BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 03:23 PM

Dave, I cannot believe that you are being serious, do you realise how crazy that sounds

A labour Party discussion should be about anything to do with the labour Party.
To start up a conversation about some completely different subject just to sabotage the thread is extremely bad forum etiquette.

I don't suppose the mods are interested in this thread, but your antics are still an insult to Mr McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 02:03 PM

"We can but try, Jim."
Been there, Done that Dave - why bother when there are plenty of saner people to argue with
Here you haave someone who thinks it's ok to force refugees to wear identification armbands and suggests that a mass murdered who has just massacred 777 young people "had something to say worth listening to"; an individual who hysterically screams "Jew HaTer" whenever Israel is criticised and someone who tells lies incessantly when he can't get his way
""I asked if YOU believe that THIS politician lies against his OWN PARTY on behalf of the government of Israel."
You are loading this question by ignoring every other fact concerning this man
He is a right wing opponent of Corbyn who has demanded he resign - he would certainly bend the truth at acheive that, as would very other right winger
He is a career politician who has been discovered fiddling expenses - he, and every other politician of his ilk would lie in their teeth to preserve his job
He is a member of Friends of Israel and has led two sponsored delegations there - nice work, if that's what turns you on.
He is opposed to BDS and has been cited in the Israeli press for his support for the Regime's cause.
He is a politician - lying is a recognised part of the job description
Of course he would lie if it served his agenda and his personal interests – does the Pope wear a frock?"
"Steve, do you agree with Jim that he lies against his own Party to help Israel?"
These people are beyond the pale Dave - for ***** sake, leve them to stew in their own bilious hatred
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM

The OP took one particular issue but there was no suggestion that it was the only Labour Party issue that was allowed!

By the same logic there was no suggestion that anything else was disallowed.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:58 PM

How do you do a hands up symbol?

Sounds grand Steve - Wish I knew what I was looking at. Half the time I cannot tell if it is an orchid or an oak. But you have been and gone and done it now. Mentioning the yellow star of Bethlehem. Surely that is picked by Labour party members and stuck to certain peoples front doors.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:54 PM

"The original thread bore"


Bwahahahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:52 PM

Hands up all those who would rather talk about beer and holidays than "Labour's antisemitism problem" for the eleventy-fourteenth time! Everyone gets one vote except for Backwoodsman who gets ten!

Malham and surrounds is God's own country, Dave. Plenty of rare plants around the Cove and in the dry valley above it. Jacob's' Ladder, Orpine, Roseroot, Herb Paris, Herb Christopher, Lesser Meadow-rue, Meadow Saxifrage, Bird's-eye Primrose, Green Spleenwort, Shining Cranesbill, loads more. There's a car park made largely on flat areas of wet bare rock at Selside that has Hairy Stonecrop. Ribblehead Quarry has the very rare Coralroot Orchid and Colt Park Wood near Ribblehead is full of lovely flora such as Yellow Star-of-Bethlehem. The latter two may be closed off to protect the habitat. Go up Penyghent in April and the limestone outcrops are covered in Purple Saxifrage. Paradise! Or just unpleasant trivia? Damn, can't decide!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM

We can but try, Jim. We could not afford a Mechano set though. Ha dto make do with bits of old machinery from t'mill... :-)

If you want to discuss something entirely unrelated to the subject of the thread, you can start a new one.

Nah. Why should you be the only one to maneuver threads from sensible to senseless. I am sure the moderation team will step in if they feel that any breach of etiquette has occurred.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM

Don't you realiuse how stupid it is to argue antisemitism with people who accuse the Jewish People for the Crimes of the Israeli regime?
A REMINDER OIF WHAT THESE PEOPLE REJECT
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:41 PM

Jim,
Can you identify one single "extremist right-wing claim" ?

No you can not.
You are making shit up and lying again.

But please prove me wrong.
Put up an example, why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:38 PM

The original thread bore the heading "BS Labour Party Discussion."
OK Dave?
The OP took one particular issue but there was no suggestion that it was the only Labour Party issue that was allowed!

I resisted the drifting of that thread and the previous one onto the subject of Israel.
I only wanted to discuss the subject as identified in the thread title.
That is what I have done on this thread too.

If your little pack do not like it you do not have to open it.
If you want to discuss something entirely unrelated to the subject of the thread, you can start a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:36 PM

Hope you don't mind mey saying so Dave, but that was a very, very stupid thing to do - you really should have stuck with plating with the Mechano set ypu got for your birthday.
These people don't need evidence to push their extremist right-wing claims, nor do they produce any of their own.
You are arguing with people who believe you don't need to specify charges for the accused to be guilty- they make things up as they see fit.
You might as well try to reason with a rottweiler who is about to bite the arse out of your pants.
Good luck and don't forget your anti-rabies shots
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:31 PM

Not a bad idea David, you and I can double up on vocals. We can split that LABOUR between us. I'm sure we could have a great PARTY but we would have to have a DISCUSSION about the material we used.

What says you Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM

I will repeat the opening post on the original thread for you Keith, even though I did so only a few posts earlier.

Subject: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 01:50 PM

Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?
..............................

The latest court finding would apear to mean that the NEC could perfectly properly retrospectively bar from voting everyone who has joined the party after any date it chooses to name. Strange.

One thing that strikes me is that the manoeuvre by which recent members were barred from voting - waitng enough of those who would have opposed it has left the room before tabling the motion - was just the kid of "Trotskyite" ploy that Militant were always being accused of. I rather suspect that all those kind of tricks were very much part of theculture of Labour (and other parties) since they were founded.

Absolutely fuck all to do with antisemitism and of particular note the phrase "a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance" so before you whinge about going off topic you you should really put your own house in order.

You say you have no group, but you and the same group have used this identical tactic before on threads that you all wanted stopped.


No, I don't have a group. And I don't want the thread closed thank you. I am enjoying it.

I suppose we could start a group. What do you think? Raggy on guitar, Steve on mouth organ, me pretending to play concertina. What do you and ake fancy bringing to the party?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Dave, the discussion has been about anti-Semitism within Labour and all the accusations came from within the Party.
You make yourself ridiculous by claiming that it is not relevant in a discussion about the Labour Party.

You say you have no group, but you and the same group have used this identical tactic before on threads that you all wanted stopped.

2. People do wander off the subject. I don't have control over that

People did not wander off the subject. Your little group all started talking about travel, all at once and out of the blue.
The first time you used this tactic you all started discussing beer.
The same little group of yours.

Now, the Labour peer appointed by Corbyn to lead one of the enquiries into Labour anti-Semitism has spoken of a "widely held view that we do not take antisemitism seriously." and of her disappointment that the anti-Semites she identified in her report have not been dealt with by the Party.

That is new and entirely relevant to the subject.

Steve, you said you would tell us if you really believe that Watson lies against the Party for the Israeli government.
Do you?
Why do you and Jim have such a problem answering such a simple question?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:59 PM

It has absolutely fuck all to do with the original topic of vote gerrymandering. It is an issue and as such deserves to be discussed but on it's own thread rather than one where the opening post specifically said ...turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance. I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly (IE "The latest court finding would apear to mean that the NEC could perfectly properly retrospectively bar from voting everyone who has joined the party after any date it chooses to name.") Preferably without getting into slanging matches. If you want o complain about going off topic you should at least be consistent about it and moan about your heroes as well.

Malham is my nearest famous beauty spot now, Steve. I quite fancy walking there when the weather gets better but it will take at least 2, possibly 3, trips utilising the local buses which are, in that area, spasmodic to say the least.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

Backwoodsman, My son ( a UK citizen)lives and works in Robin Hoods Bay, you could say he LABOURS down there. It is very beautiful as you say. He also has a PARTY in his house now and then. He also enjoys a good DISCUSSION with intelligent people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:40 PM

Dave, did I ever tell you about the times on that Malham Tarn field course when we suckered one of our mates into driving himself and four more of us down to the Buck in Malham every night? Enabled us partake freely of the jorum, all except him of course, but the price we had to pay was to all get out, pissed, and push his Morris Minor round that nasty hairpin bend on the road back up. More hazardous than you might think after you've sunk a few. It was very inconsiderate of him, we thought, to show up for a field course with his clutch slipping!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:16 PM

Dave, surely the charges of anti Semitism have quite a lot to do with the Labour Party. it is a considerable issue inside the Party.

I am taking no sides here but to say the discussion on Anti-Semitism does not pertain to the LP in this instance is just daft.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:15 PM

"I will put the topic back on course..."

Nah, we might not let you. We are fed up of this obsession with "the left's Jewish problem," "Labour's antisemitism," etc. We are all too busy celebrating Bibi's visit to London! Now where was I?

Oh yes! Gotta buy a set of four tyres for Mrs Steve's old MX5 on Wednesday, Dave. And my trusty old Focus is making funny noises underneath, no longer drownable-out by turning the radio up, which is my main diagnostic tool for finding out whether a problem is serious enough for further investigation. Could be an expensive week.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:06 PM

Nah, this kind of childishness has enhanced the niceness of this thread no end, Mr Po-face!

We stayed in a rather grand-looking guesthouse on Scarborough sea-front, Backwoodsman. It was February, bloody cold and I don't think there was much heating on. As it faced east and the sun wasn't out all weekend, it was exceedingly gloomy. All-in-all a very bleak weekend, but it didn't quite destroy my love of natural things. I remember spending hours staring at 10,000-year-old pollen grains down a microscope in the evenings. I amassed a nice collection of plant fossils from the cliffs (bet you wouldn't be allowed to go hacking at them like that these days). A few weeks after we got back, somebody stole them out of my cupboard in the lab, along with my geological hammer. Bastard!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:02 PM

Out of interest, ake, the thread was hijacked a long time ago. The original thread started with the post

Subject: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 01:50 PM

Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?
..............................

The latest court finding would apear to mean that the NEC could perfectly properly retrospectively bar from voting everyone who has joined the party after any date it chooses to name. Strange.

One thing that strikes me is that the manoeuvre by which recent members were barred from voting - waitng enough of those who would have opposed it has left the room before tabling the motion - was just the kid of "Trotskyite" ploy that Militant were always being accused of. I rather suspect that all those kind of tricks were very much part of theculture of Labour (and other parties) since they were founded.

So, following your logic, everything to do with antisemitism should be deleted as well, as should your post containing, well, nothing to do with the Labour party and the issue raised at the time - IE the voting rules at the time of the last leadership election.

Not that you ever let anything like logic or facts get in your way.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 12:01 PM

I will put the topic back on course with this excerpt of a review of the book The Left's Jewish Problem by Dave Rich. It is reprinted from New Statesman

Note the figure of 20 suspended members later rose to 50 after the review was written.



With Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader last year, this particular leftist world-view entered the heart of the party. In 2008, Corbyn wrote of the Balfour Declaration – the UK government's promise to British Jews of a homeland in Palestine – that it had "led to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinians . . . Britain's history of colonial interference . . . leaves it with much to answer for." The description of Israel as a colonialist enterprise, rather than a movement for sovereignty through national independence, and the culpability of an "imperial" Britain, encapsulate the twin impulses that drive Corbyn's beliefs about foreign affairs.

The problem, Rich argues, is that it is just a short step from these beliefs to the ideas that Israel should not exist and that its Western supporters, who include most Jews, are racists. Combined with a resurgence of social media-charged conspiracies about Zionist wealth and power, the left has formed an anti-racist politics that is blind to anti-Semitism. Jews are privileged; they are wealthy; they cannot be victims.

Thus, "Zionist" has become not a term to describe a political position but an insult; thus, Jews, unless they denounce Israel (their "original sin"), are excluded from the left that now dominates the Labour Party. When such ideas become normalised, anything is possible. Jackie Walker, the recently suspended vice-chairwoman of the Corbyn-supporting group Momentum, can claim with sincerity that "many Jews" were the "chief financiers" of the slave trade, a modern myth and piece of bigotry popularised by the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan – a notorious anti-Semite – in a 1991 book.

By the middle of this year, as many as 20 Labour Party members had been suspended or expelled for alleged anti-Semitism. At times, Rich appears bewildered. Though he never articulates it, the question "What has happened to my party?" echoes through these pages. Is it a case of just a few bad ­apples, or is the whole barrelful rotten? The answer, Rich concludes convincingly, in this powerful work that should be read by everyone on the left, is sadly the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 11:56 AM

My car just past it's MOT needing only 1 new tyre. Not bad for 157000 miles. Just to keep things on topic, I had it serviced as well. Biggest cost will be the labour charge...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 11:40 AM

This thread has obviously been Hi jacked, by a group of trolls. What are all these posts to do with the Labour Party? Perhaps someone from admin would be kind enough to remove the offending posts, as we are continuously being coached by Joe to KEEP ON TOPIC.

I thought this type of childishness had been banished with the Muskets.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 10:58 AM

Did you stay in those railway coaches converted into dormitories at Goathland, Steve? We did when we went on a geography trip to Robin Hood's Bay. I remember marking out a piece of beach a yard square, then logging everything we found in it.

That was when I fell in love with RHB, and out of love with geography trips.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 08:00 AM

Dunno about that Catherine tale, but I think the squashed lady was Margaret Clitherow. I used to get that story mixed up in my childish head with the one about the princess and the pea for reasons I can't explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 07:55 AM

Heheh. Talking about demic trundle-wagons, that reminds me of a university field weekend in 1972, up near Whitby collecting Jurassic fossils out of the sea cliffs. Just our luck - in an otherwise mild winter, that weekend we endured a force nine gale with driving snow right off the North Sea with minus two even by day. I wore every stitch of clothing I'd taken with me, including me 'jamas, on that beach. If that wasn't bad enough, the trip back to London was a nightmare. The van that our teacher had hired had one of those fan things in the middle of the roof, only this one had the fan missing and just a gaping hole. All the way back we had to take turns to sit under the hole in the teeth of a blast of freezing air from it that directed itself at one's general goolie area. The van's heater was busted as well. To cap it all the fuel gauge needle froze up and we ran out of petrol somewhere in Lincolnshire. It was a dark, freezing snowy night and Dr Alvin finally managed to stop a passing car by virtually lying down on the road in front of it. I tell you, it could be classified as a near-death experience. When we got back we just sat in the union bar for a couple of hours. It took six pints before my legs would bend at the knee again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 07:40 AM

Was it Catherine who had her breasts cut off and went on to become patron saint of puddings? Of course I may have confused 2 stories here...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM

Can't be coincidence that, can it? Father Davis (who ended every Mass with "Prayers For Russia") must have had a hand in both schools, seeing as 'ow they had forty to choose from. We used to get told quite a lot that horror story about how one of the women martyrs was squashed to death under a door with weights piled on top. They were imaginative in those days.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM

Ambrose Barlow also had a youth club that was the envy of the rest of Swinton in the late 60s. You reminded me talking about Blackpool, Steve. The club owned a converted Ambulance for use as a minibus. It was driven by Father Sweeney, a particularly good parish priest from St Matks in Pendlebury. We went to Blackpool on one trip and were nearly swept off the prom by waves! No health and safety regs in them days :-) I also remember having to push the ambulance up Winnats Pass in Derbyshire. Probably where I got my masochistic love of stomping around the hills :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 07:12 AM

The houses at Ambrose Barlow were Moore, Fisher, Campion and Southworth. I think I was in the latter if I remember rightly. Colours were blue, red, yellow and green but I cannot recall which belonged to which.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM

If I remember rightly, the four houses in my primary school were Barlow, Fisher, Campion and Moore. I recall that Barlow was one of the Forty Martyrs (or one of the Four Termarters as we called them in our juvenile confusion - well it didn't help that there were four houses, innit...)

You may regard our reminiscences as "trivia," Keith, but they are not and they mean a lot to us. Calling them trivia is far more insulting than us trying our damnedest to get you off your hobby horse. Frankly, though I can't speak for everyone here with certainty, I can sense a collective raising of eyebrows to heaven here every time you insist on going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ON about Labour's "antisemitism problem," and, as far as I'm concerned, I'll "annoy you" (now that I know how to do it) from now on every time you start burbling on about it again. You're free to discuss it, but I'm free to use any non-violent keyboard-related means to try to get you to PUT A BLOODY SOCK IN IT!

And I've had a long and happy life and I have plenty more annoying "trivia" up my sleeve. Did I ever tell you about the time I nearly fell off one of those running donkeys on Blackpool sands in 1958...?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM

She may have known my brother who is just turned 60. It was a good school. Still is as far as I know but has now moved to the site of the old Wardley Grammar and merged with St Georges, Walkden.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 06:18 AM

My first Missus went to Ambrose Barlow, though she is a bit younger than you, I think she is now 58 so you would have left by the time she started there.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM

Going to the earlier response, it seems that Keith believes that Labour supporters are more likely to antisemitic than anyone else. I suppose we had all better resign our memberships and join UKIP or something. Ah well, I suppose it has something to do with socialism. Wasn't it national socialists who believed that Jews were responsible for the ills of the world. Guess the clue is in the name :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM

Please explain what is the reason for your group swamping this thread with trivia, even though Joe especially asked us all to keep to the subject

1. I don't have a group
2. People do wander off the subject. I don't have control over that
3. I am sure Joe can handle things himself if he so decides

So. Seeing as you have not answered the question I asked can we assume that you do see this as some sort of contest?

If so, and if it makes you happy, please feel free to believe you have won something. Whatever it is...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM


I don't feel I am losing anything.

I am sorry if I got that wrong.
Please explain what is the reason for your group swamping this thread with trivia, even though Joe especially asked us all to keep to the subject

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM

Or do you believe that people who support the Labour party are more prone to antisemitism than anyone else?

I believe that Labour has a particular problem with anti-Semitism, because the leadership and many prominent members have acknowledged that fact.

Remember the report Labour commissioned into anti-Semistism in the Oxford University Labour Club? We discussed it at some length.

The NEC has just decided not to implement its recommendations.

The Oxford Student,
"The news that the two members of OULC who had been accused of anti-semitic acts have been cleared by the Labour Party's disputes committee was revealed by the Jewish Chronicle last week.
Baroness Royall reacted to the findings with dismay, saying "I am deeply disappointed by the outcome and fear it will further harm relations between the Jewish community and our party by confirming a widely held view that we do not take antisemitism seriously." "

http://oxfordstudent.com/2017/01/30/labour-mps-wade-oulc-anti-semitism-scandal/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM

As to

Subject: RE: BS: welcome home from holiday Keith A
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

...is not the same as a group ganging together to swamp a thread with trivia because they feel they are losing...

I don't feel I am losing anything. In fact I don't recall entering a contest that could be won or lost. Simply an exchange of views like people have sometimes. Do you see this as a contest?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:28 AM

I know Keith - You just said it was true. Like someone said at some time or another, there is no need to keep quoting the whole thing when it has already been posted. Can't remember who said it.

In a nutshell though, you do not believe that the Labour party is antisemitic. You do believe that some of the members are. Just like in any other walk of life? Or do you believe that people who support the Labour party are more prone to antisemitism than anyone else?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:15 AM

Dave,
What you posted as a "gem" was your own statement.
I just quoted it.

Here it is again with my contribution included this time.

Dave,

The Labour party cannot be antisemitic. It is not in it's manifesto.

Exactly true. It has a serious problem with some of its members, but the party itself can not be said to be anti-Semitic and no-one has suggested it is.

A footballer's contract is different. A manifesto sets out the aims and views of the Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 03:12 AM

Ahhh - Gotcha. Thanks Steve. I was at Sec Mod until the 5th year then went on to Grammar School for 6th form. Destined to do A level History, Economics and British Constitution and Government at A level as well as some O level resits. But I found it too much like hard work and needed the money anyway as I, like Raggy, had discovered girls in the shape of Mrs Gnome to be. So I left and started a job at Worsley Urban District Council. Who sent me off to do an ONC in Business Studies.

You wouldn't get that under this new Labour party who do nothing but abuse people would you...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 05:43 PM

You were the lowly sec mod, Dave, not the prods. We had houses in my primary school and I was in Barlow, so I knew he wasn't one of them heathen proddies. Anyway, at least we won't meet any of them in heaven. The priests told us that. Phew!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 04:42 PM

Proddydog school? PRODDYDOG SCHOOL? Who do you think Ambrose Barlow was FFS? His skull is still in the Bishop of Salfords downstairs lavvy or some such place. I am as Catholic as the pope I'll have you know!

BTW - Came across this gem as I was searching for something entirely different. Sorry to be on topic... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theresa May's new year message
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Jan 17 - 06:45 AM

Dave,

The Labour party cannot be antisemitic. It is not in it's manifesto.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 04:21 PM

We never played against lowly secondary mods, Dave, and never against any proddydog school. I'm sure you can tell from my general demeanour on this forum that this has helped to maintain my purity of thought and even-handed approach come what may. I'll not be contradicted on that, of course.

Labour? Who?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 04:02 PM

I dunno, Steve. I came into De la Salle from an oiks Sec Mod - Ambrose Barlow in Swinton. We were not allowed to mix with the royalty who were already there :-( I was right impressed that we were allowed to smoke in the 6th form common rooms though.

Not that this has anything to do with the Labour party of course. But then again neither do most of the other posts on here...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 02:24 PM

By the way, Dave, this has been nagging at me ever since you mentioned it. Was the lad at De La Salle who lost the debate whose girlfriend had rubbed Pretty Peach lotion on his chest...Raggytash??

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM

Oh God, Keith, stop trying to go off-topic!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM

Joe asked us, very politely, to stick to the subject or have the thread closed.
The problem is that you people want debate shut down when it does not go your way.

He could just delete the offending posts, but I fear he is too nice for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 01:10 PM

Steve,
I'll answer that.

When please. The question was does he lie against his own Party as an Israeli Quisling?

Watson can't be trusted. He's right-wing old guard in sentiment and hates Corbyn and he's very pro-Israel regime.

Why can he not be trusted?
So what if he is on the Right of the Party?
Does he hate Corbyn any more than the rest of the PLP, most of whom have expressed no confidence in him?

Of course he is not pro-Israel regime!
He is of the Left and would have no truck with the current Right wing regime.
His affiliation is with Israel's Labour Party.
Has he ever defended the settlements?
No, and that is why.

You and Jim are just smearing him because he disagrees with you and you have no other answer.

Steve, do you agree with Jim that he lies against his own Party to help Israel?