BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 06:27 PM

Thanks MikeL2. You are a gentleman and a scholar :-) I must admit that I have no particular axe to grind for the esteemed Ms Abbot but I do think she has worked wonders against long odds and I admire her for that. Whatever anyone thinks of her, she does not deserve the hate and bile that has been heaped upon her.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:31 PM

I don't wish her ill (literally) but she is a disgrace. She got the gig because she ticked the boxes. She's racist and she's not very bright.

All in all an embarrassment to the labour party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 09:05 PM

and Blair isn't? Sounds like you have a hard choice to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:58 AM

Jim,
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

I do not deny any of it Jim.
I ignored it because this thread is about UK politics. I do not believe that any party has a particular problem with it.

I did say "but the behaviour of those Labour councillors who kept it quiet was despicable."
I stand by it, and you agreed with me on it.

Steve,
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."

It was the same. Many prominent Labour people including the leadership have said that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism without accusing other parties of the same problem.
It is just Labour.

Who are theses hordes of prominent members?

If I was like you I would demand to know who ever claimed "hordes."
I certainly did not, but I am not desperate to find any fault with you however trivial.
I can just flatten you arguments and your case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 04:25 AM

Hooray! You have the knack of it at last, Keith. Just keep believing that you have won something and the fact that we all know different need not spoil it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

You do not "flatten" arguments by saying one untrue thing, then pretending you haven't said it, then saying something completely different but saying it's the same thing. That is not an argument. That's just a shitty piece of dishonesty which I've exposed. It's your modus operandi. You should be ashamed of yourself. You're a joke on legs. An unfunny one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 04:27 AM

Oh Dear. A member of the public is not too impressed with abbopotomus.
"Diane Abbott was faced down last night by a furious Brexiteer over her claims that Leave voters are racist. An audience member branded the shadow Home Secertary's comments a "disgusting lie" on Question Time. He was referring to Abbott's statements at last year's Labour conference, where she told a fringe meeting:

    "The people that complain about the freedom of movement will not be satisfied because what they really want is to see less foreign looking people on their streets."

As Abbott attempted to deny she had ever made the claim, another frustrated audience member roared: "you did say that". Abbott also struggled to muster a defence when she later faced strong criticism over refusing to say Ken Livingstone should be expelled from her party. Another Diane broadcast appearance, more votes lost…


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBabPi_V784

May I remind the ferrets of the story of the crow and the seagull.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1858995/labours-shadow-health-secretary-diane-abbott-brands-the-17million-voters-who-backed-brexit

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 04:40 AM

Shakey - She's racist and she's not very bright.

She got excellent marks in her A levels at high school and went on to gain a BA in history at Cambridge despite her teachers trying to dissuade her. What measure are you using for being bright?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 04:42 AM

I never thought the Monster raving loony party would gain more street cred. than labour, but.................!!!!

https://order-order.com/2017/07/28/labours-brexit-shambles/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 04:44 AM

and she has done pretty well with her career in spite of the abuse hurled at her by the right wing such as A member of the public is not too impressed with abbopotomus.

Well timed Inanes :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 05:12 AM

Well little gnome it should be obvious it is not a question about her IQ, it is more a question of how the utilises it. Pretty obvious to anyone I would have thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 06:27 AM

Well you don't utilise yours very well. All that energy you put into formulating imaginative insults instead of engaging in lucid thought...

In the words of one of your putative heroes, calm down, dear! 😂



(Cue a whole batch of new imaginative insults...)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 07:04 AM

Ah Yes. I see we have a well researched, comprehensive rebuttal of my last postings concerning the labour party. The pack do not like the message so attempt to goad the messenger. Sorry Boyos, don't want to play on your terms.

Anyway another little labout gem for you to gnaw on!

"New Canterbury Labour MP Rosie Duffield campaigned on an anti-grammars platform at the election, saying she wanted "no new grammar schools" as they are "not the way forward" and the 11+ is a "horrible, divisive and stressful thing". It would be pretty dumbfoundingly hypocritical for Rosie to send her own children to grammars and then pull the ladder up, right?

Yes, both of Duffield's sons went to Simon Langton Grammar School in Canterbury. One of them still currently goes there, despite mummy not wanting other people's kids to have that choice. Daniel Hamilton, a likely Tory challenger at the next election, has written to Duffield asking for clarification, pointedly noting: "how many families and young people in East Kent have benefited from our excellent local grammar schools". As Labour grammars hypocrites go, this is up there…"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 11:11 AM

Steve, my case is that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, almost entirely from the far Left.
Other parties do not have that problem.

I make my case by quoting all those prominent Labour people who say that Labour has a serious problem, and pointing out the absence of anyone saying it about any other party.
Also, only Labour Jews complain of experiencing anti-Semitism from their party.

You make your case by trying to catch me out on some wording I used.
You can produce absolutely nothing whatsoever to support your case or challenge mine.
Likewise Jim and Rag.

As always Steve, you just make assertions with nothing behind them.

Dave does not discuss the issues at all. He just comes to stir things up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 12:26 PM

Well little gnome it should be obvious it is not a question about her IQ, it is more a question of how the utilises it

Errrmmm. No. The exact phrase was "She's racist and she's not very bright." Pretty obvious that it was a reference to her intelligence.

As to I see we have a well researched, comprehensive rebuttal of my last postings concerning the labour party. Probably a damn sight better researched than your abuse of Ms Abbotts looks in calling her an abbopotomus or your C&Ps from dubious sources.

Still, like I said to Keith, if it makes you feel you are doing well, who am I to burst your bubble. I fee it is my duty to provide such care in the community.

Talking of Keith, I see he is keeping up my suggested therapy. Keep it up, Keith lad. Your need to replace whatever inadequacies you have with pointless rhetoric will pass and you will soon get your superiority complex back.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 02:26 PM

Dave,
Keith, if it makes you feel you are doing well,

What?
That you people can produce absolutely nothing whatsoever to support your case or challenge mine?

Unless and until you do, I am doing quite well thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:06 PM

Your original claim that many prominent Labour Party members said that the Labour Party "is more antisemitic than any other." You are now telling us that that means the same thing as their saying "Labour has a serious antisemitism problem."

Point one. No it isn't the same thing. Hands up all those who think those two statements are the same thing.

Point two. I asked for the many names of those prominent members who said that "Labour is more antisemitic than any other." You can't provide those names. Do you know why not? Because you made that up. It wasn't just a careless, passing verbal slip-up. It was a deliberate attempt to slip a downright lie past us. There are no "many prominent members" who said that Labour is more antisemitic than any other. That's what you said, and it simply isn't true. In fact, I doubt whether even one prominent member made such a statement. I'm not trying to catch you out. I just read posts carefully. You should know that by now. You are sussed. Caught red-handed. Bang to rights. You've lied. You caught yourself out by not giving the other people posting to this thread any credit for being even faintly astute. You can't debate, Keith. You simply have to win and you'll twist, turn and lie in your teeth in order to delude yourself that you've done so. In all the years I've been posting here, I've never seen you win anything. On the contrary, I've seen you lose a lot. Your credibility and your reputation for starters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 03:41 AM

Perfect, Keith. If you carry on like this you will be better in no time at all. Imagine the freedom it will give you. No more repeating the same things over and over again. No more having to backpedal. No more pointless threads going on for thousands of posts. All you need to do is post something and believe you have won and we will all be happy. Very well done and keep up the good work.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 04:40 AM

Has Ken Livingstone been welcomed back into the fold yet then Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 04:50 AM

Steve, My case is that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism which other parties do not have.
I have clarified what I said. You now know exactly what I meant.
You can no longer pretend to think I meant something else and attack that.

Prominent Labour people and the leadership have said that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, not other parties.
Labour Jews have complained about the Party's anti-Semitism but none from other parties have.
It is just Labour.

Point two. I asked for the many names of those prominent members who said that "Labour is more antisemitic than any other." You can't provide those names

I have provided some of the names of those who said Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
The Deputy Leader, the Mayor of London and the entire NEC which includes the whole leadership.
There are more names in the threads that I would need to look up.
They have not suggested that any other party has such a problem, and the Jews in other parties have not complained of it.
Only Labour, and that is my whole and only case.

Dave, in a debate, if one side can produce nothing to support their case or challenge the other side, they are the losers.
You people can produce absolutely nothing whatsoever to support your case or challenge mine?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 05:22 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnoK5mCkcRo

Abbot reckons it ain't a problem????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 05:29 AM

Another name Steve.
"Chuka Umunna ripped into the Labour leader, alleging he has failed to crackdown on anti-Semitism in party ranks."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/jeremy-corbyn-attacked-chuka-umunna-8348775

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 05:43 AM

In a debate, if one side can produce nothing to support their case or challenge the other side, they are the losers.

But this is not a debating forum and this is not a debate. Debates have rules which ensure they do not go on too long and they are judged by someone who is not participating. This is a rambling discussion which serves no purpose but to make you feel better about yourself, Keith. You are slipping again. Try to remember that you believe that you have won. Keep repeating that mantra and you will never need to feel insecure again.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 09:37 AM

You tried to slip a lie past us then slithered around full of bad grace. Far too outrageous an untruth to be accidental. Once would have been bad enough but it's your usual tactic, Keith. It's vulgar and fraudulent and you have a history of it. And oh yes, we all know exactly what you meant. You meant to continue with your tedious attempted smear of Labour. If you're not posting lies here you're somewhere else trying to dig up more dirt. Why don't you go and sing a song instead?

Dunno, Bill, you tell me. Will he, won't he? Any idea why the totally dispreutable cut'n'run Gove is back enjoying the limelight? We all have our crosses to bear, even you gentlemen of the right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 01:10 PM

Dave, debate, discussion, call it what you will.
The fact is that you people can produce nothing to support your case or challenge mine.
So you lose.
Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, and other parties do not.

Steve, I withdrew that statement some time ago.
Apparently it did not convey what I intended.
Here again is what I intended to convey,

Many prominent 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: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 01:20 PM

That is not to say it does not exist though, does it.

Meanwhile here on the Coñnemara another session beckons tonight, it will be a late one, it always is, I,be rarely left before three and tomorrow see,s a horse racing meet on a local strand!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 01:37 PM

Dave, debate, discussion, call it what you will.

Another perfect example of using words to suit what you mean I'm afraid, Keith.

dis|cus¦sion
[dɪˈskʌʃ(ə)n]
NOUN

    the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas:
    "the committee acts as a forum for discussion"

debate
dɪˈbeɪt/
noun
noun: debate; plural noun: debates

    1.
    a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

The two are not the same thing at all. Only a debate results in winners or losers and that is usually decided by a vote. It has been stated quite categorically that this is not a debating forum and this thread is blatantly (or is it categorically?) not a debate. I could be unkind and say that you only try to debate on here because you have either been evicted from all proper debating forums of you know very well that you would not stand a cat in hell's chance in a real debate. But I do not have any facts to back that up so I will not.

Just keep insisting that you have won. We will keep ignoring you and that way everyone is happy.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 05:49 PM

Again more pointless passive-aggressive shit from our little fat gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 03:01 AM

"Apparently it did not convey what I intended."

Lie. You intended to convey exactly what you said, an untruth of epic proportions, and your "adjusted" statement is completely different. You know it, I know it. So give over. Say one for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:03 AM

And the point of your posting is what, Teribus?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:09 AM

Steve,
"Apparently it did not convey what I intended."
Lie. You intended to convey exactly what you said,

Then why did I withdraw it as soon as you drew my attention to it?

I have conceded that point. Move on.

Dave,
    the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas:

The fact remains that you people can produce nothing to support your case or challenge mine.
So you lose.
Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, and other parties do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:12 AM

Yes, Keith. You are back with the program. Well done.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:14 AM

Which brings me to...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:14 AM

Creag Mhòr

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:30 AM

Labour gyroscope impersonation!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/naz-shah-labour-anti-semitism-and-a-piece-of-spin-that-will-make/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:48 AM

Dave,
It has been stated quite categorically that this is not a debating forum

Really? By who?
Dispute, debate, discussion, call it what you will.
The fact is that you people can produce nothing to support your case or challenge mine.
So you lose.
Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, and other parties do not.

Like Steve you resort to pedantic debate on the precise meanings of words rather than their context and intended meaning.
Some examples of people debating Mudcat debates:

Steve Shaw, 04 Mar 17 - 06:40 PM .... When I am on a Christian web site and someone starts ranting about homosexuals, I quietly exit ...... I'm all for the rough and tumble of vicious debate, but that's not what is happening now.

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 12 Mar 16 - 08:08 AM
Unfortunately, you are hardly the man to be making these scattergun allegations. You yourself are more than capable of indulging in personal abuse, and, while you may say you welcome civil and serious debate

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 08:14 PM
Most forums dislike meta discussion. Live with it. You can be as civil as you like here in such debates,

Dave, you actually started this thread!!
How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:01 AM

I refer back to the original linked article and would suggest that a civil debate will stick only to facts that have been thoroughly vetted as true.

How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:30 PM
A good navigator of debates knows exactly how and when to change tack. I am not good myself.

McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:20 PM

Please stop stirring, Greg. If you disagree with something I have written here, fair enough. but there is absolutely no reason to be uncivil. It certainly does not make a positive contribution to a thread about "How to have a civil debate".

BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:57 AM
I was rather hoping that the thread would focus on how to have a civil debate

How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:39 AM

Leading by example is a good maxim that is often broken. I had a mentor who used to say 'Do as I say, not as I do', which is, in my opinion, the next best thing. I seriously doubt that anyone involved in this debate has never cast a stone but that is beside the point anyway. We are talking about how we should have a civil debate, not what has happened before

How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:05 AM
The rules of Mudcat debates are what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 05:11 AM

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

K of H. It is like debating with "potty putty" only the putty has more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 06:35 AM

I have used the same expression many times on this forum Inanes. I know you like to mimic your betters but do you need to be so blatant about it?

I did used to think it was a debate, Keith, but your mate Teribus put me right. If there is one useful thing he has done it is to open my eyes to that fact. I should have realised myself because these threads obviously do not follow the rules of debate and while I did try my best to help put that right I will be the first to admit that I failed to do so. I believe Teribus was referring to the following bits of information about Mudcat

www.mudcat.org

The Mudcat Cafe is a community of musicians, historians and enthusiasts that collect and discuss traditional folk and blues songs, folklore, lyrics, instruments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudcat_Café

The Mudcat Café is an online discussion group and song and tune database, which also includes many other features relating to folk music

Discussions do not really have winners or losers but if it makes you feel happier in yourself to believe you have won something, be my guest.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:00 AM

Oh, and just in case anyone wishes to accuse me of making the bit about Teribus up -

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

It is not a debating forum it is a discussion forum - vast difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:22 AM

Shrivelled little gnome. As I said, the potty putty has more sense! What a quaint contradictory little fellow you are. You really must make up your mind as to what this forum is. Your constant ducking and diving, bending and twisting of definitions make the more rational of us quite dizzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:26 AM

You really must make up your mind as to what this forum is.

I have. It is a discussion forum. I stated that quite plainly did I not and it has been confirmed by your mentor. You really must pay more attention to what the grown ups say Inanes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 07:35 AM

BTW, Inanes, your 'recent find' from the Torygraph dates back to April 2016, was written by someone described as a "parlaimentary sketchwriter" and opens with "Beat this for a piece of spin. Today the Labour party was in trouble over remarks one of its MPs, Naz Shah, made online in 2014 ". Trouble is will all of that, as you seem to need most things explaining to you is that:

A) It is old news
B) It is written by someone who cannot be described as a journalist and
C) In 2014 Shah was not even in the running to be an MP

No marks for content or effort I'm afraid. Must try harder.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 12:41 PM

Dave, the Shah story is old news, but you started it up again.
Thanks.
I enjoyed rubbing your noses in it again.

Steve and Jim say her remarks were not anti-Semitic and she did not advocate the transportation of Jews.
She freely admits to both.

Do you still refuse to say if you support Steve and Jim on thatt?

Why are you so reluctant to actually engage in the discussion, instead of just sniping at contributors and stirring things up?

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

but you started it up again.

Are you sure about that, Keith? I have just looked back and I found that the first recent mention was just to put Anne Marie Morris's comment in context

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM

Putting it in perspective, it was not said in a racist context, and it was just one person's gross stupidity.

So, pretty much on par with Naz Shah's comments?

DtG

A bit more of your alt-truth I suppose Keith. I shall not burst your bubble though. If you think that you have rubbed someone's nose in anything, who am I to disillusion you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 03:54 AM

Dave your comparison was highly contentious and started the current debate, so I was stating fact not "alt-truth."

Why will you not state your position on what she said?
Jim has.
Steve has.
I have.
What are you so afraid of??

What are you even doing on a thread you refuse to contribute to?
Just personal attacks and shit stirring.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 03:59 AM

One of those quotes ascribed to me in Keith's vacuous debate post has nothing to do with me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 04:01 AM

I am sorry if that is true Steve.
Please clarify what I got wrong so I can correct it at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 04:10 AM

Found it.
The first one was copied from the search list and wrongly linked your name to it.
I am so sorry, and I withdraw that quote, which was actually of Donuel.

The others are all copied from actual posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

What are you even doing on a thread you refuse to contribute to?

I shall copy your response to my question a few days back.

Why not?

But, just in case you did not notice, I have contributed and I have provide evidence to refute your contention. You just chose to ignore it.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 06:09 AM

little gnomie.
All news is old news. The future cannot be news because it has not yet happened and therefore facts cannot be discussed.
b) I did not know you had to be a journalist to report news. Do you also need a degree in meedja studies? or does it have to be a mmember in good standing with assorted little gnomes.
c) The thread title is uk labour party discussion, what relevance is being an mp or nor an mp?

As you pathetic offering adds nothing to the discussion, only inanities, I presume you just popped in for a troll

Anyway here a little rabbit for the ferrets to chew on.
"Labour's shadow mental health minister Barbara Keeley claimed she was "confused about" her "Jeremys" when she appeared to contradict Jez's stated position on free movement this morning. During a bumpy media round, 5 Live's Nicky Campbell asked Keeley:

    Campbell: "Jeremy Corbyn has been explicit in saying that freedom of movement must end. That puts us up the creek without a paddle doesn't it?"

    Keeley: "Well it makes the situation worse."

    Campbell: "So why has he said it must end, freedom of movement?"

    Keeley: "It's a strange thing… it's a strange thing that he said that."

When Campbell pointed out that she was at odds with Corbyn's public position, Keeley rowed back and claimed she had in fact been talking about Jeremy Hunt, saying: "You've confused me about Jeremys". Lucky they had the same name, eh…

An hour earlier, Keeley did a Diane on ITV's Good Morning Britain, claiming that a 1% increase in public sector pay would cost £460 billion. The IFS says increasing public sector pay by 1% would cost between £1.5 and 2 billion. To be fair, she was only out by £458 billion…

Before Corbyn appointed Keeley to the shadow cabinet, she said of him:"the current state of the party means we will not be able to mount an effective front bench opposition." Quite…

Hard to believe she is the mental health shadow secretary! Is her next promotion to shadow educashun secretary. I hope she is literate because she surely ain't numerate.