim LIE #2: Sabra-Shatila

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

Jim LIE #3 Britain sold weapons to Assad

"The ammunition was licenced and sold"

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

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

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

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

Calm down, dear! ❌❌❌

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots Of Love to you too. Wazzock.

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

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

Lol!

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't talking to you.


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

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

World Socialist Website yesterday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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